Walmart to sell smut-free DVD player

[mmasw]

and so forth and so on (these are all real)

some are indeed hilarious, although I'd bet heavy against your contention that they are all "real"

one has to wonder how big a problem it was in Michigan....hitching crocodiles to fire hydrants.


by the way...there ought to be a law against posts as long as yours.....self flagellation will be imposed immediately

[mmasw]

An old statute in Flint, MI, compels dentists to offer a "slug of whiskey with no additional charge to said patient."

now that should be a federal law.....I'd go to dentist every friday

[Capmaster]

It is illegal for non-dark sodas to contain caffeine.

In Alberta, wooden logs must not be painted.

In British Colombia, its illegal to kill a sasquatch.

In Nova Scotia, its illeagl to water ones lawn while its raining.

In Ottawa, its illegal to eat icecream on Bank St. on a Sunday.

In Toronto, you can't drag a dead horse down Yonge on a Sunday.

In Quebec, Margarine producers can't make their margarine yellow.

In Montreal, Citizens may not relieve themselves or spit on the street. Punishable by a fine of over 100 Canadian dollars.

At least Canada is the example of sensible laws ... :P
(Short version because, well, we all get the picture and don't need a zillion examples)

[offline]

Out of interest, how does one impose self flagellation
on another person?

Don't you need consent from both parties and if so
is it really flagellation in intent or rather self gratification
by proxy .. no, the blue pills

[indolikaa]

You know, while we're on the hijacking kick...

Melbourne played Richmond last night on FOX Sports World. About the time I fell asleep Melbourne was flogging Richmond 90-45. The graphics keep referring to the game as 'Friday Night Football' but the game couldn't have been live because that would've been mid-afternoon in Aussie-Land and the stadium was surrounded by a night sky.

So when the hell DID they play this match? And who won? And did anybody ever figure out how Campbell got his nose smashed?

[MOVIEGEEK]

Another reason why I hate shopping at WalMart.

[BJ_M]

In Quebec, Margarine producers can't make their margarine yellow.

still very much in force there and all margarine sold there looks like lard ...


i dragged a dead deer on yonge st. once ... but i got away with it (its true -- yonge st. is the longest st. in the world and goes way way north)

[mmasw]

Out of interest,

is your interest academic?....or non-academic with visions of leather?

how does one impose self flagellation
on another person?

in the same manner about 99% of those ridiculous laws were imposed

Don't you need consent from both parties and if so
is it really flagellation in intent or rather self gratification
by proxy .. no, the blue pills

ok....I see that you're starting to obsess. About my self-flagellation remark.....don't beat yourself up over it....

[MOVIEGEEK]

"In L.A. a man can legally beat his wife with a leather strap, as long
as it is less than two inches wide, or she gives him permission to
use a wider strap..... "

Damn,I wish I knew about that law when I was married...I have some belts that would of worked.

[Capmaster]

In Quebec, Margarine producers can't make their margarine yellow.

still very much in force there and all margarine sold there looks like lard ...


i dragged a dead deer on yonge st. once ... but i got away with it (its true -- yonge st. is the longest st. in the world and goes way way north)

In Chicago there are two laws still on the books - one makes it illegal to eat dinner in a burning building, and the other makes it a misdemeanor to walk down the street in plain view if you're ugly.

A lot of these laws came about from sensible roots, but they lost something along the way. The burning building one, if I remember correctly, was from a man who insisted he finish eating before he evacuate due to a fire. He died and his survivors sued the fire department and won. The ugly law, I don't know where that came from. There was a law at the advent of the automobile that made it mandatory for owners of new-fangled autos to pull over to the side and disassemble their cars when a horse-drawn carriage approaches. This started no doubt because the car spooked a horse and maybe caused injury. Since there were many more horse-driving voters than car-driving ones at the time, it's not a surprise the law passed.

[offline]

is your interest academic?....or non-academic with visions of leather?

Strickly academic and strickly vinyl

still very much in force there and all margarine sold there looks like lard ...

Now I'm really obsessed.

So when the hell DID they play this match?

Sorry no idea (x-Carlton Supporter)

You're in no danger. Just keep sending us Foster's and please, please stop with the Steve Irwin stuff.

Foster's & Irwin = world perception of Australia = I could cry
but it would wet the shrimp on the bbq.

[indolikaa]

offline has gone off the deep end, folks...

[Capmaster]

Offline,
There's room in our support group (vinyl inflatable livestock and midget clown addiction) for one more .....and I promise we won't use Aussie stereotypes.

