Free Speech and Morality (Parental Advisory: This thread may contain adult language.)

[Hurricane]

In today's society, it seems that so many people are offended by the simplest little things. Violence, nudity, "foul" language, etc. But, what IS "foul" language and who determines what words are "foul?" According the the FCC the words, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits, fart, turd, and twat are offensive and are the only words officially banned from public television. But why all the fuss? Why do these ten words hold so much power over people. Especially fart and turd. These words are nothing. Words only hold power over you if you let them. I just don't get how people can be offended by a mere word.

Also, some of you religious people can probably help me out with this one. Nudity. Why are people offended by nudity? Why are people in america so afraid to see a naked person even if it's a shower scene or someone just changing clothes? Aren't we born naked? Wasn't Adam and Eve naked? Is that not how God intended us to be? If not, why aren't we born with clothes on? Why don't animals have to wear clothes? It doesn't make sense. Help me out here. Help me understand.

Why is this country so up tight? Other countries are so much more relaxed and have much more relaxed standards for television and print than we do. Why is the "greatest country on Earth" sending thousands of our troops over to Iraq to die for our "freedom" when we can't even excersize those freedoms. If I say the word "fuck" out loud at work, I get fired. If I say a "bad word" at Wal-Mart they can kick me out. If I wanna go out in public without a shirt on, it's ok (although you'd probably be blinded) but a female can't excersize that same freedom.

Also, why is it that marijuana is such a HUGE problem to everyone, but cigarettes and alcohol are readily available in most places? Why does the law tell me I have to wear my seatbelt? Shouldn't I be able to decide on my own whether or not I want to be safe?

This country is run by the wrong people and they've got everyone brainwashed and it's fucked up.

[Night Swordsman]

All i will say about the seatbelt issue is this: I am fine with your personal choices on how to be safe or not,but when you drive,you do NOT drive in a vaccuum. Others are out there,and it stops being a issue on if your driving safe or not,it becomes a issue on being safe so OTHERS can be safe as well.

This goes 1,000,000% TO EACH AND EVERY ONE of you who has EVER Drove and talked on a NON-hands free cell phone. People DIE from this. Think of it,there are people who are dead because someone(themselves or another person) could not be bothered to pull over and talk. TALK.

Sorry..i just despise cell phones,and just shake my head at the LACK of legislation on this.

[Rattlehead]

There is a lot of money to be had in acting shocked and offended over things. That's basically the short answer to the dirty words issue.

[Hurricane]

All i will say about the seatbelt issue is this: I am fine with your personal choices on how to be safe or not,but when you drive,you do NOT drive in a vaccuum. Others are out there,and it stops being a issue on if your driving safe or not,it becomes a issue on being safe so OTHERS can be safe as well.

This goes 1,000,000% TO EACH AND EVERY ONE of you who has EVER Drove and talked on a NON-hands free cell phone. People DIE from this. Think of it,there are people who are dead because someone(themselves or another person) could not be bothered to pull over and talk. TALK.

Sorry..i just despise cell phones,and just shake my head at the LACK of legislation on this.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but how does my not wearing a seatbelt effect anyone else? Personally I DO wear mine, but should I choose not to, I don't think it's fair for me to get pulled over and given a ticket. Not wearing a seatbelt is not like driving drunk.

[Corrina]

The logic is something like this:

1. There is no inherent right to drive a car. Meaning the state can regulate drivers however the hell they want.

2. Not using seat belts contributes to the severity of injuries in an accident. Were you to get in a bad accident with no seat belt, it's almost certain you would have critical injuries.

This affects the first responders to your accident scene, who have to work to save your life. If they fail, or if they find you dead or splatted all over the place, this is going to be traumatic for them. It would be much better if they found you mostly well, and bitching about wrecking your car. I've been to accident scenes. They are not pretty. At all.

If you live, they have to struggle to save you, then send you off on an ambulance, then to a critical care facility or trauma center, thus involving yet more people in your decision not to use a seat belt.

This also costs money. Should you be uninsured, this costs society money. And even if you are insured, it costs money.

Look at John Corzine's recovery period. First, two/three weeks in a hospital. Then intensive physical therapy.

And the cost of this is generally born not by your health insurance but your auto insurance. Meaning the more severe accidents there are, the more the price of auto insurance goes up.

So, basically, you can either traumatize others or cost them by not wearing your seat belt.

So wear the seat belt. It's not as if it impacts your freedom in any way. Driver's licenses and the auto industry is already heavily regulated.

This line of reasoning is by no means followed all the time, though. For instance, CT has a seat belt law. It does not have a helmet law for motorcycles. As a trauma surgeon friend said to me, these people are called donor cycles.

