Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Certain mistakes can harm others, not just the individual making them.
2. Censorship is not all bad, nor all good. I support it and I'm neither conservative nor liberal.
3. I'm out of time. Gotta grocery shop.
Some behavior does harm others. But broadcast TV isn't one of them. Very easy options to avoid content you don't want to see. There is this fancy new device called the channel button, and if that doesn't work, there is the off button.
As conservatives are find of saying, TV is an optional purchase.
Yes, censorship is always bad. It hinders the free access of information that is required in a free country. Again, the simple answer is "don't like it, don't watch it".
I don't read time often, but if I did, and the cover bothered me, I simply wouldn't buy that issue. Now I don't have to see it, and I have censored myself.
Much like opinion news show watchers censor their content of knowledge by restricting what they watch.
Some behavior does harm others. But broadcast TV isn't one of them.
I disagree. I think it can harm the viewers and the viewers can in turn harm those they come in contact with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Very easy options to avoid content you don't want to see. There is this fancy new device called the channel button, and if that doesn't work, there is the off button.
Again, no one's complaining that they feel they are being forced to watch this stuff. So all that (though amusing) is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Yes, censorship is always bad. It hinders the free access of information that is required in a free country.
Some "information" is promotion. And since not all promotion is good, I'd say that some forms of censorship that hinder bad promotion (figuring we're not equating censorship with completely banning material necessarily) are good things. Someone should've censored the hell outta Hitler, for instance.
I disagree. I think it can harm the viewers and the viewers can in turn harm those they come in contact with.
Again, no one's complaining that they feel they are being forced to watch this stuff. So all that (though amusing) is irrelevant.
Some "information" is promotion. And since not all promotion is good, I'd say that some forms of censorship that hinder bad promotion (figuring we're not equating censorship with completely banning material necessarily) are good things. Someone should've censored the hell outta Hitler, for instance.
I disagree with you on the censorship. If a free person wants to promote anything, they should be able to do so.
As for your first reply, the key word is "viewer". You are not forced to be a viewer, and its why censorship is not only not necessary, but it is bad.
I disagree. I think it can harm the viewers and the viewers can in turn harm those they come in contact with.
I think you need to make the case that nudity is harming viewers.
And you need to make the case that pornography is harming viewers.
And then you need to make the case that either or both of these viewers are harming others.
Quote:
Some "information" is promotion. And since not all promotion is good, I'd say that some forms of censorship that hinder bad promotion (figuring we're not equating censorship with completely banning material necessarily) are good things. Someone should've censored the hell outta Hitler, for instance.
I disagree with you on the censorship. If a free person wants to promote anything, they should be able to do so.
Okay, well this free person promotes the censorship of people promoting harmful things Not that I think any of it should be banned altogether. But controlling who hears/sees what, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
As for your first reply, the key word is "viewer". You are not forced to be a viewer, and its why censorship is not only not necessary, but it is bad.
And what of people who are affected by people who choose to be viewers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I think you need to make the case that nudity is harming viewers. And you need to make the case that pornography is harming viewers.
I said it can harm the viewers and influence them to harm others. And this case has been made with no less documentation than that which tells us violence in the media increases aggression...
"
The other line of evidence deals with "non-aggressive" pornography, that which excludes rape and violence, but graphically depicts all other forms of sex (groups, homosexuals, switching, anal, oral, etc.). Massive exposure to this kind of pornography was found to: (1) desensitize the viewers to the material's breaking of sexual taboos, causing the viewers to become more accepting of it and much less concerned about its negative effects; (2) cause the viewers to regard rape as a more trivial offense, with men particularly showing major increases of sexual callousness toward women; (3) increase the viewers' loss of compassion for women as rape victims. In a sense, then, this kind of pornography as male entertainment promotes the victimization of women.
"
The following link cites another study with the same results, along with countless studies that make the connection between violent pornography and rape clear.
Note that Zillmann's study defines "massive exposure" as LESS THAN FIVE HOURS IN SIX WEEKS. For those of you dismissing the first study's findings with "Oh, I don't watch THAT much porn", you may want to take a second look at your routine.
Another link directs you to a study but first summarizes it for you...
"
This paper quantitatively summarizes the literature examining the association between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography. In this meta-analysis, nonexperimental methodology shows almost no effect (exposure to pornography does not increase rape myth acceptance), while experimental studies show positive effect (exposure to pornography does increase rape myth acceptance). Although the experimental studies demonstrate that violent pornography has more effect than nonviolent pornography, nonviolent pornography still demonstrates an effect.
" Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths - Allen - 2006 - Journal of Communication - Wiley Online Library
For those of you who don't know, the rape myth is basically that women on some level WANT to be raped. It's not hard to see how this could affect trials in which a rape victim getting justice depends on the attitudes and beliefs of a jury of people from the general population.
It's been claimed scientifically that pornography can even become an actual brain addiction (though I don't automatically subscribe to this claim).
…refers to TONS of studies, citing each properly, that run the course from one potential harm of pornography to the next.
“Males who are shown non-violent scenes that sexually objectified and degraded women and were then exposed to material that depicted rape indicated that the rape victim experienced pleasure and “got what she wanted.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Godwin's Law.
Not applicable. This "law" is about comparing someone's views with Hitler's of those of the Nazis. Mentioning Hitler's name is not doing that. I'm saying that he should've been censored.
