Plenty of people shun childish things and are irresponsible. Plenty of people enjoy childish things and are responsible. Hell, plenty of people are both responsible and irresponsible both ways. The point is that your argument is a total non-sequitur. How does one get from enjoying children's movies and playing with toys to not taking responsibility for oneself?
So what you're trying to say is that Freddy Got Fingered is a better movie than Spirited Away?
Not all movies rule out the possibility of sex, but sometimes sex isn't appropriate to the film. There is just as much R-rated drivel as there is G-rated drivel. If you made the argument that most great R-rated movies would be terrible if they were bowdlerized, you'd have a point, but something doesn't have to have R-rated content to be good. Your argument is precisely as shallow as an argument that only G-rated movies are good because R-rated movies only exist to titillate shallow audiences.
It's also interesting that you use the example of Over the Hedge as puerile junk. It is puerile junk, but it follows in the footsteps of that other studio, Pixar, which has put out some of my favorite movies...none of which are rated R. Blood and breasts don't make a good movie, they just happen to be in a lot of good movies.
More on topic, the Production Code existed before movie ratings, and it actually was a form of self-imposed censorship. As much as it had a negative effect by holding back filmmakers, there was a silver lining even then. A lot of the great innuendo and subtlety of older movies probably wouldn't have existed if they had the chance to be explicit. Frankly, I think that something sexually implicit can be a hell of a lot more erotic than a lot of things that are sexually explicit.
You may still be entertained by playing with Legos and Matchbox cars, but I just don't find them entertaining anymore.
Perhaps Twain was wrong; maybe youth is best spent on the young, after all.
Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship.
The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.
Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me).
To be honest, if you think that something can't be entertaining without sex, violence, or profanity, maybe you're not the go-to guy for judging the quality of movies.
Based on that logic we should be exposing our children to Ebola, Lassa, Malaria, Rabies, Smallpox, and whatever other nasty viruses we can think of to toughen 'em up while they're still young.
I would point out the difference between anecdotes and data, but it's really the difference between anecdotes and making broad, categorical, exclusive generalizations. Actually, it isn't even about that difference. Such generalizations, unless they describe an essential component of the concept they encompass (which would make them tautological) are pretty fatuous.
Without intuition, Newton would never have discovered gravity. Intuition is not a means for conducting experiments, but it is essential in order to determine what experiments to conduct.
There is a fundamental difference between banning speech which directly incites violence and banning speech because it is distasteful. You can have a perfectly dystopian society where every person lives in total slavery and still claim to support the common good. The whole point of protection freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech--popular speech, after all, doesn't need as much protection. A just government does not abrogate individual rights in the favor of some nebulous social good. I'm not claiming that the U.S. is the best example of free speech, because it isn't. But governments that ban distasteful speech ought to be condemned for doing so.
Homeopathy does not work. A tiny bit of fascism is not the way to prevent a lot of fascism.
Theoretically, there is no language that is more or less prone to bugs than any other language as understood in Turing Completeness.
I have a theory that most software written today is written by human beings, or is generated by computers in a very predictable and straightforward manner given human input. Actually, this isn't a theory, it's an empirical observation, and I doubt many people would contest its truth. There are differences in debugging languages using different programming paradigms. Non-monadic code written in a functional language, for example, need not have every state checked; the correctness of such code is actually provable.
That doesn't make the worry rational, however, considering how often it is focused on the idea of child predators as inhuman beings existing outside society. It's kind of like a fear of flying: people who are afraid to fly are generally at ease driving, despite the fact that driving is a far greater hazard. Likewise, people are afraid of child predators despite the fact that they pose a far less risk than those with whom parents are at ease leaving their children, that is, friends and family.
There is more than one court in the U.S. There are more than nine judges in the U.S. Are you seriously this dense? Not all judges are elected, but most are not "appointed for life."
Some people distinguish between child molestation and statutory rape and pedophilia and ephebophilia. But the fact remains that it is unpopular to advocate that rational thought or contemplation should be considered at all when dealing with such problems. From my limited experience, fewer people have a torches and pitchforks attitude toward even genocide than pedophilia.
Slashdot Mirror
And then Google goes after eBay for monopolistic practices.
Computers. Most modern fighter planes are aerodynamically unstable already.
Plenty of people shun childish things and are irresponsible. Plenty of people enjoy childish things and are responsible. Hell, plenty of people are both responsible and irresponsible both ways. The point is that your argument is a total non-sequitur. How does one get from enjoying children's movies and playing with toys to not taking responsibility for oneself?
So what you're trying to say is that Freddy Got Fingered is a better movie than Spirited Away?
Not all movies rule out the possibility of sex, but sometimes sex isn't appropriate to the film. There is just as much R-rated drivel as there is G-rated drivel. If you made the argument that most great R-rated movies would be terrible if they were bowdlerized, you'd have a point, but something doesn't have to have R-rated content to be good. Your argument is precisely as shallow as an argument that only G-rated movies are good because R-rated movies only exist to titillate shallow audiences.
It's also interesting that you use the example of Over the Hedge as puerile junk. It is puerile junk, but it follows in the footsteps of that other studio, Pixar, which has put out some of my favorite movies...none of which are rated R. Blood and breasts don't make a good movie, they just happen to be in a lot of good movies.
More on topic, the Production Code existed before movie ratings, and it actually was a form of self-imposed censorship. As much as it had a negative effect by holding back filmmakers, there was a silver lining even then. A lot of the great innuendo and subtlety of older movies probably wouldn't have existed if they had the chance to be explicit. Frankly, I think that something sexually implicit can be a hell of a lot more erotic than a lot of things that are sexually explicit.
Perhaps Twain was wrong; maybe youth is best spent on the young, after all.We do--it's called vaccination.
I would point out the difference between anecdotes and data, but it's really the difference between anecdotes and making broad, categorical, exclusive generalizations. Actually, it isn't even about that difference. Such generalizations, unless they describe an essential component of the concept they encompass (which would make them tautological) are pretty fatuous.
Seems your brain's been messed with enough already.
It would take Sony a hell of a lot not to wipe the floor with Microsoft, but if they aren't trying their damnedest to fail...
They also have more lobbyists than the video game industry.
Without intuition, Newton would never have discovered gravity. Intuition is not a means for conducting experiments, but it is essential in order to determine what experiments to conduct.
Homeopathy does not work. A tiny bit of fascism is not the way to prevent a lot of fascism.
It's a good thing that accounting fraud doesn't deprive people of money directly, unlike piracy.
The loss of an individual human life is devastating, no matter what the cause. But ten human lives are of no statistical significance in this case.
If it only affected politicians, it wouldn't be so much a problem. The real problem is that too many people are willing to go along with it.
You're that guy who thinks that vi is "six," aren't you?
I have a theory that most software written today is written by human beings, or is generated by computers in a very predictable and straightforward manner given human input. Actually, this isn't a theory, it's an empirical observation, and I doubt many people would contest its truth. There are differences in debugging languages using different programming paradigms. Non-monadic code written in a functional language, for example, need not have every state checked; the correctness of such code is actually provable.
I'm pretty sure, even without having read TFA, that Microsoft doesn't control its employees' computers at home.
You're right, I should have put more thought and/or courtesy into my reply.
That doesn't make the worry rational, however, considering how often it is focused on the idea of child predators as inhuman beings existing outside society. It's kind of like a fear of flying: people who are afraid to fly are generally at ease driving, despite the fact that driving is a far greater hazard. Likewise, people are afraid of child predators despite the fact that they pose a far less risk than those with whom parents are at ease leaving their children, that is, friends and family.
You may personally dislike MediaWiki and Wikimedia, and that's fine, but it's no substitute for facts.
There is more than one court in the U.S. There are more than nine judges in the U.S. Are you seriously this dense? Not all judges are elected, but most are not "appointed for life."
Some people distinguish between child molestation and statutory rape and pedophilia and ephebophilia. But the fact remains that it is unpopular to advocate that rational thought or contemplation should be considered at all when dealing with such problems. From my limited experience, fewer people have a torches and pitchforks attitude toward even genocide than pedophilia.