PDA

View Full Version : Censorship seems to be getting worse...


Arcesious
07-10-2008, 12:45 AM
I seem to be seeing more and more censorship and advertising of censorship usage these days... It's getting rather annoying. More than it used to be. I used to be able to tolerate it, but it is starting to get out of control, IMO. I can understand the 'need' for it in many situations, but there is something very vital called the First Amendment. I thought it would be interesting to discuss. I want to hear others' opinions on this, on the more detailed and controversal aspects of censoring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.cfm

Rev7
07-10-2008, 01:02 AM
Yes I know that there is the First Amendment, but I too think that it is getting out of hand, language wise, ect. I think that people are actually kinda abusing this right of free speech. I am a little tired (just a little bit :rolleyes: ) and hearing all of the bleeps on television, and sometimes really crude commercials. Don't get me wrong though, some of them are really quite funny. :D

My science teacher last year was talking to us (the class) about language in a discussion (I don't even remember how it was brought up). He was in the Marine Corp, and served in Vietnam. He told us that when speaking a sentance, you had to use profanity so that the other soldiers could/would understand you. I was actually quite amazed at that, to tell you the truth. He just says that people who use profanity frequantly just don't have the vocabulary to substitute the word. He was basically saying that they weren't (aren't) intelligent enough to talk without profanity. I tend to agree with him, and that has definately stuck with me. :)

I hope that this is the type of censorship that you are talking about Arcesious...

Achilles
07-10-2008, 01:08 AM
^^^^

Yes, could you please expand on what you mean by "censorship", Arcesious?

Emperor Devon
07-10-2008, 01:17 AM
He was basically saying that they weren't (aren't) intelligent enough to talk without profanity.

And I'm sure your science teacher speaks for everyone who swears.

Rev7
07-10-2008, 01:19 AM
And I'm sure your science teacher speaks for everyone who swears.
I know that he occasionally swears himself. That is why I said that I tend to agree with him. :)

Emperor Devon
07-10-2008, 01:39 AM
I know that he occasionally swears himself. That is why I said that I tend to agree with him.

Your science teacher made (or at least you claimed he made) an absolute statement. 'Sometimes' agreeing with an absolute violates its definition.

Rev7
07-10-2008, 01:42 AM
It was more of a generalization that I made, to tell you the truth. In essence, he was saying that they didn't have a good enough vocabulary to talk with out profanity. :)

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 01:45 AM
^^^^

Yes, could you please expand on what you mean by "censorship", Arcesious?

I'd say that it could be put in broad terms, but, I'm kind of leaning in the area of discussion of the good and the bad aspects of censoring things from so-called 'youth'.
I was more wondering what it is about censoring of various things that bothers other people, and why, besides just me; or why someone may think it's good that something being censored.

Rev7
07-10-2008, 01:49 AM
Okay then. I guess that I will have to attack the subject tomorrow then. Sometime... :/

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 01:56 AM
Indeed.... So will I, more thoroughly than I am now, unless if someone beats me to it. 12:55 PM... I've got to get some rest. *yawns*

Achilles
07-10-2008, 02:12 AM
I was more wondering what it is about censoring of various things that bothers other people, and why, besides just me; or why someone may think it's good that something being censored.One argument for "censorship": I don't particularly like it when I take my 11 year old daughter to the grocery store and find **** like this monopolizing the check out line:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/6652/kristenbellcosmopolitantx1.th.jpg (http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kristenbellcosmopolitantx1.jpg)

Should it be "censored"? Not necessarily, but it would be frickin' fantastic if they could find someplace else to stack all this garbage.

P.S. It's not just one store, it's every store.

Q
07-10-2008, 02:33 AM
We're in complete agreement there, but it's been like that for as long as I can remember. The checkout line is the "impulse buy" section of every store.

Totenkopf
07-10-2008, 03:28 AM
Bookstores are just as bad. Racier stuff used to be behind the counter, but now mixed in with other periodicals/mags. Price of culture becoming more permissive.

