When you get right down to it I think the entire idea of censoring sexual content most likely stems from religion. I mean those three feet lower parts of your body are lumps of flesh and muscle and, maybe, bone. I mean two guys grunting and straining having an arm ressle for instance, how is that all that much difference from a couple of people having sex.

Okay at this point I''d like to interrupt and say I DO NOT like seeing sexually graphic things, I LIKE sexually graphic things to be censored, just so know one gets the wrong idea

Okay back on topic. If you look at it like that the two guys and just using there bodys on each other same as the guy and girl, at least I sure as hell hopes it''s a guy and girl :S.

For instance in some older cultures it was considered the NORM to be walking around naked, it was ACCEPETED. I mean hell not that long ago, hundered years or something, showing enough of your body to go bathing wasn''t excepted, at least not in Australia anyway.

What I''m trying to say is the distinction we make between sex and anything else can only by grounded in religion, in Australia, America and Britains case this is Christianity.

*whimpers in the corner at the thought of all the flames he''s gonna get hit with :''(*


P.S. Some of you might be curious as to the symbol I chose for the heading.....

quote: Original post by Rob Loach
Original post by smiley4
So, we just need to get rid of all corruped people so there will be no corruption.

Hmmm, how do you define a "corrupt person".

Someone who double posts

I remember this one game (from Japan) which was a cross between Street Fighter and sexual assault. If your male character KO-d a female character, you got to "rape" her. I haven't played the game, but I did read the reviews and could have downloaded it if I had a PS to play it on.

It's not a crime to depict stuff like this, but I wouldn't like seeing the idea communicated. There are some things we would be better off without... Bush and nuclear weapons included.

[edited by - TSwitch on March 28, 2003 2:31:44 AM]

I agree that there are some THINGS we are better off without (I'm also considering actions a thing) ... but as long as some THINGS exist or go on - I never feel that knowledge of them should be censored.

I mean really ... no one here wants to cause more rapes or more assults to happen (well maybe someone here does, because the people who commit these crimes obviously exist somewhere), but does that mean you want tell your daughter about rape, or teach your children how to defend themselves from assult? I sure as hell don't like the image of George W. controlling what happens with the "defense" weapons of my country ... but I damn well hope that everyone out there understands just exactly what the real situation is (which is, right or wrong, that this man is waging a war using real weapons, costing real lives, against the majority will of our nation, and without any official declaration of war - enough of that though, cause there are some valid problems he's up against as well) ...

No I also admit that knowing the uncensored TRUTH, is not quite the same as having access to uncensored FICTION and entertainment ...

So for the entertainment side, I mainly have to say that I plain and simple believe in freedom, and also don't believe in preemptive strikes and morality legislation, and any fictional act is not (in and of itself) causing real harm to anyone. And also, the fact is, these stories or depictions of sex and violence ARE human and animal nature ... we fight, we fuck, we make friends, raise families, create ship and sail to new lands, love, hate, and hold grudges ... this is what we are and always have been ... and lying to people or trying to determine what combinations of associations are "natural" just doesn't make any sense ...

P.S. would you censor the holocaust?

[edited by - Xai on March 28, 2003 4:13:50 AM]

IFooBar:
I totally agree with you. If I where a publisher and market a world-wide release of a game; I would go though a lot of trouble to get the largest target-audience interested and root out scenes in the material or changing it for the sake of getting rid of potential "bad publicity" or getting the game pulled off the shelves (Didn''t Norway or Austraila discuss that with GTA3?)

So different versions is all good and that, BUT I belive the consumer should have a right to choose what to watch and not to watch. Also for the sake of watching material as it was originally intended by the makers. Today, some don''t have that option. Which leads to another question:

Due to regional restrictions some imported games don''t play (unless you fix that) meaning that some games that doesn''t come to Europe can''t be imported. If there was no restrictions you could effectively choose to watch the uncut Japanese version if you wanted to. But now you can''t. Unless you buy a chip. It''s getting hard to decide what to watch and not to watch.

rjnagle said:
”The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated.

This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material.

On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship.”