Okay, well this free person promotes the censorship of people promoting harmful things Not that I think any of it should be banned altogether. But controlling who hears/sees what, sure.
And what of people who are affected by people who choose to be viewers?
I said it can harm the viewers and influence them to harm others. And this case has been made with no less documentation than that which tells us violence in the media increases aggression...
"
The other line of evidence deals with "non-aggressive" pornography, that which excludes rape and violence, but graphically depicts all other forms of sex (groups, homosexuals, switching, anal, oral, etc.). Massive exposure to this kind of pornography was found to: (1) desensitize the viewers to the material's breaking of sexual taboos, causing the viewers to become more accepting of it and much less concerned about its negative effects; (2) cause the viewers to regard rape as a more trivial offense, with men particularly showing major increases of sexual callousness toward women; (3) increase the viewers' loss of compassion for women as rape victims. In a sense, then, this kind of pornography as male entertainment promotes the victimization of women.
"
The following link cites another study with the same results, along with countless studies that make the connection between violent pornography and rape clear.
Note that Zillmann's study defines "massive exposure" as LESS THAN FIVE HOURS IN SIX WEEKS. For those of you dismissing the first study's findings with "Oh, I don't watch THAT much porn", you may want to take a second look at your routine.
Another link directs you to a study but first summarizes it for you...
"
This paper quantitatively summarizes the literature examining the association between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography. In this meta-analysis, nonexperimental methodology shows almost no effect (exposure to pornography does not increase rape myth acceptance), while experimental studies show positive effect (exposure to pornography does increase rape myth acceptance). Although the experimental studies demonstrate that violent pornography has more effect than nonviolent pornography, nonviolent pornography still demonstrates an effect.
" Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths - Allen - 2006 - Journal of Communication - Wiley Online Library
For those of you who don't know, the rape myth is basically that women on some level WANT to be raped. It's not hard to see how this could affect trials in which a rape victim getting justice depends on the attitudes and beliefs of a jury of people from the general population.
It's been claimed scientifically that pornography can even become an actual brain addiction (though I don't automatically subscribe to this claim).
…refers to TONS of studies, citing each properly, that run the course from one potential harm of pornography to the next.
“Males who are shown non-violent scenes that sexually objectified and degraded women and were then exposed to material that depicted rape indicated that the rape victim experienced pleasure and “got what she wanted.”
Not applicable. This "law" is about comparing someone's views with Hitler's of those of the Nazis. Mentioning Hitler's name is not doing that. I'm saying that he should've been censored.
I'm at work,so I'll have to look at the sources in more detail later, but I'm drawing immediate skepticism to your sources. A "family" association and a website called anit-sex? Come-on now. Can you at least cite sources from peer-reviewed journals?
As for Godwin's Law, it applies to any argument where someone uses Hitler (or Nazi's) in discussion, especially when used in an argument, known as Argument Ad Hitlerum
To quote Wiki: It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Okay, well this free person promotes the censorship of people promoting harmful things Not that I think any of it should be banned altogether. But controlling who hears/sees what, sure.
And what of people who are affected by people who choose to be viewers?
The question is, who gets to decide whats harmful?
Thats where it ceases to be a free country. Look, someone watching Fox or MSNBC may think that the information they spew is harmful, because its misleading and misdirecting voters. Should they be censored?
My answer would be no. I may disagree with their message, and I may think their message is harmful, but I don't have to watch it, and the idiot down the street has every right to harm himself in however he feels necessary.
And how is someone elses viewing habits going to hurt someone else.
For instance, I watch Game of Thrones. Its a violent show with graphic sex scenes and nudity. Am I harming anyone else by watching it? No. Am I going out and living up to the shows I'm watching, nope.
I wouldn't let my children watch it either, but I block content on their TV, and I monitor their viewing habits. Thats what good parents do. Instead, many people try and enforce their version of morallity down everyone elses throats, and that is censorship, and it has no place in a free country.
The whole thread started on a Times magazine cover, and a web link to a video on youtube. Neither of which anyone is forced to read or look at. You don't have to buy them, so don't if you don't like them.
If NBC wants to air profain content and nudity at 7PM, don't let your kids watch it if you don't want, and don't watch it yourself if you're offended. There are 199 other channels to choose from. Many are Christian only stations with family content 24/7.
The era of "you only get 6 channels" is over, and you are free to watch whatever you like, or at least you should be.
The question is, who gets to decide whats harmful?
No, the question is, why do you think something being harmful or unharmful is something we decide and not discover? And I already explained how someone else's viewing might be harmful to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm at work,so I'll have to look at the sources in more detail later, but I'm drawing immediate skepticism to your sources. A "family" association and a website called anit-sex? Come-on now. Can you at least cite sources from peer-reviewed journals?
That people use these studies to further a questionable or extreme agenda does not change the legitimacy of the studies themselves, which are many. But don't worry, it gets better as you go through the links I gave you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
As for Godwin's Law, it applies to any argument where someone uses Hitler (or Nazi's) in discussion, especially when used in an argument, known as Argument Ad Hitlerum
To quote Wiki: It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Check the bold, Konraden. Again, I didn't compare anyone's views or any point to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis. I merely used his name.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not that I think any of it should be banned altogether. But controlling who hears/sees what, sure.
