C---------

[fr0d0]

Well censorship has to follow your moral stance. If it doesn't it's of little use to you. Like the film classification system, you can judge appropriateness on the rating roughly.

Censorship being an enforcement maybe also 'sends a message' more than prevents. As a society we draw a line. I doubt many people would exactly agree, this is a necessary compromised position.

As a parent, I protect my children from what would be inappropriate to them at their age. I would gently guide them away from what would, in my mind, be harmful to them.

Nothing wrong with nudity, no. Sex, same.
Swearing & violence.. we say don't do it because it isn't socially acceptable. (Do we need to explain?)
Information.. is limited.. I'd guess you (Saerules) wouldn't make public every detail about yourself?

[Violet]

A social standard has to begin with individual standards. The average individual standard becomes the social standard. This standard is then copied from generation to generation, with little shift in the standard. However, this does not mean that the social standard is the right thing.

Take for example, male supremacy. It was (and is in many countries) created by a social standard... but it was and is horribly wrong. As is slavery, rape, torture, the corset... those were and in some places are social standards... but they are in no way right. And children is where this standard is established with each generation. If you don't make nudity, sex, and language into something inappropriate: it will not be inappropriate.

I would make every detail of myself public, if i did not fear the ramifications of doing so in our current climate. I aim to change that climate so that i can be myself without fear within it, and so that others can know me for who i am. So yes, i would make every detail about myself public, if others would accept that knowledge without condemning me to a worse life.

Do i fear others knowing about who i am? Not at all. Do i feel it would be unwise for them to know who i am while they are still so full of prejudice to everything i am? Certainly.

[fr0d0]

LOL @ 'Corset'

So you would tell me your bank login and all you web passwords?

Society will always have standards and simply declaring no standards won't change that.

No matter what your rules or lack of, there needs to be a fair interpretation.. there's always latitude to justify abuse to the abuser.

[Violet]

Hehe, if all of my different theories are correct: i will not be having a bank account or web passwords in the future when i would otherwise need them. I am sure there are ways to identify who exactly i am without anyone being able to copy my data... although i do not think we have the technology necessary for them yet.

Of course we will still have standards, but we do not need censoring to be one of them. It seems more detrimental to our society than benevolent. Some are good standards: standards against rape, censorship, murder... but others are bad, such as ones for marriage defined by christians, to our traditional (credit-based) schooling system, to us still not being over the emancipation proclamation in some places.

Bad standards need to be changed. Good standards need to be embraced. I do not say 'without rules or laws', i suggest instead that we modify our rules and laws so that we have rules and laws worth living under.

[fr0d0]

Well I agree and I've found myself to be anti traditionalist many times. Sometimes things change slower than we'd like. Christian marriage is ridiculous to me for non Christians.

One of Fred Phelps's gand was refused entry into the UK recently. Is that acceptable censorship?

[Violet]

Fred Phelp's gand??? I have absolutely no idea what you are saying...?

Without change, a society crumbles. Remember the Ancient Roman Civilizations? It did so twice, because it despised change so much.

[Amphora]

but i do not think nudity any less offensive than a bikini, and that no less offensive than a trench coat. Why restrict speech, artwork, and clothing preference in our country... when we can swear in gibberish, paint classically or abstractly, and our natural form is nude?

I would agree with you on this.

People should be free to do whatever they want to do.

I would say most people who don't like nudity or sex would take it offensive seeing nude pictures.
Children shouldn't see nudity or sex or anything like that until they are old enough.

But I on the other hand like nude art work

Amp

---

But why is it good to prevent children from seeing? If you hide something from someone, and they discover that there is something there, then it creates a forbidden-fruit type of curiosity to find out.

Well yes, their curiosity is what drives them to learn new things! But there are somethings, that they shouldn't know such as S&M, or anything similiar.

'Sex' Although it seems redundant after nudity, it is a valid question in itself. Why do we censor the act we are built to participate in? I see nothing wrong with it, and question why others do. It is as natural a process as eating and drinking, yet we censor sex... and not eating as well. Why? Why should we censor something that the vast majority of us wish to participate in as much as eating, yet we do not censor the food we eat?

You may see nothing wrong with it, but someone else might find it offensive, like someone who dosen't like sex.

Oh yes it is something that a vast majority of us wish to participate in, and I would say people like doing it.

Would not children be less vulnerable if they had experience of these things?

Because their kids! They should have fun and go the park and be kids! To see sex and nudity at a young age would be bad.

Amp

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is what i ask: why censor anything? How can that help anyone, especially when censorship brews curiosity, and slows learning? Are not moral guides strong enough to guide us, that we do not need to censor the world we live in? Isn't not censoring a moral guide in itself? Would not children be less vulnerable if they had experience of these things?

And I think you are being naive ... we CANNOT show everything to children and that is STILL censorship!

As I have said on previous occasions also, a complete lack of censorship means (for example) paedophiles can have access to their victims ... if you say otherwise then YOU ARE NOT advocating full lack of censorship!

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

To see sex and nudity at a young age would be bad.

Not necessarily. Harm depends largely on context;

Japanese society had mixed bathing,of whole families, for centuries. Body and sexual shame are not universal,nor are taboos shielding children from adult sexual behaviour. The 'badness ' is cultural/moral perception, not supported by evidence a general principle.

It has been observed by psychologists that in some instances great harm can be done to children due to the hysterical behaviour of adults around them..

NO,I am NOT advocating sex with children, merely attempting to be a little rational about an emotive topic.

[Violet]

I fail to see why it would be bad... It would have saved me a great deal of sneaking around and lying to have been simply shown and told. As it was, i infected a computer with a lot of viruses and such... to the point where the computer's hard drive needed to be reformatted. Sure i learned from that, i learned that computer viruses existed, and that they were easier to catch than colds... But in hindsight, i rather wish i'd had the information available to me in a method that wasn't so fraught with fear.

I cannot fathom how it would hurt me to understand from the beginning... i would still go to the park to play, i would still enjoy my toys... but i would not be wondering what other 'secrets' have been kept from me. S&M should not be censored... and the underlying reasons for why someone would or would not enjoy it should be understood. However, S&M is not the most useful or simple thing to understand... that i would leave alone until i thought a child ready to learn about it.

If I were teaching a child... i would explore many other subjects to their fullest extent before even considering bringing S&M up, unless the child were to bring it up first. I think it is much less important to understand S&M than it is to understand mathematics, evolution, fairness, etc. There is a great deal that is simply more important (and in my opinion more interesting) than understanding why a person would be masochistic or sadistic, or would want to be so.

It is very important that a child feel they can come to you to ask about anything (especially when you are a parent or a teacher), and not fear your response to their questions. It is equally important that you listen to their questions, do your best to answer them, give them relevant information, and help them understand it. A pity i have never felt such security... help understanding things is something i could have used long ago... and so much time was wasted figuring such things out on my own, sometimes in illegal methods.

On a different track though:
Kyu, You do realize that most pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and other rapists are family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of their victims? Those that get their information online are a minute portion of the problem (Though large enough for you to have a point). Unauthorized access to the unprotected should not be possible, as nobody should be so unprotected that they can be raped, kidnapped, murdered, or otherwise violated. That is not a problem with censorship, but with security... which is evidently far too weak in its current form.

Do not confuse a weak identification system for a reason to censor. There are better systems, and i know of several... however no system is bulletproof... and ours is one of the easiest systems to get around. There is a great deal of change that is needed in many places on Earth... and i have many fantastic changes planned (beneficial to large portions of Earth's human and in some cases other animal populations, though perhaps not right for everyone) that could be implemented... yet no power to do so. But that will change.

---

To see sex and nudity at a young age would be bad.

Not necessarily. Harm depends largely on context;

Japanese society had mixed bathing,of whole families, for centuries. Body and sexual shame are not universal,nor are taboos shielding children from adult sexual behaviour. The 'badness ' is cultural/moral perception, not supported by evidence a general principle.

It has been observed by psychologists that in some instances great harm can be done to children due to the hysterical behaviour of adults around them..

NO,I am NOT advocating sex with children, merely attempting to be a little rational about an emotive topic.

This indeed is true.