There''s an interesting philosophical question in here that has only been touched on. My apologies for the digression. How is ethics/morality affected when simulation is involved? Imagine a scenario where technology can provide you with very convincing replicas of other humans, whether through VR or robotics. Say there''s a group of people who really hates some ethnic group, people from Atlantis. If they aquire a bunch of simulated atlantians, then do horrible things to them, what do the laws of ethics & morality have to say? Legally, the simulations are not humans, therefore no law has been broken. But if the simulations reach the point where at some level they *really* seem human, and the perpetrators do the act thinking of the simulations as actual atlantans (though not decieved), I think at some level the perpetrators have still committed a condemnable act. To relate it to the original post, does the fact that the character was actually an android really excuse the criminality of the act? (To simplify the argument further, assume that the simulated atlantians aren''t actually intelligent, or concious, so we don''t have to argue whether they have rights of their own)

Perhaps I''m the only one who thought of this but, not having seen the footage, unless it is perfectly obvious to everyone that the male is placing his hand in the girl-android''s stomach and not her lower regions (ie, vagina), then it''s logical that the scene would be censored.

Furthermore, the addition of what are described as "moaning sounds" (half between screaming in pain and being too weak to scream, whatever; sounds like most women having a real orgasm to me) reinforce the rationale for censorship.

I believe in censorship. I believe that certain content is only appropriate for people of a certain level of maturity (most frequently guaged by age), and given the notorious unreliability of US markets to ensure that for even mildly inappropriate products like beer and T-rated video games, it''s not surprising that we resort to censorship.

Is US morality based in religion? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Was society at one time more permissive? Yes. Was society the better for it? I don''t think so. Romans had public baths, and many (civilized) societies didn''t have qualms about nudity, but was there more respect for life, property and propriety in such societies? I think not. Our attitudes to sex and violence are not separate from our attitudes regarding property (theft), propriety (extra-marital affairs are still a taboo in our society, despite their increasing frequence, which I consider a good thing).

Ah, I''m rambling again.

quote: Original post by snak_attack
How is ethics/morality affected when simulation is involved?

Technically, it isn''t. Ethics and morality are personal issues, which must be resolved individually.

quote: To relate it to the original post, does the fact that the character was actually an android really excuse the criminality of the act?

Technically, it has no bearing and the act wasn''t "criminal" as it never actually happened. You''re crossing weird lines here, trying to prosecute people for their thoughts instead of their actions, which is tantamount to mind control or social engineering.

I think censorship is just silly. I mean, who cares if they are intentionally depicting a young girl in a compromising situation.

People get too uptight about everything. Is that going to hurt anyone if it is in there? I doubt it. So what if some dude gets turned on by it? That''s his own damn business. It becomes a problem if he goes out and tries to bang some 12 year old, yes. That''s hurting someone. But what the hell, it''s just a bloody picture!

OK.

Sorry... i''m hyped up on so much caffeine, and lack of sleep, it''s not even funny. Midterms are fun, yay!

My body is actually shaking from caffeine.

It''s like asking, "if you kill someone in a dream, does that make you a murderer or do you just have murderous tendidcies?"

Oluseyi, just wanted to point one of your contradictions back at you (out of respect for the dificulty of this topic, I mean no personal attack).

You mention a VERY important principle that guided lawmaking and governance for a long time in the US, the idea that ONLY an act can be a crime, never a thought, dream, desire, or perversion. This principle is ALWAYS in danger of being violated, as it was in puritan times, and as it is in courts daily when people try to make linkage between thoughts and attitudes and the likelyhood of commiting crimes. But still it largely holds true, and in my mind must be rediscovered by lawmakers, lawyers, and citizens alike ... because I feel our attitude in this matter is slipping, and we are begining to legislate things like hate, attitude, required compacency / cooperation. Very scary things ...

Now to the contradiction ... you seem to believe in keeping the thought and the deed completely seperate legally, you seem to be against mind control and social engineering, and yet you believe in censorship.

The cesored thing is never a prohibited deed, never the commiting of a banned action, but the prohibition of things which inspire certain trains of thought, certain pieces of knowledge, information, or belief. To censor things which go against a public's common (majority) views, is tantamount (stealing your word) to attempting to force society to adopt or maintain those views.

This is not a bad thing in individuals, to try to help other people be "good" in their eyes. But in government, expecially our government (I actually do not know where you are from ... so I appologize if I have assumed incorectly), it is going against the founders have attempted to preserve. They did not attempt to create an anti-religion government, such that no-one could be religious. They attempted to create a government which itself could not adopt or champion a religion or ideology, so that it's people could freely believe and practice what they want ... and have such freedom protected.

[edited by - Xai on March 28, 2003 3:27:10 PM]