Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » cencorship -- for the 'kids' sake' (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: cencorship -- for the 'kids' sake'
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
The problem is, Zyne, you can't control what your kids watch at _someone else's_ house or what they see and here at school.

A certain amount of censorship for the sake of families is just _good society._


You can't control what they do over at someone else's house. They could be looking at a paper copy of a skin magazine, smoking, having sex, and sniffing glue for all you know.

You can't outlaw everything on the basis that some kid might stumble into it. It'd be easier to just mandate that you are have to be in your kids's presence 24 hours a day until grown.

=====

"No, it's not silly because they'll ignore you."

That's what they thought about the "free Nelson Mandela" boycotts in the beginning. [Wink]

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zyne:
"Objective"? We can prove that cigarette advertising increases cigarette use, and that cigarette use increases lung cancer rates, and that lung cancer causes death. If that's not objective harm, I don't know what is.

I agree,(although not everyone does) now what about having abusive men in starring roles on television, is that objective harm?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that the link between cigarette advertising and lung cancer deaths is really something that can be disagreed or agreed with.

Whyever would you think that "abusive men in starring roles on television" could cause "objective harm"? I wouldn't think so, and I've seen nothing but speculation that support that conclusion.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"abusive men in starring roles on television" is advertising for abuse, and that causes objective harm, doesn't it?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

"abusive men in starring roles on television" is advertising for abuse

I would dispute this claim. "Abusive men in starring roles which glorify or applaud their abusive nature" would be advertising for abuse. So, yeah, "The Honeymooners" is a classic example of amoral TV.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ed
Member
Member # 1673

 - posted      Profile for ed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jason quoth: "um, what is a g-rated porno? i am having images of smurfs and carebears..."

that's a powerfully disturbing mental picture you've just created there.

[shudders]

ed

Posts: 219 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aurelius
Member
Member # 2021

 - posted      Profile for Aurelius   Email Aurelius   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Porn is objective harm, just a phychological, not physical kind. It's intent is to degrade and objectify the human person. This is evil, and it is effective. It does this obviously because its creators know it creates adictions and obsessions. THESE things sell, because, like drugs, the buyer or user cannot stop. Virtually all sex offenders of any type are porn adicts. Porn is statistically, directly related to the rise of rape, and child sex abuse. It is roven to be harmful to EVERYONE, not just kids.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's intent is to degrade and objectify the human person."

Hm. Again, I would disagree that objectification is necessarily degradation.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ed
Member
Member # 1673

 - posted      Profile for ed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
aurelius quoth: "orn is statistically, directly related to the rise of rape, and child sex abuse. It is roven to be harmful to EVERYONE, not just kids."

i'm curious, could you direct me to a source for that? i wasn't aware of that. also, do you distinguish b/n porn & erotica in the foregoing?

ed

Posts: 219 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
auron
Member
Member # 2161

 - posted      Profile for auron   Email auron       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the porn thing, it's impossible to prove that porn CAUSES rape and sexual abuse, as I'd estimate 60% of men indulge with regularity and 95% have indulged in the past, yet the percentages of rapists and child abusers are remarkably lower.
Posts: 64 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by ATW:
quote:
You can't control what they do over at someone else's house. They could be looking at a paper copy of a skin magazine, smoking, having sex, and sniffing glue for all you know.

You can't outlaw everything on the basis that some kid might stumble into it. It'd be easier to just mandate that you are have to be in your kids's presence 24 hours a day until grown.

I didn't say that, ATW. Look at what I wrote, I said that "A certain amount of censorship for the sake of families is just _good society._"

Here's a simple question. Who has the more difficult burden, parents, who cannot be around their kids all the time, or those who produce and deliver such material and can control who they sell it to?

It's called "consideration," and it's something our society seems to be lacking, these days.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Consideration is not putting porn or violence on my TV when you and your kids come to visit.

Consideration is not trying to force your view on everyone else in their own homes.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by auron:
On the porn thing, it's impossible to prove that porn CAUSES rape and sexual abuse, as I'd estimate 60% of men indulge with regularity and 95% have indulged in the past, yet the percentages of rapists and child abusers are remarkably lower.

The percentages of smokers were remarkably lower than the percentages of people who saw cigarette commercials, but Zyne still says that there was harm.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Porn is objective harm, just a phychological, not physical kind. It's intent is to degrade and objectify the human person."

