|
On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote:On February 21 2012 05:51 zalz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art?? It is art. Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art. People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff. On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people.
So? I still do not see why it should be censored.
(90% is waaaay too high, btw)
|
Meh, it just saddens me when shit like this can be considered by the same definition as a Botticelli painting or a Bernini sculpture.
|
On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote:On February 21 2012 05:51 zalz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art?? It is art. Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art. People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff. On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw)
As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist.
|
On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote:On February 21 2012 05:51 zalz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art?? It is art. Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art. People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff. On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist.
Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored.
I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored.
|
On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote:On February 21 2012 05:51 zalz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art?? It is art. Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art. People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff. On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored.
I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind.
|
On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote:On February 21 2012 05:51 zalz wrote:On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art?? It is art. Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art. People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff. On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind.
So any offensive work should be censored?
I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been.
|
On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote:On February 21 2012 05:51 zalz wrote: [quote]
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff. On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been.
I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless.
Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored.
|
a while ago, hk was discussing what should be censored and they even bought bible to the topic Lol
|
Not all things are art, you can't just take something terrible and say this is art, "how dare you oppress the freedom of my expression!" I still feel that all art should be able to express itself, however, it should be understood that not everyone wants to see some forms of "art" that exist. I think as long as it's appropriate it's fine, but if you know it's going to bother some people, then individuals should try to keep it away from those who disagree with it.
|
On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 05:54 MrBob wrote: [quote]
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see. This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything. And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross. I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored.
You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been.
I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored.
|
On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote: [quote]
This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything.
And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross.
I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored.
How would you explain banned movies?
|
Religion should be censored rather than art, anyone with a properly working brain knows that.
Besides, you are actually debating whether someone should be allowed to show a panting or not, like its a real problem in the world, like it matters at all.
But i guess it a serious issue for the average idiot/person
|
On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies?
How many of those have there been? In the US at least I can't think of any, personally.
|
On February 21 2012 13:26 Liight wrote: Religion should be censored.
Ignorance should be censored.
|
On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies?
Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though.
But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough.
The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot.
|
On February 21 2012 13:30 Chylo wrote:Ignorance should be censored.
That's what i said.
|
On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote: [quote]
Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot.
Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has.
|
On February 21 2012 13:30 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote: [quote]
Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? How many of those have there been? In the US at least I can't think of any, personally.
I don't know in the US but I know many movies have been banned in different countries.
|
On February 21 2012 13:26 Liight wrote: Religion should be censored rather than art, anyone with a properly working brain knows that.
Besides, you are actually debating whether someone should be allowed to show a panting or not, like its a real problem in the world, like it matters at all.
But i guess it a serious issue for the average idiot/person
You can claim that I'm an idiot how many times you want, but my opinion stands that you like it or not. I agree that it won't change much in my life if it gets censored or not, but I think it's necessary.
|
On February 21 2012 13:34 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
So? I still do not see why it should be censored.
(90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot. Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has.
Wait wait wait. You think those are good reasons? So maybe you missed what I was saying. Do you personally think South Park, Inglorious Bastards, and Porn should be censored? I mean those are certainly offensive, so shouldn't they be banned?
I never claimed that anyway. I said they shouldn't be censored, or they were censored for other reasons besides just being offensive. I never claimed that people never wrongly censored anything.
|
|
|
|