Right-wing moralists launch censor war

[Puck]

Maybe for some people sex is just a "bodily function", but I think it is more than that, sex is(or at least is supposed to be) the process in which two humans create a new living person. I would like to hope that soceity takes sex a little bit more seriously than just, "Oh yeah sex is fine as long as you wear a condom and it is ok with both participating parties...hell, it's just like eating or having to use the restroom!" It isn't just any other bodily function. This is the process of bringing a new life into the world, and in my opinion, we need to take it a little more seriously. Abstinance until marriage should be taught, yes inform kids that condoms and birth controll do exist, but give them no encouragement at all to engage in intercourse.

[Hitchhiker]

[Republican_Man]

[Arellia]

[Jeff Miller]

[superwoman]

[Five - seveN]

[Jeremy]

[Defiant]

7th grade = 12 year olds.

I think sex ed is great. Only problem is, the younger you are, the more immature you are, the less likely you are to listen. They tried to teach us in 4th grade, and we just laughed alot. We were asked to send in little pieces of paper with questions on it, and we just wrote pee-pee on it and stuff. But in middle school, we did pay attention, we did get educated, and we're all better off for it.

[superwoman]

[Five - seveN]

[IntrepidIsMe]

[Republican_Man]

[TrekkieMage]

Speaking as a student who took health last year in a public school, here's my experience:

Give the students a project. Let them pick the topic. Anything that has to do with health. It can be the effects of backpacks that are too heavy or AIDS/HIV or dementia. I can garuntee you someone will do a project on teen pregnancy, and someone will do a project on safe sex.

This way the students voluntarally do reasearch on the topic, learn about it themselves instead of through the text book (and let me tell you, those things are a JOKE). Then they have to tell their class.

This is what my teacher did. People listened. People asked questions. They were comfortable, because it was their peers. It also helps that our teacher was wonderfully responsive and understanding. He never cut anyone down. Ever. He just gave you the facts, and any advice he can find.

That's just my experience.

[Republican_Man]

Alright, here's something I have to say:
Have you seen how people like Saddam tortured their people in the middle east, and still do? I've seen pictures. I've seen scenes from Buried in the Sand, which shows footage of BRUTAL torture that could be GREATLY compared to Hitler. I saw it on Hannity and Colmes, and I think it was right to see it and that it needs to be seen. But I'll first explain what I saw, and then why I think there is a difference, because I know that's going to be the question.
1. This guy's legs were tied up to a poll and whipped over 25 times, and why? He was LATE FOR A MEETING!
2. You think what our troops at Abu Ghraib Prison did to us is bad? I saw footage of what the Iraqis did to their prisoners. I saw them being WHIPPED senselessly, trying to back off.
3. I saw footage of people being put up into FIRING LINES just before being shot!
4. I saw HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE whippings, and edited footage of tongues being cut off, etc. HORRIBLE STUFF. Yes, I saw this on the news. No, I don't think this goes to far. It HAS to be seen, to show the nature of the enemy. And that is NOT all.

You see, much of this stuff NEEDS to be show. Pictures and film of torture and the nature of the terrorists and out enemies MUST be seen, to show WHAT we are up against and WHY this war is SOOOO important.
Yes, I do think, however, that it is necessary that we perhaps ONLY put this on the news (although only FOX would show it) and give a TWO WEEK WARNING ABOUT IT. Set a certain time for 30 minutes to show it, and have warnings before each commercial. Also, constantly a warning should flash at the bottom of the screen saying that this stuff is explicit, etc, although we should show EDITED stuff, as in cutting out the most gruesome things and censoring each necessary thing with cesor boxes, etc. But this stuff NEEDS to be seen to show the nature of the enemy and why it is so necessary that we fight this (although children should be told to stay away from the graphic stuff).
But the difference is this: One shows the ENEMY that we are fighting against and how BRUTAL and EVIL it is and why we MUST complete our goals and squash these people. The other, being bad words and sex and nudity, is bad to show because
A. It can easily be used and encourage kids to do something like that (ie get naked in front of friends, cuss, and have sex, etc.)
B. It demoralizes our society
C. It does NOT show the nature of the enemy--there is no point in showing nudity and sex and hearing bad words--NO POINT. There is a good point, however, in letting people, primarily adults and perhaps older teens, see this stuff--the nature of the ENEMY that we are fighting, and why it must be stopped.

[Republican_Man]

Oh, and here's another thing that should have been shown, this issue happening last year at my old Middle School:
At my middle school on September 11th, 2001, a teacher was going to show students footage of September 11th (stuff that they normally wouldn't see.) The teacher even sent home a permission slip getting allowence for it.
But what happened? The school wouldn't let him. He left temporarily in protest, and you know what the students did? They went outside the following day and protested, not going to class. Unfortunately they were given bribes of McDonalds, etc, and gave in, but this was HORRIBLE. This is something that a teacher wanted to be shown that really NEEDS to be shown, really, to show the nature of this enemy. Yes, it should only be to an extent, but it should be allowed--ESPECIALLY if the parent signs a permission slip saying it's okay. And I've heard about this teacher--he's a great teacher.

[Five - seveN]

I agree, mostly. That last thing about that teacher was really ridiculous (I mean the fact they wouldn't let him show it, not your comment). But I disagree that such things justify torture by Americans, too. Primarily because this would cause even more Iraqi anger, but also because some of the tortured Iraqis might not be so horrible at all.

But that's not about censoring anymore. I'd indeed say censoring is needed to a cerain extent, but it's not like hearing ''f*ck'' a few times is gonna make you an immoral criminal or something. Also, you (or at least I do) can mostly tell by the rest of the sentence what the censored word is, and if not, it's probably ''f*ck'' or ''f*ck it'' anyway... So...

[Republican_Man]

[Kyre]

[Hitchhiker]

Cool . . . it brings up several interesting points.

And reminds me of "Smile Time" (Superb episode)

[Republican_Man]

Bah. I don't believe it. Sure, some of that can do things, but that's just the Liberal spin on it.

--EDIT--
Either way around it, Rap has a MUCH greater impact on the person and how they act.

[Link, the Hero of Time]

uhh.. no it doesn't.

That's like saying that music was the cause of Columbine, which it was pinned on and later proved that it wasn't even a factor.

[IntrepidIsMe]

Blaming rap music on how a person acts, silly.

Blame the parents if you want to blame anybody, sheesh.

I just listened to American Pie. Does that mean that I'm going to find a Chevy, get drunk, and commit suicide? Don't think soooo.

[Republican_Man]

[Puck]

I think for most stable people, music doesn't greatly influence their actions. However, for some, I do beleive that music or other forms of entertainment can definatly at least be a catalyst in their decision making process.