Censorship - weakminded or protecting the young

[Props]

Recently, I posted a little rant & rave on the discovery site, mainly referring to Mike Rowe (awsome job, working every job for one fixed rate); How it's Made, the host, and how he says ROBUT, not robot; and a reference to Building it Bigger, how the host is a "moronic queer"(I've been around the block, and some of the mistakes he makes are just plain common sense).

Of course, the post didn't make it (I think it was the queer part {no offense to those who may be})...I even censored my own text, typing s**t, instead of the real word. Words are words, which we all know, and a lesson I've learned and retained to this day...

Sticks and stones will brake my bones, but names will never hurt me

Maybe I'm getting old, and the young are heading in the same direction, but what purpose does it serve in censoring people from what already exsists. I don't have children of my own, and I would definately raise them right (clean mouth, martial arts, humility), however, I would teach them every thing that I know, and what's right and wrong, leaving them to decide, because no one, is the boss of anyone else...in my opinion.

Let's face it, everyone eventually learns what the world is really about...and what purpose does censoring aid us as a whole?

[Nomad]

I'm a firm believer that there is no such thing as a "bad word". Just a word used in a derogatory context and/or tone.

[blood imp]

That's what I've been saying! I mean, sure, teaching sex poses to 4-year-olds isn't the best thing, but censoring swear words between even 13-year-olds is bullshit, because chances are they've heard the words at school or on the street. Hell, by 13, censorship is near-useless (except perhaps pornography), as nearly everything you try to censor (violence, drugs, swearing, sex, etc.) they've already seen some place or another (except for sex, but they sure as hell know what it is).

There are limits, of course, but don't go telling your kids that calling mommy a bitch is something adults do to sound nice.

Going on to "swearing", especially between teens and adults, is stupid. Why censor fuck with f*** or better yet f*ck, when everybody knows what you're saying?

I'm not saying censorship is ABSOLUTELY worthless and everybody should be exposed to everything possible just to teach them about life. I'm saying that sometimes people go to ridiculous measures to block people from what they already know.

[JohnnyRancid]

you guys just say that because your so easily exposed to uncensored stuff over the internet and so there is no use trying to censor anything.

[Props]

Hell yeah blood imp, if only our political leaders would read our own opinions, and stopped focusing on their own(not intended to lean towards the politics thread). Change is inevitable, and I believe we're in our next transition from new age, to next age.

I say, condition our young, teach them everything there is to know, and as they grow old, just like we do, let them decide on what is right and wrong.

Though, on a side note....I think because of desensitized sex, we're over populating and unless, we find a solution, we're going to over pollute and consume our resources.

Shit, is their a point to this thread, if everyone agrees?

***addition****

No punk posser, I don't browse the internet, looking for un-censored material. I'm refering to how, information, how its altered to express one's own opinion (or someone above in the corporate ladder). Especially when it comes to TV-News-Radio. Some sponsor doesn't like the word Pussy, so, to keep their "Show" they won't use it, except in their private life (Which everyone does). More importantly how groups...the so called majority, don't like something, so no-one else should hear or see it too. And it all comes down to one point....either we'll all experience that censored "thing", or we won't.

[blood imp]

We have yet to find out everyone's opinion, so there may be different ones (in reference to your "Should we close this thread" question). Although, if this by any chance turns into a religious discussion, it should be shut down.

[Props]

I don't plan on turning this into a religion thread. It's foolish to even want to discuss it. So many ideas, so many concepts, so many beliefs. My point, is that, whether it's your belief or not, do you have the right to censor something that you don't want to hear?

Our rights? Thats my question....what rights do we have, is it the right to distort truth because of your belief.

[blood imp]

I don't plan on turning this into a religion thread.
Have you by any chance read UFOs: Real or Not? (http://forums.newdoom.com/showthread.php?t=34112)? I'm hoping that doesn't happen here.

[Props]

No I haven't. Why did it start off similar to this?

Shoot, let me guess, someone believes that a person created us, and only us. While someone else believes in a slow, time consuming process of combining elements. Life is to short to wonder about that stuff, I say, live while you're here, and if you figured it out, please share it with us, because you've clearly lived and died, and come back to talk about it.

[Giftmacher]

Cencorship is garabage, but it looks like this here company (link below) begs to differ. Heck, they'll edit out African Americans from the cartoons they lisence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Kids_Entertainment

I think while it can be agreed that showing porno to a four year old isn't going to teach them anything, hiding life and all it's bad points from children (particularly in children's TV shows) is only going to hinder their understanding later on. Jack Thompson seems to miss that.

[Nomad]

Life is to short to wonder about that stuff, I say, live while your here, and if you figured it out, please share it with us, because you've clearly lived and died, and come back to talk about it.

Reminds me of a parable that the Buddha mentioned, where a man is shot by a poisoned arrow. Rather than allow his servants to pull out the arrow, he wanted them to find out who shot it, why they shot it, what type of poison was on the arrow, what type of arrow it was etc. In the meantime, he died. This tells us that rather than worry so much about the afterlife, we must focus on how we should act in the present life. Each of us will die. It is how we live that is important. The idea of interdependence teaches us the golden rule, do unto others as you would have they do unto you.

[Aliotroph?]

That buddha was already messed up from the poison I guess. If they don't remove the arrow how are they gonna figure out what poisoned him?

JohnnyRancid is clearly pro-censorship. He tried to shut us all up in a couple other threads. :D

All that Wikipedia article said was they Americanize stuff. Lots of American companies do that. Americans have been doing this for years and it's just plain stupid. Thankfully Gene Roddenberry didn't let them take Spock out of Trek. :p

And I get a kick out of CNN censoring "nigger" whenever they talk about racism. It's not going to do any more harm now that we know what they're taking about. Some people might not know what the "N word" means.

[Props]

Shit, Nomad & Aliotroph, if it could be said, you're right on the money with my own beliefs.

I'm not sure if I posted my beliefs, but I think they would fall somewhere between Buddha and...uh, well just Buddha.

As long as you can look foward, and realize, there is no reason to have fear. That being said, Give while you can, and only take when necessay.

Aliotroph, I just came back to the forums....and didn't pay mind to previous post or threads, but cr*p, JohnnyRancid....I didn't know he was so set in his ways (pro-censorship). I don't want to spark anything, but, he can seem....uh.....like someone tipp-toeing on a foundation that's about to collapse.

[MR_ROCKET]

Censorship, well the true "fucking" reason for it is that things can be explained and understood without needing the extra profound words, and the fact that it looks better lol, as well as the consequences, if you go a let "everyone" speak freely it will only get worse, to the point where it would be hard to understand or translate.

For example: Could you imagine grandma calling a flower shop and an answering machine answers with this in the background. "MO MONEY AN HOES MO MONEY AN HOES" beeeeeep!
One of 2 things, either grandma will find it rather un-business like and hang up, or she thinks that garden hoes have gone up in price.

Moral of the story : Disrespectful and hard to understand.

[Props]

Well spoken my friend.

[Giftmacher]

All that Wikipedia article said was they Americanize stuff. Lots of American companies do that. Americans have been doing this for years and it's just plain stupid.
As well as doing that, they censor out guns (and redraw them as rediculous toy-like objects), photoshop girl's cleavage to the point of non-existance (although given the sexual appearance of so many Japanese anime characters that's slightly understandable), and completely re-write the script so that it's completely devoid of anything even remotley objectionable, without doing their homework on the show's universe first. They'll also shorten fight scenes, replace sound effects to guns sound like lasers, and change booze to apple juice.

[Props]

Let's face the facts, all around the world, you're brought up in different circumstances. People are products of their environments. Some would say, that in other countries, they kill their defective babies, where other countries make the best of what they are given. Starting from there, A child is brought up and influenced to become what they already know(by means of their environment). Throughout life, people grasp and hold on to, what they call their reality. If you're brought up in different places, then it's tough to see other ways. Censorship, is just one way of making your own personal perspective even more true, than someone else's.

The point of this thread is more, to lend hand and through an unfiltered set of eyes, tell everyone what's out there and then, let themselves determine what is right from wrong. Words are just that, a spoken communication, nothing physical about them at all.
When I watch TV, listen to the radio... based on what I already know, I can see/hear the altered perception. Let's talk crime. Majority rules. Let's talk perverts, again Majority.
Let's talk about how something good or even great happened. Uh, aside from sports, our own news in the US would rather go with something that sells, negativity. Why do we feel the need to classify everything? I'm ranting 'n raving....

[Props]

What good can come from giving bits 'n pieces of a so called "news" story. I say, if you can't tell the whole story, then why bother telling it at all. Same goes with life and younger people than yourself. If someone is 4 years old, telling them about doggy style probably won't aid in their being a pimp when they're older. On the other side, your neighbors just got arrested for selling heroin. If that was the only news in your neighborhood, I bet you, that the heroin would come up first.

I know my point, can someone argue with me? Lol

[Pieter Enis]

I detest anything that is censored.
I've started reading about sex ever since I was just 7. I stole the book my dad dropped at my brother's bedroom door and read it. Then I read all the books we have in our 'library' and learnt a lot out of those as well.
I don't like things being hushed because that way people won't know what type of people are out there. There ARE people who would like nothing but put a knife to your face and watch you scream and cry untill you eventually die.
Telling children that the world exists only of bunnies and butterflies and the 4 Seasons (that song :p) and little girls and adults without heads (Disney never shows heads ^-^) is giving them wrong information. That's what censorship is all about, blocking off information. Through lack of information, one can become scared, it's something 'unknown' and could respond violently, overly cautiously or ignore it whilst the unknown thing is actually very dangerous to the person.
I might have read maddox' site a bit too much as of late, but I think that anyone censoring anything should be shot. They're actually killing people, destroying lives, causing trauma's and making people even more stupid than most already are.
But anyone 'censors' something almost every day, even if it's just saying you didn't say anything just then just to avoid a hassle :p

[Props]

Agreed. What is the point in trying to cover other people's opinions with your own view. Just tell it, like it is.

[Pieter Enis]

I do have to note that Disney doesn't show heads of adults in their older cartoons. Nowadays they at least showed them in the 101 Dalmatians. I had a Disney-a-thon lately, if that even exists.

[JohnnyRancid]

It's probably a good idea to keep censorship because sexual humor is simply immature. Once your around the high school age it tends to get less and less funny and you know to stay away from speaking like that. But young children will drag out that humor like no tomorrow, and you'll hear loads of gross material being spread on the public parks and such. I simply don't want to hear it, so we shouldn't emphasize it by exposing it.

[rustyslacker]

It's probably a good idea to keep censorship because sexual humor is simply immature.
It isn't always.

Why would it be a good idea to keep censorship on sexual topics? The double-standard between sex and violence is pointlessly stupid. I think it makes more sense that people could handle natural biological functions without censorship. >.>

Censorship in all forms is stupid anyway.

[JohnnyRancid]

Oh really? That's not what you said in the Men and womens english thread.

[rustyslacker]

Oh really? That's not what you said in the Men and womens english thread.
wut kdkdsaf;jleiwjg

[Nomad]

I do have to note that Disney doesn't show heads of adults in their older cartoons. Nowadays they at least showed them in the 101 Dalmatians. I had a Disney-a-thon lately, if that even exists.

Besides that not being true, what does that have to do with anything?

[Giftmacher]

It's probably a good idea to keep censorship because sexual humor is simply immature. Once your around the high school age it tends to get less and less funny and you know to stay away from speaking like that. But young children will drag out that humor like no tomorrow, and you'll hear loads of gross material being spread on the public parks and such. I simply don't want to hear it, so we shouldn't emphasize it by exposing it.
There's no way we're going to keep children from making stupid jokes (and let me tell you, I hate them), and censoring everything from children's lives isn't going to solve anything. That which is hidden from them becomes that which they seek most, or however that went.

[lucius octavion]

I wish they didn't change that kind of stuff. It's a thing in the United States I guess...

[Giftmacher]

Yes, it is.

[blood imp]

Sensoring sexual humor because it is "immature" is stupid. I agree, it is not the funniest or smartest jokes to make, but apperantly kids think they're funny, so who's place is it to stop them from laughing? Hell, even I get a good laugh from some of the better ones.

[JohnnyRancid]

How is that so stupid though to have kids thinking legitimately than to have their minds plagues with sexual humor and foul language? There's limits to freedom of speech and most of which include talking so foul in public areas. Censorship keeps a lot of kids from going to juvenile hall or making their parents pay fines or whatever the price of that is.

Of course removing censorship wouldn't change it all that much, but I've yet to see any positive points of removing censorship. It's not bothering anyone so why change it?

Besides that not being true, what does that have to do with anything?
I guess that might be a form of censorship. Of what, I dont know. But i thought it was somewhat interesting.

[blood imp]

What is wrong with sexual and humor and foul language (by the way, are we talking about 6-year-olds or pre-teens?)? And if freedom of speech is limited, it isn't exactly freedom, is it?

As for why REMOVE censorship, I'm not saying we should. I'm just saying censorship is silly.

[ace]

How is that so stupid though to have kids thinking legitimately than to have their minds plagues with sexual humor and foul language?

What is "foul" language? Can you define it? Shouldn't "poophead" and "buttface" be considered foul? What about "crap" and "suck(s)"? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact is that everyone has different conceptions of what "foul" language is, because in the long run it all boils down to the environment in which they were raised, whether or not they were properly educated on the meaning/offensiveness of these "foul" words, whether they were desensitized to them due to overexposure, etc.

I knew a kid in 6th grade who insisted that "dang" was a swear word, and a few who believed the same about "sucks," obviously because their parent(s) were quite stricter on such language than most parents tend to be. The fact is that as our language has changed over time, certain "bad" words have become so mainstream that they have evolved into simple slang terms.

