CensorshipFollow

It's obvious that he's advocating that the censorship should come from the parent and/or guardian, not an agency of the government. That's what he means when he says the Parent should monitor and control what the child watches.

Okay, what's you response to this hypothetical which your stance would seem to allow: No shows have a rating (which is a form of censorship as shows must adhere to standards) or can be monitored/blocked by any box due to this. A parent has four children, not all of which watch TV at once so he has to watch three play outside and check in on the TV one. So, the parent should just throw the TV away because he can't hover around it 24/7? Is that the best solution?

I thought you were against censorship and wanted to take out that entire bureau? Here you're accepting the status quo. What exactly are you arguing for or against?

Fine, get rid of censorship, but only if you make it legal for me to shoot the next ******* who thinks its a good idea to put his quasi-kiddie **** cartoons up as an avatar image.

I don't think any of you haven any idea what you're debating here. You see the word censorship and go ******* without really thinking about the issue or even what censorship is. You make up fantasy lands about parents being able to continually watch everything every one of their children is doing at all times in order to justify your vision of a censor-free experience. While at the same time some of you use existing censorship in the form of ratings blockers to justify your stance.

And in the above, are selective in the things you think should be censored (chosen to not be shown). Nothing in the existence of humanity has "needed" to be shown. The choice of what to disseminate is de facto censorship (of competing things one could disseminate) and all media and all art partakes in it. I guess I should ignore this and debate the issue as if I were an ignorant free-love free-thought hippy as you and others are.



Or be scarred by watching something that they have no notion of how to deal with no matter how many words you use to try to enlighten them. Hint: kids don't have PHds in logic.



There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from acquiring uncensored programs or documents to show your children.

I have no children and am against excessive censorship of adult programming. But bleeping out select words in general media or rating mature programs is hardly excessive.

Palpitus, lay off the strawmen.

*facepalms* (Can someone do a good ASCI art of one?)

I have a bad tendency to contradict myself, which I've probably done several times on my posts. I'm against censorship because it lowers the quality of the shows that are censored and makes most audiences rather pissed if they cut out good portions. While I'd like to have the bureau that controls censorship removed,revamped; it is impossible as the entire government would have control of, and who knows what TV would be like then.

In a perfect world, we would all have perfect judgment and be able to decide what is right and what is wrong the moment we are born. This, however, is theoretically impossible as we would have to be robots with programmed circuits in order to decide what is right and what is wrong.

What I was saying in my above post when I said that the shows wouldn't exist is the fact that the government would take control of it and fill it full of governmental programs, educational programs, and debates. I'm speaking in terms of the reality of the situation, not the ideal situation. I know I should be thinking outside the box and look for the ideal, but the truth is the world isn't ideal. Reality must be accepted to an extent.

@Kaolin: What you are saying is an extreme extent. We are talking about removing censorship, not legalizing what is illegal. Kiddie-**** is illegal in any shape, way, and form.Although if I could I'd legalize it just so I could pwn so many people. I like your idea Kaolin

Living in a utopia would be nice, but the truth is we are stuck to live in this imperfect world. That is what makes us human though, the ability to make mistakes and learn from them.

Where am I going with this? To be frank I have no idea. I need to get more sleep before I decide to engage in a debate...or start drinking.

EDIT: Bah slow post. What questions are you asking Singdall? I scrolled through the thread and I couldn't see any questions. Yes, I'm not a parent. Yes, I'm young and probably you couldn't care less about my opinion. I know I'll change my opinion when I get married and have children of my own, but right now this is what I see it as. I can only speak in the present, not the future. It's a major flaw of mine that I'm trying to fix but all my attempts have failed. I'm sorry if I offended anyone but this is what I think and I'm not going to change my opinion just to make people happy.

Edited, Oct 14th 2007 8:34pm by PaladinStargazer

I'm not strawmanning, my oppositions' arguments are incoherent, or diametrically opposed to themselves. Such as this first post:



So this guy thinks no censorship is warranted at any time, at least that's what he says. So I use that in my responses. But then he says:



and



What the **** is his argument? That the bureaus shouldn't exist because censorship is "utter[ly] useless and utterly pointless"? Or that censorship is okay because in my example (which used his logic) there would still be these bureaus? Which would support the status quo--which is what I favor?

I'm not a debater who guesses at someone's real intent when they use absolutes in their arguments. I address these absolutes. If they don't mean their absolutes, or if their own supporting arguments oppose them, then they shouldn't use them.

Ah, thanks Singdall. I thought it was a statement to chew on and think on, my bad.

I can't answer the first statement from a parental standpoint as I'm not a parent yet, but from personal experience my parents would constantly keep an eye on me and my sisters, well keep and eye on my sisters and ignore me completely but that's not important. Yes, it is impossible for a parent to watch their children 24/7/365, but it is not impossible to give restrictions and set blocks. Like I said earlier, parental controls as well as talking with the children can either work, or not work depending on the personality of the children.

For example, my parents set several ground rules about what my sisters and I were allowed to see and do and what not to do. Of course being kids we wanted to see what would happen to us. Going 4 days without food and being chucked into my headboard drove the point home to me (yes, this actually happened). Am I saying that parents should abuse their children to drive home a point? Hell no. I do believe that an amount of reprimanding should be done if the child breaks it.

I still stand by my point of parents not doing a job to set limits on content. I know it's humanly impossible to do anything to completely limit what their children do, but still setting some limits and ground rules might work. If this topic is still around, I'll post from a parental standpoint whenever I have children of my own, but as it stands I can only speak from observation and my own ideas.

you can not blame the parents for not doing a job that requires 24/7/365 supervision. that is just stupid and i hope you are not that stupid.

rules or not, you can not watch what your child does at friends houses, you can not watch what they do at school, or out side of your direct supervision.

that is why i have stated again and again. there are things that DO NOT need to be on TV during the hours that are not "adult content" hours.

also go back and fully read my first post. get educated, and learn before you speak.

also as someone who is NOT a parent you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to responsibility in this situation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Until you're a parent, you have absolutely no business debating parental obligations and requirements. It's a bit like a hot dog vendor telling an architect he's called for the wrong grade of steel for the inner support beans of the latest skyscraper.

But what if the hotdog vendor sells chilidogs as well and really knows a lot about beans and their use in support structures?

Right, because it's not like we have a system of logic that allows us to examine situations with an objectively agreed upon system.

Oh wait... dammit we do.

I'm not claiming that a childless person can tell you what it's like to actually be a parent, but there is nothing stopping a childless person from having correct beliefs about what being a parent should be like. An argument to the contrary will lead you to hopeless subjectivism concerning ethics. Not that I wouldn't be delighted to see someone else with subjective ethics, but for some reason I don't think that you want to be put into that category.

Edited, Oct 14th 2007 9:08pm by Pensive