Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: Perfectly fine solution. New channels can be added without censorship. If a station chooses not to show something, no problem. That isn’t censorship. That’s a business determining what they want their company to produce. If they want to show something that might hurt the feelings of a few uptight prudes however, be my guest. I think the rating system is fair warning for a person to choose whether or not he wants to see something.

i half agree.

keep censorship, but add new uncensored channels.




The Grandmaster wrote: Indeed. See, we can already find points of agreement.

so seeing, lets say, scat porn for a few seconds makes it a-ok.



The Grandmaster wrote: However, it simply is not the case that this is the only, or even the most effective way to keep your kid from watching something. How is he going to see it if the parents do not want him to? If he is old enough to drive to a friends house, then he is old enough to see the content anyway. Children in the age group that is supposed to be “harmed” by this content are supervised anyway. Keep the TV in the parents bedroom, locked away, or don’t have one if you’re that desperate. It’s just that easy. A parental lock doesn’t even have to come into play. If you catch them watching it anyway, that’s an ass-whipping. That’s how you show kids not to do something.

all children are supervised all the time?



The Grandmaster wrote: Where is all this “government raise my kids for me” coming from these days?

people like you can't do it so someone has to.



The Grandmaster wrote: Why is a law made by the goverment nessesarily a law that is right?

the people vote for the people who make these laws, and no one seems to be voting against them, therefor this law is right.



The Grandmaster wrote: Lots of people hate censorship laws. Look at this thread.

so something like a dozen people is representative of an entire population?

The Grandmaster wrote: I don’t think that is a solid assumption. When something like that happens, they will bring it up if the kids were exposed to something gruesome when younger, but more often than not, it was an unrelated thing, like years of frustration, bullying, and many other factors. It would be misleading to generalize that lack of censorship is to blame.

ed gein disected dead animals when he was young. now, imagine if there was a modern day child like ed gein who saw dead bodies and the like on television.

of course this is a singular event, but i will be more the nwilling to find more examples.


The Grandmaster wrote: Because I want to see it.

you want to see dead bodies, scat porn, and snuff films?

here ya go

www.rotten.com
www.****.com
www.ogrish.com

why do i need to see that on television when it's already on the internet.


The Grandmaster wrote: Lock the computer and TV in the parent's room. Done.

why do people have to lock away their televisions so you can get your daily fix of scat porn on the television?


The Grandmaster wrote: Don't even know what you were doing ther. No TV, kid won't see it. Simple.

same example as above.

The Grandmaster wrote: Actually, a metaphor, and one you failed to address

ohhh semantics.


ban child birth then, tis dangerous to the children.

you should have used something like this, would have made your argument more agreeable.


The Grandmaster wrote: Do you really want to claim that if the government says something, it is right by virtue of the government saying it?

Re-pub-lic

(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law



The Grandmaster wrote: Then why is there an overwhelming majority of people against censorship on this very forum? :wink:
Can you demonstrate an overall consensus? Or is this an unverified claim?

and a dozen or so people represents the majority of the country?



The Grandmaster wrote: And furthermore, you haven't shown me that a kid can be "harmed" by a television program anyway. If he sees something that bothers him, he'll stop watching.

http://aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+and+TV+Violence&section=Facts+for+Families



The Grandmaster wrote: A philosopher once said, “The first amendment is not to protect what we want to hear.
It is to protect what we don’t want to hear.
It is not to protect the 50 people who agree.
It is to protect the one man who doesn’t.”


Do you know what would happen, if the media could not offend? There could be no freedom of speech. There is not such thing as a “Freedom not to be offended.” Guess what, you get over it. I have the freedom to say what I want. You don’t have to freedom to make sure I only say what you want to hear.

and you feel that there is no freedom of speech because of this?

The Grandmaster wrote: There could be no debate, there could be no progress, there could be no discussion, in real life, on TV, or on the internet, if their were a “freedom not to be offended.” The media bears no responsibility whatsoever to do what you propose. We got where we are today, because people had to be offended to get their. They will get over it.

so there is no freedom of speech because of censorship?

The Grandmaster wrote: Some might find the raunchy things in life not worthwhile. Some might say they do not need, nor merit, protection. But until you show me anywhere where it says I, as a United States Citizen, have the given right, to not be offended, you need to take back your claim.

that was never my claim.

The Grandmaster wrote: That isn't what I asked. I asked what makes "your" determination of what is gross correct?

it rests with the majority largely.

The Grandmaster wrote: Can you show me there is little opposition to the law? Evidence I have seen suggest many people hate it.

how does a dozen people show opposition ona grand scale?

there is no large scale group advocating for the abolishment of censorship. there's your proof.

you will of course want a link to exact evidence that doesn't exist i suppose.


