Whoa, whoa, beheadings on the history channel? - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Edwardthe_third** · 11-21-2008, 12:12 AM

Neither will vomitting. But I really don't want to watch it.

**CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE** · 11-21-2008, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Pekka
While I agree with Winston, I also agree with Space on this one. Those kind of images can be a bit traumatizing, and audience is not necessarily ready to take it, so at least a fair warning should be presented.
The problem I really have with it is that I grew up watching the history channel. Somewhere there is a kid sitting alone watching this show.

The first time I saw a person being beheaded (on a video online) my head spun like crazy. It was disturbing. I can only imagine how a child feels seeing that happen.

**Sipewrio** · 11-21-2008, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Winston
Calling the program "Stalking Jihad" might be considered a hint for some.

All right, I agree that viewers should be cautioned in advance of something like this. Wasn't there a warning given? Neither "stalking" nor "jihad" implies attempts to chop people's heads off.

**Manteiv** · 11-21-2008, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Space05us

The problem I really have with it is that I grew up watching the history channel. Somewhere there is a kid sitting alone watching this show. No offense, but isn't it a part of history that people has been tortured and killed in very cruel ways through times ? It has often been the reason for unexpected shifts when cruel enough - an example : the stockholmian bloodbath wasn't sufficiently brutal.

**rvadipoldkov** · 11-21-2008, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by BlackCat

No offense, but isn't it a part of history that people has been tortured and killed in very cruel ways through times ? It has often been the reason for unexpected shifts when cruel enough - an example : the stockholmian bloodbath wasn't sufficiently brutal. History is brutal, yes. The world is brutal. The History Channel is tv, not a teacher. It is entertainment for people who get off on history.

Also there is a large difference between seeing pictures and photographs of violence and seeing it take place in video.

**P9CCd35R** · 11-21-2008, 02:28 AM

That's why God made the remote control and an assortment of channels.

**hotsaucemidl** · 11-21-2008, 02:58 AM

The History Channel is tv

HBO is TV too. The only thing I think should have been done different is it should have been labeled TV14 or TVMA.

**wentscat** · 11-21-2008, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Space05us
they won't even call the Rape of Nanking the Rape of Nanking. how do they call it?

**singleGirl** · 11-21-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Pekka
While I agree with Winston, I also agree with Space on this one. Those kind of images can be a bit traumatizing, and audience is not necessarily ready to take it, so at least a fair warning should be presented. That's the preferred solution. Warn people then show it.

**SkatrySkith** · 11-21-2008, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Space05us
No, and it's rated TV PG. Back when they had Movies in Time, I was watching it with a buddy, and they were showing a movie about the Dieppe raid. The rating came up "TV-PG" and a couple minutes later a whole ****-ton of dudes started getting wasted on the beaches.

Not like Saving Private Ryan of course, but still pretty gruesome for the sort of rating they give to Friends and the Simpsons.

I think they figure that it's educational and so they can get away with a lot more.

11-21-2008, 12:12 AM	#1
Edwardthe_third Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 340 Senior Member	Whoa, whoa, beheadings on the history channel? Neither will vomitting. But I really don't want to watch it. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 01:09 AM	#2
CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 401 Senior Member	Originally posted by Pekka While I agree with Winston, I also agree with Space on this one. Those kind of images can be a bit traumatizing, and audience is not necessarily ready to take it, so at least a fair warning should be presented. The problem I really have with it is that I grew up watching the history channel. Somewhere there is a kid sitting alone watching this show. The first time I saw a person being beheaded (on a video online) my head spun like crazy. It was disturbing. I can only imagine how a child feels seeing that happen. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 01:15 AM	#3
Sipewrio Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	Originally posted by Winston Calling the program "Stalking Jihad" might be considered a hint for some. All right, I agree that viewers should be cautioned in advance of something like this. Wasn't there a warning given? Neither "stalking" nor "jihad" implies attempts to chop people's heads off. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 01:16 AM	#4
Manteiv Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 371 Senior Member	Originally posted by Space05us The problem I really have with it is that I grew up watching the history channel. Somewhere there is a kid sitting alone watching this show. No offense, but isn't it a part of history that people has been tortured and killed in very cruel ways through times ? It has often been the reason for unexpected shifts when cruel enough - an example : the stockholmian bloodbath wasn't sufficiently brutal. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 01:50 AM	#5
rvadipoldkov Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 514 Senior Member	Originally posted by BlackCat No offense, but isn't it a part of history that people has been tortured and killed in very cruel ways through times ? It has often been the reason for unexpected shifts when cruel enough - an example : the stockholmian bloodbath wasn't sufficiently brutal. History is brutal, yes. The world is brutal. The History Channel is tv, not a teacher. It is entertainment for people who get off on history. Also there is a large difference between seeing pictures and photographs of violence and seeing it take place in video. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 02:28 AM	#6
P9CCd35R Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 466 Senior Member	That's why God made the remote control and an assortment of channels. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 02:58 AM	#7
hotsaucemidl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 508 Senior Member	The History Channel is tv HBO is TV too. The only thing I think should have been done different is it should have been labeled TV14 or TVMA. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 12:33 PM	#8
wentscat Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 471 Senior Member	Originally posted by Space05us they won't even call the Rape of Nanking the Rape of Nanking. how do they call it? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 03:31 PM	#9
singleGirl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	Originally posted by Pekka While I agree with Winston, I also agree with Space on this one. Those kind of images can be a bit traumatizing, and audience is not necessarily ready to take it, so at least a fair warning should be presented. That's the preferred solution. Warn people then show it. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-21-2008, 06:16 PM	#10
SkatrySkith Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 596 Senior Member	Originally posted by Space05us No, and it's rated TV PG. Back when they had Movies in Time, I was watching it with a buddy, and they were showing a movie about the Dieppe raid. The rating came up "TV-PG" and a couple minutes later a whole ***-ton of dudes started getting wasted on the beaches. Not like Saving Private Ryan* of course, but still pretty gruesome for the sort of rating they give to Friends and the Simpsons. I think they figure that it's educational and so they can get away with a lot more. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)