[mmasw]

Offline,
There's room in our support group (vinyl inflatable livestock and midget clown addiction) for one more .....and I promise we won't use Aussie stereotypes.

it seems he wouldn't care as long as you used the canadian lard

[Capmaster]

Offline,
There's room in our support group (vinyl inflatable livestock and midget clown addiction) for one more .....and I promise we won't use Aussie stereotypes.

it seems he wouldn't care as long as you used the canadian lard

In Clawson, Mich., there is a law that makes it LEGAL for a farmer to sleep with his pigs, cows, horses, goats, and chickens.

I KNEW Holland wasn't the only place. I'm off to Michigan

[offline]

ROFLMO

You are all in breach of the forum rules for hijacking

[mmasw]

kind of a circular thread:

it starts with somebody talking about buying a dvd-player at Wal-Mart and ends up with capmaster buying livestock in michigan....

[Capmaster]

kind of a circular thread:

it starts with somebody talking about buying a dvd-player at Wal-Mart and ends up with capmaster buying livestock in michigan....

Yeah, I see the similarities ....
I think we're pushing the envelope here and offline's gonna lock the thread for hijacking. I know I would

[indolikaa]

offline won't lock it if we just try and keep it on track SOMEWHAT!


I'm not bothered by a smut-free DVD player. That puts the choice in the consumer's hands. Now if the industry suddenly adopts this technology as the de facto standard (which they won't because the studios would go out of business) they'd better leave the option in place for me to watch the tits and ass with all the foul language I can handle.

Otherwise they're encroaching on my privacy. And I can scream 4th Amendement just as loud as I can scream 2nd Amendment. And so can many others out there...

You know who you are.

[BobK]

> and so forth and so on (these are all real)

You do realize of course (yeah, right) that 'real' doesn't mean that you can actually be arrested (or otherwise punished) for most of those laws.

The vast majority of those laws have been rendered rendered by the courts in the years (over a hundred years for many of them). The fact that they can no longer be enforced doesn't take them out of the legal statues. The courts can't do that- only the legislative branch can do that.

So (while they are funny), if you want to seriously talk about oppresived laws, try to find some that are still valid.

[Capmaster]

> and so forth and so on (these are all real)

You do realize of course (yeah, right) that 'real' doesn't mean that you can actually be arrested (or otherwise punished) for most of those laws.

The vast majority of those laws have been rendered rendered by the courts in the years (over a hundred years for many of them). The fact that they can no longer be enforced doesn't take them out of the legal statues. The courts can't do that- only the legislative branch can do that.

So (while they are funny), if you want to seriously talk about oppresived laws, try to find some that are still valid.

True, true. Can you imagine the scorn a prosecutor would get from the judge because he charged someone with giving a lit cigarette to his cat?

[offline]

I am of the opinion that the whole premise of a so called smut free
DVD player is just plain silly. Who here would want to watch the
Blues Brothers with all the swearing cut out? If talking about
children then I say if they are too young to hear swear words then
they are two young to see the film. Same goes to those adults
who are sensitive to profanity- if you don't like it then skip the
whole movie.

I was the unfortunate victim of an in-bus movie version of
Scarface. No swearing - violence cut. Why in the hell did
they bother? (last time I travel more than a couple of hours by bus!)
You get the same crapola with inflight movies.

[indolikaa]

An edited version of Scarface...

That's like removing the offensive behavior and such from Snatch.

[Capmaster]

Same goes to those adults
who are sensitive to profanity- if you don't like it then skip the
whole movie.

We have a few like that at work. One guy Mike, a bible-thumper, tried to isolate his kids from other kids and all the ills of the world. The whole "TV and radio are the devil's tools" load of happy horseshit. He came home one day to find one of his sons hanging himself from a patio rafter while the other one was playing with gasoline and matches. Gee, that plan worked swell Mike :P . Now your kids are so fucked up they are either going to go on TV as televangelists, or they're going to go to the other extreme when they're old enough and become serial killers or something.

There's another pair on my floor here that are not quite as victorian as Mike ...Ana and Steve. they're office mates and both are stick-up-the-ass easily-offended prudes. One day I went in and told them an anecdote about a guy that was deathly afraid of dentists who had to go in to get work done on his teeth. He was so scared that when the doc came in he grabbed the dentist by the "granolas" (actual word I used) and said "Now we won't hurt each other, will we?".

Well, Steve and Ana were so offended that I made a reference to the male genitals in a joke that they had these looks of horror on their faces. I immediately backed out of their office and haven't gone back. Those are two people that will never get invited to my parties, or anyone else's for that matter And can you imagine the great movies they've missed because they turned it off at the first obscenity? But ...that's their right. They have every right to be anal-retentive social misfits.

