PAULINK
I microwave steaks.
I realize some things can be considered obscene or vulgar, and some people may not want to be exposed to that material. Fair game. Generally, we see media censoring words, body parts, indecent gestures, and so forth. That's the thing I don't get though, anyone with a brain can figure out what are behind the curtains within context. The only group who sees any sort of benefit from this are a younger audience who are clearly ignorant.
For example, when someone sticks up a middle finger, it is blocked out, but there are really not many justifications for bleeping out someone's hand, so it's obvious it's a middle finger. In this instance, wouldn't that mean that someone who is normally offended by this gesture would still be offended, since the media they are watching implies the gesture?
But let's delve a little further onto the ignorant people, say little Johnny is watching something that is clearly intended for older audience on television. He's not able to really discern what is behind any of the censored words, and yet there's violence and drug use, two pieces of mature subject matter. Who's to say that those scenes should not be censored as well to protect little Johnny?
Let's stop talking about american media and talk about Japan, specifically their adult material. It makes zero sense to censor male and female genitalia, media which is strictly marketed towards adults. To even imply that someone underage and ignorant were to get a hold of such material, I'm confident the censors are NOT going to somehow make the material suitable, shielding them only until they eventually learn these things.
Long story short, unless the offensive subject matter is removed entirely to where it does not even exist within any sort of context (different kind of censorship) , there is really no point in my opinion. I do not want to hear bleeps and see mosaics, such practices are annoying. Gaf, please tell me i'm missing something here, it can't just be for the kids.
On a side note, here's a reason why censorship is silly. Another one. Probably not the best examples to back my argument up
For example, when someone sticks up a middle finger, it is blocked out, but there are really not many justifications for bleeping out someone's hand, so it's obvious it's a middle finger. In this instance, wouldn't that mean that someone who is normally offended by this gesture would still be offended, since the media they are watching implies the gesture?
But let's delve a little further onto the ignorant people, say little Johnny is watching something that is clearly intended for older audience on television. He's not able to really discern what is behind any of the censored words, and yet there's violence and drug use, two pieces of mature subject matter. Who's to say that those scenes should not be censored as well to protect little Johnny?
Let's stop talking about american media and talk about Japan, specifically their adult material. It makes zero sense to censor male and female genitalia, media which is strictly marketed towards adults. To even imply that someone underage and ignorant were to get a hold of such material, I'm confident the censors are NOT going to somehow make the material suitable, shielding them only until they eventually learn these things.
Long story short, unless the offensive subject matter is removed entirely to where it does not even exist within any sort of context (different kind of censorship) , there is really no point in my opinion. I do not want to hear bleeps and see mosaics, such practices are annoying. Gaf, please tell me i'm missing something here, it can't just be for the kids.
On a side note, here's a reason why censorship is silly. Another one. Probably not the best examples to back my argument up
