Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

[Mace MacLeod]

Why wouldn't you just not watch the channels that you don't agree with? If they allow spontaneous things like Jackson, don't watch them. If enough people care about such incidents, the channel will censor itself in order to keep viewers. If not enough people care, well, you didn't really lose anything by not watching (and of course, the channel would actually reflect the opinion of the populace, not one, single group that accounts for less than 1 person in 300).

The Superbowl was on one of those channels where they generally don't allow unclad flesh dumplings on during primetime without posting warnings every 30 seconds. It's one of those "Star-Spangled Mom eating apple pie and freedom fries while driving a Ford truck over Osama bin Laden's balls on her way to Church" channels , which IMHO is why the freaked-out-by-a-flash-of-a-boob crowd reacted the way they did. That little Johnny and Sally might spy a split-second flash of a partially uncovered breast during that most wholesome and revered of American institutions, The Superbowl, struck them as a betrayal of their trust in American tv and the unspoken bond between meathead parent and the television stations they rely on to raise their children for them. Thus, the most collossal mountain ever made from a molehill was born.

[Emperor Devon]

:lol:Of course I don't mind seeing, nudity and sexuality.

Well, because I'm a man.

 

So am I... That still doesn't prevent me from thinking that private areas should only be seen in private places.

 

Victorian morality aside, how can you justify airing something to slake your own lusts at the expense of a child's innocence?

 

Also those damn cursing censors have to go too.

Come on, it is just words, people.

 

And you wouldn't mind it if a kid said "Aw, go **** yourself, they're just a mother ****in' load of some god damn words, do you gest the gist, ya ****er?"

 

I would be unimpressed.

[Samuel Dravis]

The Superbowl was on one of those channels where they generally don't allow unclad flesh dumplings on during primetime without posting warnings every 30 seconds. It's one of those "Star-Spangled Mom eating apple pie and freedom fries while driving a Ford truck over Osama bin Laden's balls on her way to Church" channels , which IMHO is why the freaked-out-by-a-flash-of-a-boob crowd reacted the way they did. That little Johnny and Sally might spy a split-second flash of a partially uncovered breast during that most wholesome and revered of American institutions, The Superbowl, struck them as a betrayal of their trust in American tv and the unspoken bond between meathead parent and the television stations they rely on to raise their children for them. Thus, the most collossal mountain ever made from a molehill was born.

You see, I don't buy the proposal that they were betrayed. The other ads were not exactly targeting younger viewers, and it's fairly easy to figure out that they weren't and take appropriate action. Besides, if they were truly angry about it, wouldn't they have complained? But wait - they didn't complain. The complaints that were filed virtually all came from organization whose members would probably think about forbidding their children from taking a life drawing class simply because it would involve nudity...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

There are some things that kids, especially young kids, should not be watching because they aren't developed enough cognitively to handle those kinds of images.

And with respect, nudity is not among them.

[Windu Chi]

So am I... That still doesn't prevent me from thinking that private areas should only be seen in private places.

 

Victorian morality aside, how can you justify airing something to slake your own lusts at the expense of a child's innocence?

What the children sees depends on the responsibilty of the parents.

If they aren't vigilant enough of the child, then they will have to deal with the effect.

 

 

 

And you wouldn't mind it if a kid said "Aw, go **** yourself, they're just a mother ****in' load of some god damn words, do you gest the gist, ya ****er?"

 

I would be unimpressed.

I have a little cousin who have been cursing

since she was 3 years old, I don't mind and neither do her mother.

It's natural in my family to be submerge in curse words.

We don't panic when we hear curse words or curse words from the children in my family.

It's ridiculous to do so.

[Emperor Devon]

What the children sees depends on the responsibilty of the parents.

 

Not totally. There's the 'wardrobe malfunction' incident Jae mentioned, and other factors. What if the kid turns on the TV when his/her parents aren't in the room? They're not supernatural. Children can't be monitored day and night.

 

If they aren't vigilant enough of the child, then they will have to deal with the effect.

 

That logic is certainly inconsistent with some of your views...

 

I have a little cousin who have been cursing since she was 3 years old, I don't mind and neither do her mother.

 

[Mace MacLeod]

You see, I don't buy the proposal that they were betrayed. The other ads were not exactly targeting younger viewers, and it's fairly easy to figure out that they weren't and take appropriate action. Besides, if they were truly angry about it, wouldn't they have complained? But wait - they didn't complain. The complaints that were filed virtually all came from organization whose members would probably think about forbidding their children from taking a life drawing class simply because it would involve nudity...

