What is the most offensive film ever?

[ghouck]

Sorry to say this but the ban on VIRTUAL kiddie porn is cheap politics... It doesnt hurt anybody (right)

You've taken the stance that media doesn't make or incite people to do things. Many people, including myself, feel (know) otherwise.

When they removed pornography from the prison I work at, sexual assaults went down (which there weren't many of in the first place), as did instances of guys masturbating in front of and AT guards (which there were quite a bit of). Just the same as assaults and fights went down when they removed mature video games. A couple years ago we actually tracked the fights that happened, half the fights happened on the nights 'The Ultimate Fighter' was on, after the show. Perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not. I know a bit of the horseplay that has happened in my shop starts with people talking about MMA/Boxing/Wrestling.

[Skull]

Sorry to say this but the ban on VIRTUAL kiddie porn is cheap politics... It doesnt hurt anybody (right)

You've taken the stance that media doesn't make or incite people to do things. Many people, including myself, feel (know) otherwise.

hehe... Im just being realistic here...

The ban is cheap politics because it sounds right without actually offending anybody, just like Texting... lawmakers are pushing laws to ban taxting while driving (at least in Chicago area), although some people are stupid so they might text while driving but the dirty secret is we already have laws its called: reckless driving...

So lawmakers are playing cheap politics so they could look good and make a law that focus on texting because nobody can actually defend it without sounding stupid.

When they removed pornography from the prison I work at, sexual assaults went down (which there weren't many of in the first place), as did instances of guys masturbating in front of and AT guards (which there were quite a bit of). Just the same as assaults and fights went down when they removed mature video games. A couple years ago we actually tracked the fights that happened, half the fights happened on the nights 'The Ultimate Fighter' was on, after the show. Perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not. I know a bit of the horseplay that has happened in my shop starts with people talking about MMA/Boxing/Wrestling.

Prision is one place I never want to visit...

From my understanding (I had an uncle in prison and he told me stories) if you enter prison with an attude your'll get raped.

:)

[NowhereMan]

From Justin To Kelly....hands down

[Rev. Powell]

We do have Censorship in America.

First, Hollywood and MTV are always telling us that immoral acts are normal and moral acts are boring and weird. Although it not seen as censorship until you start thinking why they are not talking about the moral actions and why its good.

Network News... hehe... talk about Censorship... Does anybody hear about the Tea Party Martch in Washington last week, I understood almost 2 million people showed up? What about Cindy Sheehan protest last month... Hmmmmmmm...

Sorry... we are way off topic... but it is a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "censorship" imprecisely.

Here is a decent definition of censorship: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.  The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority."  The Free Legal Dictionary

The things you described---MTV promoting immorality and the news choosing to cover certain events rather than other ones---may be undesirable, but they aren't censorship.  Censorship requires the government or some similar authority to step in and tell people what they can and can't say or print. 

[Skull]

We do have Censorship in America.

First, Hollywood and MTV are always telling us that immoral acts are normal and moral acts are boring and weird. Although it not seen as censorship until you start thinking why they are not talking about the moral actions and why its good.

Network News... hehe... talk about Censorship... Does anybody hear about the Tea Party Martch in Washington last week, I understood almost 2 million people showed up? What about Cindy Sheehan protest last month... Hmmmmmmm...

Sorry... we are way off topic... but it is a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "censorship" imprecisely.

Here is a decent definition of censorship: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.  The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority."  The Free Legal Dictionary

The things you described---MTV promoting immorality and the news choosing to cover certain events rather than other ones---may be undesirable, but they aren't censorship.  Censorship requires the government or some similar authority to step in and tell people what they can and can't say or print. 

Last night I posted something in response but I choosed to remove it because we could be way off topic.

Currently this is a hard argument to debate because we are not limited to Network TV and popTV (When I said MTV I ment popTV) we have the Internet. But if you remove the Internet from the resourse then you are limited from Network TV and popTV (and what they dont say is censored) *Not everybody has the Internet*

I'll be happy to talk about this but in another topic.

[ghouck]

Sorry to say this but the ban on VIRTUAL kiddie porn is cheap politics... It doesnt hurt anybody (right)

You've taken the stance that media doesn't make or incite people to do things. Many people, including myself, feel (know) otherwise.

hehe... Im just being realistic here...

The ban is cheap politics because it sounds right without actually offending anybody, just like Texting... lawmakers are pushing laws to ban taxting while driving (at least in Chicago area), although some people are stupid so they might text while driving but the dirty secret is we already have laws its called: reckless driving...

So lawmakers are playing cheap politics so they could look good and make a law that focus on texting because nobody can actually defend it without sounding stupid.

