I’d not bother with him. His breath smells like cat food.
Right, I got that. However, that doesn’t answer my question.
You said “but I want them to know there is a time for polite conversation and a time for swearing”. My question was where is the time and place ?
Where in my one sentence post did I say
- that I didn’t understand why you prefer anything?
or - that I either agreed or disagreed with it?
or - that I felt I was being forced to do agree with it or anything else?
or - that I had an opinion on the OP whatsoever?
Oh, I get that - but he didn’t he wanted his kids to know there was a time for hearing swearing, but that there was a time to swear. I was asking when (and where) he thought that was.
That was directed to those people that were arguing against this chip thing, right - not at me? Because I’ll remind everyone that I expressed no opinion either way about parental controls.
Growing up, after I reached a certain age, I was allowed to swear. But only at home. Not out in public, and not around other adults, no matter where I was. Oh, and NEVER at my mother. Meaning I was allowed to say “fuck” if I, say accidently burned myself on the stove, but I wasn’t allowed to say “fuck you” to her.
I also try to never swear in front of children, not because I think they will be damaged or need to be protected, but because I realise that not every parent is as permissive as my mother was and I feel, no matter what my opinion may or may not be, it’s disrepectful to assume that everyone is ok with their kids hearing foul language. I’m speaking in a home setting more than being out in public like at a mall or what not.
yes…sorry if that wasn’t clear.
No, it was not, and you still didn’t address the points I made.
That’s your call. For me, I feel free to swear when I am out with my male friends: eg football games and other sporting events, bars, etc…
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a copy of The Passion of the Christ with a lot of the violence cut out. Many people found certain scenes much too excessive and/or long. And that includes many people in the so-called Christian right.
That said, I’d be very amused if someone created a copy of The Passion where every use of the name “Jesus” was censored - either beeped out or, more amusingly, dubbed over. What other “word” would they use anyway?
Who else even gives a flying fuck about this shit? No one that I know of. Even most feminists have backed away from censorships, it’s all the religious right and the social conservatives, two largely congruent groups.
Call it the “Durden Chip” or “D-Chip”. 
The government has a long history of getting involved in shit like this. Google a few names: Comstock, Hayes, Breen, along with the word “censorship.”
So, what’s your aunt’s history wrt growing testicles?
[Moderator’s whistle] > TWEEEEEEET!!!
Hey! I’m not sure what’s going on here, but this is NOT the forum for a debate on censorship. It is NOT a forum for name-calling or nastiness, either. It’s a forum about discussion of arts and entertainment.
If you want to discuss this as new technology, that’s fine, go right ahead. If you want to debate whether parents should have the ability to censor what their children see, or whether anyone should have the right to edit works of art, or anything like that, hie thee to GREAT DEBATES forum and debate away.
Any further violations of the sense of this forum, either by content or by tone, and I’ll shut the thread down altogether.
And get a sense of perspective here. Any of you who are hot and bothered, I suggest sticking your head under a cold shower, to cool down. [/Moderator’s whistle]
Well, this isn’t as bad as I thought it would be, since the viewer is able to custom-design which parts are deleted out.
However, I went to the Clearplay site and saw their list of movies. Something about that really creeped me out. If I were a filmmaker, I think I’d be upset, seeing my film on that list. Something not right about that, somehow.
But on the other hand, it could be a useful tool. Perhaps. Like there are some films that I’d like to share with my sweet, gray-haired grandmotherly mom (we’re both such movie buffs), but I know she’s bitch about this word uttered or that scene. So if there was a way that I could preview the film, program the DVD player to skip over (or mask) the offensive thing so I could watch the rest of the film with her in peace, well, that might be nice. (I would be editing out parts of the movie it with her full knowledge, of course. Just so that she wouldn’t bitch and I wouldn’t have to hear her bitch. I’m sure you all can imagine how annoying it is to hear a sweet grandmotherly mom bitch and bitch and bitch . . . )
So if that’s about all that this device was used for, to selectively edit out things at your discretion, well, part of me thinks that it might be useful for some people. But I can understand why the filmmakers whose works have been added to that somewhat creepy list on Clearplay are not happy. Something about that just seems . . . not right.
