Children more important than people?

izzy93

I've been thinking about this lately- does society pander to children too much at the expense of the majority of people (adults)? I am talking particularly about censorship of the media.

For example:

There was a thread about using cleavage on a rugby sponsorship poster, and some people came out against it. Presumably they were worried that kids would see (because there is no way a grown adult could be shocked or offended by breasts as far as I can see).

On boards.ie, if you type the word **** it is censored, though you can get away with it by putting a fada over the u, which is clearly the same word. This censorship is a bit ridiculous, I mean what grown adult is offended by seeing the word "fúck" written down. Obviously the answer is nobody. It is done so that kids won't see it.

I noticed a similar thing recently when Joe Biden said "this is a big fúcking deal" on camera, and it was hilariously reported in the media as Biden "dropping the F-bomb" whatever the fúck that is. There were discussion panels on American news shows, all talking about it while refusing to use the actual words, like a bunch of primary school kids.

Another example- violent video games. If I want to spend my time virtually stealing cars and shooting prostitutes surely that is up to me as an adult? Yet we are often told that we should ban these games because of their effects on kids.

There are many non-media examples, for example a big argument against "freeing the weed" is that kids will get it and smoke their little developing braincells out.

I could cite numerous other examples, but my main point is that if you don't want your kid reading the word "fúck" on the letters page of the Irish Times or wherever, then don't let them read it. If you're worried that your child might hear the word "gay" on tv or see boobs on a billboard and ask you "uncomfortable" questions, then tough sh1t, grow up a bit. If your kids are smoking cannabis, maybe you should keep a closer eye on them. Why do the rest of us have to live in an infantile society that sniggers at boobies and hides them away, just for the sake of a small minority, who probably wouldn't notice them anyway?

tony1kenobi

I reported your post because you used the f word you rusty c*nt bucket.

jd007

Children are people too!

starbelgrade

Children more important than people?

Aren't children people too, or am I missing something?

landsleaving

starbelgrade wrote: »

Aren't children people too, or am I missing something?

They're not quite human, they have too many bones.

GLaDOS

Children are definitely over protected. Censorship is worse now than when I was a kid, and I'd say older people would say that about my generation. People want to bubble wrap them forever.

Dudess

OP, what's with the child-hating?

I understand there is sometimes OTT mollycoddling over trivial enough stuff, but when it comes to bigger stuff, children are more vulnerable and requiring of protection than adults in their prime.

Not sure whether I agree with ya there Science Nerd. In 1990, when Madonna released Justify My Love (fairly tame stuff) it could only be shown on MTV, no other channel, after midnight. Now you can see tits and arse on a music vid at 2pm.

starbelgrade

ScienceNerd wrote: »

People want to bubble wrap them forever.

You should never let kids have bubble wrap or plastic bags. They could smother themselves.

tony1kenobi

Dudess wrote: »

Now you can see tits and arse on a music vid at 2pm.

God Bless us all.

spudmonkey17

there is no way a grown adult could be shocked or offended by breasts as far as I can see

Plenty of women could find this offensive as it can be seen as objectifying women for the purpose of advertising.

On boards.ie, if you type the word **** it is censored, though you can get away with it by putting a fada over the u, which is clearly the same word.

No it's not, it's got a fada on it :pac:

I mean what grown adult is offended by seeing the word "fúck" written down. Obviously the answer is nobody. It is done so that kids won't see it.

Incredible generalisation. Believe it or not everybody doesn't think and feel the same way. Plenty of people would get offended by seeing that. I'm partial to a bit of swearing myself but when I read the paper I want my articles factual and well written with a certain level of journalistic flair. Using swear words indicates a simple lack of vocabulary. And I know I'd get a bit tired of boards if every second word was fúck. There are other words to express yourself, you know.

There are many non-media examples, for example a big argument against "freeing the weed" is that kids will get it and smoke their little developing braincells out.

That is hardly the biggest or even close to one of the biggest reasons as to why marijuana isn't legalized.

I could cite numerous other examples, but my main point is that if you don't want your kid reading the word "fúck" on the letters page of the Irish Times or wherever, then don't let them read it.

I'll just stick a tracking device on their neck will I? Or better yet, gouge out their eyes. Save me the hassle of buying a tracking device.

If you're worried that your child might hear the word "gay" on tv or see boobs on a billboard and ask you "uncomfortable" questions, then tough sh1t, grow up a bit.

If you have a problem with a mild level of sophistication and respectability in society then tough sh1t, grow up a bit.

If your kids are smoking cannabis, maybe you should keep a closer eye on them.