JediAthos
07-10-2008, 09:34 AM
I find it very difficult to say that we are becoming more permissive as a culture when the political correct police are running roughshod over just about every aspect of our daily life save perhaps our home life. Combine that with the FCC's overreaction to anything that might possibly happen on television and it makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

Jae Onasi
07-10-2008, 09:39 AM
One argument for "censorship": I don't particularly like it when I take my 11 year old daughter to the grocery store and find **** like this monopolizing the check out line:

Should it be "censored"? Not necessarily, but it would be frickin' fantastic if they could find someplace else to stack all this garbage.

P.S. It's not just one store, it's every store.
I absolutely, positively, completely agree with you on this.

Litofsky
07-10-2008, 09:47 AM
Since this is titled "Censorship," I think that it would be appropriate for a moment to discuss the FCC, or the Federal Communications Commission (for the United States. I'm not sure what the other countries have...). Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC) is a link. Here (http://www.fcc.gov/) is their homepage.

Anyways, I understand the need for censorship-- I don't want to be listening to profanity when all I intended was to watch a program on the Discovery Channel, or something of that nature. However, I agree: "It's getting out of hand."

Now for a solution: What if we allowed the owner of the television to set the restrictions? Say you buy a TV. Now, you take it home, and are editing the settings. You see a new setting called "Censorship." Essentially, it would allow you to set how much, if any, censorship you wanted on your personal television.

This might not be plausible, but it would allow people to bypass, or increase, censorship, if they wish it.

What do you think about it?

mur'phon
07-10-2008, 09:48 AM
Rev7: Thank you for labeling most of my country (un)inteligent:D Swearing is a cultural thing, some places it's used to protest others others to be "cool", and some places it's used like any other word. You see, where I live most people don't give a monkeys about swearing, you'd have to do it in curch to get a response. And once swearing looses its "uniqueness", people use it like any other word, not because we have a small vocabulary.

My take on censorship: don't censor anything that is legal to do when it's not published.

edit: damn you for posting so fast Lit, /signed:D

El Sitherino
07-10-2008, 10:08 AM
Now for a solution: What if we allowed the owner of the television to set the restrictions? Say you buy a TV. Now, you take it home, and are editing the settings. You see a new setting called "Censorship." Essentially, it would allow you to set how much, if any, censorship you wanted on your personal television.

This might not be plausible, but it would allow people to bypass, or increase, censorship, if they wish it.

What do you think about it?

V-chip. It's been around for 20 years.

People don't use them because they want to sue.

mur'phon
07-10-2008, 10:10 AM
Then make it mandatory on all new TVs sold.

Totenkopf
07-10-2008, 10:52 AM
Rev7: Thank you for labeling most of my country (un)inteligent:D Swearing is a cultural thing, some places it's used to protest others others to be "cool", and some places it's used like any other word. You see, where I live most people don't give a monkeys about swearing, you'd have to do it in curch to get a response. And once swearing looses its "uniqueness", people use it like any other word, not because we have a small vocabulary.

My take on censorship: don't censor anything that is legal to do when it's not published.

edit: damn you for posting so fast Lit, /signed:D

Don't feel too bad. Swearing is pretty casual in the US too. The "f" word is so freaking versatile, don't ya know.... ;)

@JediAthos--perhaps I should have added "sexually" as a qualifier. We've become more permissive in lifting a lot of the older taboos, but now replace them with newer ones (being "non-PC" for one).

Jae Onasi
07-10-2008, 10:53 AM
What's wrong with having some TV shows without profanity/gratuitous sex and violence on during times when younger children could be viewing it? I think it's perfectly acceptable to set a decency standard for shows that are on at certain times/days. Viewing TV isn't a right, though most people certainly feel that way now.

Totenkopf
07-10-2008, 11:08 AM
I don't disagree with the sentiment. However, many kids are up past 9PM local time and tv is a ratings based industry. Really, it's up to the general population to just tune out what it doesn't like. Then you gotta go and target those pesky neilsen families that probably end up determining what we get to watch (on network at least). Cable is a different animal all together.

Putting anything you want on TV isn't a right, though most people certainly feel that way now.
fixed.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-10-2008, 11:19 AM
Don't feel too bad. Swearing is pretty casual in the US too. The "f" word is so freaking versatile, don't ya know.... ;)**** is the water of the English language.

KinchyB
07-10-2008, 11:52 AM
I think it's perfectly acceptable to set a decency standard for shows that are on at certain times/days.

