You're right, but it doesn't take into account the speed at which someone can come to understand and memorize knew knowledge. The fact that he's young does not automatically mean that he has less experience than someone older. It might make it more likely, but assuming that from the start is rather arrogant, I feel.
I'm not? I typically speak my mind. And even if that were not the case, an appeal to hypocrisy would not change the correctness of this censorship. Honestly, I think the world would be far better if people were less sensitive and just spoke their mind.
Oh, and not saying something is quite different than creating something and then censoring it for everyone who wished to see it.
And don't tell me you don't ever think bad thoughts about anyone, all humans do.
Yes, I have. However, it would theoretically be possible to not ever have had bad thoughts about anyone.
No, I'm accusing them of censorship because they are actively planning to censor it for a temporary amount of time (which is nonsensical) to appease those that might find the material offensive.
The material is not considered immoral, obscene, politically or commercially damaging, or heretical.
Except that they're doing this because some people might be offended by it.
It's so much easier to get all self-righteous when you have strict definitions you think everybody else should live by.
"Live by"? Aren't you taking it a bit out of context? I merely said that it could be considered censorship. Some definitions of it fit.
If you're worried about the negative impact of not showing a couple of widely available cartoon re-runs, rest assured you have more in common with "offended" people than you'd like to think.
Such as? The mere fact that I posted does not mean that I am offended. The fact that I do not like censorship or that I believe it is illogical does not put me into the same group as those that are so easily offended by fiction. Although, I do not know what you meant to imply by that comment because you did not explain it adequately enough.
Now it's just a matter of a decision you have a petty disagreement with?
When did I say differently? From the very beginning I said that it was censorship. From the very beginning I stated that it was my opinion that this should not happen.
So much for your silly argument about this being some big bad censorship.
I don't know where I said that. I've mostly been criticizing people who are so easily offended that they want this to be censored. The only thing that I said was that it is indeed censorship.
It's still censorship. They are censoring the show because some people might be offended. In this case, it would be self-censorship. They're saying, "At this current point in time, you can't watch this on our station."
Just how safe, cotton-balled and full of trivialities
The fact that worse things happen does not negate the negative impact this has. The issue may be important to them for whatever reason. I just don't like censorship of any kind, especially not the kind that is brought about by people being 'offended'.
And, apparently, you let yourself be offended by all this.
What evidence do you base this assumption on? Because I posted? That's just a false dilemma. I could have posted because I like arguing, because I like posting, because I, as you said, was offended, or for another reason entirely.
You can't rationalize human emotions.
No, but you can speak out against the ones that lead to the most illogical behavior: anger and sadness.
Just because you don't share their particular needs, is that a reason to ignore their needs?
Yes. Especially if it is something like this. Them taking offense to this is their own fault. What about other people's needs? What if they wish to watch the show on television? Why don't these people just not watch it? They have that choice, do they not? The people who wish to watch it on television no longer have their choice.
Second of all, they have no "needs." This is not a need. They will be fine even if it doesn't happen. What they have is wants and desires.
Furthermore, should we censor everything simply because a small group of people wishes it to be so? What if people took offense to the fact that other religions existed? What if people took offense to the word "the"? Are we simply going to dismiss these people and say they are being irrational whilst tending to the desires of others? Who makes those decisions? Why? The default solution, I believe, should be to not censor anything and let those people that take offense to it either analyze the situation logically, or just not watch it.
You yourself seem to have a need to watch old Simpsons re-runs on TV in the original order and without exception
Yet another assumption. I do not even watch the Simpsons.
It is sympathy for those who directly experienced the incidents.
And it doesn't make sense. What good does erasing things from fictional material do? They need not be offended by it, and indeed, if they are, it is their own fault. Nothing forces them to be.
As horrible as it is, people die in earthquakes and tsunamis regularly.
Ah, I see. So if it happens regularly, the event is no longer a 'bad' thing and can be presented in a humorous manner? Some would likely disagree.
sane
Subjective.
Seeing the towers during that time in a fictional or humorous way would just bring me to tears for my friends who died.
That's quite illogical. It's a 'shame' that it happened, I believe, but if it bothers you so much (which I think it shouldn't), then don't watch it. Don't expect people to censor everything because you're sensitive.
You can still watch these episodes on dvd or similar.
Whether it's illogical or not, the fact is that stations have to be careful what they air at times like this or face spending and/or losing real money as a consequence.
I understand this, but it's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the act of being so easily offended.
Besides, we all have our own eccentricities - I would hope that, by being sensitive to the needs of others
That's just it. There are no "needs" present. They are offended because they let themselves be offended. They do not need to be. And, in fact, it would be better if they weren't. That just leads to what I believe is irrational behavior, such as what we see here.
it's not like it's costing you or hurting you in any way.
