Small rant about freedom of speech

[stryker1500]

Alright, I've been trying to be as melow as possible about ths topic, but to hell with it, I'm gonna say what's on my mind for all of you, so you can all see what really goes on inside my head. You're probably gonna get mad at me, but oh well, people died for me to be able to say this.

I think that all of these over-dramatic, crying, bitching, complaining parents are way too damn dramatic about violence, language, and nudity. What I think is pure shit is how these parents go away from their home, go across the state and use signs against the main belief that America stands for. Whenever I get mad at Walmart for long lines, I don't go on a fuckin riot protesting lines, that's about the level of stupidity of these protestors.

Our ancesters died for this, freedoms, ability to live in a free life without strict laws. What I think is the dumbest thing about this is after our great grand parents fought, killed, and died for these rights, to stop others from putting an end to them, then, for some stupid reason, they get taken away by our own country, we try to defend it from others, then we turn around and take it ourselves.

That's what separated America before, we could say what we wanted, now, we're the largest bullshittng country. We try to keep our kids from sight of every little thing that we deem bad, mean, and harmful, what do you think is going to happen to that kid? If his mother and father keep him out of sight from all of that as he grows, he's going to have to take all of that in all at once. He'll learn that what mommy and daddy told him wasn't true, that he never got to see what the outside world is really like.

Censorship is just a way for the government to stop us from asking questions. Notice how we never see videos of our soldiers dying, just the others soldiers, why is that? So we won't ask questions like, "Is it really worth it".

Censorship in pornography is what really sets me off, it just pises me off whenever I hear about some person suing due to hurting American youth. Hentai is something that'll make a parent gasp, yet they go on family trips to museums where there's paintings of naked men/women, why don't they find this strange? Why do we have to censor our art? it's a way of expressing ourselves just like any other kind of art that's out there, we just don't take months to make 1 picture.

Is that it? It's alright if someone worked it for months, but if they made it over the weekend it's pornography? Why would this seem fair to anybody, I bet that no matter how hard you worked on it, if someone came up to your picture an told you that you had to change it or never show it to somebody, you'd be pissed.

I never get what the hell is with these rules and restrictions, this just shows you how much people want special treatment for themselves. Parents need to teach these kids, not hide them, if they want to know what a boobie is, you shoul tell them "It's for feeding babies", not, "don't ask about those, you're way too young to be asking questions like that", No their not. there has been studies that show that we learned most abot sex at the age of 12-14, today, kids are learning at the age of 10, yes, 10 years old, it doesn't sound like their too young to understand to me.

What confuses me more thn makes me mad s censoring on adult sites. I've already established that I'm an adult, I clicked on "Yes, I'm over 18" so many damn times I could dream about it in a coma and not get to the end, I've become a member by giving out my info. name, address, id, bank card, card #, height, weight, blood type,ect.,did a fuckin jumping jack on one foot, then I enter and the shit's censored, what the hell? That's not cool, you wanted to know that I'm over 18 just so I can view the 15+ version, WTF, who decides on this rule? I wana kick them in the ballz whoever does that. I hate whoever makes us censor ourselves, I hope they burn tonight.

I'm gonna spare you and shut the hell up for the moment since I've been typing this for a while now, if you don't agree with what I have to say, oh well, I really don't care, I'm not trying to be an ass, but that's my view and it's not changing

[Jon-86]

At 6/19/09 02:57 PM, stryker1500 wrote: Notice how we never see videos of our soldiers dying, just the others soldiers, why is that? So we won't ask questions like, "Is it really worth it".

If you look for them you will find videos of people dying on all sides, that's what war is about. "Is it really worth it?" In my opinion we should fight to defend our homeland and not because you were born their, because the people you love live their. Fight to free your people so you can live in peace nothing more!

[ballpeenhammer]

At 6/19/09 03:22 PM, Jon-86 wrote:
Fight to free your people so you can live in peace nothing more!