And the price of my television would have been even lower if it didn’t have the jacks on the front for a video camera I don’t have, or the low-function remote control I don’t need because all of my other electronics have remotes that can do all of the same things. For that matter, the price of my other electronics would’ve been lower if they didn’t all include multi-function remote controls that could manage all of my other electronics. The VCR would be cheaper without the timer I don’t need because I have a TiVo. Cable would be cheaper without the “On Demand” with thousands of hours of “free” pre-recorded, watch-anytime programming that I don’t ever watch.
Heck, you can extrapolate that line of thinking out pretty far. My blender would’ve been cheaper without that silly “stir” speed that I never use. My microwave would’ve been cheaper without the “Defrost” power setting built-in, and everyone knows full well that the results of using a microwave to defrost are deplorable, anyway. If you want to get really big ticket, my car would’ve been cheaper without the fog lamps and moonroof that I was forced to buy in a package deal so that I could get the cruise control and floor mats that I wanted.
This “I don’t want to pay for a feature I won’t use!” argument is a huge non-starter. We do it every day, with everything we buy. We do some often because of law. (The required seat-belt systems designed to accomodate car seats, as a huge example.) We do because of feature creep. (A little was good, so more must be better.) Unless you have some source for consumer products which are built exactly to the specifications of each customer with no fewer and no more features than requested, in which case, please share!
I don’t work for ClearPlay, but it seems like the criteria for being on the “list” are simple…a movie that is rated PG-13 or R, and it’s a movie likely to be seen by a sizable enough population to bother to spend the time to create the “filter”.
Keep in mind that movies are added every week…so I’m guessing that they’re “catching up” on whatever movies that are out there that would fit the above criteria.
I don’t think that being on the “list” means anything more than that. (This is pure speculation on my part…but I suspect that ClearPlay is interested in making a profit, so that seems the most profitable way to progress)
As others have pointed out…the end result is a movie probably edited in much the same fashion as TV or airline versions of the movies.
Other companies actually sell re-edited version of DVDs. ClearPlay’s approach (selling the FILTERS/special player for consumers to use on regular DVDs) seems to me to be significantly different.
Of course IANAL…you can read about their spin on the legal issues here
You have a valid point, however it was the market place that added or didn’t remove the “silly stir” option from the blender. If noone used it, it would be gone or replaced. (I know, in a perfect world blah blah).
As for the cruise control, you still made the decision to add in plus the rest of the package. If the majority of consumers wanted cruise control without the rest, then it would be available. When I bought a car I made the decision not to include cruise control and whatever else came with it.
If both types of machines (with and without) are available and the machines with it win out, then fine.
Like with the V-chip, if the larger number of consumers decided they wanted it included, fine, and the rest of us will deal with it. What I don’t want to see is the “big daddy” government coming in and saying you have to do this.
I also feel that this issue is a bit different from whether a blender has the stir option. It is once again an outside entity coming in and taking on the parenting responsibilities that parents themselves are neglecting.
My main point, and I may not have been clear, is that the market place should decide, not the government. And I realize that no one in government has said anything about this so far, and this is really jumping the gun. But I do think I have a valid concern. In this post Janet Jackson hysteria and with social conservatives largely in charge they may decide to make this device mandatory.
No, the left is also pressuring Hollywood about violence. But the fact is, the religious right is much more concerned with broadcast TV and radio. The DVD thing is a non-issue.
The government’s history is not the issue, this particular case is the issue. I have seen no reports of interest in this technology by ANYONE in the government.
You know what I’m waiting for? Even with a weekly-updated movie list, eventually someone’s going to watch a foreign or otherwise obscure DVD on one of these things, and the player won’t do a durned thing about the offensive content. And eventually, someone who accidentally watches such an uncensored movie is going to sue over it. I suspect that when that happens, I’ll get a good laugh out of it.
Oh, come on. You expect us to believe that a U.S. government that has a long history of getting involved in censorship and which is CURRENTLY in the middle of an anti-pornography campaign – DESPITE the fact that we are under attack by terrorists whose fondest desire is to KILL lots of Americans – a government that DESPERATE to censor would sit there and IGNORE a technology that could easily become a stealth form of censorship?
Tell me another one.
I don’t get the laugh here, I guess. ClearPlay doesn’t promise that they will filter everything under the sun. As a matter of fact they’re pretty damn specific about what they DO offer filters for.
I would imagine that their TOS agreement even spells that out in further detail.
Somebody suing them for not filtering something else would be like somebody suing AOL because porn popups appear on their monitor…if you get a good laugh out of morons suing for that sorta thing…okey dokey.