Michael
"Hezekiah"
Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
The Smut-Free DVD Player!
This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.
29 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:12 pm
So you want a fight, eh SS? Fine .
Your statement;
Additionally, your assertion that I "very much meant" modern families when I used the word "Puritan" is also an assumption. Although it is true in this instance, you are inferring a lot from the use of word which, as I stated, reflects more upon the Puritans of the 1700/1800's than upon modern American families. Although such families may appear to be "puratanical", it does not negate the fact that such a statement is in reference to a practice that, for all intents an purposes, barely exists today.
Finally, your assertion
Now YOU go and groom a family member Mojo!
Mmm, I reckon that SS is trying to get my thread locked with his "contextual assumptions". He might just do it, but I'll fight him to the death anyway!
Edited by - esquilax on 4/13/2004 7:12:22 PM
.
Your statement;
is clearly passing a judgement upon the statement that I used ("Of course this does raise the issue of censorship" ). Therefore, you are making a assertion that is not based upon the context, but rather upon my choice of words. Further, your statement that
It's not censorship you twonk.
is once again raising a value judgement (that we are mocking overly-religious families), and hence an assumption on your part.
yours and Mustang's intonation of mockery on religous matters...
Additionally, your assertion that I "very much meant" modern families when I used the word "Puritan" is also an assumption. Although it is true in this instance, you are inferring a lot from the use of word which, as I stated, reflects more upon the Puritans of the 1700/1800's than upon modern American families. Although such families may appear to be "puratanical", it does not negate the fact that such a statement is in reference to a practice that, for all intents an purposes, barely exists today.
Finally, your assertion
is flawed. While this statment is technically true, it is also based upon the assumption that the individual in question makes a choice about whether or not to watch movies on this Player. As already stated, children and others could be affected, because they would have no choice if their academic institution, etc chose to purchase that particular player. Hence, a higher authority is making the decisions, not the individual.
Lo and behold, that is what the player is for!
Now YOU go and groom a family member Mojo!
Mmm, I reckon that SS is trying to get my thread locked with his "contextual assumptions". He might just do it, but I'll fight him to the death anyway!
Edited by - esquilax on 4/13/2004 7:12:22 PM
Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:43 pm
From the WWE (world wrestling entertainment) point of view, in the US, they have to tone the sex aspect of the divas, but the chair shots to the head are ok, but in Europe, they have to tone the violence down, but the girls can get away with more. 
Michael
"Hezekiah"
Michael
"Hezekiah"
Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:29 pm
Phew, this little slinging match has gone far enough. My apologies to Sir Spectre, I personally have no problem harassing the religious zealots of the world because they seem to have no problem knocking on my door sunday morning and labelling me a sinner, IMO they're fair game. Either way I'm sorry you took offense. Let's just agree to disagree on the number of issues raised here, no-one is going to change anyone else's opinion. *click*
Edited by - Mustang on 4/13/2004 8:30:24 PM
Edited by - Mustang on 4/13/2004 8:30:24 PM
Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:38 pm
@Esq
The context of your post was about a player that filters "offensive content" which is purchased freely by individuals at Wal-Mart. There was no reason for the word censor to appear, because the "issue" that should have been "raised" was whether or not companies should help bowdlerize other companies' movies for a willing populace.
I reference the preceding statement: "Guess which country intends to sell them? Go on, guess! Ok I'll tell you; America (I bet you couldn't see that one coming)." There is mockery in the implication that the US is a controlling nation over obsenities, by device that no one would think other nations to be so controlling, thus by associating puratanism to the families (presumably families in the US as that is where the players will be sold) you are adding to the mockery with the term "puratanical" as that must ensue more controlling behavior based on historical understanding of those people.
I rely on my first argument. Children are "servient" to their parents, thus things can be censored by the parents if they so choose. And parents can choose where to send their children to school with expectations of how and with what tools the children will be taught.
As for students at Universities, they have the freedom to choose where they go. If they go to a campus they submit themselves to servience of what is expected of them while in that college (same as they would at a job). If they don't like it, they can leave. Your argument, in the way it was formed, relies too heavily that there are no other options.
Sir S
.
.
.
BTW, Mustie, I was writing this when you locked it, so don't think I did an evade.
is clearly passing a judgement upon the statement that I used ("Of course this does raise the issue of censorship" ). Therefore, you are making a assertion that is not based upon the context, but rather upon my choice of words.
The context of your post was about a player that filters "offensive content" which is purchased freely by individuals at Wal-Mart. There was no reason for the word censor to appear, because the "issue" that should have been "raised" was whether or not companies should help bowdlerize other companies' movies for a willing populace.
{my statement} is once again raising a value judgement (that we are mocking overly-religious families), and hence an assumption on your part.
I reference the preceding statement: "Guess which country intends to sell them? Go on, guess! Ok I'll tell you; America (I bet you couldn't see that one coming
)." There is mockery in the implication that the US is a controlling nation over obsenities, by device that no one would think other nations to be so controlling, thus by associating puratanism to the families (presumably families in the US as that is where the players will be sold) you are adding to the mockery with the term "puratanical" as that must ensue more controlling behavior based on historical understanding of those people.
Additionally, your assertion that I "very much meant" modern families when I used the word "Puritan" is also an assumption. Although it is true in this instance, you are inferring a lot from the use of word which, as I stated, reflects more upon the Puritans of the 1700/1800's than upon modern American families. Although such families may appear to be "puratanical", it does not negate the fact that such a statement is in reference to a practice that, for all intents an purposes, barely exists today. [quote
You: "I'm sure that some puratanical families will love it {the player} ..." How I understood it, "A puratanical type family living today would love the player that can filter obsenities." That is how I understand that statement, because a Puratin of the 1700/1800's can't love the player, they're dead. "Puratanical" is a descriptive term you use to associate modern families with old customs, but the subject (the families) are definitely meant to be those who can buy players, thus they are modern families. Where's the assumption?
Your statement continues, "... and give an unsuspecting "friend" (see normal person) the Player as a gift ." How am I to infer anything but puratanical-like modern day families are not normal people? (BTW, Taw once called me Puratanical, but in a kinder way)
[quote{My assertion} is flawed. While this statment is technically true, it is also based upon the assumption that the individual in question makes a choice about whether or not to watch movies on this Player. As already stated, children and others could be affected, because they would have no choice if their academic institution, etc chose to purchase that particular player. Hence, a higher authority is making the decisions, not the individual.
I rely on my first argument. Children are "servient" to their parents, thus things can be censored by the parents if they so choose. And parents can choose where to send their children to school with expectations of how and with what tools the children will be taught.
As for students at Universities, they have the freedom to choose where they go. If they go to a campus they submit themselves to servience of what is expected of them while in that college (same as they would at a job). If they don't like it, they can leave. Your argument, in the way it was formed, relies too heavily that there are no other options.
Sir S
.
.
.
BTW, Mustie, I was writing this when you locked it, so don't think I did an evade.
29 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2