A. Psychological harm is, however, so much harder to prove.

B. A LOT of things objectify human beings. A lot of things degrade them. A Nazi propoganda film objectifies and degrades people. However, we wouldn't outlaw the showing of said film. We would protest it, and educate people about it. But we wouldn't involve the state.

"This is evil, and it is effective."

But we don't outlaw things that degrade and objectify people. Only when those things lead to direct harm (read: physical harm) do we do something about it. I imagine we could also do something if we established that it unequivocally (sp?) caused psychological harm. But I know quite a few really nice, very VERY respectful guys that watch porn. And they don't disrespect, or objectify, women.

"Virtually all sex offenders of any type are porn adicts."

Quantify that. Give me some evidence. Else, it's just your opinion, and one I'm inclined to disagree with.

"Porn is statistically, directly related to the rise of rape, and child sex abuse. It is roven to be harmful to EVERYONE, not just kids."

Quantify that. Show us the statistics. If you can't, then don't be surprised when we conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

--------

On a side note, I personally believe that porn is not a helpful thing. I know that I, as an individual, am prone to addictions (of any type except, for some reason, alcohol), and that porn, for me, could very well lead to an addiction to something I'd rather not be addicted to. I personally think it does degrade and objectify people, something which I also personally think is a bad thing.

But I understand that those are my opinions, and are not valid reasons to involve the state. I *think* porn isn't a good thing, at least for me, but I don't have evidence of it.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, here.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Edited to add: That being said, and more on topic, I agree with The Drake and ATW here. If you want to stop porn, convince people not to watch it. Don't illegalize it, or involve the state. I can kind of understand, for example, billboards on busy streets, because a heck of a lot of people are going to see those without meaning to. But TV is something else. So is the internet (not that that's been brought up).

[ December 07, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Ikemook ]

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ The Drake
quote:
Consideration is not putting porn or violence on my TV when you and your kids come to visit.

Consideration is not trying to force your view on everyone else in their own homes.

You're missing the point here.

My first statement was a question, I'll repeat it for clarity. "Who has the more difficult burden, parents, who cannot be around their kids all the time, or those who produce and deliver such material and can control who they sell it to?"

It is much easier for businesses to control their content than it is for parents to police their children, and businesses should do it just out of respect for the society they _serve._

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The percentages of smokers were remarkably lower than the percentages of people who saw cigarette commercials, but Zyne still says that there was harm.
But I was never talking about smokers as a group, or people who saw cigarette ads as a group. I was only talking about the demographic slice who came to smoking as a result of cigarette advertising, smoked, got lung cancer, and died. This group can be quantified--we can literally count the bodies.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, that's not very capitalistic of you. [Smile]
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Figured I'd add my two cents.

Should you add a fence around your swimming pool? If you wish. Is it your responsibility to keep other kids out? Hell no. The parent of the child is responsible for the well-being of the child. Civil lawsuits featuring someone that is trespassing on the (marked) private property of someone else should be thrown out. Criminal lawsuits should be valid, of course. If someone murders a person for trespassing when there is no danger should be charged.

Should you keep a leash on your dog? Yes. Should you be required to keep a leash on your dog? To a point. If your dog attacks someone, you're responsible for it. Damages, assault charges, etc. If someone taunts your dog, and gets mauled, that is a matter for the court. Individual situations should have bearing on both criminal and civil charges.

Should we (society) keep cigarette ads off TV? No! If the advertisings state an untruth, the cigarrette companies should be held responsible. If not, we should trust that adult humans can be responsible for their own actions. If a person wants to smoke, they should feel free. If they want to do a tap dance while eating M&Ms, they should be able to. Ketchup with a steak? Why not? If a parent doesn't want their children seeing bad things on TV, they should feel perfectly good about changing the channel. If they can't find a channel that they feel their children can watch, they should turn off the TV.

We're not talking rocket science. People can make their own decisions. They have responsiblity to go with that decision making ability. Children cannot make their own decisions. They're not responsible for those decisions. The guardian of said child is wholly responsible.

Of course that doesn't deal with teenage years. I'm not about to try to open that can of worms.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed -

Corporations do not serve society. They offer services. Don't like a service they provide? Don't purchase it.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Firedrake?

Please note that in order to make that statment you had to use the word "service," as in "To Serve." Hence my point.

And you, like others, are still ignoring the point about _burden._

One more time, it is _far easier_ for businesses to control their content than it is for parents to police their children.

Your argument about "choosing services" is equivalent to telling parents that they shouldn't let their children play in that playground because there are mines in it. While that is very wise, why are their mines in the playground? And why must parents protect their children from something that someone else placed there?