When they removed pornography from the prison I work at, sexual assaults went down (which there weren't many of in the first place), as did instances of guys masturbating in front of and AT guards (which there were quite a bit of). Just the same as assaults and fights went down when they removed mature video games. A couple years ago we actually tracked the fights that happened, half the fights happened on the nights 'The Ultimate Fighter' was on, after the show. Perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not. I know a bit of the horseplay that has happened in my shop starts with people talking about MMA/Boxing/Wrestling.

Prision is one place I never want to visit...

From my understanding (I had an uncle in prison and he told me stories) if you enter prison with an attude your'll get raped.

:)

I think the law against texting isn't a bad thing, as I see that crap all the time. One problem is that many, I'd even say most people doing so are kids, are try and twist the rules around however they wish. I've had this exact argument with kids, to a point where some feel that the more a person texts while driving, the better they are at it so it shouldn't be illegal. I tried to explain the exact point that you bring up, only to get "So, , if you're texting and not being wreckless, it's OK". I think the point of the law was to remove any misunderstanding and wiggle room, since many people deny the fact that even if it doesn't appear so outwardly, texting and driving IS dangerous. Mythbusters did a show on distracted driving, and it was equally as bad as drunk driving.

I don't know about all prisons, but in Alaska, it's kinda the opposite. If you stand up for yourself, even if you take an ass-kicking, you're much better off. Once you let yourself be victimized, it's an uphill battle to get out of being repeatedly victimized. Convicts of sex crimes are targeted more than others, but of course, there are few rapists or child molesters that have the sack to stand up against a man (a flaw they try and make up for by victimizing weaker people), so it's not surprising they often just fold. It's often a flip though: some people try and victimize you, and someone feels sorry for you and helps you out. Next thing you know, you OWE that person something, and it's all downhill from there. Sometimes a guy ends up giving money to someone that whores them out to the people they were protecting them from in the first place, so you get to owe someone money AND get raped. Wonderful eh?

[Allhallowsday]

We do have Censorship in America.  First, Hollywood and MTV are always telling us that immoral acts are normal and moral acts are boring and weird. Although it not seen as censorship until you start thinking why they are not talking about the moral actions and why its good.  Network News... hehe... talk about Censorship... Does anybody hear about the Tea Party Martch in Washington last week, I understood almost 2 million people showed up? What about Cindy Sheehan protest last month... Hmmmmmmm...

Sorry... we are way off topic... but it is a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "censorship" imprecisely.  Here is a decent definition of censorship: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.  The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority."  The Free Legal Dictionary  The things you described---MTV promoting immorality and the news choosing to cover certain events rather than other ones---may be undesirable, but they aren't censorship.  Censorship requires the government or some similar authority to step in and tell people what they can and can't say or print. 

Currently this is a hard argument to debate because we are not limited to Network TV and popTV (When I said MTV I ment popTV) we have the Internet. But if you remove the Internet from the resourse then you are limited from Network TV and popTV (and what they dont say is censored) *Not everybody has the Internet* 
I'll be happy to talk about this but in another topic.

"TV"...?  And "Internet"?  There are other resources like newspapers and books, too.  REV explained censorship; an editorial policy is not censorship. 

[Skull]

We do have Censorship in America.  First, Hollywood and MTV are always telling us that immoral acts are normal and moral acts are boring and weird. Although it not seen as censorship until you start thinking why they are not talking about the moral actions and why its good.  Network News... hehe... talk about Censorship... Does anybody hear about the Tea Party Martch in Washington last week, I understood almost 2 million people showed up? What about Cindy Sheehan protest last month... Hmmmmmmm...

Sorry... we are way off topic... but it is a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "censorship" imprecisely.  Here is a decent definition of censorship: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.  The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority."  The Free Legal Dictionary  The things you described---MTV promoting immorality and the news choosing to cover certain events rather than other ones---may be undesirable, but they aren't censorship.  Censorship requires the government or some similar authority to step in and tell people what they can and can't say or print. 

Currently this is a hard argument to debate because we are not limited to Network TV and popTV (When I said MTV I ment popTV) we have the Internet. But if you remove the Internet from the resourse then you are limited from Network TV and popTV (and what they dont say is censored) *Not everybody has the Internet* 
I'll be happy to talk about this but in another topic.

"TV"...?  And "Internet"?  There are other resources like newspapers and books, too.  REV explained censorship; an editorial policy is not censorship. 

Outch... Editorial policy is the censor...




Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor. ~ Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Meta_censorship



I looked at a ton of "Dictionary" referneces and none has said "Government needs to step in" or implies that censor has to be controlled by government... Even if you click on the Rev's link the first line reads: The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.




Therefore the Network News omiting NEWS is using censorship based on what they think is obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial...

