I remember a few years ago (10?) there was an animated cartoon movie scheduled to show at the Toronto International Film Festival. It involved depictions of space aliens having sex. Because the censorship board thought these aliens looked to young to be having sex they banned it. As far as I know, I think they still pixelate animal sex scenes on the Discovery Channel as well (where I live).
I really doubt that "critical thinking" can be taught with any degree of success. It appears to be more an aptitude than a skill. You can teach a genetically deaf person to talk for example, but they will never become wholly articulate. With most people, their biases and ideology will inevitably win a logic argument.
Could anyone explain to me the logic behind that? I'm sorry, I don't get it.
No. If you don't get it now you likely never will "get it". To understand the logic behind censorship you need to have at least some amount of cognitive dissonance, an authoritarian personality, and some defensive mechanisms. Try banging your head against a concrete wall long enough and you might get enough brain damage to understand this logic.
Is that legal? Should it be legal? It's a complicated issue, and running around screaming OMFG The Brits are censoring the Internet!!! is a really dumb response.
Clearly censorship is bad and should not be allowed. The extreme Right Wing obviously want to introduce as much FUD into the issue as possible to create more and stricter censorship.
People need to get over themselves and stop imposing their (im)morals on other people.
Wikipedia is not censoring, they are only (trying) to stop the abuse. You need to direct your complaint to the IWF; they are the ones causing the problems.
You don't need to be a communist to be against censorship, but there is a high correlation between authoritarianism and the Right Wing movement/governments. (Yes correlation does not equal causation, but I'm not talking about causation). Take for example the right wing "labour" partys in the UK or Australia for example.
Do you go into Roman Catholic churches and start condemning the angels painted on the ceilings?
That reminds me; where I live the Catholic school board wanted to ban kilts because they were part of the Catholic school girl uniform. Apparently priests know better than the rest of us about perversion and sexuality.
Thanks for the link, but I wont go there:) I will however report that link to the IWF and see if I can get Amazon banned - that at least will force major media to take notice, which is far more helpful to getting sensible laws in place.
I think your actions will likely have the opposite effects than what you may think. The non-Slashdot community is far more illogical and uneducated than you may like to believe.
It is a sexual pose, and therefore I have a problem with it.
Your biases an (im)morality are becoming more clear the more I read your comments. You are obviously more interested in moral punditry than discussion.
Agreed, the people who most often protest the hardest against such things are the people who most often think about such things. There's a pervert in every censor.
As a guide, the word 'indecent' means any images of children, under 18 years of age, involved in a sexual pose or activity."
If that is the case then the IWF needs to stop trying to de-sexualize children. Imposing an organizations' unnatural morals on people will only lead to crime and punishment.
Even if it seems silly to a lot of us, since certain individual might look at it as porn and not art, it seems legit to at least discuss what is ok.
Discussing what is "ok" legitimizes wrong-headed thinking and censorship. It brings a level of unwarranted FUD to a discussion. This should not even be an issue. There is nothing controversial about the picture.
I think it's the way you said it. "fuckwits" isn't tactful nor helpful. I myself get mod points occasionally so I would also fall into your over-broad generalization.
(almost) no teens are getting arrested for displaying their nude bodies on the net
I'd suggest you Google a bit. Things are changing (in the USA, amongst other places).
Back to Australia - what are the freedoms regarding nudism and nudist photos?
I could only imagine. In Australia it is currently illegal to take a picture of a clothed child or teen without the parents' written permission. In places like Britain you could get arrested for taking a picture of a clothed adult in front of a landmark. Being a photographer isn't safe these days, just ask any photojournalist.
I was thinking more in the line of Jakow Trachtenberg when he lived in a Nazi concentration camp and kept his mind busy by developing The Trachtenberg System. If you express the wrong views, read the wrong things, etc similar lapses of freedom can occur to just about anybody within "democratic" countries. Things are only becoming worse over time (or perhaps I should say back to the more historic norm).
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a few years ago (10?) there was an animated cartoon movie scheduled to show at the Toronto International Film Festival. It involved depictions of space aliens having sex. Because the censorship board thought these aliens looked to young to be having sex they banned it. As far as I know, I think they still pixelate animal sex scenes on the Discovery Channel as well (where I live).
History never really seems to change.
didn't know you could get addicted to guns
A person can become (psychologically) addicted to anything. Some addictions are legally more equal than others.
I really doubt that "critical thinking" can be taught with any degree of success. It appears to be more an aptitude than a skill. You can teach a genetically deaf person to talk for example, but they will never become wholly articulate. With most people, their biases and ideology will inevitably win a logic argument.