ETA: People who are talking on cellphones and driving should have their driver's licenses revoked on the spot.

[Hurricane]

The logic is something like this:

1. There is no inherent right to drive a car. Meaning the state can regulate drivers however the hell they want.

2. Not using seat belts contributes to the severity of injuries in an accident. Were you to get in a bad accident with no seat belt, it's almost certain you would have critical injuries.

This affects the first responders to your accident scene, who have to work to save your life. If they fail, or if they find you dead or splatted all over the place, this is going to be traumatic for them. It would be much better if they found you mostly well, and bitching about wrecking your car. I've been to accident scenes. They are not pretty. At all.

If you live, they have to struggle to save you, then send you off on an ambulance, then to a critical care facility or trauma center, thus involving yet more people in your decision not to use a seat belt.

This also costs money. Should you be uninsured, this costs society money. And even if you are insured, it costs money.

Look at John Corzine's recovery period. First, two/three weeks in a hospital. Then intensive physical therapy.

And the cost of this is generally born not by your health insurance but your auto insurance. Meaning the more severe accidents there are, the more the price of auto insurance goes up.

So, basically, you can either traumatize others or cost them by not wearing your seat belt.

So wear the seat belt. It's not as if it impacts your freedom in any way. Driver's licenses and the auto industry is already heavily regulated.

This line of reasoning is by no means followed all the time, though. For instance, CT has a seat belt law. It does not have a helmet law for motorcycles. As a trauma surgeon friend said to me, these people are called donor cycles.

ETA: People who are talking on cellphones and driving should have their driver's licenses revoked on the spot.

Interesting point of view. Like I said though, I DO wear mine all the time.

[Corrina]

Re: American being uptight.

Uh, we're downright loosey goosey compared to the Puritans who founded the Massachusetts colony, and much of the land that became Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Actually, many of the original American settlers came here to practice their religion freely. The Quakers who settled Pennsylvania. The Roman Catholics who settled Maryland.

Probably not the convicts who helped settle Georgia, though.

On nudity, I don't think men not wearing shirts is the same as women not wearing shirt. Probably it's much closer to men not wearing pants.

[Ogdred]

And what's the deal with bendy straws? I mean, come on, people! Haven't we suffered enough!?

[Night Swordsman]

Re: American being uptight.

Uh, we're downright loosey goosey compared to the Puritans who founded the Massachusetts colony, and much of the land that became Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Actually, many of the original American settlers came here to practice their religion freely. The Quakers who settled Pennsylvania. The Roman Catholics who settled Maryland.

Probably not the convicts who helped settle Georgia, though.

On nudity, I don't think men not wearing shirts is the same as women not wearing shirt. Probably it's much closer to men not wearing pants.

Thank you for stating the reasons on the seatbelt issue. Those were my EXACT thoughts on the subject,but i was gone and you awnsered much more clearly than i could of,and with less commas. :rolleyes:

You are free to not wear your shirt anytime you want,Corrina! Purr! ;)

[DavidAllred]

All i will say about the seatbelt issue is this: I am fine with your personal choices on how to be safe or not,but when you drive,you do NOT drive in a vaccuum. Others are out there,and it stops being a issue on if your driving safe or not,it becomes a issue on being safe so OTHERS can be safe as well.

I pretty much agree with this, and have a real life example. On my way home Monday night from seeing Spidey 3, I was greeted by a half dozen flashing lights about 2 turns from my house. I read in the paper this week that the accident involved a woman the same age as me who was killed.

Here is the kicker. As if getting killed wasn't bad enough, she was ejected from the car because she did not have on a seatbelt, and apparently was laying in the road for quite some time when a second car ran her over. It was dark and he didn't see her laying in the road.

So because she didn't have on her seatbelt, she not only lost her life which is very tragic, but now there is some poor guy at there feeling like crap because he ran over someone.

So buckle up!

As to the other issues, profanity is not a big deal with me until it starts getting hurled "at" someone. Then its just like any other hurtful word, and its wrong. Pot is probably not as bad as drinking, and it does seem unfair that one is legal and the other isn't. But I think they are both horrible for kids, and for that reason pot probably should be illegal, because its easy to get high really quick (a couple of minutes) and pass it off like you really aren't that high, but getting drunk tends to take longer (a natural deterrent) and leave you obviously impaired (a second deterrent).

But kids can get pot just as easy as alcohol any more, so its a moot point.

[diana_fan]

Why don't you shut the fuck up, you damned asshole?

;)

I'm not a fan of the Nanny State, nor of ludicrous laws which make no sense. Marijuana's illegality has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with corporate patents (DuPont).