The argument with the Network News is that they installed a unbiased relationship with the audience (the viewing public) that they are the NEWS and will use their media to inform everybody the important events. When the Network News censor such events they are showing prejudice and/or favoritism...


I'll be happy to talk more about this in another topic... :)

[Skull]

I think the law against texting isn't a bad thing, as I see that crap all the time. One problem is that many, I'd even say most people doing so are kids, are try and twist the rules around however they wish. I've had this exact argument with kids, to a point where some feel that the more a person texts while driving, the better they are at it so it shouldn't be illegal. I tried to explain the exact point that you bring up, only to get "So, , if you're texting and not being wreckless, it's OK". I think the point of the law was to remove any misunderstanding and wiggle room, since many people deny the fact that even if it doesn't appear so outwardly, texting and driving IS dangerous. Mythbusters did a show on distracted driving, and it was equally as bad as drunk driving.

I like the idea of wiggle room... :)

But the fact is reckless driving does covers so much because its about the drivers attention to the surrounding enviroment. But they called it reckless because there is a billion things a driver can do and a billion more that they cannot think of...

Like: I decide to tie my shoes or fill in a word on a crossword puzzle while driving.



I do agree that texting while driving is stupid (but its already covered by the law)... I just think those lawmakers are playing cheap politics.

I don't know about all prisons, but in Alaska, it's kinda the opposite. If you stand up for yourself, even if you take an ass-kicking, you're much better off. Once you let yourself be victimized, it's an uphill battle to get out of being repeatedly victimized. Convicts of sex crimes are targeted more than others, but of course, there are few rapists or child molesters that have the sack to stand up against a man (a flaw they try and make up for by victimizing weaker people), so it's not surprising they often just fold. It's often a flip though: some people try and victimize you, and someone feels sorry for you and helps you out. Next thing you know, you OWE that person something, and it's all downhill from there. Sometimes a guy ends up giving money to someone that whores them out to the people they were protecting them from in the first place, so you get to owe someone money AND get raped. Wonderful eh?

Prison is never like in the movies...

My uncle told me so much about prisions and some I think he just made up... As I understand its not a good place to be and with the smoking bans in most of the prisions I could imagen its like living in HELL... :)

[ghouck]

I like the idea of wiggle room... :)

But the fact is reckless driving does covers so much because its about the drivers attention to the surrounding enviroment. But they called it reckless because there is a billion things a driver can do and a billion more that they cannot think of...

Like: I decide to tie my shoes or fill in a word on a crossword puzzle while driving.

I do agree that texting while driving is stupid (but its already covered by the law)... I just think those lawmakers are playing cheap politics.

Your argument is the same one people use to try and get rid of DWI laws. There's already laws against causing a wreck, killing or harming a person, or driving in unauthorized  areas, so, why the need to make drinking and driving illegal?

Regardless, there is an expectation of competency on the roads. Just the same as a person with vision that falls below the standard and is not allowed to drive on public roads, or a person who is not of a certain age, people are required to be able to perform to a certain degree of skill, and that includes being sober, and not doing things that are too distracting. Without laws against texting, a person can argue that they were texting, but not being reckless, and that for the most part would be a lie, albiet a hard to prove lie. Just because a wreck didn't happen yet, doesn't mean you weren't reckless. You say it's already covered in law, well you're wrong, the existing laws can be interpreted differently.

[Skull]

I like the idea of wiggle room... :)

But the fact is reckless driving does covers so much because its about the drivers attention to the surrounding enviroment. But they called it reckless because there is a billion things a driver can do and a billion more that they cannot think of...

Like: I decide to tie my shoes or fill in a word on a crossword puzzle while driving.

I do agree that texting while driving is stupid (but its already covered by the law)... I just think those lawmakers are playing cheap politics.

Your argument is the same one people use to try and get rid of DWI laws. There's already laws against causing a wreck, killing or harming a person, or driving in unauthorized  areas, so, why the need to make drinking and driving illegal?

The difference between a DUI law and Reckless Driving law, its assumed that if your *under the influence of something* so you will crash. The intent of the law is to pervent those people from getting inside the car and driving, because it is also assumed that those people are not in the car when they were drinking (or whatever) so the idea is to make a stiffer penality then reckless driving and those people will think twice before entering the car and driving away.

Personally I do think the DUI laws are overkill but Im also aware of the "intent" so I dont see any problem with the DUI laws.

Regardless, there is an expectation of competency on the roads. Just the same as a person with vision that falls below the standard and is not allowed to drive on public roads, or a person who is not of a certain age, people are required to be able to perform to a certain degree of skill, and that includes being sober, and not doing things that are too distracting. Without laws against texting, a person can argue that they were texting, but not being reckless, and that for the most part would be a lie, albiet a hard to prove lie. Just because a wreck didn't happen yet, doesn't mean you weren't reckless. You say it's already covered in law, well you're wrong, the existing laws can be interpreted differently.