Making life easier for parents is, once again, just good manners.

@ Zyne

Who said I was a capitalist? [Smile]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aurelius:
quote:
Virtually all sex offenders of any type are porn adicts.
As is ever necessary to repeat, correllation does not equal causation. No doubt, most sex offenders have any number of commonalities. Surely, they probably regularly consumed bread, for example, or meat. Do bread and meat make one a sex offender?

It is only reasonable to find that people who lower themselves to commit vile deeds are likewise fairly liberal about vices. This in no way suggests that vices lead to the vile deeds.

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed - 'Service', 'To Serve'. Yes, it is one of the vaugeries of the english language. Read as much into it as you'd like.

Why should parents be responsible for steering children around the obstacles someone else has placed there? If an object was placed there with the intent to cause harm, they should not have to. If an object interferes with the rights or property of others, they should not have to take the responsibility. Defending your rights is the job of the government. Nursemaiding you or society is not.

Consider a loaded gun. If I have a loaded gun in my closet, and you come to my house and shoot yourself in the head, should I be at fault?

I would say no. It is your responsibility to take care not to shoot yourself.

Consider another situation. I have a loaded gun. I set a booby trap in a public building. The gun goes off and kills you. Who is at fault?

Me, of course. I set the weapon there with the intent to deprive you of life.

Another situation. I have a loaded gun. You send your child over to my house. I accept responsibility for him, and he shoots himself. I am at (limited) fault.

Another situation. You come over to my house, kid in tow. He shoots himself. You are at fault - the responsibility was yours. You chose to bring him to my house.

If I dig a large hole in the interstate highway, and you have an accident, who is at fault?

Me, of course. I dug a hole on someone elses property. My actions caused you to have an accident. Criminal and civil charges would (and should) be brought.

There are several border cases. Feel free to think some up. However, you do not have a 'right to clean TV'. I have a right to 'free speech'. You have the right to do what you wish with your property (like turn the TV off, or change the channel.)

To argue that it is easier to regulate TV at the source is simple. It is exactly as simple as arguing that the ends justify the means. Does simplicity justify the removal of rights from a person? I think not [Smile]

It would be much simpler to treat every person as guilty until proven innocent. It would be simple to remove habeus corpus. It would be much easier to disallow all citizens from owning or carrying weapons. It would be much easier to raise children if they were all raised by the State.

Life is complicated.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by auron:
On the porn thing, it's impossible to prove that porn CAUSES rape and sexual abuse, as I'd estimate 60% of men indulge with regularity and 95% have indulged in the past, yet the percentages of rapists and child abusers are remarkably lower.
-------------------------------------
The percentages of smokers were remarkably lower than the percentages of people who saw cigarette commercials, but Zyne still says that there was harm.

Does everyone that smokes get cancer?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stayne:
As is ever necessary to repeat, correllation does not equal causation. No doubt, most sex offenders have any number of commonalities.

I just went over this in a video game thread. Let's try another way:

Sex offenders are nearly 100% likely to read porn, therefore, reading porn leads to rape. Porn should be eliminated from society.

Sex offenders are nearly 100% likely to have intact genitals, therefore, intact genitals lead to rape. Genitalia should be eliminated from society.

These two statements are 100% equivalent. So why do so many nod and murmur and support the first point? Unless they've given up their package for the good of society.

Answer: Because they have preconcieved notions about porn and are trying to "prove" that it is bad.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
You're missing the point here.

My first statement was a question, I'll repeat it for clarity. "Who has the more difficult burden, parents, who cannot be around their kids all the time, or those who produce and deliver such material and can control who they sell it to?"

It is much easier for businesses to control their content than it is for parents to police their children, and businesses should do it just out of respect for the society they _serve._

Ed.