Since we are talking primarily about youth here...why are more people not using the v-chip (http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/)? The only thing I can think of is that maybe the rating don't necessarily reflect the content of the show appropriately...? Thoughts?

Also, I think there is an issue with some parents not take responsibility for their kids. Granted this isn't the case for all, or possibly even the majority, but it always irks me when I see parents getting upset about their child who is 8, playing GTA IV, and they complain that the content their child is exposed to in the game isn't appropriate. GRRRR! BTW...hate this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney))and I'm happy as all get out he's about to be disbarred for life...

Okay i'll stop ranting now... :)

El Sitherino
07-10-2008, 11:54 AM
I think words only have the power that we give them.

That is to say, I don't think everyone should simply shout **** like it's a conjunctive word, but censorship should be kept on the low. What needs to be addressed is personal responsibility and explaining time and place to people. The problem with this country is not that there aren't enough restrictions, the problem is there isn't enough moral value taught.

Wow, so you go to church or you give yourself to god every other Sunday. That doesn't make you a morally respectable person nor does that give one justification to be immoral and disrespectful. You can't simply apologize yourself out of a situation that shouldn't have happened. This country needs a lesson in decency without being held to a punishment. You shouldn't avoid doing something for fear of action taken against you, you should avoid doing something for fear of harming your fellow human being.

We need to get rid of this idea that things can simply be made better by apologizing or by censoring over something we disagree with. But others must also learn to grow up and mature.

If my kids are going to watch tv shows or movies they'll watch the DVD (or variant of). If they go to a friends house and watch something I'm unaware of, I'll provide them with the knowledge that everything has a time and place. They'll learn the value of their words and should they not respect this, they'll be punished accordingly. I don't plan on keeping anything from them, simply teaching them about things and when I feel they're ready I'll share with them the horrors and wonders of the world.

EnderWiggin
07-10-2008, 12:45 PM
It was more of a generalization that I made, to tell you the truth. In essence, he was saying that they didn't have a good enough vocabulary to talk with out profanity. :)

I have a damn good vocabulary, thank you very much.

One argument for "censorship": I don't particularly like it when I take my 11 year old daughter to the grocery store and find **** like this monopolizing the check out line:

{snip}

Should it be "censored"? Not necessarily, but it would be frickin' fantastic if they could find someplace else to stack all this garbage.

P.S. It's not just one store, it's every store.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here, Achilles.

Since we are talking primarily about youth here...why are more people not using the v-chip (http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/)? The only thing I can think of is that maybe the rating don't necessarily reflect the content of the show appropriately...? Thoughts?

People are stupid. They choose to remain uniformed about it.

Also, I think there is an issue with some parents not take responsibility for their kids. Granted this isn't the case for all, or possibly even the majority, but it always irks me when I see parents getting upset about their child who is 8, playing GTA IV, and they complain that the content their child is exposed to in the game isn't appropriate. GRRRR!
So true. Same thing with sexuality - parents don't take responsibility for teaching their kids what they can and can't do.
BTW...hate this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney))and I'm happy as all get out he's about to be disbarred for life...
So does everyone else on earth.

_EW_

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Well TV censorship isn't that bad, but internet and game censorship is getting worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

KinchyB
07-10-2008, 01:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

Checked over some of the points the wiki article made and noticed an abundance of kids who shouldn't have been playing the games to begin with. If those parents had been more involved with their kids odds are half of the things, at the least, wouldn't have happened. Instead parents are leaning towards computers, tv, and other technology to "babysit" their kids and look to blame that technology when their kids do something stupid. Quite honestly...aside from the victims obviously...I have 0 sympathy for the families who's kids go out and do stupid things and hurt other people or hurt themselves.

Seriously though...when is someone going to go up to these parents and ask them, "Where were you?". Would it kill people to take some responsibility?!

Hmmm...maybe I should be a judge. :D

Edit...

So does everyone else on earth.

