ext_168243 ([identity profile] ohthatisbadnews.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] hh_clubs2006-02-23 08:40 pm
Entry tags:

SPEW!! DEBATE!!

Image hosted by Photobucket.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.

[identity profile] tsukinofaerii.livejournal.com 2006-03-02 04:49 am (UTC)(link)
No matter how much freedom we want, we can't deny that certain materials are just not suitable to be viewed by all.

Of course not everything is suitable to be viewed by everyone. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be viewed by anyone. I happen to enjoy the Bard's Macbeth very thoroughly, and I certainly wouldn't take a small child to see it. Wiping out something because someone else isn't capable of handling it is absured and impossible. There will always be someone who isn't mature enough to view something.

Children should not be viewing programmes with explicit scenes simply because they are not mature enough to say that "This is fiction, I cannot do this and it's only for entertainment."

No argument at all. That's what parents are for. Let them decide what their kids can and cannot watch. They're much better judges of what their child is capable of understanding than some official up in Washington. Even more -- where do we draw the line? We're trying to protect children here. Does that mean that everything gets lowered to the level of Barney, because that's the only way to actually protect all children, and even then... Well, I find Bareny horribly offensive, so perhaps even lower than that.

Children are curious by nature, imagine showing them something suggestive like a violent fight scene involving gangs and knives and the next thing you know, they're experimenting on themselves.

Once again, that's the parents job. That's why parents raise their children, after all. Because they're supposed to keep them from doing stupid things like playing with Mommy's gun. If parents aren't doing that, then that's the issue that needs to be addressed, not the show where the child supposedly got the idea.

Yes, curiosity is not a bad thing, but at the time when their minds are open to all kinds of possibility they won't be able to stop themselves from trying out what they see on tv.

That's just outright inaccurate. I adored Peter Pan as a child, and I certainly never tried to fly. All it takes is a few minutes with someone saying "that's pretend" and problem solved. Children know pretend from real very well, and once the difference is made clear they'll keep pretend where it belongs.

One more thing. Parents may be the ones who know better than to let their kids watch inappropriate stuff, but not all parents are around their kids all day long, making sure they do not learn anything stupid on tv. We as adults may be able to restrain ourselves, but the younger ones are slowly learning, so the government no doubt has to step in and take action.

Of course not all parents are around their children all day. After all, work, school maybe, other repsonsibilities... However, that's what a babysitter is for. Or, lacking the money for that, a neighbor or a family member. Anyone leaving their child to fend for themselves should be brought up on charges of negligence. And by the time a child is old enough to be left alone for any length of time, they're also old enough to know right from wrong.

To sum up my argument: it's up to the parents to police their children, and all the excuses in the world doesn't change that. My rights to see whatever I want to see shouldn't suffer because someone else needs to take Parenting101 at their local community college.
Moon Faery//Slytherin