The same could be said of them. Just don't watch it. But, really, it is preventing the people who would like to watch it on television from watching it. I wouldn't say that equates to harm, but it does prevent enjoyment. I would say that no action needs to be taken at all. No censorship. Not anything. But that could only be done in a world not ruled by money.
Because people disagree with the decision. They don't like censorship, and they don't like the fact that something they enjoy could potentially be censored simply because someone finds it to be in "bad taste" or some other equally ridiculous reason. Whether or not the creators agree is irrelevant.
The question is why you'd get your panties in a bunch just because they choose not to air those episodes for a couple of weeks or months.
I care because it's illogical. They get offended by things completely irrelevant to them (like cartoon shows). That is their own fault. A better question would be: if they're so offended, why don't they just not watch it instead of ruining it for everyone else? Or, alternatively, they could realize how pointless it is to get offended in the first place and that it is their own fault.
where you wouldn't want to offend them just out of a sense of general decency
I wouldn't waste my time not trying to offend them. Anyone can, in theory, be offended by anything. Too bad for them. They should either stop being so easily offended (taking offense to something is their own doing) or just ignore it.
I don't care if they were being made fun of. Why are people so easily offended? It is a cartoon that has no impact on their life.
"Bad taste" is subjective. "Funny" is again subjective. There should not be a few people, or even many, that decide the definitions of these for everyone else.
What does a cartoon show have to do with real life? Nothing. People get offended by something that doesn't affect them yet again, and it is their own fault. The fact that something similar happened in real life does not mean that the joke is not 'funny' (subjective) or that it's 'bad' (subjective). It's irrelevant. People should, in my opinion, focus on real life, not on cartoons. I don't care if it's a joke about 9/11 or what have you. It is illogical to censor it. It has no affect on real life.
I don't need to upgrade my PC every few months to play the latest games, either. That only happens if, at the time of upgrade, you're being incredibly cheap. I bought a new $700 computer a few years ago and have been able to play all of the latest games since. You may or may not be speaking of playing them on the highest settings (which I don't do), but I don't care about that anyway. They work. But, surprisingly, I can play most of them on the highest settings.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, but it doesn't take into account the speed at which someone can come to understand and memorize knew knowledge. The fact that he's young does not automatically mean that he has less experience than someone older. It might make it more likely, but assuming that from the start is rather arrogant, I feel.
I'm not? I typically speak my mind. And even if that were not the case, an appeal to hypocrisy would not change the correctness of this censorship. Honestly, I think the world would be far better if people were less sensitive and just spoke their mind.
Oh, and not saying something is quite different than creating something and then censoring it for everyone who wished to see it.
And don't tell me you don't ever think bad thoughts about anyone, all humans do.
Yes, I have. However, it would theoretically be possible to not ever have had bad thoughts about anyone.
No, I'm accusing them of censorship because they are actively planning to censor it for a temporary amount of time (which is nonsensical) to appease those that might find the material offensive.
The material is not considered immoral, obscene, politically or commercially damaging, or heretical.
Except that they're doing this because some people might be offended by it.
It's so much easier to get all self-righteous when you have strict definitions you think everybody else should live by.
"Live by"? Aren't you taking it a bit out of context? I merely said that it could be considered censorship. Some definitions of it fit.
If you're worried about the negative impact of not showing a couple of widely available cartoon re-runs, rest assured you have more in common with "offended" people than you'd like to think.
Such as? The mere fact that I posted does not mean that I am offended. The fact that I do not like censorship or that I believe it is illogical does not put me into the same group as those that are so easily offended by fiction. Although, I do not know what you meant to imply by that comment because you did not explain it adequately enough.
Now it's just a matter of a decision you have a petty disagreement with?
When did I say differently? From the very beginning I said that it was censorship. From the very beginning I stated that it was my opinion that this should not happen.
So much for your silly argument about this being some big bad censorship.
I don't know where I said that. I've mostly been criticizing people who are so easily offended that they want this to be censored. The only thing that I said was that it is indeed censorship.
It's still censorship. They are censoring the show because some people might be offended. In this case, it would be self-censorship. They're saying, "At this current point in time, you can't watch this on our station."
It certainly is censorship, even if temporary.
Just how safe, cotton-balled and full of trivialities
The fact that worse things happen does not negate the negative impact this has. The issue may be important to them for whatever reason. I just don't like censorship of any kind, especially not the kind that is brought about by people being 'offended'.
Yes, but my point was this: what if they stopped watching that station (like they imply this vocal minority might do)?
And, apparently, you let yourself be offended by all this.
What evidence do you base this assumption on? Because I posted? That's just a false dilemma. I could have posted because I like arguing, because I like posting, because I, as you said, was offended, or for another reason entirely.
You can't rationalize human emotions.
No, but you can speak out against the ones that lead to the most illogical behavior: anger and sadness.
Just because you don't share their particular needs, is that a reason to ignore their needs?