[qlizard]

Isn't Foster's actually made in Canada now?

[BJ_M]

Isn't Foster's actually made in Canada now?

yes they make it here and elsewhere like most beer --


get back on topic

[Rookie64]

There's already something on this order available -

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/rgcolumns/2003/0205.asp


A device you hook to your TV that uses the captions to find and block offensive language.

[presto]

Ya, I know. My point (that I didn't really make) is that the ONLY censorship that is ethical is censorship of oneself (or by oneself). Censorship from another person or group or body (as in body of law, or body of govt) is wrong, and should be resisted at all costs.

People who claim they are against censorship are taking the easy way out. Are you really saying that porn could be shown on TV all day long and it would be ok with you? N*** can give anti j** speaches at the next school assembly, no problem? If some guy wants to stand up at your wedding and yell "F**k Y**. the whole time and gosh that's his right? People can go on TV and plan to assasinate the president?

Of course not. The argument is about where to draw the line. It is a legitimate discussion. Standing back and saying "I don't believe in censorship is intellectually dishonest.

(Oops.I somehow seem to have replied to a post that was made two pages ago. This has been a busy thread)



note - i edited your text slightly to avoid issues with the rules of this forum (not censorship) -- bjm

[BJ_M]

Ya, I know. My point (that I didn't really make) is that the ONLY censorship that is ethical is censorship of oneself (or by oneself). Censorship from another person or group or body (as in body of law, or body of govt) is wrong, and should be resisted at all costs.

People who claim they are against censorship are taking the easy way out. Are you really saying that porn could be shown on TV all day long and it would be ok with you? N*** can give anti j** speaches at the next school assembly, no problem? If some guy wants to stand up at your wedding and yell "F**k Y**. the whole time and gosh that's his right? People can go on TV and plan to assasinate the president?

Of course not. The argument is about where to draw the line. It is a legitimate discussion. Standing back and saying "I don't believe in censorship is intellectually dishonest.

porn is on tv all day long -- i can choose to watch or not watch it but i'm not complaining about it being there -- in some parts of Québec , it might be on the family channel at 4 in the afternoon (i saw DEEP Throat in french first time i went to my new in-laws place on thanksgiving day in the afternoon many years ago , no one else semed to hardly notice) . no one there is brain dead because of it - though a lot of good strippers come out of Québec - often because they have less hangups (and look real fine) ..


As for

"N*** can give anti j** speaches ..."

on the surface, if i prevent this - it appears as censorship, this is not the case in many cases.
Lets look at this further without getting into politics at all:
The typical anti <"identifiable group" meaning any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin> speeches are classified as hate crimes in that they have the right to thier own beliefs within thier own heads but must not advocate genocide to someone else.

Definition of "genocide" (does not mean only killing off a race!)

"genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

This is a case where one natural law supercedes another -- .. you might want to review this simple explanation here
http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/lawroom/whathate.html

where this DOES become censorship is if someone is prevented to either study in whole or in part or examain facts relating to an accual event that happened in the past or is currently happening or may happen in the future or said facts are changed in some maner as to thier meaning or truth .. in relating to a crime as what is being discussed above - as many of you are aware, this is currently the case in some countries -- but we will NOT delve into that on this forum ..

I can carry this disccusion further at GREAT lenth -- but this forum is not really the place ..




as for

"If some guy wants to stand up at your wedding and yell "F**k Y**.

that has nothing to do with censorship at all if i prevent that -- its called being polite and respectfull to others to not do such a thing as an obligation to the parties envolved, i can not "turn the channel" so to speak .. if someone can not follow that simple premise , i have the right to remove them as being disturbing to others that have no way to goverrn what they may choose (or not choose) to hear (or see in some cases).
there is a lot that can follow this also -- but i think its pretty self evident ..



i edited this also - bjm

[presto]

BJ_M,
I think you make my point. You make decisions about what speach is reasonable and what isn't, about when it is appropriate, about what is polite and what is just disruptive. This is exactly what anyone is doing when they are accused of censorship. It's where you draw the line not wether or not there IS a line.

I'm very suprised by your statement that porn is on TV in the afternoon where you live. That is surely child abuse in any society. Are you saying hard-core sex is shown on regular TV with no mechanism to prevent children from watching it, or are you saying some people subscribe to adult channels and then don't use whatever system is in place to protect childeren?

(I do think this discussion is right in line with the original post but I don't plan to go on and on with it any more than you do.)