but it speaks volumes that violence seems to be celebrated but anything sexual must be covered up "for the children"
You may want to expand your argument by including more than just one example of censorship for nudity is concerned. Have you seen Nip/Tuck? It's on network television. Have you seen Sex and the CIty? It's on network tv now. Victoria's Secret has fashion shows on tv now as well. Have you seen what celebrity teenagers wear now? You know damn well little girls are watching them. And you know boys are paying attention to what they are able to see now on network television but we are seeing more and more of it on the tv where media producers know kids will be influenced. Magazines are staying relatively the same with censorship, but it's television that is changing. Movie ratings are becoming more liberal with what can be included in a movie rated PG13 also.
You are right in that violence seems to be protected more than sex which is a bad thing considering just how much sex is being advertised in society today and yet we think we can advertise as much as we do but lower teen pregnancy simply by giving everyone condoms. The problem is that the gov't is trying to cover up the violence but not the sex, and it's the media who try to uncover the sex so it's 2 groups of people with difference agendas at work.
the debate over violent/explicit video games is long from over, and more restrictions may well be brought in over time.
I don't hear you complaining about the movie ratings system where a child has to be a certain age to see a movie with a certain rating or be accompanied by an adult.
Long ago we needed a separation between Church and State. Now we need a separation between Parent and State. Parents need to take some responsiblitity in raising their children and stop blaming every form of media that doesn't fit into their package of morals.
So you say, we lasted 200 years as a country before some one decided that a separation was needed and somehow forced the gov't into abiding by one person's complaint. No one complained before that point and everyone was happy too (imagine that!). At some point in time the gov't DOES need to stand in since they do make the laws that we have to abide by. If you would quit acting like the gov't is a bad thing you may actually be able to see that the gov't could do good things if you got your head out of your ass and realize not everyone (media) has good intentions in mind.
Five years later the United States Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970, p. 53) (or rather twelve of the seventeen participating members) arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that 'empirical research designed to clarify the question has found no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behaviour among youth or adults'.
Sure, just like commercials don't ever affect a person when they watch tv, or that music doesn't get into your head and make you think various things after hearing a song, or that a tv show doesn't affect your mind after watching it. Whether we like it or not or even notice it, anything that our brain takes in from our 5 senses will affect us in one way or another. It may be gradual and that might be why we don't notice it, but it does and can happen and it doesn't mean it happens to everyone but it definitely happens to those who are weak minded.
It's funny that somebody who wouldn't think of buying a car without test driving it or buy a house without having it inspected would marry somebody without having even seen them naked or seen what they are like living with every day.
What the hell does seeing them naked have to do with *being in love* with a woman? Sex should not be a deciding factor. If you love her you should think she is the most beautiful woman in the world and it wouldn't matter what she looks like naked because she can't get any better looking than she already is.
If you are looking at/for something better than you obviously either don't love the woman anymore, or you never loved her to begin with and have always wanted something better all along.
And it is possible to buy a car w/o test driving it (just sitting in it) and knowing the car is for you. Some people just have a sense for something w/o having to get in so deep. Inspecting a house is not the same and in fact is the same as just sitting in a car before buying it. Living in the house would be equivalent to living with a woman or testing driving a car but not just inspecting the house.
Fantasizing about being a baseball player doesn't do much when you don't ever take part in it as part of the fantasy. Masturbating to porn and watching porn (instead of just imaginging it) is a lot different and more involved than imagining playing baseball.
He is saying fantasy CAN be unhealthy for those whose heart and mind isn't in the right place to begin with.
The only problem with your statement is that even though conservatives can do something they are shot down in favor of making sure the liberals can accomplish the items I said in my first post.
Conservatives don't make America any less free. They try to make sure that there are laws that keep people in check as far as making sure society doesn't lose its sense of right and wrong. As opposed to liberals wanting everything to be suitable for everyone and telling society that "nothing is ever wrong or immoral anymore" which tends to make America a land of "everything goes" which defeats the purpose of having any laws to begin with.
For the same reason that scientists can clone humans even though they shouldn't, for the same reason that doctors can kill babies before they are born, for the same reason gays can have laws bent to suit their wants....all because they can, nevermind whether they should.