The Grandmaster wrote: You don’t want me to bring up Jim Crow laws because you know that ruins your position. You are afraid of that point, and don’t want to combat it. Jim Crow laws demonstrate a larger idea, which is applicable in all situations. That idea is that law does not determine what is right or what is wrong. They demonstrate that was “most” people believe, does not always justify something as being the best solution.

so the best solution is something that goes against what the majority wants?

and jim crow laws are a very poor example because it doesn't involve the majority, but rather a minority of people in power.


The Grandmaster wrote: But those of us who want to watch certain things cannot, because someone else claims they can't control their kids. This is bunk. And I don't agree that media has any responsibility to make sure no one is offended. History backs me up.

www.google.com

view at your hearts content all the things you want.

The Grandmaster wrote: Do you really want a country where it is illegal to not offend another? Yes or no?

loaded statement.

no you'll merely say i am contradictin myself, yes you will claim i am authoritarian.

i have already stated that if you want to view digusting things look on the internet. there is no reason why you need to add it to television.



The Grandmaster wrote: Yes.

www.google.com

you can use this site to fufill all of your sick pleasures. have at it bucko, you've earned it.

[The Comrade]

micfranklin wrote:

Well the damn "bleeps" irritate me, for one and screw up a lot of good TV. But also, there's a lot of things in the media that we don't get to hear about or see because of censorship.



such as?


oh, i want to introduce you to a site you may enjoy. it's called www.google.com

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

Well the damn "bleeps" irritate me, for one and screw up a lot of good TV. But also, there's a lot of things in the media that we don't get to hear about or see because of censorship.

such as?

oh, i want to introduce you to a site you may enjoy. it's called www.google.com

I'm aware of Google's presence, thanks for caring Commy.

[Otacon]

The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: You don't like pornography? Don't watch it. Don't like shows with profanity? Don't watch them. There should be absolutely no censorship. There are parental controls for a reason. Use them to prevent your children from watching shows that contain adult material. It's not the government's job to wipe your kid's ass, nor is it their job to parent your child.



yeah, you're right. no child on earth could learn how to push a few buttons to get around a filter.

I bet it's harder to guess a random 4 digit number than you might think. Besides, even if a kid does bypass the filter, it's then the parent's job to take steps to prevent it from happening again.

[Enoch]

Otacon wrote: The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: You don't like pornography? Don't watch it. Don't like shows with profanity? Don't watch them. There should be absolutely no censorship. There are parental controls for a reason. Use them to prevent your children from watching shows that contain adult material. It's not the government's job to wipe your kid's ass, nor is it their job to parent your child.



yeah, you're right. no child on earth could learn how to push a few buttons to get around a filter.

I bet it's harder to guess a random 4 digit number than you might think. Besides, even if a kid does bypass the filter, it's then the parent's job to take steps to prevent it from happening again.

Exactly!

But, then again, because some kids somewhere aren't being properly supervised and taught by their parents, there are some who think that it is the responsibility of everyone else to parent the kids in lieu of the responsible parents.

[Protostar]

The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote:

No, its the media's responsibility to put out programs or papers that will sell. If I own a television station, I am not there to make sure your kids don't see things you don't like. That is your job, and your "but parents can't be there 24/7" argument doesn't matter. 24/7 or not, it is the parents' job to monitor children, not the media's job to protect them.


it's the medias responsibility BY LAW to not show something deemed innapropriate(I.E. harmful to children).


and the fact that parents cannot watch their children 24/7 is very much relevent. a child cannot watch their child 24/7, in which case a corporation shouldn't be allowed to f**k with that childs head every single chance it gets.

If you don't have time to supervise your child, then you shouldn't have children in the first place. Stop trying to allow people to offload their parental responsiblity onto the government. Thats one of the reasons this country is so fcuked up right now is people always trying to pass the buck.

[LostSoul3412]

It is not the media's concern that parents cannot monitor their children, nor should it be.

[artk]

It's not the government's job to decide what is appropriate for my kids to see or hear. That is my job.

[ieatfood]

It's not that the government censors just the dead people from the war. THe government censors ALL dead people. BEfore the iraq war, when someone fell off of a 10 story building, did you get a closeup of the body on the 6oclock news? Is that what you want?

If it didnt happen before, its not going to happen now, just because you happen to have a political agenda and want to exploit the macabre for your own political gain.

people who want to see dead bodies are not prevented from doing so,
goto ogrish.com
knock yourself out
there's nothing like a fresh beheading to start the morning, you sick bastards