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the overreactive outrage was justified or that the militant response was due to some grassroots upswell or something. My last post was pretty much my facetious way of showing contempt for the idiots who expect a tv to raise their child and instill healthy values.

I have a little cousin who have been cursing

since she was 3 years old, I don't mind and neither do her mother.

It's natural in my family to be submerge in curse words.

We don't panic when we hear curse words or curse words from the children in my family.

That's seriously messed up, dude. One thing I always make a conscious effort never to do is swear in front of my kid. IMHO, kids that run around like, "F**k you, f**k me, f**kin' this, f**kin' that, f**kin' the other thing" just screams poor, low-class, uneducated, poorly-raised brat. Now, I watch shows like the Sopranos and various others where total swearing is quite commonplace, but it's the fact that I and my wife (generally) don't use swearwords with our kid around is why she doesn't use them either. At least she sure as bloody well doesn't with me around.

[Windu Chi]

Not totally. There's the 'wardrobe malfunction' incident Jae mentioned, and other factors. What if the kid turns on the TV when his/her parents aren't in the room? They're not supernatural. Children can't be monitored day and night.

Of course, they can't be watch 24/7.

Also that so called 'wardrobe malfunction' that you and Jae call it.

Was a random event.

Only precogs could predict the event.

There was no need for the big out cry, that occurred.

 

 

 

That logic is certainly inconsistent with some of your views...

What do you mean ?

[Emperor Devon]

Also that so called 'wardrobe malfunction' that you and Jae call it was a random event.

 

What the children sees depends on the responsibilty of the parents.

 

If it was a random event, I don't think the responsibility of the parents was a factor.

 

What do you mean ?

 

The statement "If they aren't vigilant enough of the child, then they will have to deal with the effect," implies that if a parent couldn't prevent something they deserved it, correct?

[Windu Chi]

If it was a random event, I don't think the responsibility of the parents was a factor.

The statement "If they aren't vigilant enough of the child, then they will have to deal with the effect," implies that if a parent couldn't prevent something they deserved it, correct?

I mean they deserved not to be complaining at the networks, about their limited censors on their TV programs.

Especially on a live broadcast signal.

[Nancy Allen``]

Let's remember a few funny things:

 

Almost ALL of the complaints for that incident (and for the entire year) came from one organization. In fact, 99.8 percent of them were from the Parents Television Council. There are 300 million people in the US. Nearly half of those watched the Super Bowl, and pretty much everyone heard about Janet's trick. There are less than 1 million people in the PTC.

 

See my comments earlier on the PTC. Also, to put some perspective on how they are, PTC head Brent Bozell, well his father (not grandfather as I previously stated) was a speechwriter for McCarthy, as I said. Well, Bozell senior strongly supported a preemptive nuclear attack on Moscow, not seeming to be able to realise that there were innocent people there. Nor did he apparently realise that the Soviets would burn America and the West in a sea of nuclear fire as retalliation. Remember the nuclear standoff and mutually assured destruction in the event of a nuclear attack? This would've qualified more than anything in Cuba, Afghanistan or anywhere else.

 

If anyone is relying on a government organization to help raise your children, lord help you.

 

Quoted for truth. You're a ****wit if you do this and have no right to be raising kids.

[Jae Onasi]

Also that so called 'wardrobe malfunction' that you and Jae call it. Was a random event. Only precogs could predict the event.

Jackson and Timberlake admitted that it was pre-planned. If there'd been the 6-second delay that that they now have, it would have been censored out.

What the children sees depends on the responsibilty of the parents. If they aren't vigilant enough of the child, then they will have to deal with the effect.

Absolutely it's the parents' responsibility. However, I can't make a judgment on a show if I'm not given an adequate warning, and I wasn't in that particular case, which is what I objected to far more than the breast thing itself. I would have been just as offended if a penis suddenly showed up on Spongebob Squarepants.

 

About the swearing--for the most part (there are obvious exceptions), swearing is not an asset to a person, it's a detriment, and mom is doing your cousin no favors by encouraging/allowing her to swear at that young of an age.

 

If you're working in a service business like I do, having an employee use a lot of swear words can be very damaging to the business. If I have 2 equally qualified candidates for a job, and all things are equal except one swears and the other doesn't, I'm going to hire the one that doesn't swear in order to reduce the risk of foul language offending some of my customers. I swore like one of the saltiest sailors when I was in school, but that stopped as soon as I got my first job after school, and even while I was in school, I didn't swear when I was working at the Children's hospital. Patients just don't like hearing people saying 'F--- this, you sh!thead a--hole!' in a doctor's office, and it's more important to keep the patients (and thus the business) than it is for me to swear.