Not to stir up any shit but, that's exacty what all of these muslim "extremist groups" are doing all over the middle east and Israel, and we call them terrorists for it. Seriously, wtf? Now, I know that people are going to rail on about 9/11 and all that but, and now I know this is going to start a "heated" discussion, but, from THEIR standpoint, it is kinda justified. HOLD ON! CATCH YOUR BREATH AND THINK FOR A SECOND. DO NOT FLY OFF THE HANDLE AND FLAME ME, PLEASE. What I am trying to say is, perhaps 9/11 happened because the American government funds Israel occupying their soil, and killing their civilians. Maybe, the twin towers were destroyed because they wanted to possibly disrupt American money going to Israel. THEY DO NOT SEE ISRAEL AS A LEGITIMATE NATION! Now, someone will say that Israel is a legitimate nation because the U.N. says so. I would like to ask, if the U.N. decided that China was to be the new owner of let's say, California, Washington, Oregon, and everything west of the great basin, and this went against the will of the American people, would YOU consider this to be a legitimate occupation? If not, would you expect people to form some kind of military resistance to this occupation? Would you be outraged if foreign nations continued to supply China with military aid, despite the fact that they do not belong on your land, and that they purposefully attack civilians, and even children? Would you do anything in your power to disrupt this funding, in an attempt to make it less difficult for your countrymen to fight these foreign invaders? Just some food for thought. Peace.

[DiaLady]

First off, just as you have the freedom to post this rant, those "whining, bitching" parents have an equal right to express their opinion(s).

Secondly, our nation, nay, modern society in-general, was never conceived as a free-for-all "without strict laws". Having the rule of law is one of the most fundamental concepts behind an organized, functioning society.

Thirdly, try living in a nation with a totalitarian regime in-charge before going off on how irked you are about things like porn being censored.

Our nation is abundant with individual freedoms, and just because you don't get to wank to porn in the middle of a shopping mall doesn't negate the fact that you *do* live in a country where you basically are free to do what you please so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.

[Jon-86]

Extremists have formed their own interpolations of peace, or what needs to happen for them to achieve peace. If 'and this goes for anyone' if it involve killing millions of people just because they do not agree with you then that's not peace.

They are not fighting for their people if they are attacking another country. Sames as we are not fighting for our people when we are attacking theirs, both are forms of revenge and you cannot fight terrorism with more terrorism. It will only see the problem continue.

[Jon-86]

At 6/19/09 04:24 PM, DiaLady wrote: Our nation is abundant with individual freedoms, and just because you don't get to wank to porn in the middle of a shopping mall doesn't negate the fact that you *do* live in a country where you basically are free to do what you please so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.

Well said that lad or lassie!

[ballpeenhammer]

At 6/19/09 04:25 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Extremists have formed their own interpolations of peace, or what needs to happen for them to achieve peace. If 'and this goes for anyone' if it involve killing millions of people just because they do not agree with you then that's not peace.

They are not fighting for their people if they are attacking another country. Sames as we are not fighting for our people when we are attacking theirs, both are forms of revenge and you cannot fight terrorism with more terrorism. It will only see the problem continue.

Congrats on completely and entirely ignoring everything I said. Seriously, did you actually read and comprehend what I was saying or did you just skim over it and spout some propaganda feuled auto reply?

[fatape]

At 6/19/09 04:24 PM, DiaLady wrote: where you basically are free to do what you please so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.

why are most drugs still illegal then?

[Jon-86]

At 6/19/09 04:33 PM, ballpeenhammer wrote: Congrats on completely and entirely ignoring everything I said. Seriously, did you actually read and comprehend what I was saying or did you just skim over it and spout some propaganda feuled auto reply?

To be honest I think most people would completely ignore your post down to nothing more than its badly formatted. Make a point or two in each paragraph not the whole thing in one go! My reply was my opinion based no my knowledge of the Muslim community in Scotland who I share the bus with every morning and talk to!

[stryker1500]

Reply to DiaLady

I never said they don't, but they shouldn't try to put an end to other peoples' thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. They can do what they want, but I wouldn't lie to my kids to create a false sense of security. No matter whar there's always gonna be arguments, but if we stop trying to stop beliefs and thoughts, we could try to try to come together in other ways.

If we embrace our differences, we can learn to deal with them. On the other side, if we try to stop it, we're basically saying, "We don't care what your beliefs or ideas are, you're gonna have to change to make others happy." Why should I change things that I was taught as a kid to make someone happy, it's supposed to be America, land of the free, well where'd that go?

We need to stop censoring ourselves, if others want to stop their children from seeing something, they can find ways to cope. I'm not saying to put nude women on commercials, that's a little too much. I mean stop censoring beliefs, reality, ideas, and views to make someone happy.

[Jon-86]

At 6/19/09 05:09 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 6/19/09 04:33 PM, ballpeenhammer wrote: Congrats on completely and entirely ignoring everything I said. Seriously, did you actually read and comprehend what I was saying or did you just skim over it and spout some propaganda feuled auto reply?

To be honest I think most pe].......[ng and talk to!

I was just adding to the point you made, to be honest, dont know what your getting all uppity for?

[DiaLady]

At 6/19/09 05:04 PM, fatape wrote:

At 6/19/09 04:24 PM, DiaLady wrote: where you basically are free to do what you please so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.

why are most drugs still illegal then?

