Thread: Censorship has gone too far this time!!!

Originally Posted by urleebird

I might be an old fuddy duddy, but I kinda got to agree with the good taste thing.

Maybe a good guide for G-rated TV would be using the criteria that stipulates whatever you watch could be done in the company of your parents or your kids without embarassment.

Then, a password for all the stuff involving horses and dogs and eels and stuff on other stations just for people like someone who may be protesting so much.

ya but its the science channel nothing is G rated on the science channel because you see an animal eating killing an another animal during most shows. If its not that its an investigative show reinacting murder.



OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Here is the kicker I forgot to mention...although they bleeped out her nippleless mostly shapless breasts, they left her crotch which was plainly of a female shape (minus the finer points) out in the open for everyone to see...I just dont get it.

yeah its funny how we have done a 180 in the last 300 years. If you wanted to be a land owner in the 16 and 1700's you had to grow cannabis, the law was dictated by king james. but now..........

Everybody's right. What the heck... go ahead and show it all... without restriction. I'm with you guys... I say to go for it.

Live and let live. Nothing will change by not showing some skin. We don't need no stinking rules. We oughta be able to show anything we want on screen. If you don't like it, turn it off. You don't have to watch it. Kids shouldn't be around a TV by themselves, anyway. They do it in other countries, why can't we? This is 2006, not 1900. Hell, get with it. Sex never hurt no one. Don't be such a prude. What is wrong with showing a little sperm in someone's eyes? It's kinda cool to be bad. No one should judge anyone else. It's our business what we do. We have a right to see what we want. Rules were made to be broken. What gives anyone else the right to tell us what we can do and can't do? We have rights to look at anything we want and get down with what feels right. It's just stupid, man. It's not fair... will that horse really get her pregnant? I'm, like, all bumed out, dude. I can't believe they have taken away our freedom like that.

I know. How 'bout a show of partial-birth abortions? That way, everyone gets to see a real vagina and witness a murder practically simultanously. Why not?

... just adding a little perspective

Originally Posted by urleebird

Everybody's right. What the heck... go ahead and show it all... without restriction. I'm with you guys... I say to go for it.

Live and let live. Nothing will change by not showing some skin. We don't need no stinking rules. We oughta be able to show anything we want on screen. If you don't like it, turn it off. You don't have to watch it. Kids shouldn't be around a TV by themselves, anyway. They do it in other countries, why can't we? This is 2006, not 1900. Hell, get with it. Sex never hurt no one. Don't be such a prude. What is wrong with showing a little sperm in someone's eyes? It's kinda cool to be bad. No one should judge anyone else. It's our business what we do. We have a right to see what we want. Rules were made to be broken. What gives anyone else the right to tell us what we can do and can't do? We have rights to look at anything we want and get down with what feels right. It's just stupid, man. It's not fair... will that horse really get her pregnant? I'm, like, all bumed out, dude. I can't believe they have taken away our freedom like that.

I know. How 'bout a show of partial-birth abortions? That way, everyone gets to see a real vagina and witness a murder practically simultanously. Why not?

... just adding a little perspective

I agree with you even though you were being sarcastic. I think that people can choose what they should and should not watch, airing more topics that children shouldnt watch might actually make people learn to parent rather than letting TV yraise their children. I mean with the internet nothing is sacred anymore anyway, Im not advising that I want to see a partial birth abortion, however I also understand that part of having rights is having to respect the right of someone who wants to see that.

I just dont understand why its ok to let people say anything they want due to free speech, and its understood if you dont want to listen you leave, but its not ok to have the same values on TV or radio which is even easier to decide not to listen too. I mean really, its much easier for me to change the channel than to get rid of a jehovah's witness at my door.

I just dont understand why its ok to let people say anything they want due to free speech

Well, that's not quite absolute. You might be able to say it, but there may be consequences because of it. Try going into the Pentagon, there, and say you want to do something bad to any member of Congress. You won't be getting a straight razor in Leavenworth...