Again, the tracking device.

Why do the rest of us have to live in an infantile society that sniggers at boobies and hides them away, just for the sake of a small minority, who probably wouldn't notice them anyway?

What?

izzy93

Dudess wrote: »

OP, what's with the child-hating?

I understand there is sometimes OTT mollycoddling over trivial enough stuff, but when it comes to bigger stuff, children are more vulnerable and requiring of protection than adults in their prime.

Not sure whether I agree with ya there Science Nerd. In 1990, when Madonna released Justify My Love (fairly tame stuff) it could only be shown on MTV, no other channel, after midnight. Now you can see tits and arse on a music vid at 2pm.

I'm not a child-hater, I just think society is too based around kid now. Obviously I agree with you when it comes to "bigger stuff", but I don't think music videos qualify. So what is you can see tits at 2pm? Is the world going to fall apart. Women have boobs, big whoop. Kids only think it's a big deal if adults make it a big deal.

@starbelgade - the title of the thread is taken from Bill Maher's standup:
"I would say that the feminine values are now the values of America; sensitivity is more important than truth; feelings are more important than facts; commitment is more important than individuality; children are more important than people; safety is more important than fun."

starbelgrade

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

Using swear words indicates a simple lack of vocabulary.

1. No it doesn't.

2. No it f*cking doesn't.

Sentence No.2 has a swear word but shows more emphasis & uses extra vocabulary than sentence No.1.

Dudess

izzy93 wrote: »

I'm not a child-hater, I just think society is too based around kid now.

Well you said some fairly derogatory stuff about kids in that post. Western society has been protective of kids for some time now - I'd prefer it to e.g. some countries where children are forced into sex slavery/armed combat...

So what is you can see tits at 2pm? Is the world going to fall apart. Women have boobs, big whoop. Kids only think it's a big deal if adults make it a big deal.

I only cited that to make the point that I disagree with some of what ScienceNerd said - I don't think it will have too much of a detrimental effect on society.

Dudess

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

Using swear words indicates a simple lack of vocabulary.

Ah I'd beg to differ...

izzy93

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

I'm partial to a bit of swearing myself but when I read the paper I want my articles factual and well written with a certain level of journalistic flair. Using swear words indicates a simple lack of vocabulary.

But this is exactly my point, how is it factual if you're reading an article and are told that a politician said "f*** you, you c***-faced ******* piece of s*** c***sucker". And then you have to guess what the guy actually said. Hardly factual.

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

I'll just stick a tracking device on their neck will I? Or better yet, gouge out their eyes. Save me the hassle of buying a tracking device.

No, how about just don't buy them the computer game? And I don't see why young children would really want to read newpapers, but they are also censored. And yeah, to a certain extent you are responsible for stopping your own kids from seeing things that you deem inappropriate.

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

If you have a problem with a mild level of sophistication and respectability in society then tough sh1t, grow up a bit.

But it's not sophistication. Finding something wrong with the human form isn't sophisticated, it's infantile. As I said, so what if kids see boobs? What damage does this do to them?

spudmonkey17

starbelgrade wrote: »

1. No it doesn't.

2. No it f*cking doesn't.

Sentence No.2 has a swear word but shows more emphasis & uses extra vocabulary than sentence No.1.

Haha I'll take your point. What I mean is that in everyday speech the word f*cking is used far too much when more suitable phrases/words could be used to express yourself more accurately.

But sure why f*cking bother? :pac:

starbelgrade

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

Haha I'll take your point. What I mean is that in everyday speech the word f*cking is used far too much when more suitable phrases/words could be used to express yourself more accurately.

But sure why f*cking bother? :pac:

Yep - f*ck that sh*t!

izzy93

For the record Dudess, I am also against sex slaves and child soldiers. I just happen to think censorship should be as minimal as possible.

starbelgrade

Children should grow the f*ck up.

spudmonkey17

But this is exactly my point, how is it factual if you're reading an article and are told that a politician said "f*** you, you c***-faced ******* piece of s*** c***sucker". And then you have to guess what the guy actually said. Hardly factual.

But kids aren't the only people that will be offended/affected by that. As I said before, not everyone is the same. The newspaper is only trying to maintain a broad readership by playing it safe.

No, how about just don't buy them the computer game?

Kids can just as easily go down the street to their friends house to play the game and tell you otherwise.

And yeah, to a certain extent you are responsible for stopping your own kids from seeing things that you deem inappropriate for them

FYP

But it's not sophistication. Finding something wrong with the human form isn't sophisticated, it's infantile. As I said, so what if kids see boobs? What damage does this do to them?

