I'm not for censorship,but you'd figure google would have a filter.

[tinyvillager]

Like i say i'm not for censorship but you would figure google would have some sort of language filter for it's news page.I found this on the front page of google's news this morning...

[mouser]

hahahaahahahaha 

[Carol Haynes]

Eh ???? What's offensive?

I presume it is a typical political quote ...

Maybe you should turn on the naughty word blocker on this formum ...

An ISP I used to use used USENET to provide support, and they had a naughty word filter which rejected all posts that matched a naughty word. It was great 'cos you couldn't report abuse!!! It is surprising how inventive people can get with their spellings though

[Edvard]

Yeah, that is funny, but I wouldn't want my kid to see it. Yes, I know George Carlin's "they're just WORDS..." argument, but seriously, "dirty" words are undeniably used in a context and intent much different from "normal" words, and every culture has them. Look up Semantics, Semiotics, Memes, and check out the authors that speak on such subjects (Although I am not implying that A. Korzybsky's GM arguments are in play here...). Advertisers know full well the power of words, and apparently so do politicians. If a word that is obviously intended to be offensive is not offensive it is because you have made a conscious choice to adjust your conscience to accommadate. The word and it's intent has not changed. Consider the difference between an irate driver saying "Please warn your child of the foolishness of crossing the street without looking both ways"
and the same driver saying "Hey, A**hole would you keep your p**ant brat outta the f**ing street before I splat his f**ing brains on it!!". Which comment would you rather explaing the meaning of to your distressed 7-year-old? I realize I may be yanking a few chains here, but censorship of the kind tinyvillager is hoping for is less a restriction of freedom and more a preservation of basic level-headed decency. My opinion of the politician quoted is now more likely to be one of suspicion. Suspicion of his level of self-control and therefore his ability to effectively administer the office he is placed in and I might even suspect he is trying to over-compensate for the fact that the entire situation is the exact opposite of his vehement (dare I say potty-mouthed) evaluation. If the same headline had the same Politician saying something like "Unfounded..." or even "Preposterous..." I might view him AND the situation with a clearer head and more positive outlook about the whole thing.
Oops, I think I just ranted. Apologies.

[Innuendo]

Edvard,
Nothing against you, but to play Devil's Advocate here...

If there's something on the PC that you don't want your children to see then turn it off.

If there's something on the TV that you don't want your children to see then turn it off.

And finally, don't let your children operate either device without active, close adult supervision. The parents should raise the children not these devices. They are just electronic gizmos NOT babysitters.

I do not have children I do not want to be told what I can see, hear, watch, and/or interactive with just because some people can't control their children.

Can't be there 24 hours a day when the children watch TV? Buy televisions & cable boxes that implement the V-Chip and use it.

Can't be there 24 hours a day when the children are online? Buy a child control program such as Child Control or Net Nanny and use it.

Censoring the content your children see does not mean one has to censor the content the world sees.

[kfitting]

And so we see why people act the way they do.... no one is responsible for anyone else.  "It's not my fault they could turn it off," has led the United States to the individual-centered state it's currently in.  You cannot legislate morality... the US is trying and failing.

Kevin


And yes I am an American, thankful to live here.  But this doesn't mean I like everything America "stands" for.

[Innuendo]

kfitting,
No...you cannot, should not, try to legislate morality. Separation of church and state is a good thing.

[Carol Haynes]

Separation of church and state is a good thing.

I'd say it is more than a good thing it is absolutely imperative ... we have such a mess in the UK because the chruch has a dispropotionate say on moral issues (at the last census there were less than 4% of the population 'communicant members' and yet every time there is a moral debate the church is heavily represented, and they are hugely represented in the House of Lords).

I would perhaps go even further and say that politicians should not be able to use religious belief to justify policy - that would have a huge knock on effect on both sides of the pond ...

(Sorry for the political diatribe - but this is quite an interesting thread - even if it is diverging a bit!)

[kfitting]

I agree partially to seperation of church and state. However, seperation of church and state leads to legislation of morals.  How can you seperate your beliefs from policy?  For one thing, that's like asking the media not to be biased, but for another thing that's asking people to be unfeeling robots.  I dont care how much you try you cannot make an unbiased decision, just as you cannot prove anything. 

I find it interesting that people praise others who have a tremendous passion for things that dont really matter (sports, hobbies, etc.), while at the same time trying to divorce all passion from things that do matter (decision making, religion, politics, for example). 

Before I get beseiged by people: yes, obviously making political decisions purely based on passion leads to profound corruption... let's not go to EITHER extreme here.

Kevin

[Carol Haynes]

I agree partially to seperation of church and state. However, seperation of church and state leads to legislation of morals.  How can you seperate your beliefs from policy?  For one thing, that's like asking the media not to be biased, but for another thing that's asking people to be unfeeling robots.  I dont care how much you try you cannot make an unbiased decision, just as you cannot prove anything.

Of course I don't want automatons ;-)

The thing I really object to is politicians wearing their religion as a badge and pushing their ideas as though they are automatically endorsed by God (Bush and Blair both spring to mind on this). 'Religious' people don't have a monopoly on morality - in fact it seems to be common experience throughout history, and especially recent history, that politics fueled by religion just leads to atrocity (from whichever side of the fence you come from).

Don't get me wrong people can believe what they like, and I will respect their right to believe them, I am just not prepared to live quietly in a society based on minority belief systems that I believe are intolerant of others' beliefs.

[kfitting]

In other words: believe what you like so long as it agrees with what I believe.  The problem is that doesnt work!  It's fine in theory, but as soon as you say I dont care what other people believe so long as they arent intolerant, you actually care what they believe. 

I agree that there have been great atrocities committed by religion fueled politics (I'm a Christian and I think one of the worst displays of Christian Politics were the Crusades...).  But, in the end, no matter how much we say we dont care what others believe, we really do.  You will never have religious agreement because a fundamental part of any religion worth it's salt is that it is the "only way" (what good is a religion if it doesnt stand for anything?  You would have wimpy followers!).  HOWEVER, just because I believe that Christianity is correct, I do not believe we ought to kill people who dont agree with it.  I dont believe that my Christian beliefs make me unable to see both sides of an issue.  It does mean that, at the end of the day, my choice rests on my Christian beliefs come what may (suffering, or death included).  An excellent example of this kind of belief comes from watching Christian martyrs (those who die... and those who suffer).  Not many people are willing to love those who are killing them.

Summary: It is impossible to not care what other people belief with conditions.  You have to accept that their beliefs may involve stepping on your beliefs... kind a self-defeating arguement. 

And I also agree with you... this has gotten off the original subject, but it's interesting!!

Kevin

[Carol Haynes]

In other words: believe what you like so long as it agrees with what I believe.  The problem is that doesnt work!  It's fine in theory, but as soon as you say I dont care what other people believe so long as they arent intolerant, you actually care what they believe.

No I don't think that - what I think is 'believe what you want, but don't force those beliefs on others". I used to be a Christian (for reasons I am not going to go into am not any longer) so I understand where Christians come from on this. A personal example illustrates this:

My mother is a Christian (a Salvationist) and it causes all kinds of problems because she 'doesn't want me to go to hell' and sees it as her mission in life to convert me. Whilst I can understand her personal concern (I have done the evangelical bit myself in the past) it is not sufficient reason for me to have to accept her beliefs for myself. If her constant hectoring on this issue damages our relationship I will be very sad but at times it seems like that is very likely. WHo is more reasonable - should I profess to believe something I don't to make her happy or should she allow me to live my own life and get on with hers?

The trouble is her kind of Christianity is precisely the sort that forced compulsory Christian worship into UK schools - which I think is worse than abominable, esp. when you look at schools where the predominant population is Muslim !!!

Anyway enough of this ... I am happy to continue this conversation if you like but lets take it onto personal messaging rather than bore everyone to death here.

[Innuendo]

Good to see a nice spirited debate that does NOT devolve into a slew of personal attacks.

And nice to see when it comes to a conversational fire I still have what it takes to throw a big ole' log on it. 

To get back to the roots of this thread, though. There are lots of ways to regulate what you or your children see on the internet. More and more routers are being sold with content filtering built-in. There are services such as BlueCoat and WebSense that will also help weed out anything that one does not want to see.

Ad Muncher [Buy it now with a 20% discount available in the members forum!] has a setting that will block any image with suspected adult content so that is also another tool at one's disposal to keep undesired content at bay.

[tinyvillager]

I walk away from a my computer for a couple of days and look what happens.This discussion can go down many roads,which it has already,and everyone makes great points.I was only pointing out my shock that a company with stock holders interests at hand would not implement a language filter as not to offend their investors.Grant it not everyone is offended my such language,i'm not,i'm more concerned about physical offenses.Like i've stated i'm not for censorship,but i  believe there is nothing wrong with categorization.Your content is still accessible,just categorized.I did email google,not to scold but to inform,maybe get something free,lol.They emailed me back (automated) telling about how their news system is based on some sort of algorithm,which i remember reading about a year or so back,but hey i wanted a google hat or something,nada,cheap b*stards,lol.I still love google's search engine.In short my argument,or assumption rather was technical and not moral.Group hug,group hug.


P.S.
Apologies for making a controversial thread.

P.P.S
I just used google to learn how to spell  apologies and controversial.

[Carol Haynes]

No probs tinyvillager, I was quite enjoying this thread.

Now then:

cheap b*stards

should we get Mouser to institute the 'bad word filter' here (there actually is one) 

[tinyvillager]

Hey,nobody knows what that means cause i left out the "a".

[kfitting]

Well, as soon as this conversation devolves into personal attacks I'm out! 

Some valid points Carol... I'm not out to save anyone: that's God's job.  I may state what I believe (this thread) but I cannot save anyone.  Actually, one of my chief complaints is that the church is not acting as it ought to act.  Partialy this is because we arent standing up enough in society (probably seen as stepping on other people's beliefs) so dont be too quick to agree with me!  Real quick, your response to my 'other people's beliefs' arguement did not invalidate my point. (Not saying my point is irrefutable, just that you merely restated what I was arguing against.)


As far as continuing this discussion, I actually argued with myself about even replying at all.  As Innuendo pointed out, these types of discussions often lead to retarded personal attacks (aka Slashdot replies).  Also, these types of discussions, while they can be interesting, are not suited to a medium that has no personal communication (meaning face-to-face). 

But, I've been thinking about this sort of thing a lot recently and there is one thing that I've noticed: Western culture strives for reasoning an logic while burying feeling and emotion.  At the same time we praise people when they do something with feeling.  Also, we attempt to make all decisions rationally, based on irrational data.  We can NEVER prove anything to anyone else because our culture will not allow it!  Compare this to other cultures, where you can "know" something in your heart as well as your head.  I had a professor from Israel who told me about this.  He mentioned that American culture refuses to know unless we can understand it.  But, this takes away love, art, and beauty if followed to it's logical conclusion. 

Anyway, I could ramble for hours.  But... I'm done.  As I said, you and I cannot prove anything to each other!  Post-Modernism has done it's work and rendered us rather confused!

Kevin (maybe....)

[Edvard]

See-I told you I'd yank a few chains...

Innuendo- I'm with you all the way. At our house, the TV's in the trash, and the computer is in our bedroom under password for windows and internet which is dialup on purpose.

I also thank everyone for holding back the personal jabs. I almost made this post into a rant on the real meaning of the first amendment of our constitution, but it got way too long and this thread is already OT enough. Like Mouser says, that may be too much for a coding snack.