That's a rather sad commentary. If one cannot be around one's kids all the time, that means that everyone else has to take on the parental burden for them? Raising kids is probably harder than most human endeavors. It can never be done perfectly, or completely. You could use this kind of test to eliminate virtually any freedom that adults enjoy. I might also point out that the parental burden is completely and 100% voluntary, and that potential parents are welcome to not have kids if they feel it will be too much for them in this harsh world.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ed
Member
Member # 1673

 - posted      Profile for ed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
auron quoth: "on the porn thing, it's impossible to prove that porn CAUSES rape and sexual abuse, as i'd estimate 60% of men indulge with regularity and 95% have indulged in the past, yet the percentages of rapists and child abusers are remarkably lower."

this statement reflects a very serious departure from the earlier one, in which you asserted causation, not correlation. and the estimates you provide, no offense, aren't worth a hill of beans, unless your name happens to be gallup. :>

the drake quoth: "because they have preconcieved notions about porn and are trying to "prove" that it is bad."

well said, sir.

ed

[ December 08, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: ed ]

Posts: 219 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zyne:
But I was never talking about smokers as a group, or people who saw cigarette ads as a group. I was only talking about the demographic slice who came to smoking as a result of cigarette advertising, smoked, got lung cancer, and died. This group can be quantified--we can literally count the bodies.

I would submit that we can't isolate cigarette advertising as the reason for smoking in any group of people. Show us some statistics on that group [Smile]
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Does everyone that smokes get cancer?

and not everyone that gets lung cancer got it from smoking, so why does the Surgeon General keep on telling us not to smoke?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:
Ed - 'Service', 'To Serve'. Yes, it is one of the vaugeries of the english language. Read as much into it as you'd like.

Why should parents be responsible for steering children around the obstacles someone else has placed there? If an object was placed there with the intent to cause harm, they should not have to. If an object interferes with the rights or property of others, they should not have to take the responsibility. Defending your rights is the job of the government. Nursemaiding you or society is not.

Consider a loaded gun. If I have a loaded gun in my closet, and you come to my house and shoot yourself in the head, should I be at fault?

I would say no. It is your responsibility to take care not to shoot yourself.

Consider another situation. I have a loaded gun. I set a booby trap in a public building. The gun goes off and kills you. Who is at fault?

Me, of course. I set the weapon there with the intent to deprive you of life.

Another situation. I have a loaded gun. You send your child over to my house. I accept responsibility for him, and he shoots himself. I am at (limited) fault.

Another situation. You come over to my house, kid in tow. He shoots himself. You are at fault - the responsibility was yours. You chose to bring him to my house.

If I dig a large hole in the interstate highway, and you have an accident, who is at fault?

Me, of course. I dug a hole on someone elses property. My actions caused you to have an accident. Criminal and civil charges would (and should) be brought.

There are several border cases. Feel free to think some up. However, you do not have a 'right to clean TV'. I have a right to 'free speech'. You have the right to do what you wish with your property (like turn the TV off, or change the channel.)

To argue that it is easier to regulate TV at the source is simple. It is exactly as simple as arguing that the ends justify the means. Does simplicity justify the removal of rights from a person? I think not [Smile]

It would be much simpler to treat every person as guilty until proven innocent. It would be simple to remove habeus corpus. It would be much easier to disallow all citizens from owning or carrying weapons. It would be much easier to raise children if they were all raised by the State.

Life is complicated.

--Firedrake

Not that I like the current liability laws in the states, but they do say that in each and every one of those situations you would be at fault. Even if you dug a big hole on your property that was posted no trespassing, if someone was trespassing and fell into your hole, you would be liable.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
philnotfil -

I would be liable, yes. I also disagree with liability laws in most states. If you cannot expect a person to both act with a reasonable degree of caution, and accept responsiblity for their own actions, something is wrong with society.

I would add that I believe a reasonable jury would agree with that statement. I hope not to have to attempt to prove that.

--Firedrake

[ December 08, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ FiredrakeRAGE
quote:
Ed - 'Service', 'To Serve'. Yes, it is one of the vaugeries of the english language. Read as much into it as you'd like.
LOL!!! A noun based on the verb "to serve" is anything but vague. [Smile]

quote:
[Long and erroneous argument about rights, snipped]

To argue that it is easier to regulate TV at the source is simple. It is exactly as simple as arguing that the ends justify the means. Does simplicity justify the removal of rights from a person? I think not [Smile]

Ummm... Dude? Stop. Look. Listen.

Yer talkin about rights, whereas I'm talkin about manners. They ain't the same.

Capiche?

quote:
Life is complicated.
Only when you make it that way.