I do see your point but I think its unecessary because the role of responsibility is on the drivers hands and the driver should be aware that they are doing something that is reckless.

Even if the driver assumes that Texting isnt reckless (because its not written on the law) that driver should realize that it is reckless of him/her to keep their eyes from the road to text.

[ghouck]

The difference between a DUI law and Reckless Driving law, its assumed that if your *under the influence of something* so you will crash. The intent of the law is to pervent those people from getting inside the car and driving, because it is also assumed that those people are not in the car when they were drinking (or whatever) so the idea is to make a stiffer penality then reckless driving and those people will think twice before entering the car and driving away.

No, there is no assumption that you will crash, that is not the intent of the law. That also has been argued, and never successfully. Like I said, you're expected meet a standard of competency. You can not meet that standard while intoxicated or distracted.

Personally I do think the DUI laws are overkill but Im also aware of the "intent" so I dont see any problem with the DUI laws.

I think they don't go far enough. I can name you a long list of friends and family members that have been directly effected by a drunk driver. It happens way too much, so I don't see how it could possibly be construed as overkill.

I do see your point but I think its unecessary because the role of responsibility is on the drivers hands and the driver should be aware that they are doing something that is reckless.

A responsibility they obviously aren't taking. The purpose of laws aren't just to make people pay for their crimes, but rather the other way around: The punishment is there to deter people from breaking those laws. We all know we're not supposed to drive recklessly, but some people don't think texting while driving is reckless, regardless of how many times it's been proven otherwise. These laws clear that up unarguably.

Even if the driver assumes that Texting isnt reckless (because its not written on the law) that driver should realize that it is reckless of him/her to keep their eyes from the road to text.

Yes, and we STILL have people doing it, and the only way to get them to stop is to wait until something bad happens if it's not illegal to do. We're right back to a point where we could make the same argument regarding DWI/DUI laws.

The whole thing hinges on responsibility. We could say "people should take responsibility" all we want, and it still takes something bad to happen before people change their actions. We have prisons full of people that are made to be responsible for their actions, but remember that for every one of them, there's someone out there hurt/killed/orphaned, etc. What kind of society would we live in if the entire purpose of laws were to punish and none intended to prevent?

[Skull]

hehe you do know we are going off topic... :)

I'll be happy to talk about this in the proper post... :)

[indianasmith]

Yo Skull!
I know y'all havin' intense debate, and
I'mma letcha finish, but I just want to say that
ADVENTURES OF THE POLAR BEAR CUBS
is the most offensive movie of ALL time!

[Rev. Powell]

We do have Censorship in America.  First, Hollywood and MTV are always telling us that immoral acts are normal and moral acts are boring and weird. Although it not seen as censorship until you start thinking why they are not talking about the moral actions and why its good.  Network News... hehe... talk about Censorship... Does anybody hear about the Tea Party Martch in Washington last week, I understood almost 2 million people showed up? What about Cindy Sheehan protest last month... Hmmmmmmm...

Sorry... we are way off topic... but it is a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "censorship" imprecisely.  Here is a decent definition of censorship: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.  The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority."  The Free Legal Dictionary  The things you described---MTV promoting immorality and the news choosing to cover certain events rather than other ones---may be undesirable, but they aren't censorship.  Censorship requires the government or some similar authority to step in and tell people what they can and can't say or print. 

Currently this is a hard argument to debate because we are not limited to Network TV and popTV (When I said MTV I ment popTV) we have the Internet. But if you remove the Internet from the resourse then you are limited from Network TV and popTV (and what they dont say is censored) *Not everybody has the Internet* 
I'll be happy to talk about this but in another topic.

"TV"...?  And "Internet"?  There are other resources like newspapers and books, too.  REV explained censorship; an editorial policy is not censorship. 

Outch... Editorial policy is the censor...




Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor. ~ Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Meta_censorship



I looked at a ton of "Dictionary" referneces and none has said "Government needs to step in" or implies that censor has to be controlled by government... Even if you click on the Rev's link the first line reads: The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.




Therefore the Network News omiting NEWS is using censorship based on what they think is obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial...

The argument with the Network News is that they installed a unbiased relationship with the audience (the viewing public) that they are the NEWS and will use their media to inform everybody the important events. When the Network News censor such events they are showing prejudice and/or favoritism...


I'll be happy to talk more about this in another topic... :)

I may take you up on your offer to discuss it in another thread.  This one is thoroughly derailed.

You're still wrong  , but you've put up enough of an argument that it will take me a while to explain why.