Cook, but that DOES fall under censorship. My snuff idea was to exagerrate it to its largest extent. Do you actually think that the ONLY reason to NOT show a child a snuff film is a financial or economic one? Come on.

Quote from Scarecrow

no, it's the society's fault for creating an environment where somebody feels the need to attack an innocent family. but the society cannot accept or admit that.

But in the real world, terrorism and fear mongering DOES happen, and it DOES happen to people who may not be the cause of that society's ills. We can't let someone acquire the means to make a petrol bomb just because society is sick. He isn't hurling the petrol bomb at society in general, he is going to do it at a bunch of poeple. We can't give someone the means to commit a sick act, just because society in general is sick.

While I absolutely agree that terrorism and rampage are societal problems, what about psychopaths who take a gun and shoot up a school or a movie theatre? If THOSE guys had the knowledge to make an explosive, they would. In an entirely hypothetical scenario, are you saying that an open explanation of how to make a petrol bomb (in a film) must go uncensored simply because "if anyone uses this, then society is to blame, fuck the safety of people who could get hurt" ?

Quote from Scarecrow

i think that would be poor marketing and a bad choice of demographic

But its still POSSIBLE. Declining ratings for a snuff film on a children's program might drop off in the long run, but even ONE show where a mentally/emotionally defenseless child is exposed to rape and mutilation cannot be supported in the form of anti-censorship.

Quote from Jutsu

Then that violence should be less shocking and less punished socially.

In one of the trailer parks I lived in, if someone was talking smack and got punched out over it. No one was surprised and no one called the cops.

Don't get me wrong, a trailer park is far from an enlightened cultural nexus, but, people learned a certain level of respect.

I don't get what has to do with censoring potentially dangerous things. Are you saying a society that is attacked by terrorism should be less shocked by a family dying of a petrol bomb, because anti-censorship is more important?

Everyone, please take note. I'm not talking about censoring IDEAS or SPEECH, lads. I'm talking about a specifically exagerrated idea to show the weakness of a blanket "ALL CENSORSHIP IS WRONG" stance.

Quote from Preserve

Yes children should be curious and seeking answers to life's tough questions. So they should be responsible to how they let images, videos and other things influence their beliefs and actions. If they see a snuff film and get disturbed by it, then they should question why they got disturbed or what's wrong with the snuff film.

You must know only some really smart kids, or none at all.

Quote from Nish

In an entirely hypothetical scenario, are you saying that an open explanation of how to make a petrol bomb (in a film) must go uncensored simply because "if anyone uses this, then society is to blame, fuck the safety of people who could get hurt" ?

I doubt it, he's just saying that in an ideal society this kind of mindless violence wouldn't be seen as a solution to anyone's problems, and under those circumstances censorship would be unnecessary, it wouldn't protect anyone from anything. The fact that violent individuals exist makes censorship necessary, and I'm sure he realizes that, but he wouldn't personally blame the lack of censorship for what they do because their existence is a consequence of a more systemic problem with far more complicated solutions.

Which I agree with, and that doesn't mean I think ideal solutions can be applied to a non-ideal society with any expectation of them succeeding. I doubt scarecrow thinks any differently, but I should probably let him speak for himself.

Well I completely agree too, which is why I stood outside a rather radical, trouble-making mosque with an "I support Charlie Hebdo" sign.

I don't blame lack of censorship for violent individuals either. My problem was specifically to NOT use censorship in a hypothetical scenario where a potentially violent person (without the means to do so, until now) learns how to make a bomb.

I'm extremely anti-censorship. But I'm also anti-blanket-statements-that-ALL-censorship-in-ANY-form-is-bad.

Quote from Scarecrow

kids don't think that way

But they should. That was my whole point. And before you come in and say "that's not how things are, kids aren't like that", conditioning is not a reason not to change.

Quote from Preserve

But they should. That was my whole point. And before you come in and say "that's not how things are, kids aren't like that", conditioning is not a reason not to change.

Biological ability says otherwise. Just because in an ideal world, we'd all think with a philosophical perspective, it doesn't mean a 5 year old child who is still processing the world is capable of doing so. It would be very naive to think that is practically possible.

Quote from Preserve

But they should.

Birds should also stop shitting on my car, that doesn't mean that they have the biological components necessary to be aware that it's even a possibility, let alone act accordingly. It has nothing to do with conditioning.

Quote from Nish

Biological ability says otherwise.

Show me a study where kids are biologically incapable of critical thinking and I may concede my point.

Just because in an ideal world, we'd all think with a philosophical perspective, it doesn't mean a 5 year old child who is still processing the world is capable of doing so. It would be very naive to think that is practically possible.

My experiences says otherwise. I remember thinking a lot about things like justice and why are some people bad when I was a kid. They even had a critical thinking session when I was in the fourth grade. Though I'll admit the definition of kid does have a range of different ages so we may be talking about different ages.

Quote from Preserve

Show me a study where kids are biologically incapable of critical thinking and I may concede my point.

unless you specify what age you're referring to the answer differs wildly. here's a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages

generally kids under 7-8 have an extremely limited capacity for seeing things through another person's perspective, making the kind of self-aware empathy you're talking about nearly impossible.

kids are very curious and they do seek answers to things they don't understand, but being able to mentally process the kind of things we're talking about in a healthy manner isn't something we should expect from a young child.

Quote from Preserve

Show me a study where kids are biologically incapable of critical thinking and I may concede my point.

