what if it goes the other way? what if you give a normal player to some upright family but tell them its a censored one? or better still, hack so it ONLY displays offensive content, and filters out all the boring stuff?

Now I'd buy that for a dollar!

that's my boy!

I thought you had been retired, Carney. Maybe you and Alka-Bird should get a drink some time... I was actually thinking of a similar joke, but I don't know any Puritans... that's probably a good thing .

These things will sell like hot cakes in the Bible belt of the US, finally the religious nuts will be able to smite them hollywood sinners! Well good luck to them, personally I think it's a right laugh that people would want to own such a thing.

Of course it's a laugh; it would never happen here in Aus... except maybe in rural Queensland .

Never say never 'cause I thought this would never happen here

WalMart is just to gigantic a financial influence right now to take things like this lightly.

*starts rummaging around for ACLU membership application*

Which rock have you been living under, Indy? This was bound to happen; you know how "protective" the US is of its citizens!

@Esq

---

Of course this does raise the issue of censorship, but I'm sure that some puratanical families will love it

---

It's not censorship you twonk. I'm surprised a linguist with your learned knowledge would fall prey to the same common misconceptions of the word. If you want a suitable word try "Bowdlerize." Censorship is government inflicted, with looser connotations devoted to entities of people who are somehow servient to that entity (i.e. a business, or a wedsite forum).

Also, you're completely turned around on how this system of purchasing such things works. If a person wants to buy Microsoft Office XP he has a choice between the Professional (the uncut one) and the Standard (the cut down version). By him choosing the one with less options doesn't mean that he was "censored." He chose not to have the full version and thus is not servient to anything but his own desires. The same is true of how some may want to view films. Even if they need a completely silly utility to do it.

On a note of more seriousness, yours and Mustang's intonation of mockery on religous matters are rather rude. My intention is not to bowdlerize you , but I did expect better.





Sir Spectre

your analogy doesn't work though, sS. the dvd player in qvestion has a "moral" choice dimension to it's purchase, wheras morality doesn't come into play in the slightest in the choice of different versions of a computer o/s. And it is censorship, by choice and by extension. Generally parents will purchase this product because it acts as a censor in their stead, as will certain religious organisations and govt institiions. And largely this will be because of a percieved moral climate amongst various social segments.

SS - While you are correct in your statements, and in your bowdlerization (), you have taken my statement out of context. I stated that;

---

Of course this does raise the issue of censorship...

---

I never stated that the existance of, or use of such a device IS censorship. You inferred that from my statement, but that is not what I said. Take that, monkey-boy! "Twonk" indeed...

As for my remarks about Puritans; they have been a common source of comedy for many years in many countries. You must also understand that we Australians do not take things that seriously, including religion. Still, I can understand how you could misinterpret Mustang's and my statements in a negative sense. I don't know about Mustang, but I was criticising ye olde Puritans as in the 1700/1800's in England. You're making assumptions again...



Edited by - esquilax on 4/13/2004 6:00:57 PM

don't call each other twonks; I believe you'll find that the word "twonk" is my invention

In theory, censorship is needed and practiced by everyone to a degree. But, it like the Internet. To block topics inappropriate for children also blocks sites that talk about the bad aspects of the censored item. That is the down side to these things.

Michael
"Hezekiah"

Taw - He started it!

Final - You have a point; censorship is everywhere (and is not necessarily governmentally sanctioned). That's why the Simpsons here in Aus on channel 10 is constantly cut (eg. the part in which McBain breaks the Nazy pilot's neck). I don't particularly like REALLY excessive violence, etc, but I think that it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to watch it. As a society, we are supposed to offer "freedom of choice".

@Taw, some people do have moral complications with Microsoft. But the choice of a product or how to view a film is irregardless of morality as a sectionally quality that devides populations of people in their choices. Morality is an extension of preference. And by having preferences we make choices, so the analogy does hold because I prefer to have all of MS Office bundle as I also prefer to have my movies intact as they were shown in the theater, my morality allows my ability to have this preference. True, there is no real morality issue with a piece of software, but things about me do shape my preference for purchasing the item. And while I have no moral qualms with it, if I knew MS was somehow practicing in torture, I would have a moral dilemma with purchasing their product.

A person who buys Michaelangelo's David for his home can put underwear on him if it is his preference (morality) to do so, but if I go see it in a museum I know full well the statue has no boxers or briefs. A person who buys the full MS Office and doesn't want to load MS Access is in his right to do so. And I am in my right to use the skip button on that debauched dancing scene in Zion in Matrix Reloaded (The movie is the better for it, by not seeing that scene, in my opinion, that crappy Morpheus speech ). Did I censor the movie makers? No, I merely expressed my want to not be servient to their world view.

By paying money to go to a theater and watching their great or their horrible works, for 2 hours I am servient to their world view and my voice is silenced as there is no talking in a theater. "Censorshipship" is abound everywhere we look, you're merely looking through one end of the looking glass.

And your expectations of where the product will be used is overextensive. The choice in that matter, is with whom you wish to associate yourself. Do I want to belong to religious organization that doesn't allow anything over a PG rated film or edits out things in their PG-13 films, or do I want to belong to one where they are alright with showing R rated films as long as people know what it is they are being subjected to? I want to belong to the latter, but some people don't. What is wrong with that? It's the same with choosing what type of school one goes to.

This smut-free player will never affect you if you don't want it to. Even at another person's home who has the player, you can leave anytime or never associate with people who would have such a player.

@Esq, with regards to "censorship" I was referring to the context of the subject and the use of the word thereof, you were wrong in your context. Go pick fleas off your mother's hairy back! As for the rest of my statement, your voiced "assumption" that I supposedly had doesn't fly because I tackled the "issue" that was "raised" by you.

As for your "puratanical" statement, that was very much meant about modern families but with a descriptive word merely derived from, not the subject of, an old world meaning. That supposed "assumption" of mine doesn't fly here either.

Hope you enjoy eating the fleas off your momma's back, Curious George.

---

but I think that it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to watch it.

---

Lo and behold, that is what the player is for!


Sir S

Edited by - Sir Spectre on 4/13/2004 6:44:56 PM