I really hate censorships in my country.

[Rapier]

And adults don't? The vast majority of people in the world, if not everyone, has a lot of trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

I honestly think most adults aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Chiki, you're much smarter than this. There is a huge gap between children and adults on their understanding of right and wrong, even though most adults (assuming what you say is true, which seems impossible to be proven empirically imo) also have a lot of trouble distinguishing both.

Adults can distinguish right from wrong much better than children, who have very little experience and education, because they have more experience and are better educated in general. Children are more prone to being inconsequential (they don't even know the consequences of their actions most of the time, since these notions come with experience and education, or can't grasp them, since they are still under psychological development) and making innocent mistakes. And here is also the psychological development of children to be taken into account, their brains don't function as well as a full grown person.

Why don't we just restrict everyone's liberties?

It is true that people can drink a lot and then drive, raising the likeliness of traffic accidents. Should we prevent this possibility by prohibiting all sorts of alcohol? Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Bad possibilities will always coexist with good possibilities, they are present in both sides of the same coin - something can either go right or wrong, though not both at the same time. Thus, restricting possibilities on the basis that it can go wrong is the same as restricting the possibility of it going right (of course this doesn't mean we should allow everything, there are more complex factors to be taken into mind, but this is not worthy elaborating on).

While it is true that people can drink a lot and cause traffic accidents, there are people who can act prudently and evade such a predicament. The most we can do is punish those who break the law, not suppose that everyone is too immature and thus worthy of having their liberties restricted too harshly. Unless we want to stagnate and restrict everything.

"Those who sacrifice their freedom for more security deserve neither and lose both"

Edited December 14, 2014 by Rapier

[Chiki]

There is a huge gap between children and adults on their understanding of right and wrong

Really? I don't think Jedi's (and most adults's understanding of right and wrong) understanding is any better than a child's.

which seems impossible to be proven empirically imo) also have a lot of trouble distinguishing both.

There is, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/TLC/article/download/1146/1130

Assuming only level 5 people have an understanding of morality (because, I agree with Kant that doing ethical actions for selfish reasons is wrong), then it can be shown that most adults don't understand morality. The people who are level 5 are the only ones who actually make ethical decisions because they're ethical: the others make them for selfish and childish reasons: avoid punishment, for self-interest, to be seen as a good person, and to be lawful.

Adults can distinguish right from wrong much better than children

Really? I see no reason to believe this claim, see above.

It is true that people can drink a lot and then drive, raising the likeliness of traffic accidents. Should we prevent this possibility by prohibiting all sorts of alcohol? Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

...Um, straw man. I was arguing against restricting everyone's liberties.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Chiki

[Rapier]

From what I read from the link you posted, the pre-conventional moral reasoning is especially common in children (even though it can also be found in some adults), while the conventional moral reasoning is hardly found in children. Judging from that, it means children are more likely to have greater issues with moral reasoning, which is cause enough to restrict their liberties: They are too immature to grasp morals in an acceptable level, and more often than not act on fear of punishment or in pure self-interest.

Really? I see no reason to believe this claim, see above.

If adults and teenagers typically have a conventional moral reasoning, and children typically have a pre-conventional moral reasoning, it is valid to assume that adults and teenagers typically have a far better grasp of morals than children. Therefore, they generally understand right from wrong better (although not as perfectly as a level 5 person). That's from the link you gave me.

This is also a no-brainer, imo. People who act on their own interests are worse than people who just obey orders, even though the latter group is still morally immature because they can't yet grasp why it is important to follow said orders, nor are they capable of standing against bad orders or authorities.

Also, from what I read, level 3+ people are not selfish. They obey social conducts and the law, whereas selfish people, as the name obviously implies, care only about themselves. Only level 2 and less are selfish, because they act on self-interest and fear of punishment.

Really? I don't think Jedi's (and most adults's understanding of right and wrong) understanding is any better than a child's.

By the way, I believe you did misread Jedi. He pointed that your attitude (in multiple threads) is heinous, not your opinion. It is perfectly valid to criticize one's attitude if they are being arrogant or aggressive.

"honestly your attitude in multiple threads and pure elitism is outright heinous."

Also, how you write your opinion matters more than what you write when you are dealing with other people (which is an issue that I also have), because that which you say always has an impact on who is listening, and you should be mindful the psychological impact in order to keep things civil (that isn't to say you need to act like a carebear, that is to say you shouldn't be aggressive or arrogant). That's the difference from saying "you are an idiot" to "I believe you are mistaken" (which is something you didn't do, I'm just using this as an example). So they have all the right to complain about your tone or attitude, if they find it aggressive or arrogant. Elitism is something I particularly see nothing against, though.

