Printable View
I am watching a show called "how its made" on the science channel which is owned by Discovery. They were showing how they make mannequines, they were all just simple plastic white faceless mostly featureless mannequines. However when the first mannequin came out of the machine they actually blurred out the protrusions in the plastic that are supposed to form the shape of breasts....that is just rediculous.
Yes, America likes to stay true to its puritan roots.
lol, I remember that episode (I watch the show all the time). Up here in Canada we got to see those foam mounds in all their glory :D
Hurray for canada. Now, if you'll excuse me, it's friday night, and that means a few of our fine cable available canadian TV stations are broadcasting uncensored softcore porn :y
Damn, it's Friday already?! *Looks at watch before disappearing in a puff of smoke*
Ain't it funny that they are perfectly fine with showing torture and bloodshed but they find something as natural as a human body or sex offensive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT
That's cuz torture and bloodshed are fun. Sex is dirty. :D
Josh.
I will never understand the USA: every idiot over there is allowed to own a gun but not supposed to look at a picture of a naked adult female human being (or male for that matter).
What has taken more lives: sex or guns?? So what's more natural and less dangerous?
bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....bye bye, now....
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by urleebird
My entry was meant to provoke those w/ strong feelings about guns. I am only an outsider of course. When I put my post together V.D.'s did cross my mind.
If not every idiot is allowed to own a gun, how come so many idiots seem to have one? Is that because responsible citizens sell them to irrespnsible citizens? Or is it because so many guns in the community enable the idiots to steal one without much effort? If either is true that means that possesion of fire arms by responsible citiziens enables the idiots to lay their hands on them with little effort.
I once read that the number one cause of death of young black males in the US of A is a violent one and that just saddens me a bit. I know social things do contribute to that figure, and maybe if fire arms were more restricted in the USA they would get killed by another weapon, but to me it seems that owning a gun for some is like trusting the cat to keep the cream. Unless you are a collector I can only see one reason for owning a gun and that is using it at some point in time.
I have lived in Houston, Tx for nine months and never felt unsafe without a gun. A few prople have shown their pistols to me but I never felt the urge to have one.
Blade Wielder agrees with Kees.
And since this thread has already been hijacked, I'll mention that I grew up around firearms, and happen to own a few. But aside from a couple of handguns of my uncle's that I shot a long time ago (which are fully licensed, by the way, and kept unloaded, trigger-locked and within a locked drawer in a locked room), every one of these weapons was and continues to be used for hunting or target practice.
I enjoy shooting a lot and I have quite a few conservative viewpoints -- in other words, I'm not some anti-gun guy. But I've read up on the various gun laws in America (which vary from state to state) and realistically, this "freedom" to own and carry weapons that are designed not to put food on the table, but to kill human beings, taxes more than it enriches.
Just like the frog that is perfectly content in a pot of gradually heated water, most Americans know no other existence, so they see no reason to complain. And just like that frog, most are incapable of recognizing that their gun problem has reached a boiling point. And yes, the numbers tell us it is a problem.
urleebird stated in the opening post of his thread (where I suppose I should be writing this) that most often, a debate won't solve anything because each opponent is usually too stubborn to change his opinion; too egocentric to even entertain another way of doing something. This is often the case. Heck, he should know: I read through that thread, and after all the talk, he has only scoffed at the idea of gun regulation.
I find it amazing (and a little sad) that so many people are incapable of picturing their life without guns. Instead of them saying something like, "You mean if I happened to have been born somewhere else, today I might not feel the need to strap on my .38 every time I go to the store for a carton of milk?" their first reaction is: "These guns are my right! Anybody who tries to take my guns, is trying to take my fuckin' rights! And anybody who tries to take my fuckin' rights gets fuckin' shot!"
bye bye, now....
Bill,
First of all I did not write my post for entertainment's sake. I do like to provoke discussions though, but that's out of interest in people's opnions rather than to annoy people. I appreciate this is a forum for serious exchange of opinions and knowledge and like to keep it that way.
