- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Another day, another debate
Another day, another debateFollow
There is societal responsibility. Some love to claim that if you ban one thing you have to ban everything. That's an overly simplistic load of crap. I'm against censorship, but only for things you have to actively pursue. Freedom doesn't give you the right to blindside folks with filth.
Wrong. "Freedom" isn't an arbitrary word you redefine to mean "things I find acceptable". Freedom involves risk. Freedom to own a car involves the risk you may get injured, freedom to listen to someone else's broadcast content involves the risk you may hear something you dislike. What's overly simplistic is your quaint idea that the social contract involves anyone else being required to restrict what information or entertainment they offer freely to you.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
There is societal responsibility. Some love to claim that if you ban one thing you have to ban everything. That's an overly simplistic load of crap. I'm against censorship, but only for things you have to actively pursue. Freedom doesn't give you the right to blindside folks with filth.
Wrong. "Freedom" isn't an arbitrary word you redefine to mean "things I find acceptable". Freedom involves risk. Freedom to own a car involves the risk you may get injured, freedom to listen to someone else's broadcast content involves the risk you may hear something you dislike. What's overly simplistic is your quaint idea that the social contract involves anyone else being required to restrict what information or entertainment they offer freely to you.
We're not even talking about the same thing. Obviously there is risk involved in anything you choose to do, I addressed that with my comment about being against censorship if it's something you had to actively pursue, i.e. you made a choice and risk being offended by it. I'm talking about being subjected to something when you haven't made a choice.
It isn't a matter of what I deem acceptable, but what society as a whole agrees to. You'd honestly say it'd be ok for a Kindergarten teacher to expose the children to hard core pornography? I am against limiting what can be offered, but for limiting how it's distributed. If you're into snuff films, by all means you have a right to watch it, but you do not have the right to openly broadcast it over the airwaves.
Edited, Feb 21st 2009 3:39am by CoalHeart
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
It isn't a matter of what I deem acceptable, but what society as a whole agrees to. You'd honestly say it'd be ok for a Kindergarten teacher to expose the children to hard core pornography?
Yes. It this supposed to be your "oh no! I'd never thought of such a terrible thing as that!!!" premise? Let's set aside the fact for a moment that it's not even vaguely fucking analogous to broadcast speech that I have TO ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO LISTEN TO. The idea that a five year old seeing people having sex is somehow going to be psychically scarred for life is a ludicrous myth designed to manipulate you into voluntarily surrendering liberty on almost any issue. That you're not only gullible and unsophisticated enough to blindly accept it as such, but so easily indoctrinated that you'd actively use it as an object example speaks volumes about the value of your discourse.
I am against limiting what can be offered, but for limiting how it's distributed. If you're into snuff films, by all means you have a right to watch it, but you do not have the right to openly broadcast it over the airwaves.
Again, let's set aside the fact that "snuff films" are an imaginary phenomenon wholly created to cow suckers like you into accepting as "reasonable" things that rationally aren't, regulating broadcast of ANYTHING is inherently against freedom, and from my point of view ethically wrong. Were it the case that a snuff film had ever existed in the history of man, the crime attached to the film would be the fucking murder of one of the actors, not the absurd notion that allowing others to view the murder should be somehow criminalized. Information should never be restricted, regardless of how repugnant it is, or how much it may damage a cooperation or governments interests. If the creation of the content involved a criminal act, great, peruse those infractions. There is no rational reason to criminalize the mere propagation of the knowledge of their existence.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Let's set aside the fact for a moment that it's not even vaguely @#%^ing analogous to broadcast speech that I have TO ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO LISTEN TO.
So you're driving down the road with your daughter. You decide to turn on the radio. You also decide to tune it to VeggieTales. After a few minutes, suddenly it's a non-stop stream of profanities. You're honestly saying you wouldn't be offended? You wouldn't call the station and give them a piece of your mind?
According to your argument the station has every right to broadcast such and you can't say anything about it because you chose to tune in. Seriously, I know you like to argue for arguments sake and I do get a chuckle watching a grown man spew insults like a silly little child, but come on. At least be sane about it.
I'd assume we both agree that with freedom of speech comes the freedom to be offended. It doesn't however give anyone the right to scream "Fire!" or "I have a bomb!" in an airport. You can't just do whatever you want. Living in a society will always be a trade off. And yes, that does mean the "social contract" entails restrictions.
Edited, Feb 21st 2009 10:15am by CoalHeart
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
Can we agree that "offense" is not the same as "harm"?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
CoalHeart wrote:
Quote:
Let's set aside the fact for a moment that it's not even vaguely @#%^ing analogous to broadcast speech that I have TO ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO LISTEN TO.
So you're driving down the road with your daughter. You decide to turn on the radio. You also decide to tune it to VeggieTales. After a few minutes, suddenly it's a non-stop stream of profanities. You're honestly saying you wouldn't be offended? You wouldn't call the station and give them a piece of your mind?
You don't know Smash very well.
And like I said earlier, unfortunately the people that think "filth" is harmful tend to get their way. What child in the history of time has ever been harmed by hearing profanity? It's just words.
trickybeck wrote:
It's just words.
The problem is its not just words, its what the words mean and the emotion carried with them. 2 divorcing parents arguing is "just words". How does a child feel?
This study showed that words do more home than physical harm
Its all about the context, the emotion and what ill memories the combination will create .. or in some cases bring back ..
Fine. So dispassionate cursing may be offensive but it is not harmful. Right?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
GwynapNud the Eccentric wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
It's just words.
The problem is its not just words, its what the words mean and the emotion carried with them. 2 divorcing parents arguing is "just words". How does a child feel?
Then you just validated my argument. The profanities themselves are harmless.
