Smut

Page 5 of 9 [ 130 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Should we censor?

Yes. Offensive/obscene materials, anything that makes fun of a particular demographic or religious group, or anything that is in opposition to the reigning party's political views should be banned.	4%	[ 2 ]
Some things should be banned, such as hard-core porn and extremely dangerous or hateful speech (ie no KKK rallies in the city park)	21%	[ 10 ]
Censor nothing. Bring on the hard-core porn and allow all speech, no matter how hateful.	64%	[ 30 ]
Orwell should be censored.	11%	[ 5 ]

Total votes : 47

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2009, 8:59 am

AdvilPM wrote:

Orwell wrote:

I'm not sure how to make this clearer. I don't want censorship of anything. Violent acts should be punished, speech never should. If I stab or shoot you, then criminal penalties follow. When I say violence, I refer to actual, physical violence. Killing people is illegal. Beating people up is illegal. Offending people is not.

I thought this thread was about censorship or what should be censored and what shouldn't be censored. Not about what is and/or should be illegal and what is and/or should not be illegal.

Why are you changing the subject?

Some posters claimed that materials which promoted violence should be censored. I say that this is stupid; actually committing violence should be illegal, but to punish violent speech or media is silly.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Feb 2009, 10:21 am

Magnus wrote:

The peanut gallery will take over and just yell obscenities without having anything substantial to say. I don't want to see PPR go downhill. I like witty intellectuals over base teenage humor.
I'm not for censorship, but I also don't want a bunch of dummie Howard Stern wannabes infiltrating this forum.

I agree, Magnus. Also I think we should explain that there are certain levels of smut/obscenity. It's funny how the people who are usually the most scientific-minded about everything balk at the notion of objectively analysing smutty/offensive material.

Who is genuinely willing/able to self-censor for the sake of community standards?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2009, 10:33 am

slowmutant wrote:

Give me an objective basis on which to analyze smut, and I will do so.

I try to keep within what is appropriate for a given context, eg I do not swear around small children. But I think any type of censorship laws whatsoever would, at the very least, create a bad precedent and put us on a slippery slope.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Feb 2009, 10:40 am

Orwell wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

Sounds like a job for ... SCIENCE! :cyclopsani:

calling all nerds!

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

21 Feb 2009, 11:30 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

So by your rational it is ok to deliberately provoke violence through speech and only those that commit the violence should be charged ?

I think provocation is an excuse, and often a lame one. It is simply people not taking responsiblity for their own actions and placing the blame for their own violent actions on others. When it comes to words, threats of violence are one thing, but advocating or inciting it is another.

AdvilPM wrote:

They are often one in the same. This is why I was confused at first.

anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

21 Feb 2009, 12:11 pm

I agree with Orwell on this matter. drawing the line at violence, but keeping the freedom of expression.

it bothers me that so many European countries have penalised expressing the opinion that the Holocaust never took place. while it's such an obvious stupidity the fact that it is penalised makes many idiot people believe in some international Jewish conspiracy, masonic world government and all kinds of similar crap all the more.

if they would just let the idiots be idiots such opinions would get ridiculed and stay in the loony underground instead of making it to the national news.

_________________
not a bug - a feature.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Feb 2009, 12:19 pm

anna-banana wrote:

Interesting. Go easy on the holocaust-deniers and the skinheads, you seem to be saying. Could this somehow be in your own interest?

anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

21 Feb 2009, 12:22 pm

^^of course it's in my own interest! I wish to be able to ridicule and offend the religious and not be put in jail for it. =p

freedom of speech is in everyone's interest.

_________________
not a bug - a feature.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Feb 2009, 12:27 pm

anna-banana wrote:

The Holocaust was undeniably one of the most horrible concoctions of humanity but the reason that it's denial is so violently rejected is that it is a wonderful tool for the Israelis to use to justify their awful mistreatment of the Palestinians that they kicked out of the country. As the Catholic Church long ago discovered, guilt is a very powerful and highly remunerative social weapon so when one has the right end of that stick it is very difficult to let go. This is not in any way a denial of the Holocaust, merely an observation as to how useful it has become for certain quarters. To understand how some responsible Jews feel about it read http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann02202009.html

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Feb 2009, 12:29 pm

anna-banana wrote:

^^of course it's in my own interest! I wish to be able to ridicule and offend the religious and not be put in jail for it. =p

As I suspected. I'm disappointed in you, anna-banana.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Feb 2009, 12:38 pm

slowmutant wrote:

anna-banana wrote:

^^of course it's in my own interest! I wish to be able to ridicule and offend the religious and not be put in jail for it. =p

As I suspected. I'm disappointed in you, anna-banana.

Then it seems you are in favor of jailing people who are frank about their feelings towards religion. Saudi Arabia has the same idea.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2009, 12:40 pm

Sand wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

anna-banana wrote:

^^of course it's in my own interest! I wish to be able to ridicule and offend the religious and not be put in jail for it. =p

As I suspected. I'm disappointed in you, anna-banana.

Then it seems you are in favor of jailing people who are frank about their feelings towards religion. Saudi Arabia has the same idea.

Thankfully, such pro-censorship views are much rarer where I come from than they are in the Middle East.

I'll stick with an open, free society, thank you very much.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Feb 2009, 12:40 pm

Sand wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

anna-banana wrote:

^^of course it's in my own interest! I wish to be able to ridicule and offend the religious and not be put in jail for it. =p

As I suspected. I'm disappointed in you, anna-banana.

Then it seems you are in favor of jailing people who are frank about their feelings towards religion. Saudi Arabia has the same idea.

What about people who are frank about their feelings toward homosexuals? Would that be okay?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2009, 12:42 pm

slowmutant wrote:

What about people who are frank about their feelings toward homosexuals? Would that be okay?

Sure. People should be frank about their beliefs. And then you can be frank about your belief that they are wrong or stupid.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

21 Feb 2009, 12:54 pm

slowmutant wrote:

anna-banana wrote:

^^of course it's in my own interest! I wish to be able to ridicule and offend the religious and not be put in jail for it. =p

As I suspected. I'm disappointed in you, anna-banana.

well I'm quite disappointed that the majority seems to enjoy having their mouths sealed shut. if the world looked the way you wanted it (with people not expressing their views openly) I wouldn't want to live in it.

_________________
not a bug - a feature.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Feb 2009, 1:06 pm

Orwell wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

What about people who are frank about their feelings toward homosexuals? Would that be okay?

Sure. People should be frank about their beliefs. And then you can be frank about your belief that they are wrong or stupid.

Huh?

No, this is unclear.

Page 5 of 9 [ 130 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Smut Post Reply New Topic

Smut