Posted 28 April 2005 - 03:40 PM
Posted 28 April 2005 - 04:32 PM
Well I'm 23, but I don't see how age makes a difference. THe issue isn't what is appropriate, but what is appropriate here. If someone turns on late night (9pm or later) TV, they know there is a good chance of seeing something that might offend them on certain channels (MTV or COmedy Central, as opposed to NBC or Fox Family).
A lot of people defend whatever it is they do (music, TV, movies, etc) with the rhetorical "where are the parents?" nonsense. I think all of us here know from OUR childhoods that even the best parents can't always be around and that things pop up in places non of us expect. Two weeks ago my sister and nine year old nephew were on-line on the Star Wars website and porn popped up in a message board. She didn't see that coming, and was just lucky to be close enough to get rid of it before he really saw anything.
This is a Jets message board, and I don't think people can or should be expected to be prepared for sexually explicit images (even if it is a cartoon, that was still sex). You're new avatar (a woman holding...tomatoes?...near her brests I think) doesn't bother me, as there is nothing overtly dirty about it. It isn't any worse than many jokes in some PG movies anyway.
What about the images of women in signatures? I don't have any problem with any of them, although I DO find the thong one a little bit racy. Still, I don't think there are any that are too bad.
Basically, I don't think we should allow nudity or obviously sexual situations. But it is also Ron's board and he has the final say on what is okay or not, and we all have to respect that.
Posted 28 April 2005 - 04:45 PM
i agree with that and i see what your saying its just we all have a different of opinion of whats Appropriate here. For instance I think the actual picture of the chick in a thong was more offensive being as itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a person actually showing skin not a cartoon implying it. It didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t actually show anything too bad so I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think it was but a few people on here did. Everyone on here will have there own opinion about what is appropriate here thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m saying. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why we need the moderators and site admin to make the final decision. Anyway I did change it then changed it back for a vote. I just seen it and thought it was funny so I put it up there.
Posted 28 April 2005 - 05:07 PM
alot of people think that the right wing is out to restrict the 1st amendment in america. it just isn't true. trying to get people to put warning labels on things isn't the same thing as trying to tell them that they cant say something at all. that is what alot of people say that the right wing is trying to do though.
i, for one, dont want to flip on my t.v. and see a bunch of stuff that i really dont like seeing. you can put that kind of thing on cable t.v. everyone should be happy with this. that way gays, for example, get to watch ass lust on hbo and i get to not order hbo ever and i dont have to watch it. everyone is happy. this is just one example. this is how people coexist in this country.
do these people realize that real people do get offended by having to witness some of these things? do they really think that i'm just being a religious nut and i want to oppress them or keep it how it is or whatever they think? people really look at some things and go "great...now i need to get a lobotomy". just because they have given up on a lifestyle that most people call descent doesn't give them the right to expose it to me or my family. i dont have kids but i might someday and they will have the right to walk down the street and not look at some sort of debotchery just like i had that right. you're out of the closet. there's nothing wrong with it, in your eyes. good for you. other people have rights too.
whether its television, advertising, music, movies, video games or the internet there should be a standard or protocol about how to rate all this material. if it's below a certain standard there is nothing uncostitutional with making someone put a warning label on it. as long as it doesn't break any laws you should be able to do what you want to.
there is always the question of who decides the standards or protocols regarding how to rate all this material. i think that in the USA it should be by the people. the people being officials elected or oppointed by elected officials.
Posted 29 April 2005 - 08:51 AM
Posted 29 April 2005 - 12:33 PM