Yes. Especially if it is something like this. Them taking offense to this is their own fault. What about other people's needs? What if they wish to watch the show on television? Why don't these people just not watch it? They have that choice, do they not? The people who wish to watch it on television no longer have their choice.
Second of all, they have no "needs." This is not a need. They will be fine even if it doesn't happen. What they have is wants and desires.
Furthermore, should we censor everything simply because a small group of people wishes it to be so? What if people took offense to the fact that other religions existed? What if people took offense to the word "the"? Are we simply going to dismiss these people and say they are being irrational whilst tending to the desires of others? Who makes those decisions? Why? The default solution, I believe, should be to not censor anything and let those people that take offense to it either analyze the situation logically, or just not watch it.
You yourself seem to have a need to watch old Simpsons re-runs on TV in the original order and without exception
Yet another assumption. I do not even watch the Simpsons.
It is sympathy for those who directly experienced the incidents.
And it doesn't make sense. What good does erasing things from fictional material do? They need not be offended by it, and indeed, if they are, it is their own fault. Nothing forces them to be.
As horrible as it is, people die in earthquakes and tsunamis regularly.
Ah, I see. So if it happens regularly, the event is no longer a 'bad' thing and can be presented in a humorous manner? Some would likely disagree.
sane
Subjective.
Seeing the towers during that time in a fictional or humorous way would just bring me to tears for my friends who died.
That's quite illogical. It's a 'shame' that it happened, I believe, but if it bothers you so much (which I think it shouldn't), then don't watch it. Don't expect people to censor everything because you're sensitive.
You can still watch these episodes on dvd or similar.
And they can just not watch them at all.
Whether it's illogical or not, the fact is that stations have to be careful what they air at times like this or face spending and/or losing real money as a consequence.
I understand this, but it's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the act of being so easily offended.
Besides, we all have our own eccentricities - I would hope that, by being sensitive to the needs of others
That's just it. There are no "needs" present. They are offended because they let themselves be offended. They do not need to be. And, in fact, it would be better if they weren't. That just leads to what I believe is irrational behavior, such as what we see here.
it's not like it's costing you or hurting you in any way.
The same could be said of them. Just don't watch it. But, really, it is preventing the people who would like to watch it on television from watching it. I wouldn't say that equates to harm, but it does prevent enjoyment. I would say that no action needs to be taken at all. No censorship. Not anything. But that could only be done in a world not ruled by money.
No, but people can voice their disagreement over their decisions (like they're doing now).
I have a better idea: just don't throttle anything based on the protocol used.
Because people disagree with the decision. They don't like censorship, and they don't like the fact that something they enjoy could potentially be censored simply because someone finds it to be in "bad taste" or some other equally ridiculous reason. Whether or not the creators agree is irrelevant.
What about the small number of people who don't like censorship?
Maybe people also disagree with the producer of the show?
Whether or not the government is involved, it is still censorship.
The question is why you'd get your panties in a bunch just because they choose not to air those episodes for a couple of weeks or months.
I care because it's illogical. They get offended by things completely irrelevant to them (like cartoon shows). That is their own fault. A better question would be: if they're so offended, why don't they just not watch it instead of ruining it for everyone else? Or, alternatively, they could realize how pointless it is to get offended in the first place and that it is their own fault.
where you wouldn't want to offend them just out of a sense of general decency
I wouldn't waste my time not trying to offend them. Anyone can, in theory, be offended by anything. Too bad for them. They should either stop being so easily offended (taking offense to something is their own doing) or just ignore it.
I don't care if they were being made fun of. Why are people so easily offended? It is a cartoon that has no impact on their life.
"Bad taste" is subjective. "Funny" is again subjective. There should not be a few people, or even many, that decide the definitions of these for everyone else.
What does a cartoon show have to do with real life? Nothing. People get offended by something that doesn't affect them yet again, and it is their own fault. The fact that something similar happened in real life does not mean that the joke is not 'funny' (subjective) or that it's 'bad' (subjective). It's irrelevant. People should, in my opinion, focus on real life, not on cartoons. I don't care if it's a joke about 9/11 or what have you. It is illogical to censor it. It has no affect on real life.
Yeah. What is truly important are pieces of paper. The more it requires, the worse the solution is!
Two of those choices equate to supporting Microsoft.
Do you mean buying Windows? If so, just download it. In fact, I can't think of why you would be support Microsoft by buying a PC.
I don't need to upgrade my PC every few months to play the latest games, either. That only happens if, at the time of upgrade, you're being incredibly cheap. I bought a new $700 computer a few years ago and have been able to play all of the latest games since. You may or may not be speaking of playing them on the highest settings (which I don't do), but I don't care about that anyway. They work. But, surprisingly, I can play most of them on the highest settings.
I am saying that he is too young yet.
Age has little to do with it. It's more about knowledge than that.