If you feel offended by my provocation I am very sorry. I do not intend to offend any one. I did not realise emotions on this subject run so deeply.
I realise that I hijacked the thread. I have no problem with relocating this discussion to another thread, but I do not know how to do it. As far as I am concerned: feel free to do it for me. Even if members or moderators feel it should be deleted alltogether I have no hang-up w/ that either.
About Houston: victims of gun shot wounds turned up in the accident and emergency dept. of the downtown general hospital daily. In the Netherlands nor the U.K. have I ever attended to a patient with gun shot wounds.
Bill. feel free to have the final say in this discussion so we can call it a day.
Kees ,I see you guys are outlawing muslim women from wearing their burkas in public.Are they also as dangerous as guns?
No they aren't. 1st reason is we want to see people's faces when we meet them, on security camera footage 2nd we also banned balaclavas for the same reasons, 3rd it is easier to hide rifles etc. under burkas. Although I do not like to speak to a person behind a burka I do not have strong feelings about the things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveller
I do agree that it is definitely ass backwards to allow gore on tv without showing a nice pair of breats :) But the FCC is completely ungoverned and has no oversite commity, and is VERY strongly tied to the church and as we all know, the church loves violence and killing but hates sex....so thats where that comes from, and no I dont agree with it, these are the same people that help keep our gun rights alive...and since I already have breasts to play with at home, I am more concerned with my guns...after all happiness is a warm gun :p
First, I agree that the adversion to public nudity in the USA is pretty ridiculous.
That said, I'm curious where it all started. Did the idea come with the original settlers from Europe or did we conjur it up all on our own? I have always assumed it was something the (Catholic) Church decreed back in the middle ages, but now you've got me wondering for sure. Does anyone know? (yeah, I'm being lazy... my Google's tired :roflmao )
Its about how the politicians want to appeal to the largest group of voters in the country IMO. After all the head of the FCC when this all started was gen. colin Powell's son lol....so he had some political ties to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by azjoe
bye bye, now....
That's the problem. I don't see anything wrong with someone taking a dump. I personally wouldn't want to observe the phenomenon and most people wouldn't so the demand for it would be fairly low. However, it's a perfectly natural function. The problem is that our society is going against human nature in everything other than violence.
Don't forget about good ol' fashioned 'cancer' and 'heart desease'. Those ladies don't care who you are, what you know, or how healthy you think you are. Never mind about your 'willy'!Quote:
Originally Posted by urleebird
C utz
No it wasnt a joke, but it also wasnt worded very well. Over the past several hundred years the church has invaded countries and converted people against their will all in the name of god. Bloodshed and killing was accepted in order to further the church's cause, but I never remember anything very positive about sex being discussed, just many negative aspects of sexuality were brought to light and sexual feelings were repressed. That was my point, not that anyone actually likes war.Quote:
Originally Posted by urleebird
Help me decide what to watch tonight.
Debbie Does Dallas or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Terry
Well, I got a few minutes to play and googled an answer of sorts. There's a good sized "Historical Overview" in the wikipedia "nudity" section... there's no succint answer there, but you'll get the general gist of it... you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NudityQuote:
Originally Posted by azjoe
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by wvbias
DDD to the texas chainsaw massacre soundtrack lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
Great idea, JL. Your a genus....... :roflmao
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by wvbias
Yes and so productive too lol
and don't forget humble......Quote:
Originally Posted by JLStorm
Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by wvbias
Well thats just a given....
I just have to jump in here and question: is it really censorship (the mannaquin cover up), or just maintaining good taste?
I am removing all material that Lerch may find offensive or construe as a personal attack... bye bye, now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by urleebird
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 :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by urleebird
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.
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... :)Quote:
I just dont understand why its ok to let people say anything they want due to free speech
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. :nono:
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.
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...lolQuote:
Originally Posted by urleebird