And the nudity thing is just laughable. Honestly, it is.

[PatrickG]

Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be regulated, IMO.

I don't want or trust the government to make the world a better place.

Individual people acting in accord with individual conscience responding to the problems that life hurls in their face are imminently more capable and qualified than community efforts IMO (which is not to say that's a bad thing).

And community efforts are preferable to government involvement. Because government enforcement means that in some outside case where somebody vehenemently refuses to comply in any way shape or form then that person may end up shot, tazered or imprisoned. And if they're imprisoned, they may well wind up abused or raped.

So in general, I think the law shouldn't exceed the point where the average pacifist would be willing to pin somebody to the ground and beat them black and blue. Because anything that's regulated by law could ultimately end up in that kind of consequence.

Rape. Sure. Murder. Sure.

But if a POTENTIALLY higher insurance premium makes you want to do that, I think you and I really need separate societies to live in with different community standards of law because I don't feel safe with you around.

In my world, the government wouldn't require car insurance to begin with and insurance companies would offer lower rates to people with cars that require the driver to wear a seatbelt to shift out of neutral into any gear other than reverse.

I know the argument with car insurance is, "What happens if you do damage that you can't pay for?" IMO, that's where law should step in. After. Not before. Never one iota more preventative than is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

And what about murder? Rape? Or simple things like allergies someone may have in response to cat dander on your shirt? Should we all carry insurance, perhaps based on the risk profile we have for committing various offenses or causing various injuries?

Any of us can say we aren't murderers but what if you fit the profile? Or what if your skintone is a few shades too dark or you pray to the wrong god or you have an abnormal brain chemistry?

Insurance is about the wrong people paying and the wrong people profiting to diffray expense to society.

But society is an artificial construct that I think, increasingly, that none of is a part of. We have cultures. Hopefully, we have civilization. But the world exists by subscription and "society" becomes something that people are forced into, roped into. It's a prison.

Which is not to say I'm against friends or communities but I think people should choose whose society they're in. Self-determination of nationality, affiliation, ideology, thought, belief, self.

Maybe we aren't at the point where it's safe to cut the cord and maybe we never will be within my lifetime but I want to see us moving there. I want it to be there for my hypothetical grandchildren.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Why don't you shut the fuck up, you damned asshole?

;)

I'm not a fan of the Nanny State, nor of ludicrous laws which make no sense. Marijuana's illegality has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with corporate patents (DuPont).

And the nudity thing is just laughable. Honestly, it is.

Marijuana isn't exactly "healthful" and some of the arguments to legalize it (like using alcohol as an example) are laughable at best.

I do think too many things are over legislated, however. And if chicks want to go topless, I am mostly okay with that.

(There are some women who should not.

Case in point:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/mountie_007/FatWomenTryingtogetpantson.jpg)

[Sally Sensational]

RE: Profanity. My problem with profanity is the people who choose to allow their vocabularies to be limited by its use. Learn some different damn words, shit! :evilsmile

RE: Seatbelts. I wear mine. Morgan ALWAYS is buckled and most of the time in an age-appropriate booster. We were both spared major injuries in a wreck once by being properly belted. To be brutally honest, she would have gone through the windshield had her car seat not been belted right. The very thought is enough to make me make sure she's secure every time she gets in the car.

RE: Cell phones. I try to use my hands free as much as possible. I read the other day that talking on a cell phone sans handsfree device renders you as debilitated while driving as having a .08 blood alcohol level. Don't know where they got their facts, but .08 is either the legal limit or beyond in most states.

RE: Nudity. I don't get this one either. I spent years being paid to be naked for art classes. I was no more of a sexual object in that situation as a piece of fruit in a still life and it was awesome. It taught me some valuable lessons about being comfortable in my own skin and about the body as structure and form, but not sex object. I think everyone should be required to do that at least once. Nudity is not dirty, good puritans.

[Greg S.]

This goes 1,000,000% TO EACH AND EVERY ONE of you who has EVER Drove and talked on a NON-hands free cell phone. People DIE from this. Think of it,there are people who are dead because someone(themselves or another person) could not be bothered to pull over and talk. TALK.

I agree with you except that every study I've read shows that there is NO difference between hands-free models and regular phones. The problem is not that you don't have both hands on the steering wheel. The problem is that you are focusing more on your conversation than you are on driving.

I don't know why talking on the phone distracts more from your driving than talking to someone in the car with you, but that seems to be the case.

-Greg S.

[GozertheGozarian]

RE: Cell phones. I try to use my hands free as much as possible. I read the other day that talking on a cell phone sans handsfree device renders you as debilitated while driving as having a .08 blood alcohol level. Don't know where they got their facts, but .08 is either the legal limit or beyond in most states.