And, now, a point you made later in this thread:
quote:
If you cannot expect a [business] to both act with a reasonable degree of caution, and accept responsiblity for their own actions, something is wrong with society.
OK, that's not an exact quote... But did ya notice? It works both ways. Funny, ain't it? [Smile]

@ The [other] Drake

quote:
That's a rather sad commentary. If one cannot be around one's kids all the time, that means that everyone else has to take on the parental burden for them? Raising kids is probably harder than most human endeavors. It can never be done perfectly, or completely. You could use this kind of test to eliminate virtually any freedom that adults enjoy. I might also point out that the parental burden is completely and 100% voluntary, and that potential parents are welcome to not have kids if they feel it will be too much for them in this harsh world.
What's sad about this commentary, is the logical inference that is made here. Asking businesses to respect certain boundaries DOES NOT TRANSLATE into doing all of a parents work for them. It simply means that the those with greater ability, help those with lesser ability. And it's known as "Chivalry." [Smile]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could move easily to internet access at libraries from here.

Should internet access at libraries be filtered?
Should internet access in the children's section of the library be filtered?
If a parent requests that their child not be permitted to access the internet at the library, should the library honor that request?

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Wisdom
Member
Member # 1726

 - posted      Profile for David Wisdom   Email David Wisdom   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It simply means that the those with greater ability, help those with lesser ability
Precisely. Hence, why rather than having that ol' debbil, the monolithic and faceless Mainstream Media, go through the monumental expense and effort completely re-structure their programming to meet a set of universal standards that, as this continued debate proves, we're never going to draw up, we simply ask you to push the "off" button.

Changing the channel produces the same result, for much less effort. And it's known as "Efficiency." [Smile]

And, to further belabor the point:

quote:
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but, unlike charity, it should end there.
- Clare Booth Luce


Posts: 51 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would add to David Wisdom's post above - the 'Universal' standard refered to is (as proved by this thread) anything but universal. One person might believe women should not be allowed to show their faces on television. Another might believe that hardcore sex should be shown at all times. Unlike government, the free market enforces a happy medium despite the yowling of a vocal minority.

Edited to add: By 'vocal minority', I am refering to those fundementalists that are really far right/left. Not to anyone posting on this thread (I think [Smile] )

--Firedrake

[ December 10, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ David Wisdom
quote:
Precisely. Hence, why rather than having that ol' debbil, the monolithic and faceless Mainstream Media, go through the monumental expense and effort completely re-structure their programming to meet a set of universal standards that, as this continued debate proves, we're never going to draw up, we simply ask you to push the "off" button.

Changing the channel produces the same result, for much less effort. And it's known as "Efficiency." [Smile]

This is a fallacious argument.

It assumes that the expense of monitoring one's own content would be too much and yet presents no evidence to support it. It ignores the fact that, at one time, the media DID more effectively monitor itself. And, it ignores the fact that parents cannot be in all places at all times, once again, placing the greater burden back on the parent.

Your argument is equivelant to -- when a giant is destroying the village -- one man declaring "Well, just stay out of his way!"

quote:
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but, unlike charity, it should end there.
- Clare Booth Luce

You say this like it means something. This is just one man's _opinion._

Finally, who's talking about censorship? My argument is about businesses showing respect for the society they serve.

@ FiredrakeRAGE
quote:
I would add to David Wisdom's post above - the 'Universal' standard refered to is (as proved by this thread) anything but universal. One person might believe women should not be allowed to show their faces on television. Another might believe that hardcore sex should be shown at all times. Unlike government, the free market enforces a happy medium despite the yowling of a vocal minority.
Again, who's talking about a universal standard? I'm talking about a _societal_ one that already exists today and many businesses flat out ignore in their persuit of the Almighty Dollar.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Wisdom
Member
Member # 1726

 - posted      Profile for David Wisdom   Email David Wisdom   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is a fallacious argument.

It assumes that the expense of monitoring one's own content would be too much and yet presents no evidence to support it.

Actually, it assumes that the financial and temporal cost of, to pick a name at random, ABC re-structuring its content to meet your standards is dramatically higher than the caloric cost of your thumb depressing a button on the remote. Do we really need to commission a study to verify that assumption? Personally, I guarantee I can change a channel quicker than ABC can draw up a new programming schedule, let alone implement it.

quote:
... once again, placing the greater burden back on the parent.

Where it belongs. I say again, the burden of child-rearing is on the child's parents . As a father, I consider any other claim infuriating and morally offensive. Raising my children is my burden, and one I accepted when I became a parent.

No, I can't be everywhere. No parent can. What I can do is raise my sons with the same moral standards as myself. What I can do is determine where my children are allowed to go, whose homes they are allowed to visit. What I can do is parent my children .

quote:
Your argument is equivelant to -- when a giant is destroying the village -- one man declaring "Well, just stay out of his way!"
Excepting, of course, that there is no giant, and the village is, in fact, still standing.