 

@TK--I'm not depending on the government to raise my kids--good heavans, that'd be a disaster. However, I do expect them to regulate some things. The government may not always have the best interests of children at heart, but a large chunk of the media definitely doesn't care what kids see/don't see as long as they can make a buck. The government is actually doing something useful by putting some regulations in place to protect kids, because it's quite obvious the media's not going to police itself.

 

Besides, if they were truly angry about it, wouldn't they have complained? But wait - they didn't complain.

I did complain. And no, I'm not a member of PTC, and if my kids want to take a life drawing class or look at books of anatomy, that's fine with me, though they're a little too young right now. 'Life drawing' consists of stick people at the moment. Again, it wasn't the anatomy--it was the lack of warning.

 

And believe me, I turn off a lot of TV shows that I find offensive. I don't let my kids watch any of the CSIs for instance--way too graphic/violent for their age and some of the subject matter (e.g. the dominitrix episode) is clearly inappropriate for a child.

Abstinence--my stance on that is related primarily to disease transmission rather than morality.

 

 

And with respect, nudity is not among them.

If nudity weren't treated as a completely sexual issue in the US, then it wouldn't be an issue for me at all, either. Jimbo and I have both worked in the med field for a long time and have been married 16 years--obviously nudity isn't a big deal to us since we've seen a lot of it, and a body's a body's a body, no offense to those of you who think you're physically magnificent. It is, however, a big issue to a lot of other Americans, and how it's treated in the US media is a big deal. You don't see breasts/genitalia on US TV for breastfeeding or other natural functions. You see breasts/genitalia on TV in the US only when people are having sex (or nearly so), unless you're on the Discovery or medical/science channels for a documentary on birthing or breastfeeding. It's a quirk of US culture and not likely to change in the near future until the US mindset gets over the idea that the sex organs always = sex. In the meantime, modesty isn't a bad thing. Even if someone has the right to walk around naked, it doesn't mean the rest of us want to have our eyes assaulted with that shriveled up, wrinkly old thing.

[Windu Chi]

That's seriously messed up, dude. One thing I always make a conscious effort never to do is swear in front of my kid. IMHO, kids that run around like, "F**k you, f**k me, f**kin' this, f**kin' that, f**kin' the other thing" just screams poor, low-class, uneducated, poorly-raised brat. Now, I watch shows like the Sopranos and various others where total swearing is quite commonplace, but it's the fact that I and my wife (generally) don't use swearwords with our kid around is why she doesn't use them either. At least she sure as bloody well doesn't with me around.

You got it wrong on the poorly-raised brat statement.

My cousin is not a brat, she is quite intelligent, but she will surely kick the ass of someone who will ever f**k with her.

Also, what the hell do you mean by poor, low-class and uneducated ?

Because my family curses we suppose to be stupid an of low-class.

[Emperor Devon]

I mean they deserved not to be complaining at the networks, about their limited censors on their TV programs.

 

They certainly do deserve to. Parents can't always be around to stop kids from turning on the TV, and they can't do anything when not warned beforehand about the content in a show.

 

Also, what the hell do you mean by poor, low-class and uneducated ?

 

From my experience, the use of profanity shows a lack of ability say things in an articulate and intelligent manner.

[Windu Chi]

 

 

From my experience, the use of profanity shows a lack of ability say things in an articulate and intelligent manner.

Your relative experience!

Don't tell me Devon that you are saying, people aren't intelligent enough to speak properly, because they curse a lot.

You know, you are sounding like that guy, Spider AL.

Who have been always calling me a f**king troll all the f**king time.

[Samuel Dravis]

I did complain. And no, I'm not a member of PTC, and if my kids want to take a life drawing class or look at books of anatomy, that's fine with me, though they're a little too young right now. 'Life drawing' consists of stick people at the moment. Again, it wasn't the anatomy--it was the lack of warning.

My point was that not enough individual people complained to warrant the idea that it was something particularly shocking or offensive to the general public. TBH I dunno why anyone would want to watch that stuff anyway. Janet Jackson? Ugh.

 

I don't see how football is particularly wholesome anyway. All the 'American values' it seems to represent are violence, competition and corporate backing. Throw in the rest of the ads that are shown during it and I see very little redeeming value for children (or anyone else for that matter). In the interests of full disclosure, I don't care for football.