The studies were designed to compare cel phone driving to drunk driving. Mythbusters did their own tests and found exactly the same results, driving with a non hands free phone is as dangerous as driving under the influence.

[Hurricane]

I pretty much agree with this, and have a real life example. On my way home Monday night from seeing Spidey 3, I was greeted by a half dozen flashing lights about 2 turns from my house. I read in the paper this week that the accident involved a woman the same age as me who was killed.

Here is the kicker. As if getting killed wasn't bad enough, she was ejected from the car because she did not have on a seatbelt, and apparently was laying in the road for quite some time when a second car ran her over. It was dark and he didn't see her laying in the road.

So because she didn't have on her seatbelt, she not only lost her life which is very tragic, but now there is some poor guy at there feeling like crap because he ran over someone.

So buckle up!

As to the other issues, profanity is not a big deal with me until it starts getting hurled "at" someone. Then its just like any other hurtful word, and its wrong. Pot is probably not as bad as drinking, and it does seem unfair that one is legal and the other isn't. But I think they are both horrible for kids, and for that reason pot probably should be illegal, because its easy to get high really quick (a couple of minutes) and pass it off like you really aren't that high, but getting drunk tends to take longer (a natural deterrent) and leave you obviously impaired (a second deterrent).

But kids can get pot just as easy as alcohol any more, so its a moot point.

Words can only hurt you if you let them. If I was to call you a cock sucking, mother fucker, it would only hurt you if you let it. Those words don't do any physical damage to you. And you can stop if from doing mental damage by not being such a pussy.

[Hurricane]

Re: American being uptight.

Uh, we're downright loosey goosey compared to the Puritans who founded the Massachusetts colony, and much of the land that became Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Actually, many of the original American settlers came here to practice their religion freely. The Quakers who settled Pennsylvania. The Roman Catholics who settled Maryland.

Probably not the convicts who helped settle Georgia, though.

On nudity, I don't think men not wearing shirts is the same as women not wearing shirt. Probably it's much closer to men not wearing pants.

Why can women show everything BUT their nipples, but that's all men have? It's ok to go to the beach wearing a bikini top that shows the top, bottom and all other angles except the nipples and men can go topless. And just so this doesn't turn into a "you only say that because you want to see topless women" argument, why is it ok for women to be naked in movies, but not men?

[Pinball]

1. Why is it that men like to see two women get it on, but women don't like to see two men get it on?

2. Except when it comes to anime?

[Hurricane]

1. Why is it that men like to see two women get it on, but women don't like to see two men get it on?

2. Except when it comes to anime?

Actually, some men don't like to watch two women fuck. I'm not one of those men, but my roommate is. It's just a matter of individual taste I guess.

[Inkpot1965]

It's this simple. This country has become so successful, and is based in so much convenience, that we have too much time on our hands to think about things that really don't matter, like nudity, and foul language. If we were focused on true priorities, we'd not have time to worry about theoretical matters and be subject to hyper-sensitivity. We need to get over this crap and focus on the important things in life.

[Alex L]

I agree with you except that every study I've read shows that there is NO difference between hands-free models and regular phones. The problem is not that you don't have both hands on the steering wheel. The problem is that you are focusing more on your conversation than you are on driving.

I don't know why talking on the phone distracts more from your driving than talking to someone in the car with you, but that seems to be the case.

-Greg S.

When someone else is in the car, they can also see the road and know when to be quiet so you can focus on traffic -- or to yell out "HOLY SHIT" to warn you of something up ahead, like a car running a red light.

When you're on the phone, the person on the other side of the line can't see any of that.

That's my working theory, anyway...

[Night Swordsman]

I agree with you except that every study I've read shows that there is NO difference between hands-free models and regular phones. The problem is not that you don't have both hands on the steering wheel. The problem is that you are focusing more on your conversation than you are on driving.

I don't know why talking on the phone distracts more from your driving than talking to someone in the car with you, but that seems to be the case.

-Greg S.

I went with the hands-free as a pre-emptive strike,because i knew SOMEONE would bring it up in defense of Cell phones in vehicles. Folks,the real reason cell phones are not illegal in cars and DEATHS are TOLERATED boils down to a few factors,but money and legislation are the main focal points. Cell phones have gone WAY up in the last 10 years,and the ammount of money they generate is astronomical. Now tell people who PAY money to talk wherever they can that they can NOT talk,in what THEY percieve is their own personal space/property(the car),and you are going to have alot of ticked off people.