I don't want "responsibility" defined around someone else's definition of it. If someone wants to go watch porn and listen to people cuss, they should be able to listen to such a station. I, on the other hand, have the right to not listen, and even to block it so that my children wouldn't hear it.
Your use of the word "responsibility" is simply "I don't want them to play what *I* don't want to hear."
Sorry, but the gov't defines a lot of things for us that not everyone agree on. You can't please all the people all of the time. As I said in another post, the views of the majority should be protected over the ability for a single individual to get what he/she wants. Why do you think that there are disclaimers stipulating that some things performed in pornos can be illegal in some communities? Communities (groups of *real* people) have levels of decency they would like to uphold over what a single person who wants to watch a porno might want.
My use of the word responsibility is simply "I don't want them to play what a small minority of people may want to hear since we are talking about a form of mass media". We aren't talking about focus groups here. We are talking about millions of people here with multiple viewpoints. You have to reach a happy medium where you can please most of the people most of the time because you will never please all the people all the time and it isn't fair to please a few of the people all the time.
A book is still not considered mass media. Radio and television are though.
You are worried about definitions of indecency threatening your freedom? If you are worried about little things like that then you have bigger issues than the rest of us who are more worried about terrorists (both domestic and foreign) who can scare a country into watching over its back every minute of the day.
Whether or not a nipple is allowed to be shown on tv does not impede on your freedom, despite what you may think. You can still think and say and do whatever you want so where is your freedom being affected?
When level of decency affect what and where and how you can do something then we can have this discussion, otherwise you are not being affected. When you can get arrested for not abiding by that decency then there is a problem. Movie/radio studios may be fined for not abiding by it but it isn't affecting your level of freedom whatsoever and the role of the gov't is to protect the views of the many over the views of the individual, otherwise there is no reason to be voting on anything if the majority means nothing in this country anymore.
My mistake, I think you meant telling your 7 year old about the nipple on tv, correct? Either way, unless the child explicitly asks you, like you mention in your last post, there is no reason to volunteer the information to the child because they don't need to know. At 7 years old I highly doubt they will ask something like that anyway, unless of course there are parents in this country who seem to think *their* child needs to know what a nipple is and that child ends up talking to your child and brings it back to you. Everything you do can be negated by 1 bad parent.
Smacks, to me, of "America: the land of the free - except where prohibited by overly conservative Christian views* that in no way, shape, or form reflect the beliefs of the population as a whole."
Maybe you have forgotten why we are here but the Pilgrims came over here were Puritans and in the Mayflower Compact stated they were founding their society based on a religion for God. By removing any hint of religion at present and saying we were not founded on religious views (I guess the founders were just lying when they said they didn't want to be persecuted anymore because of their religion) THAT smacks to me of "America: the land of the free - except where prohibited by overly liberl, secular, atheistic views that in no way, shape, or form reflect beliefs of the population as a whole." Most parents want their children to grow up with values and morals and most people agree on murder, rape, burglary, etc. as being sins whether you like it or not.
Oh, and don't wear a condom because they're bad. Then people wonder why diseases like AIDS have reached pandemic proportions in ultra-conservative Christian countries such as most of Africa, while the neo-conservative administration running America stipulates that 30% of their AIDS funding must go to faith-based organisations that all condemn condom use. Patently ridiculous.
Condoms condone promiscuous behavior. Would you rather your child be told that it is okay to have sex (nevermind any religious views on it, no child needs to have sex when they are 10, or 13, or 15) as long as a condom is used and then get pregnant? Let them be afraid of having sex with multiple partners because of fear of contracting a disease since they don't need to be doing that in the first place. Giving them a condom says, "here, we are making it safe for you to screw anyone you want to and we are going to make sure that you wont have to worry about any of the consequences either". By removing any chance of consequence you also remove any reason for them to stay abstinent. Hypothetically speaking, if you tell a child if he reaches into the cookie jar that you will make sure that no matter how much he eats you can make sure he won't ever get a stomach ache what do you think he is going to do? He sure as hell isn't going to walk away from that kind of deal now is he?
AIDS doesn't alway spread because of sexual activity. It is hard to say when/how it got introduced into Africa and it could have very easily then got transmitted by religious people by non-sexual activity. We aren't immune to it you know.