"Most" drugs? I'd wager there are far more "legal", albeit regulated, drugs out there than illegal drugs.
In fact, even "legal" drugs can be heavily regulated. Alcohol, for example, has a strict context regarding age of consumption, purchase, handling (in restaurants/sales), etc.

The key word here being "basically"--because we do not live in an anarchist society, there are certain liberties we surrender in order for the pragmatic/healthy functioing of society as a whole (Rosseau's "social contract", blahblahblah).
Indeed, you are still free to consume and/or sell illegal drugs, however you are also under the obligation to be subject to the consequences of any action that violates the enforced laws.

In any case, we still do live in a fundamentally "free" nation.

[ballpeenhammer]

At 6/19/09 05:11 PM, Jon-86 wrote: I was just adding to the point you made, to be honest, dont know what your getting all uppity for?

I don't see how you were adding to the point I was trying to make. Yes I know my paragraph wasn't formatted well. And I'm getting "all uppity" because it seemed like you read half of what I said, dismissed it, and proceeded to say something that sounded like propaganda directed toward building support for the Israeli occupational forces. Perhaps I misinterpreted.

[DiaLady]

At 6/19/09 05:09 PM, stryker1500 wrote: I never said they don't, but they shouldn't try to put an end to other peoples' thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. They can do what they want, but I wouldn't lie to my kids to create a false sense of security. No matter whar there's always gonna be arguments, but if we stop trying to stop beliefs and thoughts, we could try to try to come together in other ways.

I agree with your basic point that over-reaction in the name of protection more often than not results in counter-productive results, and even dangerously misinformed understandings. However, I don't agree with how far you're generalizing "censorship", especially, but not limited to, pornography, as affecting the greater appreciation for diversity in society.

regarding your thoughts about children, yes, I would agree that in most cases children ought to be treated with a degree of responsibility, intelligence, and maturity that is appropriate for their age and their development--the key words here being "appropriate".

Taking a child to a museum to see illustraions of Michelangelo's ceiling for the Sistine Chapel is emphatically different than having a child come accross daddy's copy of Hustler, or changing the channel to Cinemax. While as adults we may have the invested authority to make decisions pertaining to our own personal welfare, the fact is that children are still under the care and guidance of their parent(s)/legal gaurdians, and--as you yourself have implied--how moral/ethical questions are to be answered are up to the individual, hence the government's hesitation to either permit/restrict items/activities which might cross this boundary.

[Jon-86]

At 6/19/09 05:19 PM, ballpeenhammer wrote: Perhaps I misinterpreted.

Aye you sure did ;-)

[DiaLady]

At 6/19/09 05:47 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Aye you sure did ;-)

Is that you? Y'know, the one holding the sign and marching? :P

[Jon-86]

Not in that pic I was further back but with Cairde na hEireann, their were thousands of us that weekend in Edinburgh. An amazing sight, it was a continuation from the previous week. As the weekend before their was an unplanned demonstration in Glasgow that the police tried to break up, women and children their yet they still came in with full riot gear and batons.

Heres the news report of what happened around that time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7809656.st m

I'm in this pic somewhere :)

[stryker1500]

Dialady
"Taking a child to a museum to see illustraions of Michelangelo's ceiling for the Sistine Chapel is emphatically different than having a child come accross daddy's copy of Hustler, or changing the channel to Cinemax. While as adults we may have the invested authority to make decisions pertaining to our own personal welfare, the fact is that children are still under the care and guidance of their parent(s)/legal gaurdians, and--as you yourself have implied--how moral/ethical questions are to be answered are up to the individual, hence the government's hesitation to either permit/restrict items/activities which might cross this boundary."

I can respect that, but there is a point where it does get rediculus. Censoring he word "crap" is in place on television is now taking place, I'll never understand that one at all. Censorship in television is getting insane. You can't say "crap", but you can take a whole religion in offense by saying "god**** it".

Pornography is alright at times, I'm not saying hentai should be in art museums around the world, but I mean showing something like that once in a while isn't going to make the kid rebellious, he'll start to get an understanding of what will happen later in life.

I'm not saying that a 9 yr old should be given a playboy, but don't try to keep him away from it because you think it'll make him into a horrible person. Don't keep him locked away till he's ready to move out, that could cause some big issues when he tries to go out on his own. If he does see something like a boob, parents should'nt riot, if the kid asks "whats that for?" Don't blame others, try to allow him to understand in a way that's appropriate for his age. If he's 6, then you can say, "You're a little too young to learn about that right now" then change the channel, don't blame the country for it. On the other hand, if he's 11+ and wants to have a heart to heart understanding, tell him, it's you're job as a parent to make sure your child is ready for the future.