I personally support the concept of vehicles that will BLOCK non-emergency calls while not in park or neutral. If you need to talk,pull over to a place that is safe to talk,and do so. Use voice-mail if you need to record who is talking.
And above all else,no call is worth someones life. Especially your own.


And Greg,i wish to point out i am NOT surprised by the facts you mention. Thank you for bringing them up.

[Tommy]

I think it started puritanically, but by now has moved entirely into the world of consumerism.

First off sex sells. So we get steadily more attractive people selling to us. Which of course makes the 99.999% of the population that doesn't look like that entirely self conscious.

Secondly nudity is not sellable. However underwear/bathing suits are. And then you have all the thousands of products that have nothing to do with sexuality, and yet use sex to sell. So you see an endless parade of nearly naked people in sexually arousing ads. Then the only nudity that can be sold is pornography.

Therefore we are so used to nearly naked people turning us on, that when we come into contact with ACTUAL nudity it seems to cross a decency line.

[Hurricane]

I'm almost positive that it IS against the law to talk on your cell phone while driving here in Arkansas.

As well as smoking indoors in ANY public place that does not serve alcohol. At hospitals it is illegal to smoke anywhere on the grounds, including in your car with the windows up. It is also illegal in this state to smoke in a vehicle with any person under the age of 6 riding with you.

[Hurricane]

I think it started puritanically, but by now has moved entirely into the world of consumerism.

First off sex sells. So we get steadily more attractive people selling to us. Which of course makes the 99.999% of the population that doesn't look like that entirely self conscious.

Secondly nudity is not sellable. However underwear/bathing suits are. And then you have all the thousands of products that have nothing to do with sexuality, and yet use sex to sell. So you see an endless parade of nearly naked people in sexually arousing ads. Then the only nudity that can be sold is pornography.

Therefore we are so used to nearly naked people turning us on, that when we come into contact with ACTUAL nudity it seems to cross a decency line.


About the nudity thing, I'm not talking about people who are offended by graphic sex and pornography. I'm talking about people who flip the fuck out over simple, everyday nudity. Janet Jackson's Super Bowl thing for example. Her titty popped out. So what? Why play Showgirls on t.v. if your going to cover up all the tits with cartoon bras? Why play ANY movie on t.v. and ruin it by replacing words like fuck or cunt with balloon and cat AND in a completely different voice on top of that? Why sanitize something for television when the people who would care to have it sanitized probably wouldn't watch something like that anyway? It's fucking stupid. If people are THAT concerned and can get THAT upset and twisted out of shape over mere words, they need to learn how to CHANGE THE GOD DAMNED CHANNEL!! Don't watch Showgirls on VH1 if you are offended by nudity. Don't watch Fast Times at Ridgemont High on Comedy Central if you are offended by the word FUCK!!

[Tommy]

About the nudity thing, I'm not talking about people who are offended by graphic sex and pornography. I'm talking about people who flip the fuck out over simple, everyday nudity. Janet Jackson's Super Bowl thing for example. Her titty popped out. So what? Why play Showgirls on t.v. if your going to cover up all the tits with cartoon bras?

As I said, when people are bombarded by sexuality every day, when actual nudity crops up it seems to cross a decency line.

There are a few other factors at play, like the lingerie industry product placing themselves into movies and TV, but that is the main one.

[Hurricane]

As I said, when people are bombarded by sexuality every day, when actual nudity crops up it seems to cross a decency line.

There are a few other factors at play, like the lingerie industry product placing themselves into movies and TV, but that is the main one.

That's a fair enough theory, but then again, why should the moral minority be able to control what the rest of us can see and hear. As I said, if you are offended by something, don't watch. There is no need to censor things like Showgirls on television because people who are offended by it aren't going to watch it with or without the cartoon bras. They certainly are not watching it for the compelling story telling, that's for damn sure. Censorship is fucking stupid. People should stop being such pussies and learn how to look away when they see something they don't like.

This board seems to be pretty relaxed as far as free speech and the like, but I'm sure that even this place has limits. I'm very interested in finding out exactly how far that limit is. Would anyone else like to join me? I guarantee you if I posted a picture of a topless woman (no matter what she is actually doing, like say... putting on her shirt after a shower) I would be banned immediately.

[Cam63]

Profanity has it's moments.

[Hurricane]

Profanity has it's moments.

Fuck yeah!

Some people don't use profanity just for the sake of using it. If used properly, it can be incorporated into every day life.

If anyone is reading this who doesn't curse, let me ask you one question. What do you say when you stump your toe or hit your thumb with a hammer? "Oh cotton ball, I just stumped my toe on that rock." "Oh vanilla wafer, I just smashed my finger with a hammer." Me personally, if I stump my toe, I say: "SHIT!!" and when I smash my finger with a hammer I say: "OW FUCK!! GOD DAMN IT!! SHIT!!" But that's just me.