WOOT!! I'm not alone! :)

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 01:26 PM
I dare to say that kids 13 and up should be able to handle the content of a good portion of M-rated games. (Aren't most of them just harmless, exciting FPS games?) Have you ever played the Halo games? They're rated M, meaning 17+ recommendation, and many pre-teens, children, and teenagers play it; without any harm done to them mentally through playing it. And why is that? Because the parents of those kids are probably raising them well, and the game isn't so bad that only 17+ people should only be able to play it. Same thing goes for a lot of other M-rated games, such as COD4. Although, I do admit that some M-rated games are appropriatly rated, as there are some truly adult-content level games out there.

Rev7
07-10-2008, 02:12 PM
Rev7: Thank you for labeling most of my country (un)inteligent:D Swearing is a cultural thing, some places it's used to protest others others to be "cool", and some places it's used like any other word. You see, where I live most people don't give a monkeys about swearing, you'd have to do it in curch to get a response. And once swearing looses its "uniqueness", people use it like any other word, not because we have a small vocabulary.

I have a damn good vocabulary, thank you very much.
Mind you all, this is his general opinion. Not mine. ;)
I dare to say that kids 13 and up should be able to handle the content of a good portion of M-rated games. (Aren't most of them just harmless, exciting FPS games?) Have you ever played the Halo games? They're rated M, meaning 17+ recommendation, and many pre-teens, children, and teenagers play it; without any harm done to them mentally through playing it. And why is that? Because the parents of those kids are probably raising them well, and the game isn't so bad that only 17+ people should only be able to play it. Same thing goes for a lot of other M-rated games, such as COD4. Although, I do admit that some M-rated games are appropriatly rated, as there are some truly adult-content level games out there.
I agree, with most of that, as I have already told you. For example, I have played Call ofo Duty 4 at a friends house, and I really don't understand why it is rated M. Well, I understand why, of course, but why teenagers under 17 cannot buy them. It is a very fun game, in my opinion. I guess that the gameplay changes when playing on Xbox live (which we normally do). Sometimes I am a little bit frusterated with it, but life goes on. I certainly think that there are some games that should be rated M for a reason. Definately. I have played a N64 rated M game, and I don't see how it was rated M. By todays standards it probably should be rated T.

Achilles
07-10-2008, 02:12 PM
I find it very difficult to say that we are becoming more permissive as a culture when the political correct police are running roughshod over just about every aspect of our daily life save perhaps our home life. I would have to know what you mean by "politically correct police" in order to respond intelligently.

My interpretation of "politically correct" may differ from yours.

Combine that with the FCC's overreaction to anything that might possibly happen on television and it makes me want to bang my head against a wall.Isn't that a separate animal though? Political correctness and media decency are different issues, no?

What do you think about it?I think television should be outlawed, but that's just me.

Solves the television censorship problem and if it forces people to read a book or two, well that's just gravy.

What's wrong with having some TV shows without profanity/gratuitous sex and violence on during times when younger children could be viewing it? I think it's perfectly acceptable to set a decency standard for shows that are on at certain times/days.Absolutely nothing. I think the question is what those standards are, who gets to set them, and what restrictions are "reasonable". I think the problem we're having now is that one group wants to have it all their way which causes other voices to want to retaliate.

Viewing TV isn't a right, though most people certainly feel that way now.You know that knife cuts both ways, right?

**** is the water of the English language.There's a very good documentary about that word that also goes by that name. I highly recommend it.

Also, I think there is an issue with some parents not take responsibility for their kids. Granted this isn't the case for all, or possibly even the majority, but it always irks me when I see parents getting upset about their child who is 8, playing GTA IV, and they complain that the content their child is exposed to in the game isn't appropriate. GRRRR!QFT

I think words only have the power that we give them.
<snip>
Great post.

I dare to say that kids 13 and up should be able to handle the content of a good portion of M-rated games. Nope, not even close. Teenagers (especially young teenagers) are impressionable enough as it is. Yes, you have to expect that they are going to be exposed to a variety of things, but that does not mean "open the floodgates and hope for the best". That isn't being a responsible parent.

(Aren't most of them just harmless, exciting FPS games?) Have you ever played the Halo games? They're rated M, meaning 17+ recommendation, and many pre-teens, children, and teenagers play it; without any harm done to them mentally through playing it.What are we wagering?