 

And believe me, I turn off a lot of TV shows that I find offensive. I don't let my kids watch any of the CSIs for instance--way too graphic/violent for their age and some of the subject matter (e.g. the dominitrix episode) is clearly inappropriate for a child.

That's good, though I don't see why you'd bother with TV at all for them at such an age (5-12?). I haven't watched TV much at all since 1996 and there's literally nothing to miss about it.

 

Abstinence--my stance on that is related primarily to disease transmission rather than morality.

Regardless of why, if you expect it of your children the argument stands. I'm rather partial to the abstinence idea myself, as it is a reasonable expectation of rational individuals. This is why I chose to use it - turning off a TV is a similarly rational response to a channel showing objectionable content. If you don't turn it off/switch channels, you are not acting rationally; it's like suing McDonalds for making you fat because you chose to eat there repeatedly.

 

However, that statement was more for people that get outraged over incidents like Jackson's, keep watching and don't want to take any personal preventative measures on their own.

 

 

They certainly do deserve to. Parents can't always be around to stop kids from turning on the TV, and they can't do anything when not warned beforehand about the content in a show.

If you see something that is "NR", do you really assume it's something G rated? I don't. Likewise, with a "Live" show, do you expect it to be censored? Probably not. So take action accordingly.

[Emperor Devon]

Don't tell me Devon that you are saying, people aren't intelligent enough to speak properly, because they curse a lot.

 

I think speaking profainly is less intelligent than doing it eloquently.

 

You know, you are sounding like that guy, Spider AL.

 

That's getting awfully close to flaming...

[Samuel Dravis]

That's getting awfully close to flaming...

I'd take that as a compliment, Devon. Spider's pretty sharp.

 

Windu, you're inventing strawmen. Devon didn't say that people were inherently stupid because they cuss; he said that those who cuss are in general unable to articulate their feelings accurately so they resort to cussing. As a result they seem less intelligent. I concur with this idea, though I think a few well placed curses are appropriate at times.

[Windu Chi]

I think speaking profainly is less intelligent than doing it eloquently.

Well, that is your opinion.

 

 

That's getting awfully close to flaming...

That guy was calling me less articulate and less intelligent because I didn't hide my anger toward the holocaust.

I'm not getting mad at you, we are cool; he will surely like that, for he can call me a troll for 6th damn time.

[Windu Chi]

Windu, you're inventing strawmen. Devon didn't say that people were inherently stupid because they cuss; he said that those who cuss are in general unable to articulate their feelings accurately so they resort to cussing. As a result they seem less intelligent. I concur with this idea, though I think a few well placed curses are appropriate at times.

So, what if people cuss a lot, stop conforming to society's standards, Samuel.

I don't give a damn for society's standards, I'm going to cuss all I want.

I can hide my emotions, I just choose not to sometimes.

[Emperor Devon]

As a result they seem less intelligent. I concur with this idea, though I think a few well placed curses are appropriate at times.

 

Thats the most f***ing awful idea I've heard in my whole f***ing life.

 

That guy was calling me less articulate and less intelligent because I didn't hide my anger toward the holocaust.

 

Now you're pulling things out of thin air. This is irrelevant to the topic, and sounds like it could lead to insulting... In which case the mods will have to know.

 

So, what if people cuss a lot, stop conforming to society's standards, Samuel.

 

There's a reason profanity is censored and not commonly used in the first place... The reasons I previously listed being some of them.

[Windu Chi]

There's a reason profanity is censored and not commonly used in the first place... The reasons I previously listed being some of them.

It's just WORDS !

Curse words in the past was not always, consider profanity.

[Emperor Devon]

It's just WORDS !

 

Mein Kampf, the principles of which you are so against, is nothing but words. It's not quite that simple.

[Nancy Allen``]

If I may, I probably wouldn't use the language I use here if the censor didn't do it's job. It's just a respect thing for those who would be offended by it.

 

Also, if it's just words, what if a Nazi speaker was trying to rally support for anti Jewish sentiment? Would you be pissed off about it? I'd be willing to bet you'd say yes, and not only do you have every right to be I'd be just as upset as you would be.

[Windu Chi]

Mein Kampf, the principles of which you are so against, is nothing but words. It's not quite that simple.

Oh, you had to bring up that evil demon's book.

 

I bet you that Battlestar Galactica word, ''frack''=f**k, will become inappropriate

because of the influence of the FCC.