Sex is bad when you don't even know the name of the person you are doing it with. Sex is bad when you are married and the other person is not your spouse. Sex is bad when you are only 15 years old. Sex is bad if you don't love the person. Sex is bad if it is with someone of the same sex.
They showed picture after picture (topless, full view) of her boobs as they talked about the procedure, but where the nipple should have been, they fuzzed it out.
Beyond stupid...
yes, and I'm sure it just scarred you for life because of you not being able to see a nipple. It isn't affecting you so get over it already. If they want to censor it let them. There isn't anything wrong with it. You may say there isn't anything wrong with showing it. They are erring on the side of caution for people who may be offended by it. I doubt you are offended by it being censored (why would you be? you aren't being denied anything by it) but people could be offended by it not being censored. It all leads to society trying to uphold a certain level of standards for the population as a whole. Nothing wrong with standards, and nothing wrong with society agreeing on something that you disagree with. Majority over minority.
It always steams me that they'll edit out breasts and other "sex" things in movies, but movies like "Predator" and "Resevoir Dogs" will be shown on TV, with lots of people getting shot up and spewing blood all over. Is that really a better image we'd like kids to see? I myself would just prefer not to edit anything out.
Any particular reason why you choose no editing at all over editing of both violence and sex?
I really don't see the point at all in putting sex in action movies especially when the movie studios know that young boys will want to go see them. Is that really a better image we'd like kids to see? Being an action hero means you can have any woman anytime you want. Good going media, teach the young boys of the country that women are sex objects and you can take and throw them away after you are done with them.
If you leave in the violence (edit out the sex) and complain (like someone else who responded to you did) that teaching kids that shooting someone and not seeing the consequences is a bad thing, I say who says we have to have the consequences in the movie? Why not some other medium, like in schools? Oh wait, teaching the commandment that murder is a sin is a no no nowadays. Sorry, my mistake for being rational and teaching kids the right thing.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Oh yes, because everyone knows a 7 year old needs to know what a blow job is so he can go into puberty head first(pun intended). No wonder society has issues. No one under 13, to say the least, needs to know what a blow job is. You want to counter with the argument that they are going to learn it from their friends? Not if everyone (fat chance)agreed to do the same thing, then we might make some headway and they would *not* hear it from their friends after all.
First, countries don't go downhill overnight. If Bush and Company had a press conference where they all twirled their thick black mustaches and laughed, "MUAHahahahaha!", everyone would know they were the bad guys.
First, countries don't go downhill overnight. If American society publicly admitted they were attempting every conceivable way of making this country a lot worse to live in everyone would know that we have some bad people living amongst us.
Instead, they tell us that we need to be defend against terrorism, or that they're protecting children, or so on. They start by attacking unsympathetic people, advocates of the most radical changes, the most overtly threatening speakers.
Instead they tell us that we need to respect other religions, or that we don't want to offend anyone, or so on. They start by attacking the Pledge of Allegiance, advocates of conservative changes, the most overtly religious groups.
For instance, those people who worked with Iraq or Afghanistan being held at Guantanamo without access to counsel, or political radicals, or pornographers.
For instance, those people who are Christians who try only to keep God in society, not even try to add it, only keep it in when it was already there.
They have the right to counsel under US law and US legal tradition. But they're working with the enemy, or anarchists, or sleaze-peddlers, so we can look the other way just a little bit on this whole due process concept, right?
They have the right to freedom of religion and don't say to the rest of society that they will be put in jail if they don't follow. They can still have their own religion. But Christians are working against the enemy, or anarchists, or sleaze-peddlers, so we can look the other way because they are a religious group and have no say in society anymore and are pushed into the recesses of the country (All men are created equal) because of their religion (freedom of religion).
Over time censorship goes up and free speech goes down. A little at a time, a little here, a little there... they sneak it in, so it only offends the strongest free speech advocates, also known as "next on our list". Eventually you can't criticize at all without risking jail time or worse.
Over time, censorship for the secularists and humanists goes down and free speech for all things immoral and secular go up. A little at a time, a little here, a little there...they sneak it in, so it only offends the Christians, also known as "extremists". Eventually you can't say "God" in school without risking jail time or worse. No "under God" in the Pledge. No student initiated prayer in schools. Condoms for everyone!! Media producers no longer have responsiblity and parents are alone in the fight to protect their kids. Abortion is okay as long as the child's feet aren't yet visible even though the heart is beating, and then suddenly stops when it is murdered by the doctor helping the mother give birth. Gays are allowed to change laws to suit their lifestyle so that everyone can see them in the American spotlight. TV shows commercialize and advertise the homosexual lifestyle as a Good Thing. As long as it is a little at a time no on will notice.