But there will always be a certain level of censorship. Where does it stop? Where do you think it should stop? I personally have no problem seeing a billboard like that but if the billboard had a man with his legs wide open I'd probably not want to see it. And that's not finding something wrong with the human form, that's just not wanting to see a giant c0ck on a billboard everytime I drive by. Nevermind kids, that would do damage to me :pac::pac:

starbelgrade

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

that's just not wanting to see a giant c0ck on a billboard everytime I drive by. Nevermind kids, that would do damage to me :pac::pac:

Every time there's elections, there's billboards & posters all over the country with pictures of big cocks on them.

spudmonkey17

starbelgrade wrote: »

Every time there's elections, there's billboards & posters all over the country with pictures of big cocks on them.

Wahay!! :D

izzy93

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

But kids aren't the only people that will be offended/affected by that. As I said before, not everyone is the same. The newspaper is only trying to maintain a broad readership by playing it safe.

I'm pretty sure there are no adults that would be offended by the accurate reporting of someone having used the word "fúck". If they are then that's very childish of them, and I stick with my original premise that we should not cater to them in this case

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

Kids can just as easily go down the street to their friends house to play the game and tell you otherwise.

Yeah and they can go down the street and look up internet porn. They could watch an ultimate fighting match on the TV and think violence is cool. They could do any number of things. They could get into their mate's fridge and drink one of his dad's beers. Should we ban everything in case kids work out how to access it?

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

I personally have no problem seeing a billboard like that but if the billboard had a man with his legs wide open I'd probably not want to see it. And that's not finding something wrong with the human form, that's just not wanting to see a giant c0ck on a billboard everytime I drive by. Nevermind kids, that would do damage to me :pac::pac:

LOL, I agree with you about not liking giant cocks billboards featuring giant cocks.:D That is my point- I have no problem banning things that adults have a problem with, I just have an issue with banning things that no reasonable person would have a problem with, on the offchance that kids see it.

CiaranC

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Children are definitely over protected. Censorship is worse now than when I was a kid

It isnt actually. The current censor is way more liberal than the last ones.

izzy93

CiaranC wrote: »

It isnt actually. The current censor is way more liberal than the last ones.

It is and it isn't. There are definitely more boobs on the TV nowadays, and sex in the media in general. But that has nothing to do with children, that's just society emerging from the Catholic coccoon we were in where adults were treated like children.

On the other hand though, kids are more coddled now, there's more of a fear of paedophiles etc. When I was young I'd often by off playing with friends for hours at a time, my parents had no idea where I was and weren't too bothered- I think childhoods are a lot less carefree now, which is sad. Also "health and safety" means that nobody is allowed to have fun anymore :rolleyes:

stovelid

You're kidding yourself if you think most reactionary stances on stuff like censorship are motivated by worry about children might see.

pickarooney

izzy93 wrote: »

I've been thinking about this lately- does society pander to children too much at the expense of the majority of people (adults)? I am talking particularly about censorship of the media.

For example:

There was a thread about using cleavage on a rugby sponsorship poster, and some people came out against it. Presumably they were worried that kids would see (because there is no way a grown adult could be shocked or offended by breasts as far as I can see).

On boards.ie, if you type the word **** it is censored, though you can get away with it by putting a fada over the u, which is clearly the same word. This censorship is a bit ridiculous, I mean what grown adult is offended by seeing the word "fúck" written down. Obviously the answer is nobody. It is done so that kids won't see it.

Have you ever met any human beings? Children are not offended by breasts or swear words. Adutls are offended by breasts and swear words, ostensibly on behalf of children.

stovelid

pickarooney wrote: »

Have you ever met any human beings? Children are not offended by breasts or swear words. Adutls are offended by breasts and swear words, ostensibly on behalf of children.

Why couldn't I phrase my post like this.

prinz

izzy93 wrote: »

I think childhoods are a lot less carefree now, which is sad. Also "health and safety" means that nobody is allowed to have fun anymore :rolleyes:

Yes they are, due to what has happened in the past..

izzy93 wrote: »

On the other hand though, kids are more coddled now, there's more of a fear of paedophiles etc. When I was young I'd often by off playing with friends for hours at a time, my parents had no idea where I was and weren't too bothered-

Perhaps if your, and other parents had been bothered about where there kids were and what they were up to in the past we wouldn't have the problem of over-kill on the child protection now. They weren't, and kids paid the price.

Sinfonia

pickarooney wrote: »

Have you ever met any human beings? Children are not offended by breasts or swear words. Adutls are offended by breasts and swear words, ostensibly on behalf of children.