Exilement has posted a link, that Wike page ALSO has links to many, many studies and findings that will make you concede your point a hundred times.

Quote from Preserve

My experiences says otherwise. I remember thinking a lot about things like justice and why are some people bad when I was a kid. They even had a critical thinking session when I was in the fourth grade. Though I'll admit the definition of kid does have a range of different ages so we may be talking about different ages.

If you actually think :

1) That contemplating terms like "justice" equips a child with the ability to process mental and emotionally traumatic sights and vicarious experiences.
2) That just because you were able to think of those things, all children will be able to.
3) That a critical thinking session in grade four means children can be exposed to horrendous imagery and be able to philosophize over them.

If you actually hold the above to be true, than I would declare that not only were you NOT thinking critically when you were 8, you are not thinking critically even now.

Quote from Nish

I don't get what has to do with censoring potentially dangerous things. Are you saying a society that is attacked by terrorism should be less shocked by a family dying of a petrol bomb, because anti-censorship is more important?

Nah, I'm not saying that.

What I'm getting at is the only problem my culture has with people goading others into physical violence isn't that we need those people to shut up, which would still be nice, but instead that we so greatly shun any form of violence. Which is pure hypocrisy considering how rife with violence our media is.

However, since I grew up in smaller communities than most people. I saw a perspective that if everyone knows everyone and someone is speaking "Fightin' words" at someone else. It should be no surprise when they get popped in the mouth.
Like, they had it coming, like everyone is just going to pretend they didn't see it, like, the cops don't need to know about it.

Suddenly when they may be faced with the consequences of the shit they're talking, they think twice about it.

In hind sight I probably sound like I'm playing devils advocate.

Children don't really have a good moral compass, and that's why they make excellent soldiers.

In field training, we were told that if you see an adult with a gun, you can reason with him.

If you see a child with a gun, don't waste your breath.

children are very naive and their moral compass is literally dictated by somebody else.

Quote from Captain Cook

Children don't really have a good moral compass, and that's why they make excellent soldiers.

In field training, we were told that if you see an adult with a gun, you can reason with him.

If you see a child with a gun, don't waste your breath.

children are very naive and their moral compass is literally dictated by somebody else.

It's awfully convenient that they teach you to not think about shooting children and that you don't question it.

Maybe you shouldn't be concerned about them being the ones with a moral compass dictated by someone else, yeah?

You must be fucking retarded to think that's an end-all-be-all assumption.

You don't question it because when you do, they fucking kill you.

Yeah, I get that your anti-establishment fedora gets too tight sometimes, but you have to realize that in the real world, child soldiers are a massive threat, more so than adults.

Jutsu, I agree with your general principle that censorship isn't going to stop the flow of violence. It is far easier for authoritarians to censor ideas rather than to work hard towards removing the root causes of these problems like economic disparity, lack of education and idealogical oppression. However, my point is that while censhorship is NOT the answer to solving problem, a narrow-minded stance completely against ALL forms of censorship is equally unrealistic.

Cook, so you mean they would rather you kill the child outright than subdue them in some way? I understand that a child might be quicker to pull the trigger because of a lower moral compass, but surely a child's physical stamina, aim and agility would be less than a trained soldier. Surely you might be able to use lethal (but not fatal) force to incapacitate the child and kill only as a last resort? Or is that wishful thinking? I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, they're just children. On the other hand, if we're saying it is ok to kill an adult because your superiors said so, then by an extension of that logic, it is ok to kill a child too.

Quote from Captain Cook

You must be fucking retarded to think that's an end-all-be-all assumption.

You don't question it because when you do, they fucking kill you.

Yeah, I get that your anti-establishment fedora gets too tight sometimes, but you have to realize that in the real world, child soldiers are a massive threat, more so than adults.

You can resort to that sort of ad-hominem if you'd like, but it's certainly not demonstrating your ability to debate and it's coming across as extremely defensive.

I had a friend whom actually killed a kid in war. He was in a situation where he felt he had no choice, that he felt his life was in danger. Do I think it's fucked up that he killed the kid? Absolutely. Would it have been equally fucked up if the kid killed him instead? Absolutely. I'm NOT saying that you shouldn't pull the trigger first if it comes to that. I can't say I wouldn't put my life first if I was in that situation.

But I am saying that he's spending the rest of his life thinking about it. It's far from a situation in which you either don't question or you die, because you know what I call that? Bullshit, brain washing. And maybe you're right, I've never been in a combat zone. But as far as I'm aware, neither have you. And there's been millions of soldiers who didn't question who also died.
Free thinking isn't necessarily hesitance.

I am pointing out your colossal glass house. You always resort to this weird military stance in every conversation, because you romanticize war "Something you actually told me", it's the oddest thing.
Riddle me this, if a childs moral compass is dictated by someone else and so is yours, then what does that make you?
Maybe you should stop throwing stones.

And for the record I'm not anti-establishment, I just don't agree with the USA's military and political positions. There's plenty of countries that have governments I'm pretty much fine with.

Quote from Nish

Jutsu, I agree with your general principle that censorship isn't going to stop the flow of violence. It is far easier for authoritarians to censor ideas rather than to work hard towards removing the root causes of these problems like economic disparity, lack of education and idealogical oppression. However, my point is that while censhorship is NOT the answer to solving problem, a narrow-minded stance completely against ALL forms of censorship is equally unrealistic.

Oh I completely agree. People being allowed to say whatever they want and face no consequences is part of the problem.