Could anyone explain to me the logic behind that? I'm sorry, I don't get it.
No. If you don't get it now you likely never will "get it". To understand the logic behind censorship you need to have at least some amount of cognitive dissonance, an authoritarian personality, and some defensive mechanisms. Try banging your head against a concrete wall long enough and you might get enough brain damage to understand this logic.
Let's hope that the IWF doesn't find out about that Web site. It would be sad to see university Web sites banned from Britain as well.
People keep saying this, but really, we aren't. CCTV? Nobody cares
That's the problem and it really scares me.
We're perfectly aware of what's happening, we just don't think it's particularly bad.
Again; true and unfortunate and very scary.
Is that legal? Should it be legal? It's a complicated issue, and running around screaming OMFG The Brits are censoring the Internet!!! is a really dumb response.
Clearly censorship is bad and should not be allowed. The extreme Right Wing obviously want to introduce as much FUD into the issue as possible to create more and stricter censorship.
People need to get over themselves and stop imposing their (im)morals on other people.
Wikipedia is not censoring, they are only (trying) to stop the abuse. You need to direct your complaint to the IWF; they are the ones causing the problems.
Opposition of censorship != "left-wing"
You don't need to be a communist to be against censorship, but there is a high correlation between authoritarianism and the Right Wing movement/governments. (Yes correlation does not equal causation, but I'm not talking about causation). Take for example the right wing "labour" partys in the UK or Australia for example.
Do you go into Roman Catholic churches and start condemning the angels painted on the ceilings?
That reminds me; where I live the Catholic school board wanted to ban kilts because they were part of the Catholic school girl uniform. Apparently priests know better than the rest of us about perversion and sexuality.
Thanks for the link, but I wont go there :) I will however report that link to the IWF and see if I can get Amazon banned - that at least will force major media to take notice, which is far more helpful to getting sensible laws in place.
I think your actions will likely have the opposite effects than what you may think. The non-Slashdot community is far more illogical and uneducated than you may like to believe.
It is a sexual pose, and therefore I have a problem with it.
Your biases an (im)morality are becoming more clear the more I read your comments. You are obviously more interested in moral punditry than discussion.
NonethelessThat is the problem. Concessions to authoritarian governments will only strengthen their resolve.
Agreed, the people who most often protest the hardest against such things are the people who most often think about such things. There's a pervert in every censor.
As a guide, the word 'indecent' means any images of children, under 18 years of age, involved in a sexual pose or activity."
If that is the case then the IWF needs to stop trying to de-sexualize children. Imposing an organizations' unnatural morals on people will only lead to crime and punishment.
Even if it seems silly to a lot of us, since certain individual might look at it as porn and not art, it seems legit to at least discuss what is ok.
Discussing what is "ok" legitimizes wrong-headed thinking and censorship. It brings a level of unwarranted FUD to a discussion. This should not even be an issue. There is nothing controversial about the picture.
Actually, reading the wikipedia article on Virgin Killer, it seems that it is bonafide child pornography.
You are obviously lying. There is no sexual intercourse depicted in that picture.
I think it's the way you said it. "fuckwits" isn't tactful nor helpful. I myself get mod points occasionally so I would also fall into your over-broad generalization.
Best regards,
UTW
If you ask the religious to justify their irrationality then you will get more answers than logic. Good luck.
(almost) no teens are getting arrested for displaying their nude bodies on the net
I'd suggest you Google a bit. Things are changing (in the USA, amongst other places).
Back to Australia - what are the freedoms regarding nudism and nudist photos?
I could only imagine. In Australia it is currently illegal to take a picture of a clothed child or teen without the parents' written permission. In places like Britain you could get arrested for taking a picture of a clothed adult in front of a landmark. Being a photographer isn't safe these days, just ask any photojournalist.
It's not art if it's "porn".
I agree (perhaps obviously). Before I read your post I did post an explanation which may be more agreeable to you.
Best regards,
UTW
I was thinking more in the line of Jakow Trachtenberg when he lived in a Nazi concentration camp and kept his mind busy by developing The Trachtenberg System. If you express the wrong views, read the wrong things, etc similar lapses of freedom can occur to just about anybody within "democratic" countries. Things are only becoming worse over time (or perhaps I should say back to the more historic norm).
Best regards,
UTW
It looks more like another spam site that has links to shopping sites. More sleazy capitalism than communism.
If I had a nickle for every time somebody on Slashdot incorrectly stated that a post was a Godwin I would be a very rich person.