And if you think that the current administration thinks of censorship as a necessary evil, something we have to endure for the crisis, remember this: when Bill Maher called US pilots "cowards", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "... they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (Emphasis added.)
And if you think that the the current US society thinks of censorship of religon as a necessary evil, something we have to endure for the crisis of offending the minorities of the country, remember this: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"--George Washington, 9/1
That particular book may only hit one child at a time, maybe 2 or 3 if the child brings his friends. A radio or tv show can hit millions of kids at once. Which do you think is the bigger threat to society?
So exactly why should only one side of this (the consumers) being showing some responsibly and not the producers? Are they incapable of showing responsibility? (it wouldn't surprise me) Any particular reason why responsibility should be a one-sided situation? What's wrong with both sides showing responsibility? The media (and you) would like nothing better than to have full rein over what they are allowed to show. Someone has to keep them in check because in a land without laws there is chaos. Just because you don't like the laws doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
Sony, and any other company name, is a collective noun. A flock of geese is a collective noun. The noun itself is singular (not Sonies or flocks) but it does imply more than 1 item (a person in the case of Sony and a goose in the case of a flock of geese). Because it is a singular noun, despite the fact it represents more than one item it is considered singular. Therefore you use a plural verb and in this case it would be "is". Sony is big. Given, in the UK grammar might be slightly different but in the US that is how grammar is setup.
In the USA Today there was an article about the newest IE security issue. Somewhere in the article it was stated that banks are not denying that they are thinking about supporting non-IE browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah; no NTFS module, not even read support.
When is the last time you saw ANY version of WIndows come with ANY support for ANY Linux related file system? .....That's what I thought.
Would you rather she say "spat"?
but it speaks volumes that violence seems to be celebrated but anything sexual must be covered up "for the children"
You may want to expand your argument by including more than just one example of censorship for nudity is concerned. Have you seen Nip/Tuck? It's on network television. Have you seen Sex and the CIty? It's on network tv now. Victoria's Secret has fashion shows on tv now as well. Have you seen what celebrity teenagers wear now? You know damn well little girls are watching them. And you know boys are paying attention to what they are able to see now on network television but we are seeing more and more of it on the tv where media producers know kids will be influenced. Magazines are staying relatively the same with censorship, but it's television that is changing. Movie ratings are becoming more liberal with what can be included in a movie rated PG13 also.
You are right in that violence seems to be protected more than sex which is a bad thing considering just how much sex is being advertised in society today and yet we think we can advertise as much as we do but lower teen pregnancy simply by giving everyone condoms. The problem is that the gov't is trying to cover up the violence but not the sex, and it's the media who try to uncover the sex so it's 2 groups of people with difference agendas at work.
the debate over violent/explicit video games is long from over, and more restrictions may well be brought in over time.
I don't hear you complaining about the movie ratings system where a child has to be a certain age to see a movie with a certain rating or be accompanied by an adult.
Long ago we needed a separation between Church and State. Now we need a separation between Parent and State. Parents need to take some responsiblitity in raising their children and stop blaming every form of media that doesn't fit into their package of morals.
So you say, we lasted 200 years as a country before some one decided that a separation was needed and somehow forced the gov't into abiding by one person's complaint. No one complained before that point and everyone was happy too (imagine that!). At some point in time the gov't DOES need to stand in since they do make the laws that we have to abide by. If you would quit acting like the gov't is a bad thing you may actually be able to see that the gov't could do good things if you got your head out of your ass and realize not everyone (media) has good intentions in mind.
Five years later the United States Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970, p. 53) (or rather twelve of the seventeen participating members) arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that 'empirical research designed to clarify the question has found no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behaviour among youth or adults'.
Sure, just like commercials don't ever affect a person when they watch tv, or that music doesn't get into your head and make you think various things after hearing a song, or that a tv show doesn't affect your mind after watching it. Whether we like it or not or even notice it, anything that our brain takes in from our 5 senses will affect us in one way or another. It may be gradual and that might be why we don't notice it, but it does and can happen and it doesn't mean it happens to everyone but it definitely happens to those who are weak minded.