I was trying to make this point, with a little sarcasm, of course... Where do you draw the line? Where does it stop? How much is too much? Anywhere?

TV... babysitter? What about the kids in middle and high school who get home about 2 hours before mom and dad because both have to work? They are old enough, in my opinion, to be alone in the house for that amount of time. But, if every channel is allowed inappropriate sexual content for that age group, most of America loses out on owning a TV to cater to someone else's perversion. And your child may see a documentary on a murder investigation that is pretty graphic. But I would be willing to bet that child would be more likely encouraged to experiment with sex before they would go out and plan a murder. Oh, what was I thinking. The kid will have sex, anyway. Perfect reasoning.

Maybe if you ever have a daughter and she she gets to be 11 or 12 years old, you may change your mind about what images you are desensitizing her to. I would hope you would not want her learning how to give a blow-job at that age.

The animal programs you talk of illustrates the issue pretty good. Those programs started out years ago with a sequence showing, for instance, a lion chasing a gazelle. Once people got used to that, the program showed the lion actually catching the gazelle. When that became old hat, viewers were enticed with images of the lion actually breaking the gazelles neck. Then, after a while we get to see the whole ball of wax. We get to see the chase, the catch, the grasp of the throat while we watch the gazelle die, and then we get to see the lion lick all the blood off her mouth after witnessing the entire meal. Those things are real, but maybe inappropriate for certain age groups.

If you run that on a parallel, you start out with showing breasts on the mannequin. Then, that is no longer enough and we wind up watching the extreme because everyone has become elasticized to previous images.

I still agree that the mannequin is a bit much. One of my first thoughts was that it could have been done to blur a company logo on the mannequin. Still, I think some channels should be held in a state of virginity. Wishful thinking, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by urleebird

Well, that's not quite absolute. You might be able to say it, but there may be consequences because of it. Try going into the Pentagon, there, and say you want to do something bad to any member of Congress. You won't be getting a straight razor in Leavenworth...

I was trying to make this point, with a little sarcasm, of course... Where do you draw the line? Where does it stop? How much is too much? Anywhere?

TV... babysitter? What about the kids in middle and high school who get home about 2 hours before mom and dad because both have to work? They are old enough, in my opinion, to be alone in the house for that amount of time. But, if every channel is allowed inappropriate sexual content for that age group, most of America loses out on owning a TV to cater to someone else's perversion.

Maybe if you ever have a daughter and she she gets to be 11 or 12 years old, you may change your mind about what images you are desensitizing her to. I would hope you would not want her learning how to give a blow-job at that age.

The animal programs you talk of illustrates the issue pretty good. Those programs started out years ago with a sequence showing, for instance, a lion chasing a gazelle. Once people got used to that, the program showed the lion actually catching the gazelle. When that became old hat, viewers were inticed with images of the lion actually breaking the gazelles neck. Then, after a while we get to see the whole ball of wax. We get to see the chase, the catch, the grasp of the throat while we watch the gazelle die, and then we get to see the lion lick all the blood off her mouth after witnessing the entire meal. Those things are real, but maybe inappropriate for certain age groups.

If you run that on a parallel, you start out with showing breasts on the mannequin. Then, that is no longer enough and we wind up watching the extreme because everyone has become anesticized to previous images.

I still agree that the mannequin is a bit much. One of my first thoughts was that it could have been done to blur a company logo on the mannequin. Still, I think some channels should be held in a state of virginity. Wishful thinking, I'm sure.

No I mean I see your point, and BTW if I had a daughter I would either shoot myself or die of a heart attack, but as far as kids being home alone. I mean its always something, if its not tv, its porn on the computer or playboy magazines, etc. But I guess my main thought is sort of the same as yours really, which is where does it stop. I would rather them show everything than continue to censor more and more. Perhaps that would mean better individual control of what was able to be watched in each particular house by the owner, but still really whats next, no showing of maniquines at all on tv...lol