Exactly. Sure babies get more tit than most of my mates.


Anyway, OP, in principle I agree with you, the problem I think is that most things should be fine for children, but in moderation. Unfortunately, there are occasionally incidents where a small number of children are (allegedly) adversely affected by something, and as a result they go and do something terrible and extreme. Of course, this will be newsworthy, and the result of the extreme action taken by the child is that an extreme reaction in the other direction seems like a reasonable response.

It's easier to propose a blanket ban on something than to work out and enforce a plan of sensible supervision and control.

ricman

Stupid politicians use this excuse, protect the children ,like in oz.They,ll bring in a web filter to block out certain sites, which will also block out health info sites,political left wing sites etc meanwhile children are watching all sorts of programs on tv, they have tv in their bedrooms.
WHY dont they shut down the postal system cos some people might use mail to post dvds etc Lets ban cars cos some people are drunk drivers.
Like the uk digital economy bill, behind the scenes the riaa , record companys are working to lobby to make bad laws ,cripple and censor free speech to protect their industrys.
And protecting the kids is a great excuse for webfilters.

Prof.Badass

It's true OP.

No matter how much rational sense you make, your viewpoint can always be trumped with "think of the children". It doesn't even matter if children would actually be affected (or by how much), just implying that they could is enough to keep the mindless joe duffy crowd from ever rationally considering an argument.

It's a low tactic used by desperate politicians/pressure groups. Tapping into parents' (inherantly irrational) evolutionary drive to protect their children at all costs.

aDeener

Dudess wrote: »

Well you said some fairly derogatory stuff about kids in that post. Western society has been protective of kids for some time now - I'd prefer it to e.g. some countries where children are forced into sex slavery/armed combat...

I only cited that to make the point that I disagree with some of what ScienceNerd said - I don't think it will have too much of a detrimental effect on society.

why would you even bring that up? in no way at all did the op even hint as to what thats he would prefer as the alternative

funk-you

spudmonkey17 wrote: »

Plenty of women could find this offensive as it can be seen as objectifying women for the purpose of advertising.

It's not objectifying women, it's objectifying a woman who has chosen to be objectified through her career choice.

As for the tracking device thing...when I was a kid I had to stay within sight of my front door when playing out on the road and if I was going to a friends house their parents would have had to be there. A little more vigilance could save a lot of parents all this outrage.

Tbh, most kids that got up this morning and have been outside have probably seen quite a few pairs of knockers and not phased in the slightest. They're just part of a woman. It's when they're told that they're something naughty and hidden that the fascination begins.

-Funk

Dudess

Sinfonia wrote: »

Sure babies get more tit than most of my mates.

LOL - your "mates"...

So you get tit every few hours? :pac:

Dudess

prinz wrote: »

Yes they are, due to what has happened in the past..

What happened though? I agree with the OP that there is way too much paranoia over paedophiles.

aDeener wrote: »

why would you even bring that up? in no way at all did the op even hint as to what thats he would prefer as the alternative

I didn't even hint I thought the OP would prefer that as an alternative - just that the culture of protecting children here in the West is far more preferable to societies in the past and today where there is no child protection.

Sinfonia

Dudess wrote: »

LOL - your "mates"...

So you get tit every few hours? :pac:

:P !

Pretty much tbh ( my gf's lovely )

starbelgrade

One thing that really buggers me off is the 'school run'. When we were kids, you walked or cycled to school, or got the bus if it was raining. None of us ever got kidnapped or abducted by paedos & most of us had a good half hour journey to & from school (fraught with DANGER!).

In my village, there's a small school which is absolutely MOBBED at half three with mummies picking up their little darlings in their Chelsea tractors & almost all the kids live within 5 minutes of the school. There's not even much traffic in through the village, so they're not even going to be knocked down.

It makes me wonder how these kids will ever learn some modicum of independance.

dvpower

izzy93 wrote: »

On boards.ie, if you type the word **** it is censored, though you can get away with it by putting a fada over the u, which is clearly the same word. This censorship is a bit ridiculous, I mean what grown adult is offended by seeing the word "fúck" written down. Obviously the answer is nobody. It is done so that kids won't see it.

That's a bit of a reach?

I was at a business meeting with some important customers the other day. I was effing and blinding to beat the band. I used the F word, the B word and the C word. When the meeting was over, my boss fired me. What the fcuk was that about? There were no kids present at the meeting at all!! I mean that's just censorship gone mad. My boss was clearly trying to protect kids that weren't even there.

Guy:Incognito

Society panders to everyone at the expense of the average law abidgin ma/woman.