Honestly, we've been going through this since Elvis wiggled his hips for Ed Sullivan. Strangely, society hasn't collapsed.

The problem isn't Britney Spears writhing half-naked to cover a lack of talent - the problem is parents failing, and frequently refusing, to do their jobs.

Posts: 51 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, it assumes that the financial and temporal cost of, to pick a name at random, ABC re-structuring its content to meet your standards is dramatically higher than the caloric cost of your thumb depressing a button on the remote.
I guess it depends on how many thumbs are depressing buttons. [Razz]
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed -

If it is a societal standard, why are so many people watching? If society doesn't want X, Y, and Z, there will be no market for X, Y, and Z.

As an example: I dislike most of those stupid reality TV shows. Nothing annoys me more than the put-up drama they have. I would go as far as to say that some of the shows ('Survivor', etc.), are actually doing our society harm. I go to my State Representative and insist that he draft legislation to ban 'Survivor' because it is just plain dumb. No one watches that show, I'd say - at least not anyone I know. In fact, I have 20,000 signatures of people from his district that say they will not vote for him if he doesn’t ban Survivor. If the number of votes he will lose by refusing to ban ‘Survivor’ is greater than the number of votes he will gain by refusing to ban ‘Survivor’, he will make an attempt to get this legislature passed. Survivor fans, I'm sure, would be glad the First Amendment existed.

The problem here is that obviously someone likes ‘Survivor’. If they did not, CBS would have pulled it long ago. They would not have made sequels. Now if Survivor is truly morally offensive to enough people, will they continue to watch it? Probably not. Will they generate bad PR for the company? Probably. People look for causes to believe in. It is much easier to cause 20,000 people to march on Washington with a cry of ‘No More Violence on TV’ than it is to induce 20 people to march on Washington with a cry of ‘I do not care about violence on TV’.

If the moral outrage directed at companies is enough to force them to change habits, the market probably does not have a place for whatever bad habit they have. An example of a ‘bad habit’ would be broadcasting hardcore pornography directly after ‘Sesame Street’. If they can continue to broadcast despite the mewling masses, then there is probably a good viewing audience despite the vocal minority decrying the program, and giving the company bad PR. The number of people gained by broadcasting hardcore pornography is greater than the number of people lost by broadcasting hardcore pornography plus the number of people screaming about 'moral values' and affecting value of the company.

All too often the government shoves the large thumb of the FCC where it does not belong. The result is that a vocal minority is allowed to set the standard for the rest of society – often to the determent of society. However, even in those cases where the governmental standard is a good thing – pornography directly after Sesame Street, for example – government instituted censorship is bad for society.

Censorship is censorship. If people don’t want to watch something, they can turn their TV off. If people don’t want kids watching something, they can turn the TV off. If they truly object, they can generate bad Public Relations for whomever is doing the broadcasting. The one thing they should not do is tatter the first amendment by marching children in front of them, screaming ‘Stop the violence’ while hacking away at the rights of the masses.

If society doesn't want X, Y, and Z, there will be no market for X, Y, and Z.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Answer: Because they have preconcieved notions about porn and are trying to "prove" that it is bad.
Or because several famous sex offenders, most notably ted bundy, claim that they only began comitting crimes because of porn. Really it's just a part of the argument that that objectification of women in entertainment has led to today's sexist culture.

[ December 10, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]

Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Serotonin -

Ted Bundy claimed he began committing crimes because of sado-masochistic pornography. While I believe that crap like that is socially unacceptable, it is, in my oppinion the burden of the individual to restrain him/her self from acting upon desires inflamed by viewing quasi-violent pornography (I say 'quasi', because the pornography involves consenting individuals, or it is illegal).

I believe that if an individual becomes violent due to media of any type, it is the responsibility of that individual to abstain from that media. Barring that, any crime committed by the individual should be prosecuted. The producer of such media should not be held responsible - to do so removes the burden of thinking from the individual, and places it on the government and associated agencies.

Despite my belief that individual responsibility should be applied to S&M pornography, rape fantasies, and the like, a court case might be made against some media. Brandenburg v. Ohio states that (basically - summarized) if speech (including internet pornography, video game violence, cable media, etc.) incites violence and has no redeeming value it can be censored. I am unsure that any type of pornography, cable violence, game violence, etc. would fall under this statute. One would have to argue that (for example) video game shooting encourages real shooting, while also arguing that the individual involved had no choice in the matter.

-- Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1