[Cam63]

I let loose when in major pain/annoyance too.

[DavidAllred]

Words can only hurt you if you let them. If I was to call you a cock sucking, mother fucker, it would only hurt you if you let it. Those words don't do any physical damage to you. And you can stop if from doing mental damage by not being such a pussy.

It really just comes down to whether or not you wanted to be a decent human being or not. Personally, I think it all comes back around to you one way or the other. Of course, by using words like that toward another person, you could either a) hurt them and they walk away crying; b) not hurt them, and they walk away thinking "What a lowly human he must be to get kicks this way;" or c) you could either hurt their feeling or not, but they may decide not to walk away and kick your loudmouth ass instead.

I really don't see a good option here once you start hurling profanity at someone.

[Lester C.]

Interesting point of view. Like I said though, I DO wear mine all the time.

Monkey Boy doesn't and that scares the hell out of me. I'm afraid he's going to get in a minor fender bender and tossed through a window.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Monkey Boy doesn't and that scares the hell out of me. I'm afraid he's going to get in a minor fender bender and tossed through a window.

If you ride in my car, you wear a seatbelt. End of story.

[MacQuarrie]

About the nudity thing, I'm not talking about people who are offended by graphic sex and pornography. I'm talking about people who flip the fuck out over simple, everyday nudity. Janet Jackson's Super Bowl thing for example. Her titty popped out. So what?
It's not that "her titty popped out." It's that she deliberately planned for it to pop out and then pretended it was an accident. People weren't offended by the nudity so much as by the cheap shock-value reason for it and the mealy-mouthed excuses for it.

A flash of nipple is no big whoop, but putting it in gratuitously, in the middle of a "family-friendly" event like the Super Bowl, then pretending it was an "oops", is just crass and exploitive.

But here's the thing about nudity in the US. The country has always had a prudish streak, going all the way back to the Pilgrims (who, by the way, did not come here for religious freedom; they came here so they could create a place where their religious rules could be enforced instead of somebody else's). As a result of some misunderstanding of bible texts ("looking upon someone's nakedness" was a euphemism for having sex with that person), nudity and sex became linked in their minds. Later, Queen Victoria's reign revived prudishness, and it caught on in a big way over here. So now here we are in a land where all nakedness is always sexual; in fact, pretty much everything is sexualized.

But the real hang-up is, most parents are afraid to be parents. They don't want to make rules, they don't want to set standards or enforce them, and they really don't want to answer any questions that make them uncomfortable. So when Janet springs her boob on them, they get angry because now they have to answer a lot of awkward questions about why she wants to show off her boos, why people want to look at them, and what all this sex stuff means.

The American policy on "adult content" is "for God's sake, don't put me on the spot having to discuss this stuff with my kids."

Parenting isn't for the squeamish.

[MacQuarrie]

If you ride in my car, you wear a seatbelt. End of story.

Here in CA, if the passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt, the passenger AND the driver both get a ticket. Unless the passenger is a kid, in which case the driver gets a big ticket.

I'm not big on laws that presume the citizens are stupid or incapable of making responsible decisions. I wear my seatbelt, but I resent being told I have to. I'd go with a market approach if I were in charge. I'd pass a law saying insurance companies don't have to pay on any accident claim in which the claimant wasn't wearing a seat belt. You want to not wear a seat belt? fine. You are personally responsible for whatever happens. But that's just me.

[Flamebird]

You want to not wear a seat belt? fine. You are personally responsible for whatever happens.



Personal Responsibility ?

That'll never catch on. :(



At least not while big brother is telling us what we should think, do and feel.

[Hurricane]

Monkey Boy doesn't and that scares the hell out of me. I'm afraid he's going to get in a minor fender bender and tossed through a window.

Tell me about it. I rode with him to the mall yesterday. SCARY! :eek:

[Matt Doc Martin]

Tell me about it. I rode with him to the mall yesterday. SCARY! :eek:

Was he wearing a diaper?

[Hurricane]

Was he wearing a diaper?

I wouldn't know.

[Corrina]

You want to not wear a seat belt? fine. You are personally responsible for whatever happens. But that's just me.

But your choice still impacts other people.

Say there's a car accident. Driver #1 is at fault. Driver #2 wasn't wearing a seat belt and was killed. If he'd been wearing a seat belt, he would still be alive.

So now Driver #1 is responsible for vehicular homicide because he caused the accident. (Let's say he just screwed up and wasn't driving drunk or anything.)

Now Driver #1 has to deal with civil and criminal charges and their life is possibly wrecked. If driver #2 was wearing a seat belt, then it's some minor injuries and property damage.

It's not a cut and dried personal responsibility type of thing. If you told people they'd have to pay more car insurance to not wear seat belt, they'd just pay the cheaper amount and claim they're not wearing seat belts.

And if they get into a car accident and they're severely disabled, and they have no insurance...guess who pays?

The state. Us.

So I'm all for the state not playing babysitter but...in this case...it's just not a choice impacting the people not wearing belts. The choice still impacts others.

[Matt Doc Martin]

But your choice still impacts other people.

Say there's a car accident. Driver #1 is at fault. Driver #2 wasn't wearing a seat belt and was killed. If he'd been wearing a seat belt, he would still be alive.

So now Driver #1 is responsible for vehicular homicide because he caused the accident. (Let's say he just screwed up and wasn't driving drunk or anything.)

Now Driver #1 has to deal with civil and criminal charges and their life is possibly wrecked. If driver #2 was wearing a seat belt, then it's some minor injuries and property damage.

It's not a cut and dried personal responsibility type of thing. If you told people they'd have to pay more car insurance to not wear seat belt, they'd just pay the cheaper amount and claim they're not wearing seat belts.

And if they get into a car accident and they're severely disabled, and they have no insurance...guess who pays?

The state. Us.

So I'm all for the state not playing babysitter but...in this case...it's just not a choice impacting the people not wearing belts. The choice still impacts others.


To add to that, the person not wearing a belt has kids in the car. They are properly belted.

They live, the parent(s) die or are horribly injured.

[Hurricane]

But your choice still impacts other people.

Say there's a car accident. Driver #1 is at fault. Driver #2 wasn't wearing a seat belt and was killed. If he'd been wearing a seat belt, he would still be alive.

So now Driver #1 is responsible for vehicular homicide because he caused the accident. (Let's say he just screwed up and wasn't driving drunk or anything.)

Now Driver #1 has to deal with civil and criminal charges and their life is possibly wrecked. If driver #2 was wearing a seat belt, then it's some minor injuries and property damage.

It's not a cut and dried personal responsibility type of thing. If you told people they'd have to pay more car insurance to not wear seat belt, they'd just pay the cheaper amount and claim they're not wearing seat belts.

And if they get into a car accident and they're severely disabled, and they have no insurance...guess who pays?

The state. Us.

So I'm all for the state not playing babysitter but...in this case...it's just not a choice impacting the people not wearing belts. The choice still impacts others.

There are many cases where people are injured and killed because they WERE wearing their seatbelt. What then?

[Matt Doc Martin]

There are many cases where people are injured and killed because they WERE wearing their seatbelt. What then?

That is SO MUCH the exception rather than the rule.

EDIT:


Science!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/seatb2.html

[Reverend Smooth]

1. Why is it that men like to see two women get it on, but women don't like to see two men get it on?...If they say that, they're either exceptions, or they're lying. o.O

Either way, sit them down and watch OZ. It's in reruns right now. Rrrr.

[Hurricane]

That is SO MUCH the exception rather than the rule.

EDIT:


Science!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/seatb2.html

But do you want to take that chance? :D

[Hurricane]

Has anyone here ever been fired from their job for using "foul" language?

I know of a girl who got fired from Wal-Mart for saying "freaking" and a customer heard it and was offended and turned her in.

[Reverend Smooth]

But do you want to take that chance? :DSince when is choosing the method which results in LESS death 'taking a chance'? :)

[hellokittykat]

I am offended by sporks.

[Matt Doc Martin]

I am offended by sporks.

How about "spifes"?

[MacQuarrie]

Has anyone here ever been fired from their job for using "foul" language?

I know of a girl who got fired from Wal-Mart for saying "freaking" and a customer heard it and was offended and turned her in.
One of my conditions of employment is that I never deal with customers or the public in any capacity.

[DavidAllred]

Has anyone here ever been fired from their job for using "foul" language?

I know of a girl who got fired from Wal-Mart for saying "freaking" and a customer heard it and was offended and turned her in.

Crazy. I heard about a preacher once who began his sermon like this:

"There are over 2 billion people starving in the world today and you don't give a shit about it. The reason I know you don't give a shit is that you were more offended that I said 'shit' than the fact that 2 billion people are starving."

I don't think he lost his job, but can you imagine?

I was considering playing the Danzig song "Mother" in my sermon tomorrow. I might be unemployed soon too. :)

[plainbrownwraper]

I'll tackle profanity, and at least in public, there is a possibility of being overheard by other peoples kids, and I believe people have the right to shield their children from certain influences, until the age of majority, to the extent that they can - kids grow up too fast these days anyway, but I see no harm in forcing them to expand their vocabularies beyond expletives - wouldn't do a lot of adults any harm either.

Tape yourself sometime - it can get very repetive and boring, like saying "ya'know?" a lot.

Me, I've already fucked up, I was a sailor, and my kid cusses like a sailor - though I do my best to curb it, for his own good. Other stuff he learns at school and on television, I have to sort of contextualize as it crops up.

Between South Park and Chappelle's Show, I have to come up with some pretty creative explanations - as well as occasionally reiterating that beyond a certain age, scat humor just isn't as funny as it is when you're 9.

[Hurricane]

I'll tackle profanity, and at least in public, there is a possibility of being overheard by other peoples kids, and I believe people have the right to shield their children from certain influences, until the age of majority, to the extent that they can - kids grow up too fast these days anyway, but I see no harm in forcing them to expand their vocabularies beyond expletives - wouldn't do a lot of adults any harm either.

Tape yourself sometime - it can get very repetive and boring, like saying "ya'know?" a lot.

Me, I've already fucked up, I was a sailor, and my kid cusses like a sailor - though I do my best to curb it, for his own good. Other stuff he learns at school and on television, I have to sort of contextualize as it crops up.

Between South Park and Chappelle's Show, I have to come up with some pretty creative explanations - as well as occasionally reiterating that beyond a certain age, scat humor just isn't as funny as it is when you're 9.

BUT, the only reason those kids would have any reason to care about hearing those words is because they see their parent freak out every time the hear it. I think kids only cuss because of the reaction they get. If people wouldn't over react at certain words they are, for some reason, offended by, their kids probably wouldn't care to say them so much.

[Citizen V]

These days,people can seem to be insulted over anything.No matter how minuscule,perhaps a backlash effect from the 90`s where anything that could be done..was done.I sometimes blame Bush for this,paranoia is everywhere and any person that is not white or asian is deemed a criminal.Or is this the fact that the USA is not equal,and this upsets people..

[Cam63]

How about "spifes"?

That's not a spife.

*Sound of a metal instrument being removed from a leather sheath*

Now...THAT'S a spife.

[Cam63]

One of my conditions of employment is that I never deal with customers or the public in any capacity.

I understand that.

I'd rather deal with people I care for with full on violent dementia than their family members.

[Hurricane]

Crazy. I heard about a preacher once who began his sermon like this:

"There are over 2 billion people starving in the world today and you don't give a shit about it. The reason I know you don't give a shit is that you were more offended that I said 'shit' than the fact that 2 billion people are starving."

I don't think he lost his job, but can you imagine?

I was considering playing the Danzig song "Mother" in my sermon tomorrow. I might be unemployed soon too. :)

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there. That's a funny joke.

[plainbrownwraper]

These days,people can seem to be insulted over anything.No matter how minuscule,perhaps a backlash effect from the 90`s where anything that could be done..was done.I sometimes blame Bush for this,paranoia is everywhere and any person that is not white or asian is deemed a criminal.Or is this the fact that the USA is not equal,and this upsets people..

I have a different frame of reference - I remember a time when anyone who wasn't White was deemed a criminal, and that literally, with genuine consequences besides vague discomfort, a woman wearing pants was a faux pas of monumental proportions, only kids wore shorts, and White men in general could get away with about anything, up to and including murder, as long as the victim wasn't another White male.

This was not all that long ago, and the backlash is still going. You may be grateful that the reaction formation is but a pale shadow of the regime it is reacting against - which, in fact, violently enforced most of the restrictions you're complaining about.

There is a thing in law called precedent, it also applies to human social relationships, the unspoken compromises and arrangments that underlie them.

Currently, what adults do in the privacy of their own homes is, for the most part, protected, how people behave in public is still public business, and for the most part, defers to the least common denominator. Even the most hardcore pornographers generally do not have a problem with the concept of community standards, the concept here is a reasonable segregation between adult culture and family culture.

The extremes on both sides are always trying to push the line, and the other side pushes back, that's how democratic consensus works - just remember that the harder you push, they harder they push back.

There are people who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with nudity, I don't think that will change overnight. Current practice is to respect that, but to protect the spaces adults have carved out for themselves - if they push that, one is obligated to push back.

So, while you still can't run naked down the street, smoking your crack pipe and shouting obcenities, you can go naked in your own home, or in private areas so designated without the whacky wagon coming for you to take you back to the institute for some shock treatments and maybe a nice frontal lobotomy.

You've come a long way baby.