Chances are very high that within 50 years (if not sooner), at the rate we're going (I've heard people cursing like sailors since junior high on), many of at least the lower-level words of the "seven main swears," probably starting with damn and ass, will be set down to the swear-level. And if such a trend continues, I'd be willing to bet that will happen with the rest of the main seven eventually. The question remains as to what the new swears will be.

And as it's been said, yes, sexual humor is often highly immature. So are fart jokes, "your mom" jokes, et al. The only difference is that the former's content is often mature and/or involves "foul" language. Of course, once again, in the case of the "foul" language the original question as to whether such language should be censored is brought up once more, and in the case of maturity, the social stigma that nobody under 13 should know anything at all about sex is brought up. But to stay as on-course with the topic of censorship itself I won't get off track with that.

As for thinking "legitimately," once again the argument is moot. Just because I have been exposed to plenty of "immature," "crude" humor and "foul" language doesn't mean I'm constantly going around thinking about such things. They hold no importance in real day-to-day life. And taking it a step further, kids wouldn't learn to think any more "legitimately" watching Saturday morning cartoons than they would watching a movie plagued with "foul" language.

There's limits to freedom of speech and most of which include talking so foul in public areas. Censorship keeps a lot of kids from going to juvenile hall or making their parents pay fines or whatever the price of that is.

You don't know what you're talking about. There's no law against foul language in public. Certain businesses, such as schools, can reserve the right to forbid certain language from being used among their premises, and can consequently punish people for using such language below a legal level. But there is no such law pertaining to the use of "foul" language in public conversation.

You are right that there are limits on freedom of speech, however. I can't go around yelling "IMMA BLOW STUFF UP HAHAHAHAHA" without most likely being taken into custody for threats of violence. But the fact is that putting any limitation on the freedom of speech, as Blood Imp said, automatically disqualifies the law for being a freedom.

Which is why, of course, people argue against censorship of language in the first place, because we have been promised the absolute, unhindered freedom of speech, not the promise of, "Oh, you can say what ever you want to say, except these, that and those." And that promise should be delivered, no matter what some people find rude or offensive.

Does that mean people will abuse such a law? Absolutely. The issue of slurs regarding race, gender, sexual preference, etc. is an especially touchy subject that comes to mind. The solution, of course, is to ignore the idiots that do so.

Of course removing censorship wouldn't change it all that much, but I've yet to see any positive points of removing censorship. It's not bothering anyone so why change it?

There is a time and place for censorship. Public access television and the radio for starters, because no matter what, the wishes of the viewer should be respected, and in the off-chance that any "foul" language is ever used in public access or on the radio, the people who wish to prevent their children from hearing such language need to be respected for that decision, because there is not yet a simple one-step built in process in which we can choose whether or not to censor on a case-by-case basis.

Beyond that, it should be absolutely up to the parents. If they don't want their children hearing "foul" language, then they need to monitor what their children are watching. If some kid picks up "foul" and/or sex-related language and becomes desensitized to violence because their parent let them watch The Departed, nobody but the parent is to blame.

And as for your point saying that "it's not bothering anyone": if it wasn't bothering anyone, why would this conversation have been brought up in the first place?

[Nomad]

I second what Ace said. :P

[rustyslacker]

How is that so stupid though to have kids thinking legitimately than to have their minds plagues with sexual humor and foul language? There's limits to freedom of speech and most of which include talking so foul in public areas. Censorship keeps a lot of kids from going to juvenile hall or making their parents pay fines or whatever the price of that is.

Of course removing censorship wouldn't change it all that much, but I've yet to see any positive points of removing censorship. It's not bothering anyone so why change it?

Who is to determine what is "legitimate" thinking? You? Are you also the one to determine what language is foul? Or are you content to let the government constrain our minds and words?

You're such a sheep.

[Props]

I second Nomads second. What would you call that?

When I was in middle school, riding the bus home one day, I simply called someone a jack off, not knowing what it related to. It was purely harmless. There was silence, and a few oooohs, I surely thought I was going to get in trouble, but I protested to the bus driver that I had no idea what it ment. She believed me...and I got off scotch free. I now know what jack off means, and realistically, if you do or don't, I relate this word to a belief. That belief is something that should be just that....and it's not your right, even if you disagree, to voice your opinion....because like I said, do or don't....it's a fact of life. No protection....need to finish....pull out....

More importantly....I'm a huge fan of talk radio...and these programs I listen to are just making fun of everything that is natural. Why can't I say crap/shit...when it's a word that describes something EVERYONE does. Why can't I say p*ssy, when it's something that all of our girls friends/wives have? I can say Dick, because it's a name. I definitely agree with somewhat sheltering our young....however, one day, when I have children of my own, I'll explain that some words can seem vulgar and offensive, and if you want to be chivalrous, and gentleman like, saying these words may give people around you a sense of disrespect. I personally try to model myself like Bond....James Bond, a fictional character....but one that does the right thing (and has some huge balls). Do the right thing, while winning over the laddies.

Not to change topics, but I was once asked if I believe in a certain major religious person...and I replied, "No". I was then told, I'm going to hell. So, in my spare time, I read the first few 20-30 pages of the bible to see what they were talking about....and shit, they were talking about rape, lying down with another man and some other crazy stuff. I don't see the censorship in that. Plus, they went from 7 days, to 10000 days later by summing up family trees(exaggeration). I guess my point is that I feel like I can always distinguish a religiously brought up individual from one who was allowed to make their own decisions. In the US, it's always the bible-beater who pushes their beliefs on others....hence protests outside of abortion clinics.

Is censorship more of a belief aspect? Or how you're able to handle words that you may or may not agree with?

[JohnnyRancid]

You guys arent even considering what removing censorship would do to society. When you're removing censorship, I assume you mean in public areas and on television. There are still people to this day, even with censorship that think television is too evil. I'm telling you man, people will go waaaay beyond the whole nine yards. Television isn't just gonna be so subtle as to instead of people saying "f[BEEEEP]k" instead of fuck, The air will be at a totally new level. Well let's take a moment of our time to just IMAGINE how Television will turn out once censorship is no longer needed.

Imagine turning on the TV and on every other channel it's a porno. In between every porno channel there will be people trying to leak confidential governement information to the public. There will be people exposing other things such as how to rob banks, and how to get around traffic laws and how to win lawsuits and such. There will be communist and fascist party channels that will preach that their system is the only way to go. Corporation hating parties will preach their 'factual' information. And instead of commercials there will be motion animations of goatse and tubgirl and people ripping their assholes open and fitting bowling balls in them.

Who would watch that shit you ask? There are crazy people who will. That's how that junk will remain on the air. And when the public shares "what they saw on TV" to everyone else, they might just watch it too. Then all that vulgar nonsense will be imposed on society setting the new standard of what is okay to discuss.

I dunno if you guys ever played duke nukem 3d, but there's a parental lock on that game in the options menu, that hides all the "bikin babes" posters and dancing women in clubs. And I am sure as hell glad there is. I wouldnt want my brothers and family seeing that that is the shit im playing, when intentionally i was only into the game for the shooting.

Really just think about where public will go when all this stuff is so easily pounded on them.

If the public wants to know more of what there is to know, then they will have to go through the work of looking it up such as on the internet, or as props said, in the bible. There are way too many people who live off TV and radio and is just too easily imposing on society to remove the censorship.

EDIT: and please, seriously, without answering in the form of questions, how removing censorship from public amentites and televison and radio will benefit anyone.

[rustyslacker]

You guys arent even considering what removing censorship would do to society. When you're removing censorship, I assume you mean in public areas and on television. There are still people to this day, even with censorship that think television is too evil. I'm telling you man, people will go waaaay beyond the whole nine yards. Television isn't just gonna be so subtle as to instead of people saying "f[BEEEEP]k" instead of fuck, The air will be at a totally new level. Well let's take a moment of our time to just IMAGINE how Television will turn out once censorship is no longer needed.
There's no difference between this hypothetical and the internet.
Imagine turning on the TV and on every other channel it's a porno. In between every porno channel there will be people trying to leak confidential governement information to the public. There will be people exposing other things such as how to rob banks, and how to get around traffic laws and how to win lawsuits and such. There will be communist and fascist party channels that will preach that their system is the only way to go. Corporation hating parties will preach their 'factual' information. And instead of commercials there will be motion animations of goatse and tubgirl and people ripping their assholes open and fitting bowling balls in them.
Just like that one thing...oh yeah! The internet.
I dunno if you guys ever played duke nukem 3d, but there's a parental lock on that game in the options menu, that hides all the "bikin babes" posters and dancing women in clubs. And I am sure as hell glad there is. I wouldnt want my brothers and family seeing that that is the shit im playing, when intentionally i was only into the game for the shooting.
Just in it for the shooting! Oh yeah! That makes it better!
Really just think about where public will go when all this stuff is so easily pounded on them.
Except for extremist religious groups bitching and moaning about the new programming, and the government monitoring what you watch, we're already there.

[blood imp]

You guys arent even considering what removing censorship would do to society. When you're removing censorship, I assume you mean in public areas and on television. There are still people to this day, even with censorship that think television is too evil. I'm telling you man, people will go waaaay beyond the whole nine yards. Television isn't just gonna be so subtle as to instead of people saying "f[BEEEEP]k" instead of fuck, The air will be at a totally new level. Well let's take a moment of our time to just IMAGINE how Television will turn out once censorship is no longer needed.

Imagine turning on the TV and on every other channel it's a porno. In between every porno channel there will be people trying to leak confidential governement information to the public. There will be people exposing other things such as how to rob banks, and how to get around traffic laws and how to win lawsuits and such. There will be communist and fascist party channels that will preach that their system is the only way to go. Corporation hating parties will preach their 'factual' information. And instead of commercials there will be motion animations of goatse and tubgirl and people ripping their assholes open and fitting bowling balls in them.

Who would watch that shit you ask? There are crazy people who will. That's how that junk will remain on the air. And when the public shares "what they saw on TV" to everyone else, they might just watch it too. Then all that vulgar nonsense will be imposed on society setting the new standard of what is okay to discuss.

I dunno if you guys ever played duke nukem 3d, but there's a parental lock on that game in the options menu, that hides all the "bikin babes" posters and dancing women in clubs. And I am sure as hell glad there is. I wouldnt want my brothers and family seeing that that is the shit im playing, when intentionally i was only into the game for the shooting.

Really just think about where public will go when all this stuff is so easily pounded on them.

If the public wants to know more of what there is to know, then they will have to go through the work of looking it up such as on the internet, or as props said, in the bible. There are way too many people who live off TV and radio and is just too easily imposing on society to remove the censorship.

EDIT: and please, seriously, without answering in the form of questions, how removing censorship from public amentites and televison and radio will benefit anyone.
As Rusty said, pretty much everything you have posted here is already on the Internet. I can go up on (almost) any search engine I please right now, type in, say, "anal sex video", and I'll get thousands of results.

And I would bet you anything that there is a video/image/article/other on the Internet bashing the government, a video of a bank robbery, homosexual hate videos, religious preaching, etc. etc.

In other words, if we ban censorship, we're not doing anything new.

And as for your hypothetical world of everything on TV being sex, violence, and fascism, ratings will go down, and at least SOME programs will switch back to whatever hey are now, cooking, cartoons, dramas and the like.

Also, according to your Duke Nukem statement, you believe shooting and killing is better than dancing women in clubs. You have some very good logic, I must say.

[Nomad]

Johnny, you have absolutely NO grasp on what drives market. Just because censorship is lifted, doesn't mean that the demand for such programs (porn, or propagandist networks) gets any higher. We'd still see the same shows, we just wouldn't hear swear words bleeped out, and we might see genitalia here and there. Big fucking deal.

[Pieter Enis]

And before anyone brings it up, if you'd remove censorship, it would still be illegal to view pedophiliac films for example. Censorship and the law are two different things, if the police officer arresting you does so because you happen to be carrying a bowl of long, red sausages and you yelled "I'm gunna blow this block, sky-high!" he had a reason to do so. Personally, I'd be relieved the guy actually arrested me instead of shooting me, knocking me out or ignoring me. The latter being the worst.

I know the Disney thing to be wrong, but in the very old ones I don't recall seeing any parent's heads. Doesn't matter really, I put it in here for laughs.

'Someone' implied that banning censorship would cause more children to become numb to all sorts of violence and increase their potential to turn into delinquents.
That's as true as stating videogames cause people to turn into mass murderers.

I, for one, would be very glad to see every bit of censorship banned permanently (although you could say that's censorship in itself eh?) just because I turned out okay. I try real hard not to pay attention to whatever I say if it doesn't cause people to whine, ask annoying questions, give them information they can use against me or something along those lines. If it would hurt someone to give them my opinion, well I'm going to hurt them and I'd be glad I did it.
All this whining about how children shouldn't swear or whatnot is a load of bullshit. What do you think the guy over at the docks who swears like there's no tomorrow was when he was 5? The same adult he is now? People will learn from somewhere anyhow. If not, they'll invent their own swear words just to show people when and to what extent they disagree with a given situation. It's relieving.

For the rest, most everything I would want to say has already been said. Including the ambiguity concerning violence and reproductional functions :p

[JohnnyRancid]

Okay.........

EDIT: and please, seriously, without answering in the form of questions, how removing censorship from public amentites and televison and radio will benefit anyone.

Seriously, so what if anything you cant see on TV can be found on the internet? Television and Radio is practically universal and the internet isn't really as easy to grasp.

If you guys can find that shit on the Internet and cant find it on TV, then why do you need to complain? You guys are already here on the internet arent you?

Censorship isnt even strong these days anyway. When I think about it, the only censorship on TV I see is any form of language that is slang for reproductive organs, or exposing body parts visually. Is it really worth this much fuss to see more tits and hear more fuck?

I just honestly dont see any benefit in this. Basically what you guys are telling me is that instead of having to bother to look up stuff, you want it easily presented to you through TV and Radio, as well as anyone else who watches TV and listens to Radio. Seriously, write a bill to the Senate and see how many people care. You guys are censoring yourselves by discussing this on a doom forum that no one who can do anything about it will look to find out who wants censorship gone.