[DiaLady]

I think you might be wrong about the word crap, or at least I think I've heard it about a bazillion times on The Simpsons. But I do agree that word censorship policies by the FCC are both antiquated and meaningless in the larger scheme of things--why is "bitch" ok, but not "shit", or my favorite, why bleep out "hole" but not "ass" in the word "asshole"?

[Tancrisism]

We've got it backwards too in our censorship. Why is sexuality so feared while gruesome violence is shown frequently on 7-O'clock TV?

[stryker1500]

At 6/19/09 06:12 PM, DiaLady wrote:

"bitch" ok, but not "shit", or my favorite, why bleep out "hole" but not "ass" in the word "asshole"?

I've wondered about that for a long time, and it all comes down to, the biggest shows get away with the most. I love the show Family Guy, but even I know that some parts are horrible, like these shows on VH2, Daisy of Love, she gets away with soo much shit, because the ratings are high.

If you have viewers, you have power, that's all it boils down to.

[DiaLady]

But I think what you/we are touching on here are 2 different things--ideally how should governmental/regulatory entities act, and how should individuals conduct themselves in response to "objectionable" materials.

[fatape]

At 6/19/09 05:16 PM, DiaLady wrote:
In any case, we still do live in a fundamentally "free" nation.

if you cannot put anything in yout own body at any quantities without fear of being put in jail or being arrested you do not live a free country.

if you cannot offer money for sex or vice versa without fear of getting arrested you do not live in a free country.

if you have to fear being fined thousands of dollars for downloading music you do not live in a free country.

the united states of america isn't a free country nor are most countrys in this world.

[stryker1500]

That's fuckin obvious, and it's all thanks to these little bitch protestors that get pissed whenever they see something they don't like, they can express theirs, but not in a way that violates ours.

[DiaLady]

At 6/19/09 07:55 PM, fatape wrote: the united states of america isn't a free country nor are most countrys in this world.

Yeah, so because meth and prostitution aren't legal, the USA is an oppressive totalitarian state.

Again, go live in North Korea, or talk to the people who survived the governments of Idi Amin, and Slobodan Milosevic, before you start this bullcrap about what constitutes as "free" state.

[Patton3]

Just use this as a rule of thumb: You can do whatever does not break laws the U.S. or repress freedoms of others. Just don't be an ass with this power.

[fatape]

At 6/19/09 09:34 PM, DiaLady wrote:

At 6/19/09 07:55 PM, fatape wrote:

Yeah, so because meth and prostitution aren't legal, the USA is an oppressive totalitarian state.

strawman

Again, go live in North Korea, or talk to the people who survived the governments of Idi Amin, and Slobodan Milosevic, before you start this bullcrap about what constitutes as "free" state.

in a free country you should be able to do anything that dose not impose on the freedom of others.Paying for sex dose not impose on the freedom of others hence if you live in a country where it is illegal you do not live in a completly free country.

[DiaLady]

At 6/19/09 10:10 PM, fatape wrote: in a free country you should be able to do anything that dose not impose on the freedom of others.Paying for sex dose not impose on the freedom of others hence if you live in a country where it is illegal you do not live in a completly free country.

Go re-read what I posted, I said "fundamentally free" country.

In fact, in Nevada prostitution IS legal, so your "argument" is null.

[HalfAwiT]

I agree with you on some parts except for this:

"Censorship in pornography is what really sets me off, it just pises me off whenever I hear about some person suing due to hurting American youth. Hentai is something that'll make a parent gasp, yet they go on family trips to museums where there's paintings of naked men/women, why don't they find this strange? Why do we have to censor our art? it's a way of expressing ourselves just like any other kind of art that's out there, we just don't take months to make 1 picture."

In museums you see sculptures and paintings of people nude because in most of those era's they found that clothing masked the "natural beauty" of people. And hentai would definitely make a parent gasp because they just saw their son watching Fred Flintstone bang Wonder Woman. I mean, they're being protective so that their children aren't exposed to all that stuff out in the world.

I get what you're trying to say about censorship but if we didn't censor some of what they show on T.V. we would have some very messed up people in the world.

[fatape]

At 6/19/09 10:15 PM, DiaLady wrote:
In fact, in Nevada prostitution IS legal, so your "argument" is null.

1. fundamentaly free is misleading it's like saying your cake is fundamently roach free if only 5 percent of it has roaches in it.

2. I had more things then prositution