It's funny that somebody who wouldn't think of buying a car without test driving it or buy a house without having it inspected would marry somebody without having even seen them naked or seen what they are like living with every day.
What the hell does seeing them naked have to do with *being in love* with a woman? Sex should not be a deciding factor. If you love her you should think she is the most beautiful woman in the world and it wouldn't matter what she looks like naked because she can't get any better looking than she already is.
If you are looking at/for something better than you obviously either don't love the woman anymore, or you never loved her to begin with and have always wanted something better all along.
And it is possible to buy a car w/o test driving it (just sitting in it) and knowing the car is for you. Some people just have a sense for something w/o having to get in so deep. Inspecting a house is not the same and in fact is the same as just sitting in a car before buying it. Living in the house would be equivalent to living with a woman or testing driving a car but not just inspecting the house.
Fantasizing about being a baseball player doesn't do much when you don't ever take part in it as part of the fantasy. Masturbating to porn and watching porn (instead of just imaginging it) is a lot different and more involved than imagining playing baseball.
He is saying fantasy CAN be unhealthy for those whose heart and mind isn't in the right place to begin with.
This is bang on the money. Violent Video games give people stress relif; they are good for society.
I thought that was what little brothers were for?
The only problem with your statement is that even though conservatives can do something they are shot down in favor of making sure the liberals can accomplish the items I said in my first post.
Conservatives don't make America any less free. They try to make sure that there are laws that keep people in check as far as making sure society doesn't lose its sense of right and wrong. As opposed to liberals wanting everything to be suitable for everyone and telling society that "nothing is ever wrong or immoral anymore" which tends to make America a land of "everything goes" which defeats the purpose of having any laws to begin with.
And your numbers skyrocketed due to college students getting off.
I thought geeks on this site denounced God a long time ago?
For the same reason that scientists can clone humans even though they shouldn't, for the same reason that doctors can kill babies before they are born, for the same reason gays can have laws bent to suit their wants....all because they can, nevermind whether they should.
I don't want "responsibility" defined around someone else's definition of it. If someone wants to go watch porn and listen to people cuss, they should be able to listen to such a station. I, on the other hand, have the right to not listen, and even to block it so that my children wouldn't hear it. Your use of the word "responsibility" is simply "I don't want them to play what *I* don't want to hear."
Sorry, but the gov't defines a lot of things for us that not everyone agree on. You can't please all the people all of the time. As I said in another post, the views of the majority should be protected over the ability for a single individual to get what he/she wants. Why do you think that there are disclaimers stipulating that some things performed in pornos can be illegal in some communities? Communities (groups of *real* people) have levels of decency they would like to uphold over what a single person who wants to watch a porno might want.
My use of the word responsibility is simply "I don't want them to play what a small minority of people may want to hear since we are talking about a form of mass media". We aren't talking about focus groups here. We are talking about millions of people here with multiple viewpoints. You have to reach a happy medium where you can please most of the people most of the time because you will never please all the people all the time and it isn't fair to please a few of the people all the time.
A book is still not considered mass media. Radio and television are though.
You are worried about definitions of indecency threatening your freedom? If you are worried about little things like that then you have bigger issues than the rest of us who are more worried about terrorists (both domestic and foreign) who can scare a country into watching over its back every minute of the day.
Whether or not a nipple is allowed to be shown on tv does not impede on your freedom, despite what you may think. You can still think and say and do whatever you want so where is your freedom being affected?
When level of decency affect what and where and how you can do something then we can have this discussion, otherwise you are not being affected. When you can get arrested for not abiding by that decency then there is a problem. Movie/radio studios may be fined for not abiding by it but it isn't affecting your level of freedom whatsoever and the role of the gov't is to protect the views of the many over the views of the individual, otherwise there is no reason to be voting on anything if the majority means nothing in this country anymore.
My mistake, I think you meant telling your 7 year old about the nipple on tv, correct? Either way, unless the child explicitly asks you, like you mention in your last post, there is no reason to volunteer the information to the child because they don't need to know. At 7 years old I highly doubt they will ask something like that anyway, unless of course there are parents in this country who seem to think *their* child needs to know what a nipple is and that child ends up talking to your child and brings it back to you. Everything you do can be negated by 1 bad parent.