And why is that? Because the parents of those kids are probably raising them well, and the game isn't so bad that only 17+ people should only be able to play it. Same thing goes for a lot of other M-rated games, such as COD4. Although, I do admit that some M-rated games are appropriatly rated, as there are some truly adult-content level games out there.Please help me understand why we should be ok with exposing young people to excessive violence?

JediAthos
07-10-2008, 02:36 PM
@Achilles: Yeah...they are two different issues, but I was trying to tie them together under our current topic...perhaps I didn't do such a hot job :) I was referring to political correctness in general I guess. It just seems that everywhere you turn you have to watch what do or say because of the possibility you might offend someone...to me that seems like a form of censorship...perhaps I'm off base though.

As far as the media decency goes...I think the FCC took one incident: the Janet Jackson superbowl mishap...and has used it as an excuse to levy ridiculous fines and slap indecent labels on shows or episodes of shows. I'm not saying there shouldn't be decency standards...but I think the FCC needs to be reigned in a little bit. Also like some previous posters I think there would be fewer problems if parents were more involved with what their children were watching, or used a vchip or similar technology to control viewing times etc...I know most cable companies have included technology in their boxes that allows parents to block channels, or certain programs at certain times etc...

mimartin
07-10-2008, 02:45 PM
Please help me understand why we should be ok with exposing young people to excessive violence? To get them conditioned to accept excessive violence as the norm. How else are we going field a voluntary military force in Iraq for the next 100 years?

Totenkopf
07-10-2008, 03:01 PM
To get them conditioned to accept excessive violence as the norm. How else are we going field a voluntary military force in Iraq for the next 100 years?

Cute. :lol: O'course this has always been a bit of a problem for some years now anyway, with movies being the main vehicle prior to the explosion in PC and game software technologies.

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 03:33 PM
I don't know, statistically, whether or not most teens can or can't handle M-rated games. I find the ESRB system unfair to a lot of games, though.

I'll explain:

GTA- Rated M
Halo 1-3- Rated M

They're both rated M, but Halo is nowhere near as 'bad' as GTA. The 'M' rating leaves a lot of 'not-so-bad' games to fall under the category of being as bad the actually 'bad' games. There needs to be something between T and M to even things out when a game it isn't so bad. Many kids and teens miss out on playing games such as Halo and whatnot because of the bad name other M-rated games give them.

Achilles
07-10-2008, 03:51 PM
@Achilles: Yeah...they are two different issues, but I was trying to tie them together under our current topic...perhaps I didn't do such a hot job :) I was referring to political correctness in general I guess. It just seems that everywhere you turn you have to watch what do or say because of the possibility you might offend someone...to me that seems like a form of censorship...perhaps I'm off base though. "Political correctness" seemed to really find its stride when I was still pretty young. As such, I suspect that the concept has undergone some changes and that a lot of people have different interpretations of what it means to be "politically correct".

To me political correctness deals with things like not refering to black people as "coloreds", etc. So yes, I think it's absolutely reasonable that people should have to "watch what they do or say because of the possibility of offending someone" when it comes to matters such as race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. I don't think that we have an inherent right to stereotype people and even if someone wanted to argue that we did, I don't think the individual right to stereotype should override another person's right to be valued as an individual.

But as I pointed out earlier, "political correctness" might mean something entirely different to you.

As far as the media decency goes...I think the FCC took one incident: the Janet Jackson superbowl mishap...and has used it as an excuse to levy ridiculous fines and slap indecent labels on shows or episodes of shows. That was merely the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to fines.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be decency standards...but I think the FCC needs to be reigned in a little bit. Unfortunately the body responsible for FCC oversight shared the same neo-conservative values as the FCC decion-makers themselves at the time. Kinda hard to have checks and balances when everyone has the same agenda and is reading from the same playbook.

Also like some previous posters I think there would be fewer problems if parents were more involved with what their children were watching, or used a vchip or similar technology to control viewing times etc...I know most cable companies have included technology in their boxes that allows parents to block channels, or certain programs at certain times etc...Yep.

Or bet yet, less television altogether. :)

To get them conditioned to accept excessive violence as the norm. How else are we going field a voluntary military force in Iraq for the next 100 years?You don't need to expose children to mindless violence to accomplish that. Mindless jingoism works just as well.

I don't know, statistically, whether or not most teens can or can't handle M-rated games. I find the ESRB system unfair to a lot of games, though.