[Chiki]

If adults and teenagers typically have a conventional moral reasoning, and children typically have a pre-conventional moral reasoning, it is valid to assume that adults and teenagers typically have a far better grasp of morals than children.

Who said conventional moral reasoning is sufficient to be morally competent?

Also, from what I read, level 3+ people are not selfish. They obey social conducts and the law, whereas selfish people, as the name obviously implies, care only about themselves.

They are morally immature though. I agree with Kant that an action is righteous when it's done for righteous reasons (for the sake of itself, not for the sake of anything else).

By the way, I believe you did misread Jedi. He pointed that your attitude (in multiple threads) is heinous, not your opinion.

I know that, but attitudes don't usually kill people, so attitudes can't be heinous.

Also, how you write your opinion matters more than what you write when you are dealing with other people (which is an issue that I also have), because that which you say always has an impact on who is listening, and you should be mindful the psychological impact in order to keep things civil

I can keep things civil when I want to in real life around other people who can actually debate and know the topics well. Most of the people on this forum are arrogant and clueless, so I don't see any reason to be civil.

[Rehab]

I feel fairly comfortable assuming that Jedi calling you heinous was intentional hyperbole. Or maybe it didn't even go that far, maybe he had just heard somebody call somebody else heinous when person two did something that person one really didn't like, and just comprehended that was a meaning the word could have if used in that way. I doubt that he meant to say, I dunno, "somebody should find a way to get you arrested because you're objectively a bad enough person to deserve it."

Heinous is just one of those words people use that goes beyond its original/primary dictionary definitions to express displeasure with somebody. Like when somebody releases a particularly buggy or poorly-designed video game, somebody else whose distaste for it is particularly high might say, "Ugh! They should be tried in the Hague." Or like saying somebody is "insufferable." Whatever that person's behavior is, the person saying so probably doesn't intend to say they're literally "impossible to suffer," it's just that the person saying so likely really, really doesn't want to suffer them, and may assume that others would agree enough with them to not hold their choice of words against them in that case. So it goes.

Basing your judgement of somebody's moral competence on what they call you when they find you deeply annoying and/or flat-out detrimental to discussion is not something that tends to win a lot of sympathy, in my experience. Most people I have met will tend to just respond with, "oh, you know what he fucking meant. ...I mean, don't you?"

Of course, it could be that he doesn't think very hard about what he considers truly evil, and that the word he chose to use is indicative of this. It could also be that he really thinks you ought to be arrested. But I feel fairly comfortable assuming that most people would probably respond to that charge in particular by rolling their eyes and calling you thick-headed. Or something.

Sorry for the derail.

[raz0r]

The worse thing about censorship is .

[Philax]

Well, it's a Muslim country, and one that takes their religion seriously, so it's no wonder they censor everything.

A lot of the Muslims I know smoke like there's no tomorrow. When I visited Turkey, there were tons of people smoking.

According to Wikipedia, a majority of Indonesian men smoke, though not too many women do. Even them, I'm sure a lot of Indonesian women who smoke are Muslim. Most of them are probably young women - the older women don't normally smoke.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Philax

[Life]

I really hate it.

Every moment when someone's smoking / punching / kicking, it's always been cut or censored...

Example :

Karate Kid (2010)

When Dre kicked Cheng right on his cheek, the scene got cut.

And Kung Fu Hustle.

When The Landlady is smoking, the cigarette is censored.

I think the censorship is too 'dumb' in my opinion, because they think children in the present can't differentiate between the good things and bad things... That's my opinion, anyway.

Have any opinions?

You're from Indonesia. You came up with The Raid.

I don't believe you.

[Captain Karnage]

I've always found censorship to be very stupid here in America,

Here there's no issue with showing kids an ultra violent movie like The Expendables or Evil Dead but shield the childrens' eyes if they get to see a little bit of side boob.

Fox "News" would have a field day with that.

[Levin64]

You're from Indonesia. You came up with The Raid.

I don't believe you.

... The Raid has never being on TV, even once. Even the trailer nor the promotional video. It is left unmentioned there. :P

Well, the censorship here's just censoring things that are already obvious such as cigarettes, violence, as for the periods before they never censored it or anything. And surely those things are perfectly reflected in the daily life, so the censorship is too... stupid to censor those? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Kids should have flexibility and freedom to choose what they watch and what they play in their parents' control. They have freedom, but not unlimited, of course. Like me~