Smacks, to me, of "America: the land of the free - except where prohibited by overly conservative Christian views* that in no way, shape, or form reflect the beliefs of the population as a whole."
Maybe you have forgotten why we are here but the Pilgrims came over here were Puritans and in the Mayflower Compact stated they were founding their society based on a religion for God. By removing any hint of religion at present and saying we were not founded on religious views (I guess the founders were just lying when they said they didn't want to be persecuted anymore because of their religion) THAT smacks to me of "America: the land of the free - except where prohibited by overly liberl, secular, atheistic views that in no way, shape, or form reflect beliefs of the population as a whole." Most parents want their children to grow up with values and morals and most people agree on murder, rape, burglary, etc. as being sins whether you like it or not.
Oh, and don't wear a condom because they're bad. Then people wonder why diseases like AIDS have reached pandemic proportions in ultra-conservative Christian countries such as most of Africa, while the neo-conservative administration running America stipulates that 30% of their AIDS funding must go to faith-based organisations that all condemn condom use. Patently ridiculous.
Condoms condone promiscuous behavior. Would you rather your child be told that it is okay to have sex (nevermind any religious views on it, no child needs to have sex when they are 10, or 13, or 15) as long as a condom is used and then get pregnant? Let them be afraid of having sex with multiple partners because of fear of contracting a disease since they don't need to be doing that in the first place. Giving them a condom says, "here, we are making it safe for you to screw anyone you want to and we are going to make sure that you wont have to worry about any of the consequences either". By removing any chance of consequence you also remove any reason for them to stay abstinent. Hypothetically speaking, if you tell a child if he reaches into the cookie jar that you will make sure that no matter how much he eats you can make sure he won't ever get a stomach ache what do you think he is going to do? He sure as hell isn't going to walk away from that kind of deal now is he?
AIDS doesn't alway spread because of sexual activity. It is hard to say when/how it got introduced into Africa and it could have very easily then got transmitted by religious people by non-sexual activity. We aren't immune to it you know.
Sex is bad when you don't even know the name of the person you are doing it with. Sex is bad when you are married and the other person is not your spouse. Sex is bad when you are only 15 years old. Sex is bad if you don't love the person. Sex is bad if it is with someone of the same sex.
They showed picture after picture (topless, full view) of her boobs as they talked about the procedure, but where the nipple should have been, they fuzzed it out. Beyond stupid...
yes, and I'm sure it just scarred you for life because of you not being able to see a nipple. It isn't affecting you so get over it already. If they want to censor it let them. There isn't anything wrong with it. You may say there isn't anything wrong with showing it. They are erring on the side of caution for people who may be offended by it. I doubt you are offended by it being censored (why would you be? you aren't being denied anything by it) but people could be offended by it not being censored. It all leads to society trying to uphold a certain level of standards for the population as a whole. Nothing wrong with standards, and nothing wrong with society agreeing on something that you disagree with. Majority over minority.
It always steams me that they'll edit out breasts and other "sex" things in movies, but movies like "Predator" and "Resevoir Dogs" will be shown on TV, with lots of people getting shot up and spewing blood all over. Is that really a better image we'd like kids to see? I myself would just prefer not to edit anything out.
Any particular reason why you choose no editing at all over editing of both violence and sex?
I really don't see the point at all in putting sex in action movies especially when the movie studios know that young boys will want to go see them. Is that really a better image we'd like kids to see? Being an action hero means you can have any woman anytime you want. Good going media, teach the young boys of the country that women are sex objects and you can take and throw them away after you are done with them.If you leave in the violence (edit out the sex) and complain (like someone else who responded to you did) that teaching kids that shooting someone and not seeing the consequences is a bad thing, I say who says we have to have the consequences in the movie? Why not some other medium, like in schools? Oh wait, teaching the commandment that murder is a sin is a no no nowadays. Sorry, my mistake for being rational and teaching kids the right thing.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Oh yes, because everyone knows a 7 year old needs to know what a blow job is so he can go into puberty head first(pun intended). No wonder society has issues. No one under 13, to say the least, needs to know what a blow job is. You want to counter with the argument that they are going to learn it from their friends? Not if everyone (fat chance)agreed to do the same thing, then we might make some headway and they would *not* hear it from their friends after all.