I'll explain:

GTA- Rated M
Halo 1-3- Rated M

They're both rated M, but Halo is nowhere near as 'bad' as GTA. The 'M' rating leaves a lot of 'not-so-bad' games to fall under the category of being as bad the actually 'bad' games. There needs to be something between T and M to even things out when a game it isn't so bad. Many kids and teens miss out on playing games such as Halo and whatnot because of the bad name other M-rated games give them.You'll have to help me here, as I've never played any of the Halo games, but from what I understand they contain a lot of graphic violence, no? I guess I need help understanding why this doesn't belong under the "M" umbrella.

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 05:00 PM
The 'graphic violence' in halo isn't that bad. It's nowhere near as bad as the real thing. Lord of the Rings has worse 'blood' and 'gore' than halo, and it's rated PG-13. Halo has M for 17+. I've seen many movies that have more blood, gore, and language than Halo, and are rated PG-13. As for violence- almost every FPS game has tons of violence. Starwars games- all of them are rated T, and they all have their own good share of violence. I honsetly don't care how much violence a game has- it's all still the 'same' violence no matter how 'intense' it is.

Achilles
07-10-2008, 05:12 PM
The 'graphic violence' in halo isn't that bad. This sounds subjective :)

It's nowhere near as bad as the real thing. Here's your cape :)

Lord of the Rings has worse 'blood' and 'gore' than halo, and it's rated PG-13. "Worse" in intensity or "worse" in frequency? IIRC, there weren't that many gory scenes in LOTR. I think a video game in which the objective is to shoot stuff might have lower intensity gore more frequently.

Halo has M for 17+. I've seen many movies that have more blood, gore, and language than Halo, and are rated PG-13. See above.

As for violence- almost every FPS game has tons of violence. Starwars games- all of them are rated T, and they all have their own good share of violence. I honsetly don't care how much violence a game has- it's all still the 'same' violence no matter how 'intense' it is.First, big difference between gore and violence. Wile E. Coyote getting an anvil dropped on his head, and then immediately recovering is cartoon violence. Seeing a guy get turned into dust in Saving Private Ryan is not "still the same".

Likewise, shooting a guy until he falls down and then bleeds on the sidewalk for a few minutes before an ambulance shows up, does some fake CPR, miraculously reviving the guy to full health (GTA) is not the same thing as shooting at an alien until all of his/her/its constituent parts are strewn about the blood-splattered screen (Halo?).

Arcesious
07-10-2008, 07:07 PM
You make a good point, but you have to play for yourself... Mental competence levels in relation to age is a very heavily debatable thing.

Achilles
07-10-2008, 07:17 PM
Mental competence levels in relation to age is a very heavily debatable thing.Goverment agencies can't write policy based on this though. That's where parents come in. However if parents were involved in the first place, then we wouldn't need the goverment agencies to intervene. See how it all comes full circle?

Can't abdicate all personal responsiblity to someone else and then complain when they dicate rules you don't like.

KinchyB
07-10-2008, 07:24 PM
Can't abdicate all personal responsiblity to someone else and then complain when they dicate rules you don't like.

Wait a second...isnt' that the first amendment?
:lol:

Achilles
07-10-2008, 07:29 PM
Wait a second...isnt' that the first amendment?
:lol:I stand corrected: You have a first amendment right to complain about whatever you'd like and to petition the gov't for change, however I think I was hoping to address the larger concept of "beggars can't be choosers".

*contemplates adding KinchyB to his ignore list* :dozey:

Nedak
07-10-2008, 09:23 PM
Here are some of the many problems I have with censorship:

They can show violence on television, but when it comes to nudity it's considered distasteful.

We the people supposedly have freedom of speech but we can't say F***, along with numerous other curses, or even things that refer to bodily functions.

Yes people are going to find these things offensive, but I have some news for you. LIFE, is offensive! If you don't want your children to pick-up swear words then do something for a change. PARENT YOUR CHILDREN. You're child is not going to grow-up swearing if you just parent your child!

Alright, there is the argument that there are better ways of expressing yourself then swearing. You're right, there absolutely is, but the normal person does not do that.