[Nomad]

*sigh*

You don't even understand what Rusty means by bringing up the internet?

You argue that without censorship that media would become anarchy, but any countries that I can think of that have either no censorship, or much less strict censorship laws are doing just fine.

If you want so much shielded from you, go live in China. I've read several stories in the news recently about them banning a whole mess of things from their media outlets. And for that matter, most of the internet is blocked in China. I think you'd be much happier there.

[ace]

I guess I'm bored enough to argue with you a second time, Johnny. Hooray!

First, regarding your last post:

Imagine turning on the TV and on every other channel it's a porno. In between every porno channel there will be people trying to leak confidential governement information to the public. There will be people exposing other things such as how to rob banks, and how to get around traffic laws and how to win lawsuits and such. There will be communist and fascist party channels that will preach that their system is the only way to go. Corporation hating parties will preach their 'factual' information. And instead of commercials there will be motion animations of goatse and tubgirl and people ripping their assholes open and fitting bowling balls in them.

As Pieter said. Censored material and illegal material ARE NOT THE SAME.

There won't be pornos on "every other channel" because it is not legal in every state, nor is it legal for minors. You won't find restricted material released to the general public through television, just as you won't find beer being sold to people of all ages because some town decides to make it legal to sell it on Sundays (that, and the companies involved with television-based pornography are in it for the money, so it's quite likely that such channels will remain accessible only through PPV as they have been).

Now of course, that is slightly redeemable by the fact that it isn't necessarily completely in the realm of impossibility that television becomes a free medium--in which case it would possibly become more like the Internet where things like that are in some cases freely accessible--though I still do not see that happening, ever.

However, taking it a step further and saying that there will actually be people showing how to perform illegal activities is completely asinine. At least with the Internet there is some level of anonymity involved, albeit not a very strong one. But if you go in front of a camera on public access and give detailed illegal information, you're pretty screwed. I can go out and use every swear in public I wish, but I'm STILL going to be sent to jail for leaking "confidential governement information" to the public, because the two are not related.

And not only is it clear that you (like most people) blindly fear communism itself, rather than the dictators who have abused the system, but they already preach that their way is the only way anyway, just as we preach that Democracy is the only way to them (ever stop to think once in a while? Hm?).

And the fact that you would even consider such a harsh "all hell breaks loose" situation from simply removing the bleeps from language on television (which I'd also like to add, not thinking of it before, is already done with movie channels such as HBO, etc--don't see any people setting buildings on fire, do we?) shows that you have a pretty wild (read: paranoid) imagination.


Now regarding this post:

Seriously, so what if anything you cant see on TV can be found on the internet? Television and Radio is practically universal and the internet isn't really as easy to grasp.

Actually, ranting aside, I think it to be the opposite. The Internet is more universal, because it connects you not simply to your local/national sources of information (or lack thereof), but worldwide, and everything under the sun can be found there. Television, on the other hand, is regulated, due to the fact that it's on a much smaller scale, making it possible to track--that and it's not nearly as free a market as the Internet. The difference is accessibility, and on that front television wins--but that's also partly because of the poor Internet service/availability in this country.

Censorship isnt even strong these days anyway. When I think about it, the only censorship on TV I see is any form of language that is slang for reproductive organs, or exposing body parts visually. Is it really worth this much fuss to see more tits and hear more fuck?

I don't know what stations you watch where all they censor is sex slang/nudity. Nearly every station I've watched, any swear past "ass" is censored. What's worse is that certain words that aren't normally censored, such as "damn" or "ass," become censored when attached to certain descriptors, such as "God damn" or "ass hole." The former is stupid because the only reason it is censored is to appease religious people, and both are stupid because the only thing that changes is the specificity of the language.

I just honestly dont see any benefit in this. Basically what you guys are telling me is that instead of having to bother to look up stuff, you want it easily presented to you through TV and Radio, as well as anyone else who watches TV and listens to Radio. Seriously, write a bill to the Senate and see how many people care. You guys are censoring yourselves by discussing this on a doom forum that no one who can do anything about it will look to find out who wants censorship gone.

Again, I'm assuming that the reason you mention bothering to "look stuff up" is that you think that just because language and the like is uncensored, all this nonsense like porn and government conspiracies are suddenly going to become available to everyone and their mother. ALL uncensoring would do is just that--remove the covering up of language and the occasional brief nudity (which I might add is incredibly rare on cable TV anyway, because it's just too risque for most companies and when it is present the scene including it is either removed or edited to no longer include it). Nothing more.

That being said, I WILL address your challenge to state a benefit: you have a point. A lot of people simply don't care, because they're so used to the censoring that they don't even pay any attention to it any more. Google the word "Uncensoring" and you'll find the first result is a petition online to uncensor television, which has a grand total of zero signatures.

But that's just the reason: it's because people are so used to the censorship. If censorship wasn't there to begin with, we would be used to it and not notice it so much all the same, although the effects would probably more noticed going from uncensored to censored rather than the inverse.

But there are benefits to this. One great benefit would be the riddance of over-dubs as censorship. I don't know about you, but if I were one of the Wachowski brothers, I would be a bit offended by the fact that Neo has gone from saying "Jesus Christ!" to "Jeepers Creepers!" in the ABC (or whatever it was) airing of The Matrix.

Another would be the lack of scenes being edited out--often scenes are trimmed on Cable for time constraints, but more often it's for censoring certain material which could not be "worked around." It's not a huge deal, but I'd rather see the movie in its entirety than be denied the ability to see it in its whole.

The point is that whether you like it or not, in the long run, censorship absolutely defeats the purpose of the First Amendment. Whether or not you see any "benefit" in removing censorship, the ideal situation, should we abide by what we hold so dearly as to deem it undeniable, is to remove censorship altogether. Believe it or not, it won't make people any more stupid than most of them already are anyway.

But I think I'm done talking to you anyway. You've provided a decent brick wall in this conversation and it was very nice talking to you, but I think I've had enough, so I'm going to be on my way.

[JohnnyRancid]

I think what youre trying to tell me is censorship is dumb because it had never needed to be there in the first place? To be honest I dont think it really needed to be there in the first place either, but it's been there far too long to make the sudden change of simply removing it, and rewiring what the public is already used to. Why wouldn't you just want to put up with it rather than to bitch to me in barrages of like 4 pagelong posts at a time about it?

You guys are talking like the whole world needs to make an entire revolution so it can be acceptable for YOU. No one cares. I dont really care how much you want to tweak my words but that is totally selfish and irresponsible.

[rustyslacker]

I think what youre trying to tell me is censorship is dumb because it had never needed to be there in the first place? To be honest I dont think it really needed to be there in the first place either, but it's been there far too long to make the sudden change of simply removing it, and rewiring what the public is already used to. Why wouldn't you just want to put up with it rather than to bitch to me in barrages of like 4 pagelong posts at a time about it?
I think what you're trying to tell me is that we should put up with injustices, even as minor as television censorship, because change would be too spontaneous, too shocking, and too much work?
You guys are talking like the whole world needs to make an entire revolution so it can be acceptable for YOU. No one cares. I dont really care how much you want to tweak my words but that is totally selfish and irresponsible.
And you are talking like we need to keep the media restricted so that it can be acceptable for YOU. Nobody cares. :)

[ace]

I think what youre trying to tell me is censorship is dumb because it had never needed to be there in the first place? To be honest I dont think it really needed to be there in the first place either, but it's been there far too long to make the sudden change of simply removing it, and rewiring what the public is already used to.

What Rusty said.

Why wouldn't you just want to put up with it rather than to bitch to me in barrages of like 4 pagelong posts at a time about it?

Why climb a mountain? Because it's there. We are arguing about the topic because it was brought up. If it hadn't been, we wouldn't. If you don't want to discuss politics in a political forum then leave it be.

And the reason everyone's "bitching" to you is because thus far, as (unfortunately) in the religious thread, you are the lone opposition to the majority. You should've seen it coming, honestly.

And you might as well deal with the dictionary-length rants I post. I don't interact on the political forum often but when I do find a topic that gets on my nerves that much it happens. Tough. :p

[Pieter Enis]

*party*Go ace*party*

[JohnnyRancid]

I have no intention in stopping andy of you from sending a bill to senate. Please do so. You'll see how many people care.

I think what you're trying to tell me is that we should put up with injustices, even as minor as television censorship, because change would be too spontaneous, too shocking, and too much work?

And you are talking like we need to keep the media restricted so that it can be acceptable for YOU. Nobody cares. :)

Injustices???? PLEASE! How is not hearing the word fuck in every sentence, and not seeing more boobs and dicks and pussies an injustice? Is it really THAT important?? It's far too spontaneous to be suiting what you would rather see and hear when I'm sure than there are many many many many people outside this forum that would rather do without it. Do a survey. Prove me wrong.

This whole thread is full of pure shit, aside from the minor bits of "no ones gonna give a damn what you want to happen" that are my posts. I direct you all to my signature. I've yet to have any interest in changing it as it applies to almost every thread you idiots start...

[Nomad]

What's so wrong about "boobs and dicks and pussies" anyway?

[blood imp]

Oh no, since we have different views than you, we are WRONG and STUPID and FULL OF SHIT. But of course there is some "shred of decency" here in the form of YOUR posts. My ass. And you keep missing the point. We're not asking the whole fucking world to change and not censor anything, we're stating our opinions about censorship as a whole.

As for your "injustice" argument, think about this. According to the whoever controls what we see on TV, people are too IRRESPONSIBLE to be trusted with information such as ANATOMY or LANGUAGE. According to them (and you, I might add), an extra vocabulary word or two in our language is too much because of its "horrible meaning". Well then, why aren't words such as "terrorist" or even "death" censored? Hmm?

[rustyslacker]

This whole thread is full of pure shit, aside from the minor bits of "no ones gonna give a damn what you want to happen" that are my posts. I direct you all to my signature. I've yet to have any interest in changing it as it applies to almost every thread you idiots start...

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4099/bidnesskl0.jpg

tee hee

[Aliotroph?]

That pic would work better with a more serious-looking political type. I was thinking Abe Lincoln. :p

Johnny, you seem to forget that since most people don't say fuck every second word TV wouldn't go like that. What we would get is the end of the silliness that arises when Family Channel censors the swear words out of Short Circuit by cutting the sound in mid-sentence, and the end of the plot holes that arise when they cut scenes out of Alien Resurrection because Sigourney, Winona, and the space pirates curse like the proverbial sailors they play.

These things won't happen though, because companies prefer short-term profit to having balls. It's usually fine but it is just a group-think stupidity that causes most censorship we see on a daily basis.

Of course there is more serious censorship, like the foolish hicks who need to grow up and realize Harry Potter doesn't turn people into Satan-worshipping pagans. :D

[Props]

Clearly Johnny has no clue on what this topic is about....common sense. The companies that publish information, available for all to read....they're not going to tell people how to rob banks...because that bank could be their very own.

I'll ask you a question Johnny....what if our schools(including our media and so on...)..., altogether censor everything, based on what they do & don't believe in...if they we were all cave people (primitive), where would we be now...expecially if sex didn't exist?(Sex is bad, unless you're religious and married)... We'd all be living in the past. There would be no progress. Humanity comes from ideas & progression. You can't deny the truth, even if it is something that can believed to be abused. We have to teach right from wrong, not denying everything altogether...even if it's something you wouldn't do.

Where would you be now...? I say Johnny's perception is tainted...he hasn't contemplated other ways of living.

[JohnnyRancid]

Fuck it, you guys are morons.

[blood imp]

Fuck it, you guys aren't agreeing with me, so I'm quiting this debate.
Fixed.10000

[ace]

Aaaand the thread has officially stooped to flaming level just because you're too stubborn to even consider keeping an open mind.

Note as well that you have now used the very same profane language you so wish to keep out of the public because it's too "rude" (even though calling someone a moron is just as "rude").

EDIT:
Exactly, Blood Imp. Exactly.

[Props]

I just read from my last post...and I'm on the same page as you Ace. Though maybe Rancid assumes we're all adults and can handle that sort of thing, but even then, I believe that it's human nature to speak about what really is. Perhaps we're all fooling ourselves, believing that our own views can change things into a form of life, in which we believe. We're all different, so lets face it, Picture perfect isn't something that'll happen overnight. We should stop worrying about what's outside of our lives, and teach those within it, that some things are relevant to a particular moment in time. Censor yourself, not everything around you....it's more appropriate.

[rustyslacker]

F--- it, you guys are morons.
Fixed?
Though maybe Rancid assumes we're all adults and can handle that sort of thing, but even then, I believe that it's human nature to speak about what really is.
If you mean, we can handle corporate media when it becomes uncensored? We will/would have to learn to handle it. But it could possibly rid us of a few taboos which hinder us.

[Pieter Enis]

I try not to pay attention to taboos.
Come to think of it, I am a taboo!
*weird*

Where's that brick wall picture and Nomad when you need them?

[Props]

LMAO Pieter.

The only thing that really strikes me...are my friends and how they don't see "eye to eye" on certain issues. I could hear anything, especially if it was far fetched, and find reasoning behind it. We should share our true knowledge.

***edit***
Matter O' fact, I've only got 3 people that don't see what I do, and those are people with their own agenda's.

I've skipped & read a lot of posts. All I have to say is that our own perception is the world we make. For those of us(including myself), who think that it's up to everyone to decide..it's the right way. And for those of us(not including myself), who think that your own belief/opinion is right and everyone should think in that manner........well...I don't know what to tell you...because you'll never listen and actually figure things out...based on real knowledge.

I started this thread, to spark a debate, on what people convey and how it's censored. Not to talk about how uncensored porn, and such, would turn every TV channel into HBO. Hell, potatoes used to be considered as food from hell. Now it's just a common source of nutrition. If censorship had it's way....we'd be deprived of potatoes.

[JohnnyRancid]

I was never going by my own opinion alone, My arguing was based on how well I know the human beings on this planet, and how I know from experience and context clues from my past that they would most definitely not be in favor. You know, the human beings that aren't internet wizards like you guys are.

The only situation that I can think of that was related to removing censorship, was when a buddy of mine thought the aired version of breakfast club was kinda weird when it made people say "go to heck" instead of "go to hell" or "eat my socks" instead of "eat my shorts" (?).

But the current standards of censorship are already pretty not maintained much at all, and the civilized family tolerance has already been pushed pretty far. Why the need to make what can be shown on tv and radio unlimited? There's just way too much potential.

but the more I tell you my points, you guys fail to give me anything reasonable that may change my mind. I'm just bored with the retarded "your an idiot because you say some individual sentence that I scraped out of your post that it is somewhat unjust and must be the basis of your entire opinion and that's why your an idiot"

Diamonds aren't forever.. flame wars are forever. Especially when you guys are so conceited with whatever you think, you haven't considered any one of the points I made. I certainly would have considered yours if they weren't so selfish and irresponsible. Especially with the ignorance to my great question "What is the benefit?"

You're constantly inferring that I am too immature or whatever it is you think of me to tolerate unrestricted television. I wanna say you guys are closed and narrow minded but you continually say the same thing about me, which I don't understand because I am considering the safety of the minds that are exposed to television and radio. It's closed minded to think about other people instead of me me me?

Well whatever, you guys dont give up. You love each other because youve lived on this forum long enough to know each other well, and band together with all the same opinions and preferences, and to fight one lone person all together if they think anything otherwise. (Wait isn't that imperialism? whatever, maybe you guys like imperialism, you manage to get furious whenever I dont agree)

I'm gonna write a book about a corrupt society that was ruled by dictators who preferred to band together and abuse anyone who had any offense of "the rules" Rules that include uncensored speak, where every citizen must speak truthfully in any situation. Advertising must give all information about a product. All literature must be exact quotes in dialogue. Even day to day conversations must be passed on by full honesty, any untruthful statement is punishable by jail time. No religion's are allowed. Any practice that is based around any sort of belief that has not been proven by scientific fact is also punishable by law. There is a lone faction that opposes these laws, but the violent revolt will never end and is always torment for both sides. I'll have to find some more of your retarded debates to find out more about how I can make these dictators so adulterated by their disrupted community. So I guess you guys are good for something.

[Props]

Well written Johnny. Aside from the text...what would be your argument on censorship. You can clearly defend yourself...but can you give reasoning behind censoring truth ....to a point where it conveys you're own opinion?

***edit***
I don't know my friends this well. I haven't been on this site and kept in touch nearly enough. I am not ganging up on you, I'm simply trying to conversate.....

[ace]

but the more I tell you my points, you guys fail to give me anything reasonable that may change my mind. I'm just bored with the retarded "your an idiot because you say some individual sentence that I scraped out of your post that it is somewhat unjust and must be the basis of your entire opinion and that's why your an idiot"

Diamonds aren't forever.. flame wars are forever. Especially when you guys are so conceited with whatever you think, you haven't considered any one of the points I made. I certainly would have considered yours if they weren't so selfish and irresponsible.

You were the first to call in names this thread, Johnny (and no, calling someone "closed-minded" is not name-calling).

And the reason people break down things into sections (as I have done time and time again) is because it's easier to group certain parts of a post together to respond to them in a more relevant and organized matter. In the case when only one small segment is attacked, it's often because that point is of particular interest--or because other sections are either irrelevant. Don't have a cow over it.

Especially with the ignorance to my great question "What is the benefit?"

I addressed your question, even making the point that you have a point in saying that many do not care. Only goes to show that you've been ignoring posts anyway, which doesn't surprise me. Brick walls wouldn't be brick walls if they absorbed what was thrown at them.

Well whatever, you guys dont give up. You love each other because youve lived on this forum long enough to know each other well, and band together with all the same opinions and preferences, and to fight one lone person all together if they think anything otherwise. (Wait isn't that imperialism? whatever, maybe you guys like imperialism, you manage to get furious whenever I dont agree)

People who have similar views tend to gather in similar places. You're not going to find atheists abound on a Christian forum. For some strange reason, people on this site all seem to share similar interests, though I think that the likely reason for this is that the people who oppose the majority are not willing to speak up.

I do not reject the possibility that there are no "me-toos" in here, though. There's probably always a few people like that, no matter what the debate.

I'm gonna write a book about a corrupt society that was ruled by dictators who preferred to band together and abuse anyone who had any offense of "the rules" Rules that include uncensored speak, where every citizen must speak truthfully in any situation. Advertising must give all information about a product. All literature must be exact quotes in dialogue. Even day to day conversations must be passed on by full honesty, any untruthful statement is punishable by jail time. No religion's are allowed. Any practice that is based around any sort of belief that has not been proven by scientific fact is also punishable by law. There is a lone faction that opposes these laws, but the violent revolt will never end and is always torment for both sides. I'll have to find some more of your retarded debates to find out more about how I can make these dictators so adulterated by their disrupted community. So I guess you guys are good for something.

Politician 1: Oh man, look at all that has happened just because we uncensored "God damn" from cable television!
Politician 2: WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!

[blood imp]

You know, the human beings that aren't internet wizards like you guys are.
You do have a point here. There are indeed several people I know who don't know how to select a URL bar. What's more is that, as it has been said before, much more people have a television/radio than a computer with internet connection.

...made people say "go to heck" instead of "go to hell" or "eat my socks" instead of "eat my shorts" (?).
That's silly! :p

but the more I tell you my points, you guys fail to give me anything reasonable that may change my mind. I'm just bored with the retarded "your an idiot because you say some individual sentence that I scraped out of your post that it is somewhat unjust and must be the basis of your entire opinion and that's why your an idiot"
As Ace said, we pick out the points we wish to argue or find of interest. Also, we don't call you an idiot because of one of your opinions. We call that opinion idiotic. :p

Especially with the ignorance to my great question "What is the benefit?"
This has been discussed. Also, I must repeat, this is a discussion whether or not censorship is reasonable or interfering with our freedoms, not whether or not we should remove it (although I suppose that's the new topic...).

You're constantly inferring that I am too immature or whatever it is you think of me to tolerate unrestricted television. I wanna say you guys are closed and narrow minded but you continually say the same thing about me, which I don't understand because I am considering the safety of the minds that are exposed to television and radio. It's closed minded to think about other people instead of me me me?
The worst thing about flame wars (assuming "close-minded" is a flame) is that they go in circles. "I called you shit because you called me first!". It's pointless discussing who started a flame, because the other person(s) will always disagree.
As for us calling you immature and whatnot, we don't. We're saying that you're afraid of "inappropriate material" being available to the general public.

Well whatever, you guys dont give up. You love each other because youve lived on this forum long enough to know each other well, and band together with all the same opinions and preferences, and to fight one lone person all together if they think anything otherwise. (Wait isn't that imperialism? whatever, maybe you guys like imperialism, you manage to get furious whenever I dont agree)
So, you'd rather have everybody on your side, with perhaps one or two of us. Oh wait, isn't that imperialism?
Also, apperantly you're against the human feeling of, as you call it, "anger". It's natural, genious, much like sex.
And what's bad with a group of people having the same preferences? Oh no! Assuming there is about 7 of us arguing against you, you have less than 0.00000000105% of humanity against you! AHHH! If you want to be in a nice, safe place where everyone agrees with you, why don't you go somewhere else (although I'd prefer you'd stay, because overall you're likeable :))?

I'm gonna write a book about a corrupt society that was ruled by dictators who preferred to band together and abuse anyone who had any offense of "the rules" Rules that include uncensored speak, where every citizen must speak truthfully in any situation. Advertising must give all information about a product. All literature must be exact quotes in dialogue. Even day to day conversations must be passed on by full honesty, any untruthful statement is punishable by jail time. No religion's are allowed. Any practice that is based around any sort of belief that has not been proven by scientific fact is also punishable by law. There is a lone faction that opposes these laws, but the violent revolt will never end and is always torment for both sides. I'll have to find some more of your retarded debates to find out more about how I can make these dictators so adulterated by their disrupted community. So I guess you guys are good for something.
Send us a copy (also, this is a very excegarated (spelling!) view of us.)!

[rustyslacker]

But the current standards of censorship are already pretty not maintained much at all, and the civilized family tolerance has already been pushed pretty far. Why the need to make what can be shown on tv and radio unlimited? There's just way too much potential.
Too much potential...?

Too much potential for people to get ideas? ..think something new? ...see a penis? ..hear the word "fuck"? o mai.
but the more I tell you my points, you guys fail to give me anything reasonable that may change my mind. I'm just bored with the retarded "your an idiot because you say some individual sentence that I scraped out of your post that it is somewhat unjust and must be the basis of your entire opinion and that's why your an idiot"
I don't know if you noticed, but I have addressed your points, and nowhere in this thread did I call you an idiot [although I did post the "SERIOUS BUSINESS" picture].
I'm gonna write a book about a corrupt society that was ruled by dictators who preferred to band together and abuse anyone who had any offense of "the rules" Rules that include uncensored speak, where every citizen must speak truthfully in any situation. Advertising must give all information about a product. All literature must be exact quotes in dialogue. Even day to day conversations must be passed on by full honesty, any untruthful statement is punishable by jail time. No religion's are allowed. Any practice that is based around any sort of belief that has not been proven by scientific fact is also punishable by law. There is a lone faction that opposes these laws, but the violent revolt will never end and is always torment for both sides. I'll have to find some more of your retarded debates to find out more about how I can make these dictators so adulterated by their disrupted community. So I guess you guys are good for something.
You're the one missing the point. For speech to be "uncensored" it would be completely free of regulation. To force truthfulness would not be an absence of censorship; it would just be a new [possibly worse] form of censorship. Don't drag science vs. religion in here either; that's a totally different topic, and banning religion would again be censorship.

But, it's an interesting concept [although you've completely misinterpreted everything we've posted] , and I love dystopian fiction. If you do write it I will certainly buy a copy.

EDIT: Damn it, blood imp. You ninja'd a post in there while I was typing. *annoyed*

[Props]

Johnny..haven't you read anything I said....I believe that's it enough to argue about.

1. Life is everywhere, so why censor something that's natural.
2. Besides political/financial gain, what reason is there for censorship.
3. Even if you're new to this world, what is the point in being denyed information.
4. It's for your own mind to sort things out....what's right and wrong.

I know a lot of stuff....but just because I do...I don't walk around in the grocery store saying it. It's reserved for when necessary.

[Pieter Enis]

Oh? I know a bunch of silly facts as well and I break them up from time to time just to spread information :p

I have one big problem with your train of thought, Johnny. You would decide for others what they can or can not see. That would make you like one of those dictators in your story.
If I would be as easily influencable with what I see, hear, smell or whatnot from the net, TV or radio, I'd have the IQ and EQ of a dog. Maybe even lower. I know that I'm a bit smarter than that and I know that just because I'm wearing tights and my underpants over them won't allow me to fly, see through walls and bounce bullets off my chest.
Although you do have a point in that most people will believe it. Sadly enough.

The thing is we're calling you closed-minded (Well, I am) because you won't allow other people to choose for themselves if they find something offensive and would rather have other people make choices for the masses. You're calling us closed-minded ... well I don't know why, but I'm guessing it's because we won't see your point of view.
We've also been giving about the same argument throughout this whole thread which should change your mind: Choice. The freedom to choose for yourself.
[I could be wrong, it's been a while since I read this whole thread :p]
My more extremist stance is about information. I want every form of censorship gone because through information one gains understanding. I think it would help against racism and hate and such. If people would know more about what jobs the average person gets or something, they wouldn't go about screaming "they're stealing our jobs!" over it. Then again, knowing people, they won't.
Secrets between governments also baffle me. We're no longer living in the Feudal Age where possession of land meant anything. The boundaries we have now are just there for political reasons. I find it childish that people are actually fighting over a patch of land which means about nothing. Not since import got so big.
A worse example of censorship is the Government not telling the people something. The gov should represent those people, rule for them, not over them.
That's more of a lie though, but still.
Either way, censorship sucks. It's like the censorer telling you "You're too stupid to decide on your own. We don't know if that's true or not, but we're guessing you're not."

Disclaimer: I'm not talking for anyone else, it's just easier to type 'we' since I'm assuming this from what I've read and can remember.

[JohnnyRancid]

4. It's for your own mind to sort things out....what's right and wrong.


This point I found most interesting of all. It's not stupid and very reasonable I must admit. Though if it's your mind that sorts out all the is right and wrong, completely removing censoring would make television and radio have the potential to be as right or as wrong as it can be. Movies have their own ratings because the content is suitable for the audiences of that age group. Without censorship, that would make all television completely unrated, and as you know, unrated DVD's are well-known to have content that was removed from the movie to be suitable of people in the age group that watch the movie in theatres. Uncensoring television and radio would give children, and any age group no time to mature. Like think about how baby's are treated when they are first born. They are placed in warm comfortable environments with lots of color and toys and happiness. Of course life isn't exactly like this. If you attempt to show the baby entirely what life is about, they will grow with no creativity, their imagination's will not expand because they only know what is logical and what is already there. They won't have nearly as much what-if questions. Do any of you guys see my point at all? I'm not trying to gather up people to be on my side like blood imp said, It's just that no one thought "okay that makes sense, but what if this happened" or whatever. I just got the response "THAT IS RETARDED" expanded into a hundred paragraphs.

[Aliotroph?]

Movies have ratings because a bunch of people complained that they can't judge for themselves so the MPAA figured it would be a decent business idea to suggest age groups and have some rudimentary enforcement of such in theatres that play their stuff.

Those ratings are completely based on what the MPAA thinks at the time the movie is released. The funny part is they don't update ratings for current standards. There are movies that were rated R in the 70s that would probably get PG or PG-13 now. The first Mad Max was rated X. I saw that and it was far, far less nasty than stuff like Saw 3, which was R.

It's all politics. I'd prefer the movies have accurate descriptors of their contents (like games) and they let parents figure it out. So what if a few kids find a way to sneak into something else? We all did that and so did our parents and even their parents (getting grandparents to admit this kind of stuff is fun).

[JohnnyRancid]

So what are we removing censorship for? The post made sense but was pretty irrelevant. The ratings for movies are there, and they are suitable content to what people of the age group that is socially acceptable.

[blood imp]

completely removing censoring would make television and radio have the potential to be as right or as wrong as it can be.
What's wrong with being as "right or wrong as it can be"? I mean, I can see you being conserned about "as wrong as it can be", but its the people's choice to watch it. And actually, that's kind of the point. If I choose to watch violent pornography (System of a Down song) right now, my mind might get a bit more twisted and/or perverted, but I'm not fucking up anybody else now, am I?

I'm not trying to gather up people to be on my side like blood imp said
I figured you weren't, I was just being a bitch. :p

I just got the response "THAT IS RETARDED" expanded into a hundred paragraphs.
Not really. I mean, true that some of our messages may be pretty much an expanded "You're retarded" or "That's retarded", but if you haven't noticed, we give reasons.

They are placed in warm comfortable environments with lots of color and toys and happiness. Of course life isn't exactly like this. If you attempt to show the baby entirely what life is about, they will grow with no creativity, their imagination's will not expand because they only know what is logical and what is already there.
Umm... So you're saying that if a baby grows up being raped by logic and intelligence, it won't have any creativity? I don't know...

[Props]

I hear all of your arguements...and have just one thing to say...I could be wrong.
We're products of our environments, and based off of that...it's easy to distinguish what you personally believe is right from wrong. Let's say, that you've been brought up in the "hood"....you're more likely to carry a gun, and kill if you feel it necessary. If you're brought up in a very peaceful/rational environment, you'd rather use peaceful means to resolve conflict. This is my reason for debate Johnny...if these people in these environments hear information, within their community...would they be more likely to resolve their conflicts outside of it? Words don't kill, people do. Information doesn't create "evil" thought...it's these individuals environment. I can personally say, that I've seen & heard some messed up stuff from the media/games. I've been exposed to what some religions/politics say..is morally wrong. Yet..I'm not out there killing/raping/murdering/waging war/stealing/waging war. I've been able to make my own mind up....on what's right from wrong. I base this off of my upbringing and environment.

[JohnnyRancid]

What's wrong with being as "right or wrong as it can be"? I mean, I can see you being conserned about "as wrong as it can be", but its the people's choice to watch it. And actually, that's kind of the point. If I choose to watch violent pornography (System of a Down song) right now, my mind might get a bit more twisted and/or perverted, but I'm not fucking up anybody else now, am I?

You certainly are not, but what I meant by that is from what I know, people who have the strongest reliance on TV and radio are people ages between 5-30. Lots of young children watch almost endless amounts of television. And if their parents arent around to watch over them, they can stumble onto something really raunchy that they shouldnt be seeing at their age. I really see censorship as protecting the young way more so than I see it weakminded.

I've been able to make my own mind up....on what's right from wrong. I base this off of my upbringing and environment.

I'm sure you can. I can too. I'm sure all of us right here can. But young children can't do that. They are still learning. Just please understand that television isn't solely designed for "our generation" there are very young children who are not only exposed to it, but they make it almost a necessity. Parents would tear their television out of the house if there wasn't any censorship. Children would be crushed. Their parents might say, "you can watch this when your 18". And maybe they will watch it when their 18. But whatabout when they have kids? They'll have to hide from their own kids to watch TV. Either that or expose their little minds and tatoo the information they get from it into their brain.

[rustyslacker]

I'm sure you can. I can too. I'm sure all of us right here can. But young children can't do that. They are still learning. Just please understand that television isn't solely designed for "our generation" there are very young children who are not only exposed to it, but they make it almost a necessity. Parents would tear their television out of the house if there wasn't any censorship. Children would be crushed. Their parents might say, "you can watch this when your 18". And maybe they will watch it when their 18. But whatabout when they have kids? They'll have to hide from their own kids to watch TV. Either that or expose their little minds and tatoo the information they get from it into their brain.
It's not up to the networks. This is the parents' problem, and they should figure out how to handle it. Bitching to the TV producers is just laziness.

[ace]

...from what I know, people who have the strongest reliance on TV and radio are people ages between 5-30. Lots of young children watch almost endless amounts of television. And if their parents arent around to watch over them, they can stumble onto something really raunchy that they shouldnt be seeing at their age. I really see censorship as protecting the young way more so than I see it weakminded.

You do have a point, but the problem with this argument is that children can already find all sorts of vile crap on TV. All they need to do is turn on MTV, Fox Reality, etc, etc. The only thing is that language is bleeped out--but it doesn't make such material any more "age-appropriate" for a child, as it can still easily be related to sex, graphic violence, etc, etc.

This is why the V-chip exists. Any responsible parent will not simply allow their child to flip through channels at random, unsupervised, without blocking out material that they feel is inappropriate for their child of their own accord.

This is the same dilemma with interactive media. Games are uncensored and people of any age can buy them--and many clerks do not check for age when selling M-rated games, as I have bought a few in the past without a parent present (present in principle, obviously, such as at another store in a mall, but not actually physically at the register with me) and got out scot-free.

Does that mean mature games should not be publicly sold? No. It simply means that parents should be responsible and take note of what kind of entertainment their child is getting, and moderating it. The parent makes sure to attend the child when they purchase a game in order to make sure it is not too mature for their age (and store clerks need be more cautious with what they allow to be sold, unfortunately). Likewise, the parent locks shows of certain ratings or certain channels altogether for their own viewing but preventing the child to view it whilst unattended.

Uncensoring television would not be the end of the world. Parents would simply have one more media which they have to filter carefully for their children's sake, just as they already do now with music, movies, games and the Internet, which are all to some extent just as public and accessible as television (though granted television is the most public and accessible of these, of course).

[blood imp]

It's as Maddox once said in reply to bitchy mothers who say he should take down his site because kids can go on it, "I'm not your kids' babysitter, so why don't you take care of them?". It wasn't exactly like that, but you get the point. It's the parents' responsibility to control their children.

[Giftmacher]

Exactly. It's the same thing with Wal-mart, it makes me angry. They don't carry music CDs with the "parental advisory sticker" (Thanks a whole frickin' lot, PMRC!), and yet they really don't have any reason not to. Parents might complain, but it's their responsibility to make sure their children don't buy the CDs in the first place, nobody elses, and definatley not the artist's.

Say a child is logging onto porno a site, guess who's fault that is for not paying attention? Complaining to the site itself isn't going to fix anything.

[Pieter Enis]

About the TV thing. They have programming. Over here, when I got home, there were tons of cartoons piled up for untill my parents got home. That's when the more 'serious' sitcoms and stuff came on.
I don't think they'll stop doing that.

[JohnnyRancid]

Television would be a lot easier to see rotten stuff though. Like internet can easily give access to porn sites and junk like that, but it's quite hard for a child to stumble onto a porn site accidentally. I doubt many children know how to effectively surf the web by themselves. Not only does television, like the internet, open a gate to a world of media, but the television sends the media to you, where as you have to seek the media on the internet. You kinda have to be looking for something to get it. Television just goes by pressing the "channel up" and "channel down" button.

You do have a point, but the problem with this argument is that children can already find all sorts of vile crap on TV.

I wondered that for a while too. Censorship is pretty slow these days. However I haven't been watching the Simpson's nearly as much as I used to as a lad, I recently got back into the habit. I recognized many of the episodes I've seen so far, but many of the sexual jokes and stuff, I didn't catch on to when I was that young. I simply didn't get it, forgot it, and payed attention to the next scene. I even recognized some of the things the characters said or were doing, but I didn't get the joke at the time but I understand them now. With no censorship at all, the jokes would be openly explained to children as young as I was. Does that really need to happen?

EDIT: Also me and my 9 year old bro stay up to watch adult swim on cartoon network on fridays. We love family guy and Futurama. I dont think he catches on to most of the sexual jokes on those shows either. Some are more obvious than othesr, and i can tell by the look on his face when he gets it, But I'm sure he doesn't understand more than half that are said.

[rustyslacker]

I doubt many children know how to effectively surf the web by themselves.
You are wrong.
However I haven't been watching the Simpson's nearly as much as I used to as a lad, I recently got back into the habit. I recognized many of the episodes I've seen so far, but many of the sexual jokes and stuff, I didn't catch on to when I was that young. I simply didn't get it, forgot it, and payed attention to the next scene. I even recognized some of the things the characters said or were doing, but I didn't get the joke at the time but I understand them now. With no censorship at all, the jokes would be openly explained to children as young as I was. Does that really need to happen?
If children don't understand an inappropriate joke, the joke has exactly the same effect as if it did not exist.

[Pieter Enis]

With no censorship at all, the jokes would be openly explained to children as young as I was. Does that really need to happen?
Banning censorship would not force people to explain the joke or put informational background stories under the text every time a joke is told that requires some background knowledge.
Either way, it wouldn't matter in this case, since they're already allowed to say the jokes.

[ace]

Like internet can easily give access to porn sites and junk like that, but it's quite hard for a child to stumble onto a porn site accidentally.

You would be very wrong there. I can't tell you the numerous times I've come across porn or porn-esque things by sheer accident through sites like Google and image searches, etc. Really, they're a lot easier to stumble upon than you might think. A few years back my sister (who was at the time 10 or so) did a search for "doll(s?)" and found a porn site through one of the links. As you can imagine that was not a fun time to be had.

But again, you are right in the fact that this kind of stuff is more easily accessible through television. However, you still seem to be ignoring the point brought up that any responsible parent will lock anything they find is too inappropriate for their child before letting them channel surf unattended, regardless of whether the censorship is there or not, because it can be just as inappropriate with censorship than without.

With no censorship at all, the jokes would be openly explained to children as young as I was. Does that really need to happen?

I think you're mistaking other things for censorship that aren't, now. This is not a form of censorship at all; it's simply a joke intended towards a specific section of an audience. Consider all these animated movies like Pixar's and Dreamworks' work for a second. Most of these movies throw in an adult joke (i.e. jokes that aren't "inappropriate" but rather pertain to daily/routine things that (young) adults deal with that children do not have to deal with yet) or two to appease the parents of the children attending who may not like all the humor focused towards the younger audience.

What happens there, just as with the crude/sexual based jokes on Futurama, Family Guy, etc., is not a form of censorship--it's simply material that is focused towards a specific audience. As Rusty said, anyone who does not get the joke will simply not detect it. It's not a matter of censorship but rather of the shows' producers' choice to include material that not everyone gets.

Speaking of which, Family Guy is a great example of this. That show uses so many obscure pop-culture references that it's nearly impossible to keep track of them. I know there's often a reference or two that I don't get because I don't know what they're referring to. But what does that have to do with censorship? Absolutely nothing. All they're doing is limiting their comedy to a specific group of people. That doesn't mean that if censorship is removed that they have to stop to explain what they're referring to every time.

I think the problem of the misunderstanding here boils down to what removing censorship implies. It seems to me that you're thinking that removing censorship would mean forcing companies to keep their work uncensored. This would not be the case, because that would be just as oppositional to the First Amendment as forcing censorship is.

All we are talking about here is the middle ground--making it illegal to force censorship and lack thereof altogether. Because it should be up to the producers of the shows and the heads of the networks to decide whether or not material be censored. Chances are that most channels, especially family/public-oriented ones like ABC, etc, will continue to choose to censor. But they shouldn't be forced to censor. It'd be unfortunate if no change happened even with this removal, but at least then we aren't talking about restricted rights anymore.

[Pieter Enis]

That doesn't mean that if censorship is removed that they have to stop to explain what they're referring to every time.
Although that would be funny in itself. Peter Griffin stopping in the middle of a joke, the background dimming a bit and he then goes all University Professor on us in explaining the background of the jokes :p

[Aliotroph?]

Reminds me of that Indian Casino episode where they kept making racist comments and then stopping to say some nice thing about each respective country, only to end it with a racist comment about another country. So of course they just leave it at bashing Canadians. :D

[Props]

Again...I've not read all the posts....
There is...in the US a technology called the V-chip(A way to program your TV, a way of filtering your channels from what you want your children to see) . It's more about parental supervision...not one unity telling you what you can or can't hear(truth from non-truth).

***edit***
Let's see the world for what it is...not an un-skewed bias.

[blood imp]

I doubt many children know how to effectively surf the web by themselves.
Define children. I can be considered a child by some, as well as a 20-year-old can be considered "childish" by some 90-year-old grump.

it's quite hard for a child to stumble onto a porn site accidentally.
No, it's not. There are many tricksters out there that make porn sites with URLs that children can easily go onto. I myself know of the website http://www.whitehouse.com getting a lot of children in the US. The site was a porn site, but it was eventually take ndown as too many children were accidentally accessing it (the official White House website is http://www.whitehouse.gov).
Then there's always those damn viruses or whatever which fuck up what URL you type. Once at my uncle's I was trying to access http://www.onet.pl (a Polish home-page, much like Yahoo!), and as I pressed ENTER, a porn blog popped up. This happened a few times with his computer, but eventually he got a new one.
So you see, it's not hard at all to stumble upon an innapropriate website by mistake.

[Pieter Enis]

The worst example being the word 'pussy'
Little children looking up pictures of felines are going to have a big surprise the minute they press that "search" button.

[FATAL]

http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20020219.html
http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20020220.html

[blood imp]

http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20020219.html
http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20020220.html
Indeed!lolsublimalmassage

[Nomad]

The worst example being the word 'pussy'
Little children looking up pictures of felines are going to have a big surprise the minute they press that "search" button.

Yeah, once back in 7th grade I was looking for pictures of Beavers for a project. :P

[rustyslacker]

Yeah, once back in 7th grade I was looking for pictures of Beavers for a project. :P
I'm sure that went well

[Props]

Lol, you all have great points about the internet. By censorship, I was really referring to the censored truth, based off of one's personal opinion...not how easy it is to stumble upon pornographic websites. Hell, I'm going to have to lean toward's creating better software for your computer....so parents/guardians can prevent their children from accidentally viewing explicit material....kind of like the V-chip in the US television sets sold right now.

***addition***
I don't think anyone has the right to distort the truth. If it's about the children, it should be up to their parents, not government.

[JohnnyRancid]

http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20020219.html
http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20020220.html


http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=farm+animal+pics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Seriously man. Google has safesearch filtering by default. I have yet to accidentally arrive on on a porn site. How could you guys say I am very wrong?


I think the problem of the misunderstanding here boils down to what removing censorship implies. It seems to me that you're thinking that removing censorship would mean forcing companies to keep their work uncensored. This would not be the case, because that would be just as oppositional to the First Amendment as forcing censorship is.


Close. What I expect to happen, because most comedy television shows already push the limit really far, such as Mind of Mencia, or Chappelle's show (these are just the first to come to mind) It's just that as soon as television show producers that are in that nature to push the limit, as soon as it is said that "Censorship is no longer needed" The producers will go "Hey, no more rules. Now we can do those skits we always wanted to but never could!" Not to mention with the growth of reality TV shows, where this will go reeeeally far. I simply couldnt see them saying "Hey who cares, let's continue doing what were doing" when no need for censorship allows for so many options. The use of censorship makes any television channel applicable to nearly all audiences, So that channels that are stumbled upon by accident dont leave an image on the young.

I dont expect the television to immediately jump to goatse and assholes everywhere, but I bet it will happen in some point in time. And I'll puke, and I'll be dissapointed when I can't see the television shows I wanted to continue watching because they had been so damaged by allowing so much content. I can easily put up with the way censorship is now, but I dont want to see good shows be tainted because they were allowed to go as far as they wanted.

Although that would be funny in itself. Peter Griffin stopping in the middle of a joke, the background dimming a bit and he then goes all University Professor on us in explaining the background of the jokes :p

I meant it would be just so blatenly obvious that a child at the age of 5 or 6 would get it.

[blood imp]

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=farm+animal+pics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Seriously man. Google has safesearch filtering by default. I have yet to accidentally arrive on on a porn site. How could you guys say I am very wrong?
Not everybody uses Google. I myself don't that often.

[ace]

Seriously man. Google has safesearch filtering by default. I have yet to accidentally arrive on on a porn site. How could you guys say I am very wrong?

Web search doesn't. And clearly the comic was an exaggeration. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And again, we've now had several people share personal accounts with which they've accidentally/unintentionally stumbled upon porn, and there's plenty more stories I've heard from friends and even a teacher of mine, so to say that it's outright impossible is completely unsubstantiated.

Also consider the fact that many sites have those ads linking to porn sites ("meet girls in your area," etc.).

Plus what BloodImp said.

The use of censorship makes any television channel applicable to nearly all audiences, So that channels that are stumbled upon by accident dont leave an image on the young.

No it doesn't. If you've even seen a single episode of Mind of Mencia or Chappelle's Show as you say you have, then you should damn well know that that is not the kind of material most people would consider "applicable" to children, regardless of censorship or not. And consider the fact that no words below "shit" (with the exception of "god damn" etc.) are not censored anyway, so guess what! They'll still pick up that language that you're trying to keep restricted.

I dont expect the television to immediately jump to goatse and assholes everywhere, but I bet it will happen in some point in time.

No they will not. Once again, you are jumping to wild conclusions, and completely confuse the issue of censorship with the law itself. So (perhaps in futility) let's make this clear:

Pornography is restricted from the access of minors.
Pornography is restricted from the access of minors.
PORNOGRAPHY IS RESTRICTED FROM THE ACCESS OF MINORS.

Oh sure, minors can access porn online anyway, but only after legally agreeing that they are over 18 years of age. While chances are pretty much nigh that a minor caught viewing porn would be treated the same as one in possession of alcohol or tobacco, that doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. You can't make porn accessible to television because then minors would have unrestricted access to it, which is against the law.

Is this getting through at all? Censorship does NOT mean the removal of law from television. Just in case you didn't read it before:

You won't find restricted material released to the general public through television, just as you won't find beer being sold to people of all ages because some town decides to make it legal to sell it on Sundays (that, and the companies involved with television-based pornography are in it for the money, so it's quite likely that such channels will remain accessible only through PPV as they have been).

However, taking it a step further and saying that there will actually be people showing how to perform illegal activities is completely asinine. At least with the Internet there is some level of anonymity involved, albeit not a very strong one. But if you go in front of a camera on public access and give detailed illegal information, you're pretty screwed. I can go out and use every swear in public I wish, but I'm STILL going to be sent to jail for leaking "confidential governement information" to the public, because the two are not related.

[Aliotroph?]

I like how you guys act as though all porn is hosted in America. I can find you lots of sites where you don't legally agree to anything in any way, shape, or form before you see all kinds of porn.

You can also sometimes get porn sites by using a misspelling of something else. There was a time when www.netcape.com and www.whitehouse.com were both porn sites. Kids looking for a better browser or just some stuff about the President were screwed. Seriously, how were they supposed to know it was www.whitehouse.gov ? :D

[blood imp]

That's the example I gave!

And also, as Alio said, it's not only search engines. Believe it or not (sarcasm), some kids know how to type web addresses. Indeed, mispellings sometimes give horrible results. Many are those stupid business websites, but some are porn. Just as an example, let's say that there is a website about animals called www.wildebeests.com. A child has no idea what is a wildebeest, and so types in www.wildbeasts.com. OH OH! This is a bad example, but it explains the point.

[Props]

Question is...do these underserving...mispellings....have to be censored....? Do we deserve the right to free..unfiltured info? I don't want any child of mine....learning something that isn't appropriate. Yet, I'll make sure, that I give both sides of the equation...and let them figure it out. Life = experience. It's bound to happen...sooner than later. Products..of our environment? Possibly.....but even if this is true...We all have a "hand" in making things "right". If you're married...and have children...you can persuade them to look at information rationally. .....

I've got to get going...I'll continue this later...

[Nomad]

Is your period key stuck or something? :P

[Raptor Jesus]

Heh, I remember finding whitehouse.com when I was in elementry school during the Al Gore vs Bush election xD

[ace]

I like how you guys act as though all porn is hosted in America. I can find you lots of sites where you don't legally agree to anything in any way, shape, or form before you see all kinds of porn.

True, but I was speaking of anything that is hosted in the US, as it were.

But this brings up a point I hadn't even thought of. US television won't ever be as free as the Internet. The Internet brings together servers from all over the world whose source nations' laws and policies often vary to incredible extent--as a result, there is no real universal laws applying to all sites visited in any nation, which is what makes the Internet so much more free from restraints as it is.

Public television in the US, however, is broadcast under US regulations, and as a result, cannot have those such freedoms, because no legal conflict is present. So television, regardless of censorship, would always still have to remain abiding to the US law, and there would be no gray areas, only further preventing porn and robbery and crazy conspiracies (:p) from being put into publication.

Eh... I'm not sure I'm conveying what I'm thinking the way I want to. I'm tired. But I think I made the gist of it clear. Blah.

[rustyslacker]

I have wondered that as well.

[JohnnyRancid]

So what your telling me is that because children can already be exposed to it, we should fix it by not trying anymore? That must be how everything is solved.

[rustyslacker]

So what your telling me is that because children can already be exposed to it, we should fix it by not trying anymore? That must be how everything is solved.
Yes. Exactly that. Of course. JOHNY WINS TEH THRAAD *idea*

[Nomad]

We shouldn't be debating our beliefs anyway, amirite?

[JohnnyRancid]

That sounds like a good solution. We could fix everything that way. We could fix all the smog and pollution by littering and driving around aimlessly. We could conserve oil by ignoring the fact theres not a lot left by driving a lot more than walking. We could even finish all our megawads by quitting.

[Nomad]

First we need to show there actually is a problem before we can "do" anything about it. You've yet to answer my question I asked three pages ago:

What's so wrong about "boobs and dicks and pussies" anyway?

Why shield children from the most natural thing humans do, and not instead educate children about responsibility regarding sex? If you ask me, that is what fuels teenagers desires to rebel.

[JohnnyRancid]

Because really young children who are relient on television are still in their learning stage, and the stuff they see attaches to their memory for a long time. sex is the last thing they need to learn at that age. it wouldnt affect us at our age or older people. But the young are at stake more than you make it seem.

[Nomad]

They're going to find it anyway. I remember reading Playboys with my friend Michael (whose father owned the magazines) back when I was seven years old. Before that, I remember an encounter with a couple kids giving each other blowjobs in a shed when I was about six (and they were only about a year older than me). Not to mention the various times I've walked in on my parents "wrestling".

At any rate, why is it so bad to learn about sex at such an early age? Do you assume that makes them more likely to have sex at an early age?

I would imagine that sex education would have the opposite effect. People (even young children) are much less likely to take a risk in that department when they are well aware of the possible consequences.

[JohnnyRancid]

They're going to find it anyway.

I know but we might as well 'try' to make it hard for them than making it so easily available on something like television. I'm jsut thinking about the long term causes of this, of how the two hundred fifty some million people will most likely hate this idea. You may even be right, some, even most of your points are good, but arguing this over such an enormous range of people will just not be worth it. I'm just posing as an example of how that huge amount of people will react if you post these ideas openly to the world.

[Nomad]

You are right about that. I know most foreign countries were pretty amused by how the majority of people reacted about the big "Janet Jackson Titty Scare" a few years back. Most other countries see tits on TV all the time, and it's really not that big of a deal. Definitely not as big of a deal as it is made out to be over here.

[FATAL]

A Finnish drama serial cannot be taken seriously if a boob doesn't show up in some episode. ;)

[MR_ROCKET]

Makes you wonder what Benny Hill 2008 would be like.

[Pieter Enis]

That would be porn.

[Props]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Props025
4. It's for your own mind to sort things out....what's right and wrong.


JohnnyRancid
This point I found most interesting of all. It's not stupid and very reasonable I must admit. Though if it's your mind that sorts out all the is right and wrong, completely removing censoring would make television and radio have the potential to be as right or as wrong as it can be. Movies have their own ratings because the content is suitable for the audiences of that age group. Without censorship, that would make all television completely unrated, and as you know, unrated DVD's are well-known to have content that was removed from the movie to be suitable of people in the age group that watch the movie in theatres. Uncensoring television and radio would give children, and any age group no time to mature. Like think about how baby's are treated when they are first born. They are placed in warm comfortable environments with lots of color and toys and happiness. Of course life isn't exactly like this. If you attempt to show the baby entirely what life is about, they will grow with no creativity, their imagination's will not expand because they only know what is logical and what is already there. They won't have nearly as much what-if questions. Do any of you guys see my point at all? I'm not trying to gather up people to be on my side like blood imp said, It's just that no one thought "okay that makes sense, but what if this happened" or whatever. I just got the response "THAT IS RETARDED" expanded into a hundred paragraphs.

I see your point....but isn't it up to the parental figure to nurture their children....to teach what is wrong...and right? It is the parents, who show their children the correct path....mainly through leading by example. I am not one to tell people how to raise their children....but I do know...that you have more of an influence that your TV/Radio/Computer.

[Raptor Jesus]

that you have more of an influence that your TV/Radio/Computer.
That is, if you spend more time with your kids than the TV/Radio/Computer. If they spend their life in front of a TV, than they will learn their morals from TV, not the parent figures.

[Props]

NomadIs your period key stuck or something? :P

Yes............................................... ..............I can't seem to un-stick it.

[Props]

Johnny Rancid
I know but we might as well 'try' to make it hard for them than making it so easily available on something like television. I'm just thinking about the long term causes of this, of how the two hundred fifty some million people will most likely hate this idea. You may even be right, some, even most of your points are good, but arguing this over such an enormous range of people will just not be worth it. I'm just posing as an example of how that huge amount of people will react if you post these ideas openly to the world.
__________________

It's sounds to me, as if you've been brought up in a very closed minded world...
You believe in something..and I hold not grudges....
Yet, you seem to think along the same lines of a closed minded person.

Have you ever stopped to consider how large this planet actually is? How many different lifestyles/religions there are? You know, whether you're here or there...this world is "shared" by everyone. It's not up to "one" party to decide the fate of everyone. When it comes to US politics...it seems that one "party" is hell bent on making decisions for everyone....and most of those are financial. When it comes to cencorship....it seems to be based off of faith....which leads to an individuals concept and outlook on life. When knowledge is censored....you don't see the whole picture. Hence...you side more, with those who've taught you what you know....you can't steer yourself away to an alternate path.... ..... .... you're just another political number.

I unfortunately work in a area that has political draw....in PA. It's Amish/Mennonites. They only vote...not through research....but through a Republican.../Christian...who comes to their community...and tells them that, "God" is on their side, and vote for this fool.... They only vote...because...this "cult" tells them too. Hell, I don't believe in Jesus....as the son of god, but I'll tell you this much....the message is clear....

That being said...the same people that use his name...are those who wage war....

I don't get it.

Those same people use that name, too persuade the week minded into voting for them and others with the same "agenda".

Go figure....just another cult....

Censorship or not...why is this world filled with so many religions....that all have the same message...yet the "true" believers never follow them....

[By the way, don't tell me I'm wrong. My line of work....I've done business with some of these "leaders"....and they don't live up to what.."should" be right.}




Propaganda

[blood imp]

Going off topic from what you're saying, I think Johnny was thinking that removing censorship and law is the same thing. Child pornography is illegal. For a child to view pornography under the age of 18 is illegal (in some countries), although removing censorship would indeed remove THIS one. However, the parents retain the right to control what their children view.
Not to mention, you (Johnny) seem to think that removing censorship would be the equivalent of shoving porn and such down everybody's throat. This is not the case. Nobody will be forced to watch anything, but they will be able to watch almost everything if they choose to.

why is this world filled with so many religions....that all have the same message...yet the "true" believers never follow them....
Lets not get into religion.

[JohnnyRancid]

Jesus christ you guys are multiposting criticism to me while I'm not even looking back at this thread. Over time I've noticed that back in the 50's censorship was still pretty much the same as it is today, However, television and radio didn't show nearly as much content as being shown today. It was just a moral standard. Over time more and more content was allowed to be shown on television. Even though there's still a limit on what can and cant be shown on television and radio, I'm willing to bet the pants that I am wearing right now, that 50 years in the future, without a censorship policy, that the content shown on public television and radio will NOT be the same.

[Aliotroph?]

And I'm still pretty convinced that would be a good thing. The amount of censorship imposed by companies because they're scared of fanatical Christians is pathetic. People were meant to see boobs and hear dirty words.

[ace]

Going off topic from what you're saying, I think Johnny was thinking that removing censorship and law is the same thing.

Pretty much.

For a child to view pornography under the age of 18 is illegal (in some countries), although removing censorship would indeed remove THIS one.

Not really. There's a difference between 30 seconds of gratuitous boobs/sex in an R-rated movie and a full-length, no-holds-barred presentation of Back Door Sluts 9. I don't believe movies with little blips of nudity or sex would outright be classified as porn, though of course they would still be classified as restricted for minors, though unlike theater movies, of course, television ratings act as a suggestion toward the guardian of a family (if present) rather than an enforced rule.

Jesus christ you guys are multiposting criticism to me while I'm not even looking back at this thread.

Not that you need to make a big deal about it, of course. Who else would one talk about, the other guy who is solely stepping up to oppose the majority? :p

[Props]

Sorry....religion....is an endless topic...yet it was created years & years ago....but not completely updated....because the unknown can't, while the known(proven) can.

A local radio station(the only station that doesn't play country...and isn't religious)....which annoys the hell out of me....censor's itself, by calling Friday, and "Fother Muckin' Friday" as well as "Laugh your Bass off". What's the point? If you can't say it...why bother trying to get your point across? Everyone around here, can't handle hearing/viewing information, that isn't part of their daily, day to day life. So those capable of conveying information...censor themselves, or conform to the FCC...for fear of lawsuits, loosing sponsorship and such. Are the people who complain...just weakminded....or controlling? Mass Dictatorship....?

I'm not easily offended...but if someone says, "cracker"...I'm not going to stress out...
It's a figure of speech...last time I checked, war kills people...not visual/audible perception. If you want to break it down, and protect our young...and try to prevent a future that is irrational to "our" generation...does censorship really have a role in that. I've been educated and allowed to make my own decisions...yet I still am proper in most regards. My parents showed me the path...and allowed me to have a choice....
I watched M.A.S.H, GI Joe, A Team and various other shows....yet, I'm not a vigilante, seeking my own justice. I've heard curse words, seen death/violence and the ladder, yet I don't resolve my dilemma's with irrational thinking. You could say, I've seen enough information, to taint my way of thinking, yet it hasn't. Whys that?

Did the government aid me, or was it proper parental supervision?

[Giftmacher]

Parental help ftw! The problem with cencorship today is that parents don't like to teach their children anymore, so they just expect TV and school to do it all, thus they complain when TV is violent because they expected TV to be an escape from their teaching their own children.

[blood imp]

Guise my sonn gos heer can u stop bein such ashols ad b nicr 2 evry1? I am 2 laz 2 take car of him myslf and xpect peeple i don now 2 tak car of him. kthxbai

[rustyslacker]

Boobs, dicks, pussies, assholes, niggers, chinks.

the end.

[Nomad]

Thats Racist!

[JohnnyRancid]

That must be really easy to say. Do you work for a living? Do you have flexible work hours? Do you own a house? Do you maintain it properly? Do/Can you pay your own bills? Do you maintain your own car? Do you have a spouse to look after? Are you financially up-to-date? That's not really lazy if it's already a mean market out there. Protecting your children from raunchy television is just another burden parents are left with. Do they really need it so that people with less responsibilites can enjoy television?

And this topic died like a month ago. Please cut your fingers off for bumping it*wacko*

[Nomad]

You've yet to explain why kids seeing "offensive" things are such a problem.

[blood imp]

That must be really easy to say. Do you work for a living? Do you have flexible work hours? Do you own a house? Do you maintain it properly? Do/Can you pay your own bills? Do you maintain your own car? Do you have a spouse to look after? Are you financially up-to-date? That's not really lazy if it's already a mean market out there. Protecting your children from raunchy television is just another burden parents are left with. Do they really need it so that people with less responsibilites can enjoy television?
What's your point? Even with all these burdens, it's still not my responsability if some little turd sees me type "fuck" and starts repeating it. Great for it, it just expanded its vocabulary.

And this topic died like a month ago. Please cut your fingers off for bumping it
I didn't bump it, if you're talking to me.

[Giftmacher]

That must be really easy to say. Do you work for a living? Do you have flexible work hours? Do you own a house? Do you maintain it properly? Do/Can you pay your own bills? Do you maintain your own car? Do you have a spouse to look after? Are you financially up-to-date? That's not really lazy if it's already a mean market out there. Protecting your children from raunchy television is just another burden parents are left with. Do they really need it so that people with less responsibilites can enjoy television?
No excuse for parents to expect the rest of the world to conform to their rules.

[Pieter Enis]

And lastly: If you don't have time for kids, don't make em.

[JohnnyRancid]

You've yet to explain why kids seeing "offensive" things are such a problem.

Because it's already a social standard not to speak of or show off that kind of material. Television makes a huge impact on the way the people act. Think about how quickly someone would get banned from this forum if they related every topic to penises, or sweared all the time, or linked to pictures of sex? Do we need to see it? No. Do we want to see it? sometimes. Does everyone need and/or want to see it? Definitely no.


No excuse for parents to expect the rest of the world to conform to their rules.

Are you implying that everyone in the entire world beside parents want to get rid of censorship? Only the people here on Newdoom.com/forums are people I know who are against censorship.

And lastly: If you don't have time for kids, don't make em.
What if it's too late and you already have them? What if you could already trust the media and television to censor material away from your children? Uh oh, now censorship is gone and I already have a child and theirs nothing I can do about it. Now I have to let him/her see all that and alter his/her ethical personality.

[Nomad]

And what makes you think that this "social standard" would somehow disappear if it were no longer enforced by the FCC?

[blood imp]

What if you could already trust the media and television to censor material away from your children?
I repeat: What's your point? Even with all these burdens, it's still not my responsability if some little turd sees me type "fuck" and starts repeating it. Great for it, it just expanded its vocabulary.

Think about how quickly someone would get banned from this forum if they related every topic to penises, or sweared all the time, or linked to pictures of sex?
Quite quickly, actually. As I recall, there was this one ass who posted a topic going something like "Look, it is interesting". The whole thing was links to animal sex. But once again, there is a difference between the law and censorship. Just because it is now okay for public television to display Girls Gone Wild all day, does not mean that every time you go outside there will be twenty people waiting to rape you as soon as you come out. And if you say people will do it anyways, they already do.

Are you implying that everyone in the entire world beside parents want to get rid of censorship? Only the people here on Newdoom.com/forums are people I know who are against censorship.
No, he's implying that not everybody is going to care if some mother doesn't want her sweet little boy seeing someone type "Fuck". Read the first part of this post.

Uh oh, now censorship is gone and I already have a child and theirs nothing I can do about it. Now I have to let him/her see all that and alter his/her ethical personality.
Uh oh, I want my child to be a robot who's "ethical personality" should be an exact copy of mine and the general public's.

[Giftmacher]

Because it's already a social standard not to speak of or show off that kind of material. Television makes a huge impact on the way the people act. Think about how quickly someone would get banned from this forum if they related every topic to penises, or sweared all the time, or linked to pictures of sex? Do we need to see it? No. Do we want to see it? sometimes. Does everyone need and/or want to see it? Definitely no.
Oh, right, I'm sure that if censorship was toned down everybody everywhere would talk only about human reproduction organs for the rest of their lives.

[blood imp]

Some do that anyway. It's funny how you can say "penis" in front of a little (or not so little) boy and he'll crack up.

[Pieter Enis]

Plus, I've made this name one big pun. It was intended and it got the response I expected.

On another note, there is no such thing as "Oh no, too late, I already have a kid"
Just get rid of it. Seriously, abort it while it's still in the belly or take care of it. If you made the choice, it should be you who suffers most.
I'm not saying that we actually suffer under censorship, it's just that sometimes it gets ridiculous, as has been stated many times before, blahblahblah.

[JohnnyRancid]

I cant come up with any real examples of censorship that were ridiculous.

I remember someone mentioning like a million pages back about Neo in the matrix, instead of saying jesus christ said Jeepers Creepers Obviously that would be ridiculous and I see the point, but I've yet to hear anything reworked that badly. I'd prefer it to just mute the sound while he's talking, So I can just imagine what he said.

[Pieter Enis]

The thing is, your imagination will, based on whether or not you heard more offensive stuff, come out worse than what was actually said. Most likely :p
Muting what is being said is one of those things I find ridiculous, if you don't want people to hear what some guy in some random movie says, don't even show them that movie. That's really the whole point, it should be the personal choice of every viewer whether or not they desire to hear what an actor says, including swearing.
Then there's the actions taken by said actor, which can be blotted out, blurred or obstructed by the famous Black Bar (dun-dun-duuun). I don't like that either, we're watching a damn movie, don't interrupt us, geez.
If people don't want to hear any swear words, then that's their responsibility, not mine nor anyone else's. They should avoid the movie, inform themselves about the content, whatever as long as their experience does not obstruct mine in any way.
I'm not being difficult, they are, so they should be the ones having the most trouble.
And no, genitalic view will not flourish from this, it might get ramped up a bit, but disinterest will cause them to cut it out.

Of course then there's the case of the one being shot just being one ugly ass, but that's a whole 'nother thing :p

[Giftmacher]

I cant come up with any real examples of censorship that were ridiculous.
Do you live in a cave?
Here you go, censorship in all it's glory.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/dayghne/Eman/402px-OnePieceedit.jpg
(Bottom one is after the dubbing company got it's hands on the episode)

[rustyslacker]

L O L.

Amazing.

[JohnnyRancid]

I've honestly never seen anything that drastic. Of course skin color is certainly unnecessary to be censored. Did the FCC demand that??

[Giftmacher]

Nope, they did it because they thought the mere presence of a black character would promote "stereotypes".

[Aliotroph?]

I thought that works the other way around, usually. They always put black characters in for "diversity."

[Giftmacher]

No, god forbid, diversity is too risky. *evilol*

[JohnnyRancid]

So isn't that the creators fault? That doesn't really have to do with censorship as much as it is simply avoiding lawsuits.

[Giftmacher]

No, it's the censor's fault. There's nothing wrong with putting a black character in an anime, there's plenty of things wrong with making him white.

[JohnnyRancid]

What I meant by avoiding lawsuits is that maybe a dark-skin toned person could sue because it's a defamation of their race by promoting a stereotype. I can't really tell what the stereotype is in the picture, But it looks like he's about to get into a fight or something. Like making the character black may promote a stereotype that black people are violent.

[Aliotroph?]

No, it would show they're likely to be like anyone else, given the right environment. People thinking with the mindset you described are making the problem worse. If we all spend our time worrying who we might offend we'll never get anything done. People seriously have to learn to shut up and live with the odd thing they find offensive.

Besides, black people are violent. White people are too. So are Asians, Native Americans, the Inuit, Australian Aborigines, and the Bushmen. People are violent.

[JohnnyRancid]

Well in this place I live in called the U.S. you don't even have to truly be offended, but can still act like you were offended, sue the company that "defamed" you and earn a bundle of cash if the case is effective. I dunno about you, but spotting something like that and taking offense of it and earning a living in return sounds pretty good to me.

[Giftmacher]

You make me sick.

[blood imp]

Well in this place I live in called the U.S. you don't even have to truly be offended, but can still act like you were offended, sue the company that "defamed" you and earn a bundle of cash if the case is effective. I dunno about you, but spotting something like that and taking offense of it and earning a living in return sounds pretty good to me.
The USA is weird. You guys have the weirdest ideas ever there. Why the Hell would someone get offended if I called them a "nigger"? God people are stupid. Also, I'm really sleepy right now, and my mind is filled up with research for my project, so that's why I'm making such silly posts.

[Aliotroph?]

I dunno. Every time the Americans invent a racist term or joke about Canada we just name a pile of stuff after it and confuse the crap out of them. :D

[JohnnyRancid]

So what do you want us to do about it?

[Giftmacher]

Are you saying America has no choice but to be ignorant and unfriendly towards foreign people?

[Nomad]

Absolutely! And everyone should learn English, too, so we don't have to put any effort into learning anyone else's languages!

[rustyslacker]

Absolutely! And everyone should learn English, too, so we don't have to put any effort into learning anyone else's languages!
Within any nation, I believe everybody there should at least make an effort to learn the official language.

[Aliotroph?]

You do realize that some countries have several official languages, right? :p

[Nomad]

Within any nation, I believe everybody there should at least make an effort to learn the official language.

All the foreigners should have to learn English anyway. I mean, who wants to speak Czechoslovakian?

[blood imp]

Within any nation, I believe everybody there should at least make an effort to learn the official language.
The United States of America has no official language. Although English is the number one "candidate", it's not official.