There are two problems with this.
First, countries don't go downhill overnight. If Bush and Company had a press conference where they all twirled their thick black mustaches and laughed, "MUAHahahahaha!", everyone would know they were the bad guys.
First, countries don't go downhill overnight. If American society publicly admitted they were attempting every conceivable way of making this country a lot worse to live in everyone would know that we have some bad people living amongst us.
Instead, they tell us that we need to be defend against terrorism, or that they're protecting children, or so on. They start by attacking unsympathetic people, advocates of the most radical changes, the most overtly threatening speakers.
Instead they tell us that we need to respect other religions, or that we don't want to offend anyone, or so on. They start by attacking the Pledge of Allegiance, advocates of conservative changes, the most overtly religious groups.
For instance, those people who worked with Iraq or Afghanistan being held at Guantanamo without access to counsel, or political radicals, or pornographers.
For instance, those people who are Christians who try only to keep God in society, not even try to add it, only keep it in when it was already there.
They have the right to counsel under US law and US legal tradition. But they're working with the enemy, or anarchists, or sleaze-peddlers, so we can look the other way just a little bit on this whole due process concept, right?
They have the right to freedom of religion and don't say to the rest of society that they will be put in jail if they don't follow. They can still have their own religion. But Christians are working against the enemy, or anarchists, or sleaze-peddlers, so we can look the other way because they are a religious group and have no say in society anymore and are pushed into the recesses of the country (All men are created equal) because of their religion (freedom of religion).
Over time censorship goes up and free speech goes down. A little at a time, a little here, a little there... they sneak it in, so it only offends the strongest free speech advocates, also known as "next on our list". Eventually you can't criticize at all without risking jail time or worse.
Over time, censorship for the secularists and humanists goes down and free speech for all things immoral and secular go up. A little at a time, a little here, a little there...they sneak it in, so it only offends the Christians, also known as "extremists". Eventually you can't say "God" in school without risking jail time or worse. No "under God" in the Pledge. No student initiated prayer in schools. Condoms for everyone!! Media producers no longer have responsiblity and parents are alone in the fight to protect their kids. Abortion is okay as long as the child's feet aren't yet visible even though the heart is beating, and then suddenly stops when it is murdered by the doctor helping the mother give birth. Gays are allowed to change laws to suit their lifestyle so that everyone can see them in the American spotlight. TV shows commercialize and advertise the homosexual lifestyle as a Good Thing. As long as it is a little at a time no on will notice.
And if you think that the current administration thinks of censorship as a necessary evil, something we have to endure for the crisis, remember this: when Bill Maher called US pilots "cowards", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "... they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (Emphasis added.)
And if you think that the the current US society thinks of censorship of religon as a necessary evil, something we have to endure for the crisis of offending the minorities of the country, remember this: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"--George Washington, 9/1
That particular book may only hit one child at a time, maybe 2 or 3 if the child brings his friends. A radio or tv show can hit millions of kids at once. Which do you think is the bigger threat to society?
So exactly why should only one side of this (the consumers) being showing some responsibly and not the producers? Are they incapable of showing responsibility? (it wouldn't surprise me) Any particular reason why responsibility should be a one-sided situation? What's wrong with both sides showing responsibility? The media (and you) would like nothing better than to have full rein over what they are allowed to show. Someone has to keep them in check because in a land without laws there is chaos. Just because you don't like the laws doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
Sony, and any other company name, is a collective noun. A flock of geese is a collective noun. The noun itself is singular (not Sonies or flocks) but it does imply more than 1 item (a person in the case of Sony and a goose in the case of a flock of geese). Because it is a singular noun, despite the fact it represents more than one item it is considered singular. Therefore you use a plural verb and in this case it would be "is". Sony is big. Given, in the UK grammar might be slightly different but in the US that is how grammar is setup.
In the USA Today there was an article about the newest IE security issue. Somewhere in the article it was stated that banks are not denying that they are thinking about supporting non-IE browsers.
And the nice thing about subsidies, from the government's point of view, is that it makes an easy segway to regulation and monitoring.
No wonder those 2 wheeled vehicles cost so much.