SPEW!! DEBATE!!

[ohthatisbadnews.livejournal.com]

Click on the picture to join!

The monthly SPEW debate is here! Wanna know whats going on? Look under the cut!!


Imagne going to the record store, and blaring from the loud speakers is an artist like Eminem. You have your two young children with you. Should they have to listen to that kind of music, even if you think that it is immoral?
The Topic of the debate is a popular one. Should Music/Movies/Magazine/Video Games/Etc. be censored? Should the government be able to say, "No You cannot put that on your album" or "That is too vulgur for our youth to see on the big screen!"
What I Want I want you to debate over this issue. Gryffindor//Slytherin will be arguing that the government SHOULD NOT be able to censor the media. Ravenclaw//Hufflepuff will be arguing that the government SHOULD be able to censor the media.
Rules
-Only qualifing comments count! They must be signed, be at least 3 sentences, stay on topic, and stay on your assigned side.
-Keep it civil. If you don't agree with what someone says, let it slide off your back, and don't start an argument. You will not be allowed to participate in the contest for SPEW.
-Have fun! Thats what I want most of all

The Break Down
-10 points for first comment.
-5 points for each additional comment.
Deadline
-The debate will end THURSDAY, Mar. 2nd, at 8 P.M. EST!

Thank you!



DEBATE OVER! Sorry, I had to end it a little early, but I have a paper due tomorrow, and it will take me the rest of the night to finish it.

Comments

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few.

Exactly, and last time I checked, there were more individuals above 18 in this country than there were minors. I don't see why parents of these people, and other individuals easily offended, can't just toughen up and modify their lives.

The greater need for society to be able to coexist peacefully should outweigh one person's need to hear or see violence.

Yet it must be said that governments that highly censored things, such as Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, were, below the surface, anything but peaceful.

They used to have Public Decency laws, where guidelines were created to keep things at a happy medium, but OH NO people had to prove how EDGY and sophisticated they were by debasing it. They had to prove what REBELS they were for ratings, and now everything's fallen to shit.

That is your personal opinion; there is room for others'.

The furor over being subjected to Janet Jackson's boobage during a family football game is proof in the pudding. You've already got blood and violence during football- you need boobs too? Non-cheerleader boobs I mean. Boobs are great, don't get me wrong, I like them, I keep a couple as pets, but that doesn't mean I want to SEE them when I'm munching cheetos with my kid, yknow?

Don't be watching "blood and violence" with your kid in the first place, first of all.

Second of all, the "boob" issue highlights another issue that needs to be addressed: what is offensive to some is not ofensive to others. I for one, absolutely could not care if my younger cousins (since I don't have a child) saw a breast on TV. As far as I'm concerned, it's a part of the human body. And how exactly would children know what they're seeing is absolutely offensive and terrible? I grew up listening to my dad regularly play songs with the words "Shit," "Damn," and "Hell" in them, and I didn't even stop to scrutinize the words. In fact, I was absolutely anti-swearing until I was in seventh grade.

I can speak as a child that was exposed to such "indiscretions" and look: I've turned out for none the worse, and more tolerant of the world around me.

Lisa//Slytherin

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

SQUEE icon love!

You could care less, that's your personal opinion and there, again, is room for those of others.

A woman's breast tastefully shown as part of the human body is one thing, a woman's breast in a sexual display is another. Since a child isn't necessarily going to know the difference, s/he is going to think that's what boobies are for.

Genital and secondary sex organs are pretty universally held to be items for private displays only. A child, in order to learn to respect her own body, must grow up seeing the bodies of others respected.

Who's to say tolerance is good? When there's no end to what one is willing to tolerate, there's no end to the evils that may occur.

A mind, like a parachute, cannot function until fully opened, yes... but one's mind can be so open the brain falls out. To say there needs to be some laws of decency is comparative of the Nazi and Russian Socialist Regimes shows gross ignorance of said political parties. To call someone a Nazi for wanting to make the world a better place is a base and offensive argument at best.

Karina, Ravenclaw

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

Thanks :)

While I agree that children should grow up to respect their bodies, this is possible in less drastic means than blanket government censorship. There are many comunities out there (such as Amish, mormons, etc.) that manage to raise their children in violence-free environments, and suceed at it. And, indeed, these children grow up to be healthy, functioning members of society. Smaller levels of 'censorship' are the key here, instead of all-out national moves. Because of the great amount of diversity in the world, there would be a significant amount of people very unhappy no matter how censored things were.
I think a base level of tolerance needed in a country, first and foremost, is that there will always be things that offend you, no matter where you are. People have different values and they will continue to do what they please. It is detrimental when people do not tolerate to this extent, also.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting that you were a Nazi, Nazi-supporter or otherwise with my statement. I was stating what censorship has been linked to in notorious situations, for what it's worth. Either way, both of the governments showed exemplary amounts of selective censorship: with the Nazis only pro-Nazi propaganda was allowed on the airwaves and in the media; and with the Bolsheviks, all famous non-communist supporters were hunted down and prosecuted. I might say that neither of these two governments are especially revered today.

Lisa//Slytherin

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

I think there are certain things and words that we can all agree that the government should censor. There already are. Kiddy pornography, for example. This is simply taking it a step further along those same lines. Full-on intercourse is NOT something that should be seen on public television between the hours of 6am and 10 pm, when children are watching tv, and they aren't.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

The problem with that reasoning is this topic is about gray areas that we don't all agree on.

Kiddy Pornography: Yes, it is censored. It indeed has a legitimate reason for being that way. It violates the rights of children in a very lasting way.

Swearing: It is somewhat censored. And it has no legitimate reason for being that way. I don't see "The Big Three" or "The Big Seven" violating rights of others. I don't see the swear words wielding guns and killing people on the street. In fact, all I see about them is that some people just don't like them. And bias is not a legitimate excuse to modify the government.

Full-on intercourse is NOT something that should be seen on public television between the hours of 6am and 10 pm, when children are watching tv, and they aren't.

And is it? (I don't watch television often, but I'll assume it's a 'no,' at least on public TV.) This topic is about the further modification of the government, and not what we have now.