[rustyslacker]

*an official language.

[Props]

Modified quote, "Bored american's look'n for something to do, we were all immigrants, so kick ourselves out too."

Just a little bit of humor, but lets face the facts, there are just truths...another word for stereotypes. Which makes sense, I'm irish, so I'm smart, strong, I'm a stud, money grows on trees, the best luck all the time, 1 new car a day, an escalator, elevator, 3 girlfriends, unlimited beers, did I mention a fast car? and last but not least...no telemarketers....at any time***edit***ever.

[rustyslacker]

All the foreigners should have to learn English anyway. I mean, who wants to speak Czechoslovakian?
Quit being retarded.

[Aliotroph?]

Being retarded is awesome! :D

And I thought being Irish meant you were a violent drunk. :p

[Giftmacher]

Stop acting so American! *drunk*

[Props]

Who wants to fight? Where's the beer?!? Oh, sorry, can't help it, I thought it was party time. :)

[Nomad]

Quit being retarded.

Touché. It's called sarcasm.

[Pieter Enis]

English is the most-spoken second language. I think. It's been 2 years, whatever.

Either way, I believe immigrants should learn an official language so that it's not as apparent that it's just an outstretched holiday in another country for them.

[blood imp]

*an official language.
Fine. But I agree, one should learn English if they are to stay in the United States of America. Now it occured to me how silly it is that people think that "American" is a language. Same with "Mexican".

[Nomad]

There is such a thing as American English, however. Actually, in the literature industry, where translating is concerned, American English and British English are considered two separate entities. The same thing can definitely be said about Canadian French, and I'm sure the same goes for Mexican Spanish, too; I do know that there are quite a few dissimilarities, but I don't know any specifics since I never took Spanish.

[Aliotroph?]

Americans have several kinds of English. So do the Canadians and the English. Funny how that isn't often recognized yet.

[Mr.Person]

The same thing can definitely be said about Canadian French, and I'm sure the same goes for Mexican Spanish, too; I do know that there are quite a few dissimilarities, but I don't know any specifics since I never took Spanish.
"Mexican" Spanish is really just a few differences from "Spain" spanish, its just that "Mexican" spanish was developed with the influences of American and British English, thereby resulting in a version of spainish that has less accents than its Spain-based counter part. That concludes todays History in The Languages lesson for today.*rolleyes*

[blood imp]

It's all the same language (American English, UK English, etc.), just different dialects. Even in the USA there are different ways of saying stuff. Same with Poland. "American" by itself is not recognized as an actual language (American English is, though). Same with "Mexican".

[Props]

It isn't all the same....In the America's...there's culture. Unfortunately, groups of people want to become distinct. The lines of communication are falling down...
I personally think, that we're destroying all means of real communication. Too much slang(Ebonics/acronyms).

***edition***

I'm not sure about the rest of the world...but in the US, there are more and more people using the text feature on their cell phones. Short hand along with lame ass acronyms (such as FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation)are becoming more popular; where, instead of asking, "what do you know", you say, "give me the 411"(411 is directory assistance on the telephone; they connect your call, based off of information you give").
What is wrong with "what do you know"?

[rustyslacker]

Are you always drunk when you post, or is it that you just never have anything relevant?

[Props]

I never have anything relevant. On top of that, your words mean nothing.

[Aliotroph?]

WTF are you talking about? Slang usage like that has been around for centuries. Your argument about communication breaking down is just as stupid as it was when other people made it 100 or 200 years ago. It just doesn't happen. It doesn't happen any more than it already has. People as a group don't change much.

Your acronym example sucks too. The FBI has been called that since it started. It even says that on their jackets! People from other countries even understand it. Within any group using acronyms for relevent terms speads things up bigtime. And hence Trekkies think TWoK is the best movie, gamers mostly don't remember RoTT, and having to send a CD to do an OSRI probably means you're gonna lose your pr0n. :p

[Props]

You'll see what I mean...if you look around. Maybe I should rephrase though....there's a new English Language on the way...except, a word that had one meaning before, now has another, that has nothing to do with the original(example, cheddar=money)....and don't say an entire phrase anymore....just abbreviate it(What the F*ck=WTF). Let's all talk short hand.

When I used FBI as an example, I was referring to how, organizations, abbreviate there names, which makes sense. But what's the point of taking a common phrase and abbreviating [I]it? YKWIM?

[Ninja_of_DooM]

EDIT: Didn't realise I had gotten into the politics forum.

Propps, you need to stop talking so much gibberish and start making sense. I think philosophical conspiracy theorists are something we can do without

[KuriKai]

I hate how people type the word "porn" as "pr0n". "porn" is not even a bad word. It is like a child saying "wees" instead of "piss".

[Phoebus]

I think Props has a right to his own opinion.
He's not saying anything against anyone here, as far as I can tell.
You can agree or disagree with him, but let him be.
But his opinion does make sense as stated; whether it has any validity is another thing.
I'm not saying one way or another. But it's not "gibberish". In fact, I think his whole point was *against* gibberish.

[Giftmacher]

I think philosophical conspiracy theorists are something we can do without
Conspiracy theories are one of those things that people talk about so much that everyone gets tired of hearing about them. Unfortunatley not wanting to hear about them makes people less aware that it's a possibility, increasing the chance that a goverment could do something shneeky without getting caught.

Having said that I don't believe 9-11 was a goverment trick (although the US goverment sure did exploit it like one). And aliens probably don't abduct babies. And there was no prophecy on the US dollar that a terrorist attack would happen.

But I should stop now, I'm already rambling. *grin*

[Aliotroph?]

We don't say pr0n because porn is bad; we say pr0n because it's l33t5p34|<. :p Rather like saying t3h, 1337, |\/|4|) 5ki11z, etc.

Most of the abbreviations we make up now are for typing purposes but pronouncing them is fun.. :D Computer people have been doing this for decades and we fail to see anything wrong with it.

[** From Phoebus: I fixed this up... it was a triple post. This happened to somebody else earlier today as well; Aliotroph, what was it doing when you accidentally triple posted here? **]

[rustyslacker]

Echo much?

[psyren]

I am glad to be here! Forget about what means porn or porno. This is NEWDOOM! Forget about ya kinky dinks, yas jellyad formers, or I'll be forced to kick the shit outta ya, yello stinking bellywipes!

"O bitter baggy Billy boggins and Company! We're here! Come and get get one in the yarlboroughs! That is if ya got any yarlboroughs!"

no really, I don't want my kid seeing things before they need to. I think I can explain most things my kids see, but who knows?

[Aliotroph?]

The forums were lagging when I made that post. I never even noticed it doing a triple post. I figured it might just have more to do with the net between here and the forums. I posted and it never appeared to submit or refresh the page. I might ahve resent the post after, though I usually refresh and check, before I do that. My computer also crashed at some point in there. Firefox does interesting things to sessions when Vista BSODs.

[Props]

Thanks, Phoebus. I'm simply trying to say, that language is a means of communitcation.... Why does language need changing(syllable's are 'beats' in verbal communitcation.....WTF=What-the-f*ck[okay, now say it aloud, W T F , now say, What the F*ck ; almost the same amount of spoken time!?!)?

*No conspiracy here, on another note, I have to see it, to believe it....and in terms of seeing anything ground breaking, "...haven't seen nothin' yet."

Day to day life, is kind of similar to reading a story about someone's life, except that life is my own and I can write that story.

[ace]

The point to those abbreviations isn't to lessen the time they are spoken, though! The point is to take less time typing them, because unfortunately, human beings are appallingly lazy.

Personally, while I find text messaging useless as it is, I can at least see why people abbreviate when they do text message. Would you honestly take the time to type all that out on a tiny keypad, which would undoubtedly cause horrible cramps, not to mention waste needless space on the tiny cell phone screen which receives it? I would think not.

At any rate, the point is moot as it is. Language has always been changing, and it always will. It's because of that very reason that we aren't speaking Middle English, or Old English, or Latin, or Greek, or Cavemanian, and so on. There's no avoiding the (d)evolution of language, and for that matter I personally can't stand the language "purists" who get their panties in a bunch when little things change like the merging of 'some' and 'such' into somesuch, or somesuch (:p).

There's nothing that can be done about it. All we can do is hope that the level of grammatical/structural regulation of language, regardless of whether it changes in the process, remains at roughly the same level over time, which, in spite of chat-/l33t-speak, "urban" dialect, and so on, still seems to be the case.

[Props]

Aye, I hear ya. It just seems, that as time goes on, we loose history. It's inevitable that language will change; in the past, it has changed because of human advancement. There was no such thing...as a telephone...a phone....mobile phone/cellular phone, mobile/cell. To be honest....I don't care if language changes.....but is there really a point? Does it actually make speaking more simplistic....or add a learning curve to yesterdays' people.

What is the actual definition of nigger? How about hoe? How about the name Dick? Eventually, every word known to man, may be used to describe something else.
Shelter people who don't see eye to eye...because...they don't see your way....yet? I'm referring to censorship. As we speak, we protect innocents' ears'. Once a word had 'a' meaning, now it has another...do we ban all usages of that word?

To make sense:Words = Relation to physical/mental observation. One way or another, we relate our observations to a paticular 'word'. We associate this 'word' with emotion, based off of experience. All in all, it doesn't matter what the word is....it's the applied meaning that really matters.

Eventually, everything can be assotiated with nothing...because words have no meaning...

[blood imp]

Yo monkey-son of a banana milkshake. :p

While changing language is sometimes difficult to grasp or get "why", it has always been happening. While you're right, saying W-T-F and What The Fuck is approximately the same time wasted, it doesn't matter. I use "lol" as an actual word, to show amusement (I pronounce it "lol", not el-oh-el).

I don't see how this affects censorship, though. While saying "F" or "Fudge" or "Funk" or whatnot instead of "Fuck" is "protecting innocent ears", it's not mandatory to censor such things. These are people's choices. We're speaking more of large media corporations. But I suppose they do it as well. I guess you have a point.

[Props]

Yeah, I've kind of lost grasp of my original posting....I hate to admit this, but I use these forms, more to speak my mind and debate, while not keeping current to the topic...sorry.

I guess, when I think about it, censorship comes down to personal agenda. It's this that bothers me the most. In my line of work, I deal with a large base of people, who come in all sorts of shapes and colors....but largely, I come in contact with one group. They have their community, which keeps them connected...yet, and this is my own perception, the majority of this community, believe that this is their world and it isn't how it should be....my problem is, that this is our world and we may not see eye to eye, but it's our choice and should be our right to live how we individually see fit. Just because you believe cows are sacred, or someones name shouldn't be used in vien, or shelter....shelter...shelter...., doesn't mean I've been brought up in a different region, and have no previous knowledge to your sensitivity. Now I have to learn your ways...along with my own, just to make 'you' happy? What about my non-important beliefs? Who's superior here? If you ask me, no one...we're no more important than the ground we walk upon....unless you can fly :)

[Heidi]

Kids on average are way more impressionable than adults, thus certain things are best kept in secret till they reach a higher level of intellectual and emotional maturity later in their lives, basically for the sake of their own sanity.

[Nomad]

So I'm insane because I saw Pet Semetary when I was four? Sure, I had nightmares for a while, but it's not like it had a long lasting effect. I don't see how sheltering children is supposed to somehow make them stronger.

[Heidi]

So I'm insane because I saw Pet Semetary when I was four?

I don't know you, I can't possibly know, but you sound like someone who would make a horrible parent. Feeling like introducing that 7yo to a pedophile snuff film? not in my neighborhood.

[Nomad]

As if pedophile snuff films are acceptable for anyone! Work on your arguments.

[Heidi]

As if pedophile snuff films are acceptable for anyone! Work on your arguments.

Are you sure you read my first post in this thread? who cares if they are acceptable for everyone or not? what are you aiming at?

[Nomad]

Sure, I read your first post. What is your point? What do "pedophile snuff films" have to do with sheltering kids from sex and fake violence in the media?

Ugh. Why do I keep getting into arguments with people lately, when I am far too sleep deprived to think straight?

[Heidi]

Ugh. Why do I keep getting into arguments with people lately, when I am far too sleep deprived to think straight?

You said it pal.

[Nomad]

You also completely avoided my questions. Good job.

[Heidi]

You also completely avoided my questions. Good job.

You first avoided mine, then you made no sense at all and finally you blamed it all on your sleep. Not a chance in hell I'm going to bother answering something you pulled out in your currently limited state of awareness . If you go sleep, come back and stick to what you just stated, then I'll take you seriously and respond accordingly ;)

[Nomad]

My work schedule doesn't allow for any decent sleep, so you're stuck with what I've already presented.

[Heidi]

My work schedule doesn't allow for any decent sleep, so you're stuck with what I've already presented.

Case closed then, moving forward.

[blood imp]

That was pretty useless.

[Nomad]

Case closed then, moving forward.
Boy, you sure are good at this debating business.

[Aliotroph?]

Yup. The pedophile snuff film argument sucks. It's rather like how creationists start suggesting that people who believe in evolution are suggesting we're directly related to oranges and apples in the way they think of families. Nobody would put a pedophile snuff film on TV because the mere existence of such a thing would illegal so stop using it as a club to try and bash Nomad's argument.

[Heidi]

Nobody would put a pedophile snuff film on TV because the mere existence of such a thing would illegal so stop using it as a club to try and bash Nomad's argument

You have confused my attempt to make a point against letting kids watch whatever they want using an extreme, hypothetical situation with the probability of such thing actually happening.

I'll quote myself just to clarify: "Kids on average are way more impressionable than adults, thus certain things are best kept in secret till they reach a higher level of intellectual and emotional maturity later in their lives, basically for the sake of their own sanity"

[Props]

Here's a new concept...is censorship just a barrier to shield children from adulthood?
If so, when you speak to a friend, and use derogatory terms...and they become offended...yet they say the same behind closed doors, does that make it right....or is it just the context of the statement?