Do you know what I find more offensive then every swear word, every up-skirt shot, every 'bird' being flipped? Advertising. I believe advertising is FAR more offensive. Every Beer Commercial, every McDonalds Ad. If you want censorship in America. FINE! But for every Bud Light add I want the screen black with only two words, "Bud Light". Nothing else, no tricks, not catchy marketing songs, just the products name, and that's it.

And don't even get me started on this Political Correctness bullcrap.

"See we just had a misunderstanding. I thought we lived in the U.S. of A., the United States of America. But actually we live in the U.S. of A., the United States of Advertising. Freedom of expression is guaranteed? If you've got the money!"

-- Bill Hicks, on being censored from "The Late Show with David Letterman"


RANT OVER :)

Carry On


EDIT: *Crazy Sam Kinison yell*

EnderWiggin
07-10-2008, 09:52 PM
Mind you all, this is his general opinion. Not mine. ;)

Hold on just a second.....
He was basically saying that they weren't (aren't) intelligent enough to talk without profanity. I tend to agree with him, and that has definately stuck with me. :)


Hmm..... :rolleyes:

_EW_

Q
07-10-2008, 10:01 PM
MmmmmBUSTED! :D

Rev7
07-11-2008, 12:17 AM
Hold on just a second.....


Hmm..... :rolleyes:

_EW_

MmmmmBUSTED! :D
KEY WORD = tend = have a tendancy

That says that I don't fully agree with it. It has stuck with me because that it the reason that I remembered it. ;) I myself, have not used profanity on this forum, or any other forum. I'm not trying to say that I am intelligent or anything (I personally don't see myself as real intelligent). I am not saying that those who do use profanity are not intelligent though...

EnderWiggin
07-11-2008, 07:13 AM
KEY WORD = tend = have a tendancy

That says that I don't fully agree with it. It has stuck with me because that it the reason that I remembered it. ;) I myself, have not used profanity on this forum, or any other forum. I'm not trying to say that I am intelligent or anything (I personally don't see myself as real intelligent). I am not saying that those who do use profanity are not intelligent though...

You can't retcon your way out of this one ;)

_EW_

Totenkopf
07-11-2008, 07:34 AM
You can't retcon your way out of this one ;)

_EW_

Perhaps he can't. Still, it might be more correct to say that people who profigatley use expletives often give that unfortunate impression to others.

Relenzo2
07-11-2008, 02:50 PM
They're both rated M, but Halo is nowhere near as 'bad' as GTA. The 'M' rating leaves a lot of 'not-so-bad' games to fall under the category of being as bad the actually 'bad' games. There needs to be something between T and M to even things out when a game it isn't so bad. Many kids and teens miss out on playing games such as Halo and whatnot because of the bad name other M-rated games give them.

A better rating system would help quite a bit indeed. PG-13 Movies could still be anything from something I would give to an 8 year-old to some that I would wish some teens weren't watching. The people in the government who make this up must think all movie-watchers and gamers are too dumb to handle anything complicated enough to be effectice. We should start a lobby or something.

El Sitherino
07-12-2008, 10:05 AM
You know what'd be a great idea? Leave the rating system alone and don't give something to your child that you know nothing about.

Would you give your child something to eat without first knowing the contents, much less the safety of this? No. You know why? Because that's neglectful and defeats any logical thought. If you don't know what something is, it's probably best to leave it alone until you have the knowledge required to make a decision.

TriggerGod
07-12-2008, 12:57 PM
Viewing TV isn't a right, though most people certainly feel that way now.

Those rich, spoiled kids who only think that there isn't a monah value of lower then 1000 is an example.

You know what'd be a great idea? Leave the rating system alone and don't give something to your child that you know nothing about.
Yeah. That'd be great. People born in the 50's don't know about video games, cable, or other "necessities" in our world. That might keep kids from being spoiled, but it also might keep kids from getting friends who DO have that stuff. They would get teased constantly... I know how people now work. I know a guy who lives on this farm. He has dial-up, no games. I've seen kids constantly make fun of him because he doesn't have what they have.

Astor
07-12-2008, 12:59 PM
You know, I think that **** **** *** * *** ** **** ****** **** *** **** *****.

*** *** **** ** **** ***** *** *** getting worse.