One of my most shameful moments in youth, at age 4, was when my sister and I were coloring at the table while the babysitter was over. We were laughing and sort of play fighting, and started calling each other 'whores'. Our babysitter ran in from the other room and scolded us vehemently. We had no idea how bad of a word it was, because our mother had been using that word to refer to us as recently as that morning.
Words are words are words, but nothing hurts more than finding out your mother screams at you with words that are apparently extremely offensive. So, I can say, until about age 4, curse words were just an everyday part of my existence. It wasn't until an outsider came along that I realized that there are some words that you really shouldn't say. It's sad that my 11 year old babysitter had to teach me that.
Regardless, as much verbal abuse that was dished out by my mother, I turned out fairly well adjusted. My sister on the other hand, not so much. However, it seems like too obvious of a point to make that we all handle different levels of deemed "harmful" materials, and in different ways.
I worked with a girl who would confront people and tell them not to swear in front of her or her sisters (who also worked there, all adults.) Apparently it was offensive to her to even hear a single swear word in passing. The fact of the matter is we can't avoid everything that offends us, but if we can walk away from it, or turn the station, there's little complaint to be had.
People in general are too naive and sheltered anyway.
Words are words are words, but nothing hurts more than finding out your mother screams at you with words that are apparently extremely offensive. So, I can say, until about age 4, curse words were just an everyday part of my existence. It wasn't until an outsider came along that I realized that there are some words that you really shouldn't say. It's sad that my 11 year old babysitter had to teach me that.
Regardless, as much verbal abuse that was dished out by my mother, I turned out fairly well adjusted. My sister on the other hand, not so much. However, it seems like too obvious of a point to make that we all handle different levels of deemed "harmful" materials, and in different ways.
I worked with a girl who would confront people and tell them not to swear in front of her or her sisters (who also worked there, all adults.) Apparently it was offensive to her to even hear a single swear word in passing. The fact of the matter is we can't avoid everything that offends us, but if we can walk away from it, or turn the station, there's little complaint to be had.
People in general are too naive and sheltered anyway.
trickybeck wrote:
And like I said earlier, unfortunately the people that think "filth" is harmful tend to get their way. What child in the history of time has ever been harmed by hearing profanity? It's just words.
You're right, I don't. But that also goes both ways. If I started screaming profanities at his wife and child I seriously doubt he'd think "oh, no biggie, it's just words".
EDIT: the quote missed the part where you said "You don't know Smash very well."
Edited, Feb 21st 2009 3:49pm by CoalHeart
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
I remember watching this French movie on Showtime, late at night, when I was about 8 or 9. It was about a world where people make electricity though *******--"making love" was illegal. Let me say, I was appalled by the hairiness of adults grunting around and stuff. But it taught me one valuable lesson, for the most part, it's hilariously funny to watch someone's "O" face.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Quote:
Let me say, I was appalled by the hairiness of adults grunting around and stuff.
Blue Oyster Cult sez:
Come on baby...don't fear the razor
Baby take my hand...don't fear the razor
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the razor
Baby I'm your man...
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
Quote:
You're right, I don't. But that also goes both ways. If I started screaming profanities at his wife and child I seriously doubt he'd think "oh, no biggie, it's just words".
But you do see the difference in swearing at someone as opposed to swearing in front of them, right? You seem to keep wanting to conflate the action with some vile intent behind the action, and I'd really like to separate the two.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
You're right, I don't. But that also goes both ways. If I started screaming profanities at his wife and child I seriously doubt he'd think "oh, no biggie, it's just words".
But you do see the difference in swearing at someone as opposed to swearing in front of them, right? You seem to keep wanting to conflate the action with some vile intent behind the action, and I'd really like to separate the two.
Yes, I agree with you in that respect. My 5 year old doesn't "get in trouble" for saying things he learned from me...unless he's directing such vulgarities towards another person. Then his *** is grass.
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
Okay good. So it's the intent to harm or offend that's the problem.
Now, would you agree that sometimes offense is given deliberately for a good reason?
Now, would you agree that sometimes offense is given deliberately for a good reason?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Katielynn wrote:
Why did they think this would be in good taste to play?
They didn't play it in good taste. They played it for shock value. In case you didn't know, anything gruesome, violent, or otherwise shocking gets ratings. There is a huge demand for death, sex, fear, and violence in this country, and the news media will supply that demand to make cash hand over fist. Without that tape, the story wouldn't even make the back pages of local newspapers much less national airtime. The tape made the story marketable.
NaughtyWord wrote:
Katielynn wrote:
Why did they think this would be in good taste to play?
They didn't play it in good taste. They played it for shock value. In case you didn't know, anything gruesome, violent, or otherwise shocking gets ratings. There is a huge demand for death, sex, fear, and violence in this country, and the news media will supply that demand to make cash hand over fist. Without that tape, the story wouldn't even make the back pages of local newspapers much less national airtime. The tape made the story marketable.
Blech. I think all you sick feckers who like that kind of **** are just SICK. Sick sick sick sick.
Quote:
There is a huge demand for death, sex, fear, and violence in this country
As long as there's no nipples. Nipples are teh debil.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
There is a huge demand for death, sex, fear, and violence in this country
As long as there's no nipples. Nipples are teh debil.
Heh, even a nipple has slipped out every once in a while ;)
But I know you were pointing out the unadulterated hypocrisy rather than the nipple.
NaughtyWord wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
There is a huge demand for death, sex, fear, and violence in this country
As long as there's no nipples. Nipples are teh debil.
Heh, even a nipple has slipped out every once in a while ;)
But I know you were pointing out the unadulterated hypocrisy rather than the nipple.
yeah, it's just the genitals you're never allowed to see.
Recent Visitors: 203
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (203)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Another day, another debate
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC