Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectAt least the aren't suing because they are fat new Reply to this message
Posted byCereal Killer
Posted on12/14/04 02:37 PM



Although Wal Mart does sell cookies.




SubjectYou know what those parents need? new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on12/14/04 03:27 PM



Dick. They need a big fat cock stuffed up their asses. Daddy and mommy can share a double ended dildo if so preffered.

What caused the NA culture to be so fucking prudish about vocabulary?


Gives us a kiss precious.


SubjectYou know, I'm extremely surprised at this story new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on12/14/04 03:44 PM



I thought that Walmart already censored the CDs they carry.

> Dick. They need a big fat cock stuffed up their asses. Daddy and mommy can share
> a double ended dildo if so preffered.

I could think of a better way to use that fifteen-inch black rubber cock, Hatchet.

> What caused the NA culture to be so fucking prudish about vocabulary?

Halcyon distancing Canada from the US wrt NA culture in 5... 4... 3... :^P




SubjectI almost wish I worked at Wal-Mart new Reply to this message
Posted byCereal Killer
Posted on12/14/04 03:50 PM



I'd make a huge sign behind the album display. I'd use giant letters that could be seen all the way to the cashier that said "ATTENTION Parents with ASS-NUGGETS for brains. Be warned that this recording contains the word FUCK! Direct all complaints to DK to receive your COCK!"




SubjectThere are a lot of problems with people in the US. new Reply to this message
Posted bySatsuNoHiTo
Posted on12/14/04 04:30 PM



I think the problem is that we have too many house wives that sit at home and worry about the little insignificant things all day. Buncha unemployed slackers looking for easy money.

There are very few people in the US that want to take responsibility for their own actions or for their children's welfare. When I was young if my parents didn't want me getting into something they'd yank me away or tell me to get away; people don't want to do that now days, they want someone else to do it for them. If I was worried about such language around my children I'd probably explain to them that it's a bad word, return the CD and find a clean version or I'd edit it myself and reburn it.

Seriously though, it seems like a lotta people in the US have too much time on their hands and don't know how to just relax during their free time. Someone doesn't know what to do with themselves so they find something to bitch about or find someone to sue.

Lilypie Baby Days


SubjectRe: I almost wish I worked at Wal-Mart new Reply to this message
Posted byGriking
Posted on12/14/04 07:26 PM



> I'd make a huge sign behind the album display. I'd use giant letters that could
> be seen all the way to the cashier that said "ATTENTION Parents with ASS-NUGGETS
> for brains. Be warned that this recording contains the word FUCK! Direct all
> complaints to DK to receive your COCK!"
>
>

I don't think the problem is just the F-word. I think the problem is that the F word is in an album that Wal-Mart carries and parents feel betrayed. Wal-Mart has worked hard at building the image of a wholesome company that embraces family values. Parents have come to believe Wal-Mart and trust that this was the case. They therefore believed that they didn't have to worry about monitoring the content of CDs their kids purchase from Wal-Mart. Well, now parents are finding that some of their products aren't as wholesome as they were led to believe. Hey, don't blame the parents, Wal-Mart worked hard to build this image, all the parents did was believe the bullshit.




SubjectI support this one new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/14/04 07:32 PM



If Walmart knew of the offensive lyrics and did not identify the CD as such, they are absolutely to blame.

I wouldn't want my child listening to music with swear words when I thought I was buying a clean CD.

Of course, I wouldn't want them listening to Evanescence either, but that's a different story.

CSP


Subject"FUCK" new Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on12/14/04 09:31 PM



> I wouldn't want my child listening to music with swear words when I thought I
> was buying a clean CD.

OMG, they could start using these bad swear words! No, wait, they already do, just like you.

At 13, kids nowadays know more bad words than I do. If some don't, they are probably living in another world, invented by their parents. I don't think swearing makes people bad, but come on: in the United States it's fashionable to demonize silly stuff. Pussies. Being grown up means going past what's wrong and seeing why it's wrong, not avoiding it altogether. People should learn to educate their children, not hiding stuff from them. And then let them decide what they think, because face it, they're people, not pets.

> Of course, I wouldn't want them listening to Evanescence either, but that's a
> different story.

Agreed on this.

OKKAY!


SubjectRe: That's pretty wise stuff..I agree with Griking -nt- in all honesty new Reply to this message
Posted byEvildrak
Posted on12/14/04 09:31 PM



> > I'd make a huge sign behind the album display. I'd use giant letters that
> could
> > be seen all the way to the cashier that said "ATTENTION Parents with
> ASS-NUGGETS
> > for brains. Be warned that this recording contains the word FUCK! Direct all
> > complaints to DK to receive your COCK!"
> >
> >
>
> I don't think the problem is just the F-word. I think the problem is that the F
> word is in an album that Wal-Mart carries and parents feel betrayed. Wal-Mart
> has worked hard at building the image of a wholesome company that embraces
> family values. Parents have come to believe Wal-Mart and trust that this was
> the case. They therefore believed that they didn't have to worry about
> monitoring the content of CDs their kids purchase from Wal-Mart. Well, now
> parents are finding that some of their products aren't as wholesome as they were
> led to believe. Hey, don't blame the parents, Wal-Mart worked hard to build
> this image, all the parents did was believe the bullshit.
>
>





SubjectOh no! I sue you! new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on12/14/04 09:44 PM



Yeah who cares about dumbass kids but Wal Mart shouldn't be responsible for lowering our moral standards.

Wal Mart shouldn't be taking anything into its own hands... wtf


SubjectAnd you have how many kids? new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/14/04 09:54 PM



> OMG, they could start using these bad swear words! No, wait, they already do,
> just like you.

I don't ever swear around my 4 1/2 year old. I don't think that I will, until he's of an adult age.


> At 13, kids nowadays know more bad words than I do. If some don't, they are
> probably living in another world, invented by their parents. I don't think
> swearing makes people bad, but come on: in the United States it's fashionable to
> demonize silly stuff. Pussies. Being grown up means going past what's wrong and
> seeing why it's wrong, not avoiding it altogether. People should learn to
> educate their children, not hiding stuff from them. And then let them decide
> what they think, because face it, they're people, not pets.

So I should probably start telling him tomorrow about the horrors of war? Maybe show him some rape video? How about we review why, exactly, Scott Peterson is going to die? It'll be fun to review how he killed his wife and mommy of his unborn baby! Then I could show him some cheery pictures of the halocaust. Then later we could fall asleep to some ass porn intermixed with snuff films. I mean, he's going to learn it all anyway, so I might as well expose the shit out of him now, right? As long as I educate all about it, it should be fine.

Given the state of our world, you are absolutely right - kids are exposed to this stuff everyday. Why would I voluntarily expose him to more? You're correct in thinking understanding is the cornerstone of bringing up kids properly, but that doesn't mean I need to expose him to shitty music around the house.

Maybe if he was around 15 I wouldn't care as much about the occasional fuck in his bad album, but that's not the point. The point is - someone is at fault for allowing parents to think they were buying a clean album when they were not. Whether you or I think it's okay to expose kids to it is irrelevant.

CSP


SubjectRe: Oh no! I sue you! new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/14/04 10:16 PM



> Yeah who cares about dumbass kids but Wal Mart shouldn't be responsible for
> lowering our moral standards.
>
> Wal Mart shouldn't be taking anything into its own hands... wtf


They should if they knew there was swearing on the album, and didn't bother to give notice to parents. Of course, there's a chance they didn't know. In fact, this has happened before, and they've pulled product because they didn't know (or said they didn't know) of anything offensive.

It'd be the same thing as if they let kids come in and buy GTA San Andreas while knowing the content of the game. You can't mislead parents.


CSP


SubjectYeah but new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on12/14/04 10:19 PM



> They should if they knew there was swearing on the album,

I meant they shouldn't be making the decision where they can say "oh this album doesn't NEED the warning sticker"

Presumably Wal Mart were the ones to give this the go ahead so they could sell more of that album or something? Did they cut a deal with the label?

If not, why are they suing wal mart and not makers of the CD?




Subjectthe kid's 13 new Reply to this message
Posted byreptilezero
Posted on12/14/04 11:12 PM



so i doubt the f word would really matter. it's not like it was a 7 year old or something. who here DIDN'T have a cd at 13 that had the word fuck in it? i mean even nirvana had the occasional swear word! this is just a case of stupid parents.

> Although Wal Mart does sell cookies.
>
>





SubjectYeah they should Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/14/04 11:19 PM



> I meant they shouldn't be making the decision where they can say "oh this album
> doesn't NEED the warning sticker"

I think we may be arguing semantics. I think Walmart should be making the decision to put the sticker on, IF they know the content. They also should be investigating what they're putting on the shelves, if the music company is trying to put one past them.

Now, I think your argument is they should be the ones to decide if the warning sticker goes on it. That shoudl be the job of whoever the orginization is who makes those warnings. Last I checked, I though they put warnings on ANY album with a naughty word. I could be wrong. In that case, the owness is on that orginization.

But, none of this absolves Walmart from misleading parents. If I put out a porno that doesn't have a label for offensive content, should Walmart go and sell it to kids? Of course not. They have to be smarter.

We obviously don't know all the details of what the situation is, but whether right or wrong, Walmart is the obvious choice for a lawsuit.

CSP


SubjectAgreeescence new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on12/14/04 11:37 PM



> I think we may be arguing semantics. I think Walmart should be making the
> decision to put the sticker on, IF they know the content. They also should be
> investigating what they're putting on the shelves, if the music company is
> trying to put one past them.

Ok, agreed

> Now, I think your argument is they should be the ones to decide if the warning
> sticker goes on it.

No, I was arguing against that (which is where I think we got confused). I think it should go on it because the content is there.

I was just trying to say, that if Wal Mart aren't the ones responsible for putting the thing on the CD, why aren't they suing the people responsible for that also? AFAIK the "Parental Advisory" warning was actually printed onto the CD jackets themselves and not some sticker.

> But, none of this absolves Walmart from misleading parents. If I put out a porno
> that doesn't have a label for offensive content, should Walmart go and sell it
> to kids? Of course not. They have to be smarter.

Yeah agreed


SubjectYeah but the labels are for peepz under 18 -nt- new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on12/14/04 11:40 PM



> so i doubt the f word would really matter. it's not like it was a 7 year old or
> something. who here DIDN'T have a cd at 13 that had the word fuck in it? i mean
> even nirvana had the occasional swear word! this is just a case of stupid
> parents.
>
> > Although Wal Mart does sell cookies.
> >
> >
>





SubjectShut the fuck up, Walter *nt* new Reply to this message
Posted bywildcat
Posted on12/14/04 11:49 PM



> > OMG, they could start using these bad swear words! No, wait, they already do,
> > just like you.
>
> I don't ever swear around my 4 1/2 year old. I don't think that I will, until
> he's of an adult age.
>
>
> > At 13, kids nowadays know more bad words than I do. If some don't, they are
> > probably living in another world, invented by their parents. I don't think
> > swearing makes people bad, but come on: in the United States it's fashionable
> to
> > demonize silly stuff. Pussies. Being grown up means going past what's wrong
> and
> > seeing why it's wrong, not avoiding it altogether. People should learn to
> > educate their children, not hiding stuff from them. And then let them decide
> > what they think, because face it, they're people, not pets.
>
> So I should probably start telling him tomorrow about the horrors of war? Maybe
> show him some rape video? How about we review why, exactly, Scott Peterson is
> going to die? It'll be fun to review how he killed his wife and mommy of his
> unborn baby! Then I could show him some cheery pictures of the halocaust. Then
> later we could fall asleep to some ass porn intermixed with snuff films. I mean,
> he's going to learn it all anyway, so I might as well expose the shit out of him
> now, right? As long as I educate all about it, it should be fine.
>
> Given the state of our world, you are absolutely right - kids are exposed to
> this stuff everyday. Why would I voluntarily expose him to more? You're correct
> in thinking understanding is the cornerstone of bringing up kids properly, but
> that doesn't mean I need to expose him to shitty music around the house.
>
> Maybe if he was around 15 I wouldn't care as much about the occasional fuck in
> his bad album, but that's not the point. The point is - someone is at fault for
> allowing parents to think they were buying a clean album when they were not.
> Whether you or I think it's okay to expose kids to it is irrelevant.
>
> CSP
>





SubjectFuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byRyu_Saotome
Posted on12/15/04 00:29 AM



They are words that have been labelled as "bad" by society for no reason, and people shit a brick if a child hears them on a CD? Sad...


Am tired to hear that what is you point. mine its very clear sun. shit uuuuuuuuppppppppp - Dany




SubjectRe: Fuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/15/04 00:59 AM



> They are words that have been labelled as "bad" by society for no reason, and
> people shit a brick if a child hears them on a CD? Sad...

I know that, and you know that, but children don't know that. I'm sure at one point or another, kids will figure out that these are just words, and not much more. As a parent, it's my job to teach that. But that doesn't mean I want my child swearing. The argument works both ways. Sure, they are just words, so why use them at all? Why be exposed to them needlessly?

But that's not the point. If I think something going into my child's ears is okay, and it turns out it's offensive, then there has to be some culpability.

CSP


SubjectRe: Fuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byRyu_Saotome
Posted on12/15/04 01:14 AM



The argument works both ways. Sure, they are just words, so why
> use them at all? Why be exposed to them needlessly?

What do you mean by, they are just words so why use them at all? All the words in our language are "just words".

If certain words weren't needlessly labeled as taboo in the first place, then they wouldn't be used so often as they are now. Kids hear that it's "bad" to say these words, and then they just wait until they are teenagers and then it's "fuck" in every sentance. Making parts of language taboo is only encouraging kids to use those parts excesively.



Am tired to hear that what is you point. mine its very clear sun. shit uuuuuuuuppppppppp - Dany




SubjectRe: Fuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byskydoune
Posted on12/15/04 01:22 AM



Making parts of language taboo is only encouraging
> kids to use those parts excesively.


Couldn't agree more, and the best example I could give you is ME. It's now natural for me to swear (in french, well, quebec swears, bah nevermind). It was forbidden for me to swear when I was young, so I said words close to those forbidden, then eventually, my parents just let me do what I wanted and now look at me, it's horrible, really.

I use them for about everything in a sentence. I need a cure4, send paypal -nt-

Anyway, what's the point of closing someone's eyes to reality. Yeah ok, I wouldn't let a 5 year old watch Faces Of Gore movies for example, but we're talking about a word here. You'll sleep at night after hearing such a simple word, it ain't gonna traumatize you. I still don't understand why people are so upset to hear a word now in 2005, puritans, blow me. deeper, DEEPER I SAID BITCH

/sleep mode on


Testing underwear in outer space


SubjectRe: Fuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/15/04 01:27 AM



> What do you mean by, they are just words so why use them at all? All the words
> in our language are "just words".
>
> If certain words weren't needlessly labeled as taboo in the first place, then
> they wouldn't be used so often as they are now. Kids hear that it's "bad" to
> say these words, and then they just wait until they are teenagers and then it's
> "fuck" in every sentance. Making parts of language taboo is only encouraging
> kids to use those parts excesively.

Well, raping chicks is taboo, so telling my child not to do it is probably just encouraging him, right?

I'll give you an example - I was in the ghetto grocery store the other day. I saw some mother swearing at all her young kids. They were swearing back at her. And these are kids around my son's age, 4, 5, 6, whatever.

They are just words, that's true. It's society that tells us they're taboo. But do you think these kids will be able to make that distinction as easily when they're in an envrionment where to use them would be detrimental to what they're trying to accomplish when they hear them everyday at home?

Proper education is the key, but to overexpose kids is ludicrous. Maybe that's silly, but that's the society we live in. Why would I teach my child something that has the posibility to hamper him in any way?

Instilling the idea that using those taboo terms in the house, or around people that will be offended by that is essential. Whether that makes it exciting for him to use those words around his friends, I don't really care that much. So he can't swear around the house and he goes out and swears all day around his buddies. As long as he's not doing it around anyone that will find that offensive, I'm probably okay with it. And by not overexposing him in the house, that will make it easier.

CSP


SubjectRe: Fuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byRyu_Saotome
Posted on12/15/04 01:56 AM



> Well, raping chicks is taboo, so telling my child not to do it is probably just
> encouraging him, right?

Please. Rape is a physical assault on another person. This is not similiar to language taboo.

Just look at the results of language taboo. Kids and adults constantly use "bad words" among their friends and such. It's a mockery of our language. There have been no signs of rape caused by people telling kids not to do it because they know it's wrong since it hurts people. They can find no reason why certain words are wrong to say, and so they say them constantly in defiance of the taboo.

You're second suggestion is that if they are exposed to these words, they may use them in settings where it may offend someone and be detrimental to their advancement in life? That is why they should know that unfortunately, it is not currently socially acceptable in certain formal situations to use those parts of the language. They can probably figure that out on their own. I don't forsee kids who are not told that it is morally wrong to use taboo language to go into their first job interview and recklessly toss around "fuck" and "shit".



Am tired to hear that what is you point. mine its very clear sun. shit uuuuuuuuppppppppp - Dany




SubjectIt shouldn't be their responsibility new Reply to this message
Posted byCreepingDeath
Posted on12/15/04 02:26 AM



> If Walmart knew of the offensive lyrics and did not identify the CD as such,
> they are absolutely to blame.

Sure they are, but this is like suing a restaurant for serving cold food. If the service they provide is unsatisfactory, don't use the service.

> I wouldn't want my child listening to music with swear words when I thought I
> was buying a clean CD.

What about listening to the stuff with your kids rather than relying on a corporation to tell you what they should or shouldn't listen to? There are far worse things than swear words in today's pop music and not all of them come with a parental advisory.




Subjectnone, not spawn time yet :) new Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on12/15/04 04:15 AM



If you're implying that I'd share your opinion if I was a parent, I'm sorry you're wrong.

> I don't ever swear around my 4 1/2 year old. I don't think that I will, until
> he's of an adult age.

But you swear, nonetheless. It's something people do. If you grow up your child teching him respect for others, and you keep not swearing with him, he'll probably never swear with you. But he'll still swear with his friends, as you do with yours. Which doesn't necessarily make you or him bad people.

> So I should probably start telling him tomorrow about the horrors of war? Maybe
> show him some rape video? How about we review why, exactly, Scott Peterson is
> going to die? It'll be fun to review how he killed his wife and mommy of his
> unborn baby! Then I could show him some cheery pictures of the halocaust. Then
> later we could fall asleep to some ass porn intermixed with snuff films. I mean,
> he's going to learn it all anyway, so I might as well expose the shit out of him
> now, right? As long as I educate all about it, it should be fine.

You're bullshitting here. I said none of this, we were talking of a 13 years old hearing the word "fuck" in a song, I think he can cope with it without having his life ruined, or even just being shocked. It's not a different "fuck" than the one he hears with buddies, a song won't expose a kid more than seeing a friend. Which is not a good reason to prevent a kid from seeing swearing friends, or sue their parents.

Your kid's world at the moment is Bambi, and it's more than ok that you teach him the bambi things, because at 4.5 a child can't really think like an adult. But at 13 he'll have started to think with his head. And sooner or later he'll face all the stuff that you mentioned, because it's there. What can one do? Sue the world? Or maybe roll up sleeves and explaining the "why's", before some rednex tells him that God made negroes black because they are beasts and that the holocaust never happened?

> Given the state of our world, you are absolutely right - kids are exposed to
> this stuff everyday. Why would I voluntarily expose him to more?

And hearing the word "fuck" is being exposed? Because then you should start considering not letting him out at all, and feeding him through a hole. Shutting down irony for a minute, since he'll have to walk through all the bad stuff anyway, what's wrong with being by his side? Of course when it's the right time, but at 13 it's almost the right time for a lot of stuff, simply because at that age kids wake up and start living a true social life.

> You're correct
> in thinking understanding is the cornerstone of bringing up kids properly, but
> that doesn't mean I need to expose him to shitty music around the house.

It's shitty because it's Evanescence :P Or do you mean that every song with bad words is shitty? 'Cause I love my NIN albums, you know.

> Maybe if he was around 15 I wouldn't care as much about the occasional fuck in
> his bad album, but that's not the point.

The sue was about a kid of 13 listening to fuck. Pretty close.

> The point is - someone is at fault for
> allowing parents to think they were buying a clean album when they were not.
> Whether you or I think it's okay to expose kids to it is irrelevant.

Ok, but parents that are SO concerned about this kind of stuff should listen to the music before feeding it to the kids. Because let's face it, you can sue whoever you want, but as long as the kid listened to it ONCE, he's been exposed already, and the horrible damage is done!

Point 2: sueing for such shit is ridiculous. The whole sueing thing is ridiculous, actually. You (I mean your people) are a bit trigger-happy with sues, probably for greed? These parents that were "shocked" to hear "fuck" in a song are either silly puritans, or just want to make the big buck. Was it so difficult to disapprove the album, take it back and complain with the director? No, let's sue. We'll become rich.

OKKAY!


Subjectthe lawyer wins! [nt] SUEALITY! new Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on12/15/04 04:29 AM



> Yeah who cares about dumbass kids but Wal Mart shouldn't be responsible for
> lowering our moral standards.
>
> Wal Mart shouldn't be taking anything into its own hands... wtf
>


OKKAY!


SubjectThe american dream. nt new Reply to this message
Posted byEon_Blue
Posted on12/15/04 04:46 AM



Americans. I hate those bastards.





SubjectRe: none, not spawn time yet :) new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/15/04 05:39 AM



> If you're implying that I'd share your opinion if I was a parent, I'm sorry
> you're wrong.

No, I'm implying that you have none of the necessary experience to venture an opinion in line with what you would think if you were in that position. Hell, I only have 4.5 of 13 years, so my viewpoint may change. And don't gimme any of this "I'm going to let my kid watch R rated movies and swear in the house and blah blah blah"... That's what people say before they have kids and actually have some time to think about it. That's what I said before I had one.


> You're bullshitting here. I said none of this, we were talking of a 13 years old
> hearing the word "fuck" in a song, I think he can cope with it without having
> his life ruined, or even just being shocked. It's not a different "fuck" than
> the one he hears with buddies, a song won't expose a kid more than seeing a
> friend. Which is not a good reason to prevent a kid from seeing swearing
> friends, or sue their parents.
>
> Your kid's world at the moment is Bambi, and it's more than ok that you teach
> him the bambi things, because at 4.5 a child can't really think like an adult.
> But at 13 he'll have started to think with his head. And sooner or later he'll
> face all the stuff that you mentioned, because it's there. What can one do? Sue
> the world? Or maybe roll up sleeves and explaining the "why's", before some
> rednex tells him that God made negroes black because they are beasts and that
> the holocaust never happened?
>
> > Given the state of our world, you are absolutely right - kids are exposed to
> > this stuff everyday. Why would I voluntarily expose him to more?
>
> And hearing the word "fuck" is being exposed? Because then you should start
> considering not letting him out at all, and feeding him through a hole. Shutting
> down irony for a minute, since he'll have to walk through all the bad stuff
> anyway, what's wrong with being by his side? Of course when it's the right time,
> but at 13 it's almost the right time for a lot of stuff, simply because at that
> age kids wake up and start living a true social life.
>
> > You're correct
> > in thinking understanding is the cornerstone of bringing up kids properly, but
> > that doesn't mean I need to expose him to shitty music around the house.
>
> It's shitty because it's Evanescence :P Or do you mean that every song with bad
> words is shitty? 'Cause I love my NIN albums, you know.
>
> > Maybe if he was around 15 I wouldn't care as much about the occasional fuck in
> > his bad album, but that's not the point.
>
> The sue was about a kid of 13 listening to fuck. Pretty close.
>
> > The point is - someone is at fault for
> > allowing parents to think they were buying a clean album when they were not.
> > Whether you or I think it's okay to expose kids to it is irrelevant.
>
> Ok, but parents that are SO concerned about this kind of stuff should listen to
> the music before feeding it to the kids. Because let's face it, you can sue
> whoever you want, but as long as the kid listened to it ONCE, he's been exposed
> already, and the horrible damage is done!
>
> Point 2: sueing for such shit is ridiculous. The whole sueing thing is
> ridiculous, actually. You (I mean your people) are a bit trigger-happy with
> sues, probably for greed? These parents that were "shocked" to hear "fuck" in a
> song are either silly puritans, or just want to make the big buck. Was it so
> difficult to disapprove the album, take it back and complain with the director?
> No, let's sue. We'll become rich.


I could reply to all that in turn, but that's just annoying. I'm in no way approving of the parents suing Walmart, but that doesn't mean Walmart might not be to blame. That's the point. If they knew of the content and chose to not put a Parental Advisory label on it, they need to be more responsible. In turn, the parents should also know what they're putting in their kids ears. Of course, they THOUGHT they were buying a clean album, and that's what I support. Not suing, but having whoever is supposed to let parents know of this stuff be responsible. I'll say it again - whether you or I think the word fuck is bad for kids to hear is irrelevant.


As for the rest of that shit, watch an espisode of Cops. See if you can guess how the kids in that show are going to act when they get to an adult age. Kids emulate the environment they're brought up in, it's as simple as that. I could run around the house swearing, but I don't. As a result, my child will not. At least not around anyone he respects. Sure, he'll turn into a teenager and say fuck all the time around his buddies, but I could care less. By seeing that it's not okay to offend most people in that manner, I will be allowing him to present himself better. Teaching him that fuck is a just a word then using it all the time because its just a word is going to show him that it's okay to use all the time. And exposing him to it simply increases that.

CSP


SubjectRe: Fuck that new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/15/04 05:49 AM



> Please. Rape is a physical assault on another person. This is not similiar to
> language taboo.
>
> Just look at the results of language taboo. Kids and adults constantly use "bad
> words" among their friends and such. It's a mockery of our language. There
> have been no signs of rape caused by people telling kids not to do it because
> they know it's wrong since it hurts people. They can find no reason why certain
> words are wrong to say, and so they say them constantly in defiance of the
> taboo.

Last I checked, rape was about exhibiting your power to hurt people. Kids break the rules all the time. Swearing is just one of the easiest ways to do that. Not pointing out that these words are socially unacceptable doesn't take away their power. Society deems whether they have power or not. So to try and say that kids are more likely to say them because their parents don't let them is silly. It's society making the rules.


> You're second suggestion is that if they are exposed to these words, they may
> use them in settings where it may offend someone and be detrimental to their
> advancement in life? That is why they should know that unfortunately, it is not
> currently socially acceptable in certain formal situations to use those parts of
> the language. They can probably figure that out on their own. I don't forsee
> kids who are not told that it is morally wrong to use taboo language to go into
> their first job interview and recklessly toss around "fuck" and "shit".


Kids emulate the environment they grow up in. If I was swearing around the house, letting them watch R rated movies, etc., they are more and more likely to repeat that behavior. I should hope that my kid is smart enough to not throw around those words in a job interview, but yes - letting him know it's okay to speak less than properly will be a detriment at one time or another. Since there's already a billion things in this world that will try and hold him back, why would I create another?

CSP


SubjectYeah, it should new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/15/04 05:55 AM



> Sure they are, but this is like suing a restaurant for serving cold food. If
> the service they provide is unsatisfactory, don't use the service.

That's absurd. That's like getting in a plane crash because the pilots weren't properly trained and saying - well, I'm never flying those guys again!

I'm not advocating suing Walmart. But, if that's the situation, and they did know the product they're putting on the shelves is offensive to some people and they chose to not put a label on it, they are to blame.


> > I wouldn't want my child listening to music with swear words when I thought I
> > was buying a clean CD.
>
> What about listening to the stuff with your kids rather than relying on a
> corporation to tell you what they should or shouldn't listen to? There are far
> worse things than swear words in today's pop music and not all of them come with
> a parental advisory.


That I might agree with, and I will listen to music with my child when he is old enough to want to listen to more than kids songs. But that doesn't change the advisory. If it's there, I don't want it in his hands. I have no problem with a "corporation" telling me if there is a swear word on the disc or not. I'd much rather they do it than me having to sit down and listen to an entire disc to make sure it's okay before I give it to my kid.

And Evenescense (sp?) isn't exactly Bob Dylan, so I'm less apt to consider swearing okay in that situation.


CSP


SubjectJesus fucking Christ on a pogo-stick Cachi, you're really stretching it aren't you... new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on12/15/04 06:58 AM



> > Please. Rape is a physical assault on another person. This is not similiar
> to
> > language taboo.
> >
> > Just look at the results of language taboo. Kids and adults constantly use
> "bad
> > words" among their friends and such. It's a mockery of our language. There
> > have been no signs of rape caused by people telling kids not to do it because
> > they know it's wrong since it hurts people. They can find no reason why
> certain
> > words are wrong to say, and so they say them constantly in defiance of the
> > taboo.
>
> Last I checked, rape was about exhibiting your power to hurt people. Kids break
> the rules all the time. Swearing is just one of the easiest ways to do that. Not
> pointing out that these words are socially unacceptable doesn't take away their
> power. Society deems whether they have power or not. So to try and say that kids
> are more likely to say them because their parents don't let them is silly. It's
> society making the rules.
>
>
Regardless of the defiance factor, grasp the situation of a kid's development. As much as he learns to use "mommy" as a 2yo, he'll learn to use "fuck" as a teenager. It's just the learning process. Like Terry said, it's society that made these words taboo, sheltering your brats from the likes of portions of the vocabulary is only empowering the "bad words". How is yelling out a FUCK when you bang your toe on a door, or when somebody pisses you off a terribly evil thing? It's a vent for the anger and frustration we all face daily. Kids lerning to speak are gonna fuck up the use of any word untill someone teaches them propper, the same can be said about the more colorfull expressions. People are still learning, from the day they are born to their deaths, it's your job as a parent to teach 'em while they can't learn by themselves, and provide them with the means to do so later on, but you can't be there at every turn ,and they'll fuck up one way or another, 'cause they're just as dumb as you once were. I kinda lost track of what i was saying here, but nevermind, point is: shielding your kid excessivly is only gonna make him a bigger dumbass down the line.


> Kids emulate the environment they grow up in. If I was swearing around the
> house, letting them watch R rated movies, etc., they are more and more likely to
> repeat that behavior. I should hope that my kid is smart enough to not throw
> around those words in a job interview, but yes - letting him know it's okay to
> speak less than properly will be a detriment at one time or another. Since
> there's already a billion things in this world that will try and hold him back,
> why would I create another?
>
My God, were you always wind this tight or did that bug crawl up your ass after you sired a kid? What world are you living in that people have no control over their own choice of words in a conversation?
Take me for instance: My parents never cursed around the kids, hell, they barely ever cursed at all. Nowadays, i curse my ass off, but i'm perfectly aware of when and how to use these colorfull expressions, and in a situation in which it's so required, i can retain that portion of my vocabulary and still express myself in a throughly eloquent manner.
As a parent, it's not your job to shield your kids from the "bad" things in life, it's to teach their still dumb little noggings as to how to properly live amongst other people, if they fuck up at one point or another, hell, we're human, we were made to fuck up on occasion.

And i just gotta say, your comparasion of teaching your kids about "bad words" to such horrors as rape, the holocaust and what have you is just about the most over the top reactionary bullshit i'd expect to hear from the likes of ignorant, pruddish soccer mom types. I had the feeling that everyone around here was more enlightened and open minded than what the media portrays of the average american. Honestly, you sound like a bad stereotype my friend.


Gives us a kiss precious.


Subjectfuck new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on12/15/04 10:29 AM



> My God, were you always wind this tight or did that bug crawl up your ass after
> you sired a kid? What world are you living in that people have no control over
> their own choice of words in a conversation?
> Take me for instance: My parents never cursed around the kids, hell, they barely
> ever cursed at all. Nowadays, i curse my ass off, but i'm perfectly aware of
> when and how to use these colorfull expressions, and in a situation in which
> it's so required, i can retain that portion of my vocabulary and still express
> myself in a throughly eloquent manner.
> As a parent, it's not your job to shield your kids from the "bad" things in
> life, it's to teach their still dumb little noggings as to how to properly live
> amongst other people, if they fuck up at one point or another, hell, we're
> human, we were made to fuck up on occasion.

I don't consider keeping my kid from swearing in the house, and being exposed to certain media before I consider him to be able to handle it properly shielding. That's good parenting. It's not like I'm going to keep him in his room until he's 18, I'm just choosing to not overexpose him to unecessary vulgarity, like some stupid band saying fuck in their song for no reason.

And I stand by my point - if I'm swearing everyday in the house, his tendency will be to emulate my actions. There's enough ill-speaking people out there that I don't have to create another. And I'm not talking about kids that are old enough to distinguish well between the two. And if his friends are swearing or whatever when he's still a kid and he wants to talk like that, fine. But is it so bad to teach a kid that you don't need to use words like that at all, and in fact, it's probably a good thing in the end?


> And i just gotta say, your comparasion of teaching your kids about "bad words"
> to such horrors as rape, the holocaust and what have you is just about the most
> over the top reactionary bullshit i'd expect to hear from the likes of ignorant,
> pruddish soccer mom types. I had the feeling that everyone around here was more
> enlightened and open minded than what the media portrays of the average
> american. Honestly, you sound like a bad stereotype my friend.

How is not exposing my kid to vulgarity un-enlightened? It's not like I'm harassing anyone for being vulgar. Shit, I'm not even saying I shouldn't, or my kid shouldn't (except in situations where I teach him it's unacceptable). I don't think that's close-minded. And while my example may be extreme, where do you draw the line?

To group all Americans in that same stereotype because you've got swearing and tits on your TV in your country or whatever is silly. It comes back to the same thing- they're going to be exposed to it at one point or another, so hell, let's just do it now, right? I don't even have a problem with media like TV being uncensored (if it ever comes to that), because I'm going to make the decision for my child until he becomes of age to handle it maturely. I don't consider that close-minded, I consider that good parenting.

CSP


SubjectMy closed-mindedness comment was in reference to your absurd overstatement. NT new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on12/15/04 11:03 AM



I know you're smart enough to discuss the matter without making such a ridiculously over the top comparasion such as vulgar language vs. holocaust.


Gives us a kiss precious.


Subjectre new Reply to this message
Posted byRyu_Saotome
Posted on12/15/04 01:30 PM



> Last I checked, rape was about exhibiting your power to hurt people. Kids break
> the rules all the time. Swearing is just one of the easiest ways to do that. Not
> pointing out that these words are socially unacceptable doesn't take away their
> power. Society deems whether they have power or not. So to try and say that kids
> are more likely to say them because their parents don't let them is silly. It's
> society making the rules.

So you think that it's not that the words are forbiden, it's that society just pulled the words out of a hat and decided for them to be fun to use? I don't agree with that; I think the taboo is the underlying problem.

> Kids emulate the environment they grow up in. If I was swearing around the
> house, letting them watch R rated movies, etc., they are more and more likely to
> repeat that behavior. I should hope that my kid is smart enough to not throw
> around those words in a job interview, but yes - letting him know it's okay to
> speak less than properly will be a detriment at one time or another. Since
> there's already a billion things in this world that will try and hold him back,
> why would I create another?
>
> CSP

I fail to see how it's going to be detrimental. Give me an example of a situation where this would be the case.


Am tired to hear that what is you point. mine its very clear sun. shit uuuuuuuuppppppppp - Dany




Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode