Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

[Emperor Devon]

I have explain my reasons.

 

You have not explained your opinions. Have you shown me any logic to back them up? Have you said why they're more valid than mine or Jae's?

 

For nudity, you've even stated explaining is unnecessary my point exactly.

 

Searching 'porn' on Google should be more than adequate to supply your desires. Why you would want to show that on public TV I can't guess.

 

It is my opinion, ok.

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of debate, windu6. In this magical realm, you will give your opinions and debate which one is better.

 

Why do I got to defend my own opinions?

 

This is a debate. The purpose of one is to argue your opinions, and have something to support them with. If you don't want to defend your opinions, you shouldn't be debating.

 

I don't like censors on T.V. ok , Jae.

 

You've said that who knows how many times. But for once, could you go to the trouble of telling us why?

 

it is more realisted that way.

 

"Realisted"? If you mean "realistic" I fail to see why that matters. There are countless realistic things people wouldn't want to see. As she works in the medical field, Jae can probably confirm that. It has no bearing.

 

Why are you saying I'm trying to corrupt your kids ?

 

Your views, if practiced, would have negative consequences for children.

 

Damn, can brother have his own opinions ?

 

"Brother" can have his opinions, though he shouldn't argue about them if he can't even explain why.

[Windu Chi]

You have not explained your opinions. Have you shown me any logic to back them up? Have you said why they're more valid than mine or Jae's?

 

For nudity, you've even stated explaining is unnecessary my point exactly.

 

Searching 'porn' on Google should be more than adequate to supply your desires. Why you would want to show that on public TV I can't guess.

Well, I if continue to explain my damn opinions, I will be look as a f**king pervert.

Won't I?

So the the hell with this discussion.

I'm done!

 

I'm going to go continue to work on my lightsaber physics idea.

[Jae Onasi]

What are you mad with me, Jae?

I'm not mad at you in the least. I just disagree with your opinion. Disagreement is not the same thing as anger.

It is my opinion, ok.

I'm not trying to corrupt your kids.

Allowing porn and an endless parade of swear words _would_ be a corrupting influence on my kids. I don't want them using cuss words more frequently than any other kind of word.

Why do I got to defend my own damn opinions?

Because you started the thread. Surely you have a reason for not liking censors?

Saying 'I think spinach sucks' is my opinion. Stating 'I think spinach sucks because the smell makes my so nauseous I want to barf' is explaining why I don't like spinach. So why don't you like censors? What is it about censors that you find so objectionable?

I don't like censors on T.V. ok , Jae.

Also as I have already said, before it is more realisted that way.

So, if you continue to hate me, then fine.

I don't hate you. I just want to understand how you developed your opinion.

 

Damn girl, you seem to really piss with me.

Well, Jimbo would be very upset if I went 'pissing' with another person, especially a man.

Why are you saying I'm trying to corrupt your kids ?

Damn, can brother have his own opinions ?

You can have your opinions, but you need to also have a good reason for holding those opinions and be able to defend them.

Also, I'm not saying you are corrupting my kids. However, seeing sex, frank nudity, and hearing the f-bomb every third word is not good for my kids. They'll learn about sex when it's appropriate for them, not when the media decides it wants to titillate its audience for yet another buck of advertising items that have absolutely nothing to do with sex. They'll hear cuss words out in the real world, but they won't be using them at our house, at least not in my earshot, and they won't be getting additional and wholly unnecessary further exposure to it on TV.

 

The media industry has decided on a rating system, but someone has to enforce it so that I can trust that when a package or the warning at the beginning of a show says it doesn't have off-color language or naked people, that it really doesn't have those things. Otherwise, the rating is worthless.

[Windu Chi]

Well, Jimbo would be very upset if I went 'pissing' with another person, especially a man.

:lol:Well, I meant piss off with me.

Made a error!

[MasterRoss08]

I think the FCC does a great job on stopping unessesary content put

in tv shows and all the like. I cant see why there is a problem of

limiting this content in the 1st place. Tv shows,movies etc take

content to far in my oppinion. And no I am not some kid either.

Im 18 and I have no care for that type on content whatsoever.

Is the FCC runned by the goverment? So if they are dont go blaming

them blame the goverment. Senetors,congressmen etc. I hardly here

words being bleeped out on alot of shows. (Dramas,comedies etc)

.If they do anything they edit

them.I do here bleeps on certain shows but that could be from the editors

that edited the show And it may not just be the fcc that enforces this either.

It could

be the tv stations, The people that actually taped these shows etc.

 

I cant see why cussing should get a free pass since it spouts words of hate

toward whoever there intended to and not Neo Nazis if you had your way

Windu.Not only does cussing aims hate at race but also religion and whoever

someone is aiming there curses at. Neo Nazis and cussing=same. Both

intend on offending such and such a person.

[Ray Jones]

Well, Jimbo would be very upset if I went 'pissing' with another person, especially a man.

I, err..

 

So, .. what if Jimbo is with you two? Plus the waitress, the miaaoouuuw-cat, a frog, a Maglite and maybe a flower?

 

 

 

--

 

Hm. I personally have no problem with nudity, sexuality or cursing in general.

 

Cursing *is* use of speech, or freedom of speech. As I see it, proper use of language also includes the use of words like "****" and whatnot. Note: proper, not stupid.

 

However, I do not think it is appropriate (or proper use) to use this freedom of speech regardless of where I am, who I am talking to, etc. Also, the concept of morality applies to speech, too, so it maybe freedom of speech to spread Nazi ideas, but it's really amoral to do so.

 

And while I don't see a reason to "ban" the word "****" from my personal vocabulary, I see a lot of very valid reasons to use different phrasing in normal life to express myself. Some of my closest friends, however, are most likely to hear "dirty stuff" coming from me, but rather with deeper meanings around it than stupid "give me that ****ing microphone you m********ing ****ing suckerbada** son of a **otch" crap.

 

Also, being a father, I surely don't want my daughter to curse all the time, or to curse at all, but I am the hell aware of the fact that she will have contact to swearing, and will use it, so I think I'll let her know there is a proper way to do so and a wrong one. And one thing to achieve that is not to keep those things totally away from her, so she knows how to handle "expressive phrasing" right, right from the beginning. Of course, the use of words like "****", where she isn't able to differ between the "meanings" yet, would be most unfortunate and is therefore not practised. She just doesn't know enough about language to use those "proper". "Spoot", however, is something we use more often instead. :]

 

Basically, I teach her not to parrot everything she hears without thinking about.

 

Do I want or need bad language on TV? No. Except for some good movies, I've not seen "good" cursing on TV yet (it also isn't necessary), as it usually only occurs in those so called "afternoon talk shows", and seriously, these are blatant, ignorant **** and don't provide good use of language in general. And no, you cannot describe that more to the point.

I also doubt that Spongebob will ever provide extensive use of cursing, nor do I think that any discovery channel will do, except for documentary reasons, but that would be okay on the other hand. So that's basically our TV-prog anyway.

 

Naykeytey? I would not mind if my daughter sees a movie where people have no clothes on. Even the "normal" or documentary demonstration of sexual acts, genitals or sexuality would be no problem at all. However, useless, inappropriate "sexification" of things or topics, inappropriate, maybe rather unnatural exposure of bodyparts, all that goes the way of "saying oh-no and zapping away" rather than isolate her from it, which I cannot ensure totally, anyways. Also, this way I can avoid the stress of having to be all careful about those things all the time. My daughter will change the channel on her own (maybe also because it's not Mr. Squarepants, actually ;~).

 

So again, I want her to be able to deal with it, properly, instead of shying off.

 

As for the Superbowl incident, I don't see a problem with it, really, but seriously this is one stupid action, taken mainly to gain attention, in a way it shouldn't be done, especially not on an event like this, or by "celebrities" like those. My daughter will not be harmed by seeing such things, but learn from me that those things are useless and don't deserve attention. In the end this is what's the aim of it, attention, so "they" won't get it. A valid lesson, I think.

 

 

Overall, I don't mind censoring, as I have enough imagination to get over it, but by all means, it's completely useless to "protect" my children, not only because it's incomplete and inconsequent and there are tons of other "sources of evil things" which are not censored, but also because this is kind of overprotective behaviour. The way to go is not bleeping content, but changing content.

 

--

 

So, err.. me and my girl.. you know.. we go to the toilet now.

[Jae Onasi]

I, err..

 

So, .. what if Jimbo is with you two? Plus the waitress, the miaaoouuuw-cat, a frog, a Maglite and maybe a flower?

I don't do menageries or menages a sept.

Hm. I personally have no problem with nudity, sexuality or cursing in general.

I don't have a particular problem with it in general, if it's done in the appropriate setting. We're built to have sex as part of our normal functions. A naked body's a naked body. Now, I do object to porn--it uses and abuses women (and sometimes men and children) for someone else's perverse gratification. I'm also not too excited about using sex--and always sexy women--to sell everything from SUVs to diet soda. I think this important function in life is worth a little more respect than being associated with something like a can of cheap beer.

Swearing--we don't allow them to use that language right now and we explain why to the degree that they can understand. I want them to learn how to speak appropriately in any given situation. When they reach an appropriate age, that restriction will be relaxed once they learn when and where expletives can be used or should not be used. Sometimes that means saying 'Mama just used a word that we really shouldn't be using.' There was one time when I nearly got hit by a car and my then-3 year old son was in the carseat in back. I was so scared about the near-accident that I let out a rather loud and emphatic Sh**! My son promptly and quite gleefully repeated, "Sh**! Sh**! Sh**!" It was all I could do not to laugh because it was so funny, but I knew if I did, he'd keep saying it....

 

However, I do not think it is appropriate (or proper use) to use this freedom of speech regardless of where I am, who I am talking to, etc.

On a purely rhetorical note just because it got brought up here--just because we have the 'right' to do something doesn't make it right to do so.

 

Naykeytey? I would not mind if my daughter sees a movie where people have no clothes on. Even the "normal" or documentary demonstration of sexual acts, genitals or sexuality would be no problem at all.

Depends on the context for me. Birthing babies? No problem. Explaining how body parts work? No problem. Watching Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas go at it in Basic Instinct? Not happening for them, even though I've seen the movie.

However, useless, inappropriate "sexification" of things or topics, inappropriate, maybe rather unnatural exposure of bodyparts, all that goes the way of "saying oh-no and zapping away" rather than isolate her from it,

So again, I want her to be able to deal with it, properly, instead of shying off.

Right now Spongebob and Bob and Larry and computer games are The Thing (though we really minimize the TV time). My son's at the age where kissing a girl is just sick and wrong (he covers his eyes and says 'Euwww, gross!' if he sees hubby and me kissing), so there's no danger of him watching a racy flick for any length of time. However it's still my responsibility to make sure that what they see in our home is appropriate. I can teach them to change the channel all I want, but it's better if I don't allow it in the house to begin with, there's no temptation issues because they won't see it. We're also careful about our kids not going in other people's homes--one of the kids mine play with is allowed as a 6 year old to view R-rated slasher movies, which I think is entirely inappropriate. Since I can't guarantee that my kids won't be exposed to something else inappropriate at their house, we've just decided they should all play outside instead. It's much better if they get some exercise and fresh air, anyway, and in this day and age, it's hard to separate the predators from the good guys. As the kids get older and spend more time with friends, we'll reinforce what we consider appropriate material and how to handle the inappropriate stuff. Mostly I plan on dealing with it in the junior/senior high years by having a safe place at our house for friends to come over and play games/do computer stuff/eat my fridge bare.

 

My daughter will not be harmed by seeing such things,

I don't know--had my son seen that, he would have learned that some people who are celebrities think it's OK to rip clothes off in public to get attention (and actually, it was her dancers that I found dressed more slutty and dancing in a very provocative manner). It's not something I want him to experience at this point in his life. Besides, it was just a badly done half-time show anyway, even if she hadn't pulled her stunt.

 

Overall, I don't mind censoring, as I have enough imagination to get over it, but by all means, it's completely useless to "protect" my children, not only because it's incomplete and inconsequent and there are tons of other "sources of evil things" which are not censored, but also because this is kind of overprotective behaviour.

It's not only useful to protect my children by censoring some language and content, regardless of incompleteness, but also it's my responsibility as their parent. I refuse to give up my duty to protect them just because I won't be able to do it 100% perfectly. I still need to try, even if I can't do everything perfect.

The way to go is not bleeping content, but changing content.

I agree with you completely on that, which is why I choose channels/videos/games without offensive content for my kids, and they don't watch things like CSI and Criminal Minds. I'm not terribly optimistic about the media getting less offensive, since I've only seen them getting worse over the years instead of better.

[Windu Chi]

Well, I have decided to be nice and not to leave you hanging, Jae.

 

I'm not mad at you in the least. I just disagree with your opinion. Disagreement is not the same thing as anger.

Well, the way you came in here and snapped at me, really made me think so.

So, I had to go cool off a bit.

Before, I responded to your comments.

Allowing porn and an endless parade of swear words _would_ be a corrupting influence on my kids. I don't want them using cuss words more frequently than any other kind of word.

You seem to think that my opinions is going to change the FCC rules.

They aren't going to change nothing because of my opinions.

Because you started the thread. Surely you have a reason for not liking censors?

Saying 'I think spinach sucks' is my opinion. Stating 'I think spinach sucks because the smell makes my so nauseous I want to barf' is explaining why I don't like spinach. So why don't you like censors? What is it about censors that you find so objectionable?

I don't hate you. I just want to understand how you developed your opinion.

As I have told Devon, censors make the movies and some programs, I watch seems artificial to me.

Now, if I got to explain this again, then it's pointless.

 

You can have your opinions, but you need to also have a good reason for holding those opinions and be able to defend them.

Also, I'm not saying you are corrupting my kids. However, seeing sex, frank nudity, and hearing the f-bomb every third word is not good for my kids. They'll learn about sex when it's appropriate for them, not when the media decides it wants to titillate its audience for yet another buck of advertising items that have absolutely nothing to do with sex. They'll hear cuss words out in the real world, but they won't be using them at our house, at least not in my earshot, and they won't be getting additional and wholly unnecessary further exposure to it on TV.

The media industry has decided on a rating system, but someone has to enforce it so that I can trust that when a package or the warning at the beginning of a show says it doesn't have off-color language or naked people, that it really doesn't have those things. Otherwise, the rating is worthless.

The way you have responded here. It seem like you are telling me this, because it is like it's my burden responsibility alone, for the determination of what your kids watch on television.

[Emperor Devon]

Since my nemesis is ofline and I can't resist arguing...

 

They aren't going to change nothing because of my opinions.

 

Completely irrelevant.

 

As I have told Devon, censors make the movies and some programs, I watch seems artificial to me.

 

All right, you've finally given a reason. Now how is it a bad thing for movies and programs to seem artifical? Most already are.

 

The way you have responded here. It seem like you are telling me this, because it is like it's my burden responsibility alone, for the determination of what your kids watch on television.

 

Were your opinions real, it would affect what Jae's children see. (Or should I say no longer see?)

[Windu Chi]

Oh, my annoying nemesis return for another battle.

 

 

 

Completely irrelevant.

 

Now, how is this irrelevant Devon ?

 

All right, you've finally given a reason. Now how is it a bad thing for movies and programs to seem artifical? Most already are.

If you still don't understand, now.

Then it's pointless !

 

 

 

Were your opinions real, it would affect what Jae's children see. (Or should I say no longer see?)

:lol:It's not my damn responsibiliy for what her children see on T.V. .

Damn!

[Emperor Devon]

Oh, my annoying nemesis return for another battle.

 

That title's taken.

 

Now, how is this irrelevant Devon ?

 

Because you obviously disagree with it, or you wouldn't have started this thread. People's interest in matters they can't change also has no relation to the FCC.

 

If you still don't understand, now.

 

How are movies and programs being artifical a bad thing? If you're correct, you should be able to provide me with reasons.

 

:lol:It's not my damn responsibiliy for what her children see on T.V.

 

Jae's probably very happy about that.

 

My point is, if your opinions were real, they would affect what many children see. Debates over issues like these deal with hypotheticals over a large scale.

[Windu Chi]

That title's taken.

Face it sith lord, you have two nemesis now.

:lol:What? Don't tell me the great emperor can't handle two adversaries?

 

Because you obviously disagree with it, or you wouldn't have started this thread. People's interest in matters they can't change also has no relation to the FCC.

You know, other people here have comments why you don't go battle them.

:)Also what the hell do you mean, People's interest?

Haven't I been saying, they aren't going to change nothing for 3rd time.

 

 

How are movies and programs being artifical a bad thing? If you're correct, you should be able to provide me with reasons.

What do you mean, if I'm correct?

It's damn obvious that you don't agree with my opinions.

So, where do the ''If'' come from?

 

 

 

My point is, if your opinions were real, they would affect what many children see. Debates over issues like these deal with hypotheticals over a large scale.

Of course, it will affect...

So, what are you saying, that I don't care about the children.

Also they aren't going to change nothing, so no fear.

And this is relevant to the debating battle we are currently having, Devon.

[Emperor Devon]

Face it sith lord, {snip}

 

Impertinent.

 

You know, other people here have comments why you don't go battle them.

 

If I disagreed with them, I would. I don't argue with people based on who they are.

 

What do you mean, if I'm correct?

 

It's one way to use the English language. My sentence can be translated as "You aren't correct if you have no reasons."

 

Grammar aside, you have not answered my question. How is it a bad thing for movies and programs to be artifical?

 

For once, give me some geuine reasons why it's not good for movies and such to be artifical. Is it because the entertainment value of them goes down, for instance?

 

So, what are you saying, that I don't care about the children.

 

From my perspective and those of other parents, you don't seem to in this matter. How could it not be bad for children to see sex?

 

Also they aren't going to change nothing, so no fear.

 

Either going so long without sleep has finally gotten to me, or did you really mean that what children see doesn't influence their behavior?

[Windu Chi]

Ok, wait a minute! You still here!

Don't you have a empire to run.

:lol:Or, it's in shambles?

 

 

If I disagreed with them, I would. I don't argue with people

Uh, wow! What do you call this then?

It's a damn argument, which is a debate.

 

It's one way to use the English language. My sentence can be translated as "You aren't correct if you have no reasons."

 

Grammar aside, you have not answered my question. How is it a bad thing for movies and programs to be artifical?

 

For once, give me some geuine reasons why it's not good for movies and such to be artifical. Is it because the entertainment value of them goes down, for instance?

Yes, and the realism for me.

[Emperor Devon]

Uh, wow! What do you call this then?

 

On my part, it was a lack of sleep and a typo.

 

Yes, and the realism for me.

 

Do you think it's bad for children to see extreme violence or sex?

[Windu Chi]

On my part, it was a lack of sleep and a typo.

 

 

 

Do you think it's bad for children to see extreme violence or sex?

Violence no; sex, yes of course it is bad for little children, now teenagers are going to have sex, if you don't believe that then you're naïve.

Now, I'm assuming you're going to debate me on the violence response.

[Nancy Allen``]

The beheading of Nick Berg, explicit detail of what the Nazis subjected the Jews to, the graphic power of the Ghoul II engine used in Soldier of Fortune, are these things we should allow children to see?

[Windu Chi]

The beheading of Nick Berg, explicit detail of what the Nazis subjected the Jews to, the graphic power of the Ghoul II engine used in Soldier of Fortune, are these things we should allow children to see?

Nick Berg beheading, hell no, I'm not even going to watch that, Soldier of Fortune is a game, only children with mental problems probably shouldn't watch it.

But for normal kids I don't think it is a big deal.

Well, for the the Holocaust, Nancy.

I have been watching that since I was 10 years of age.

 

Now, I hope you aren't mad with me now, Nancy.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, but you understand what people are saying in terms of not exposing children to thid type of material?

[Windu Chi]

No, but you understand what people are saying in terms of not exposing children to thid type of material?

Of course, I understand!

[Samuel Dravis]

The beheading of Nick Berg

Interesting point. All those videos, and the videos of soldiers being KIA'd, civilians being 'collateral damage' etc., are censored. Should they be? Should we be able to avoid the negative consequences of our actions by putting our collective heads into the ground? I mean, it's a lot easier to ignore a number on a death chart than it is seeing such a video. You can justify the people dying as comparatively 'small' numbers, but could you actually say that something like that happening in a video is a good thing?

[Mace MacLeod]

Well, there's another special case of selective censorship but of course, it's the White House doing it, not the FCC. All those flag-draped coffins of US soldiers being flown back in are never shown either. This has nothing to do with decency or standards or morals of any kind; it's that the White House doesn't want to remind the voters that their people are dying on a daily basis. Maybe it isn't the FCC you should be worried about...

[Jae Onasi]

Well, there's another special case of selective censorship but of course, it's the White House doing it, not the FCC. All those flag-draped coffins of US soldiers being flown back in are never shown either. This has nothing to do with decency or standards or morals of any kind; it's that the White House doesn't want to remind the voters that their people are dying on a daily basis. Maybe it isn't the FCC you should be worried about...

 

There are a few reasons for not showing the coffins.

1. Respect for the dead

2. Respect for the families of the dead (I wouldn't want the world to have seen my great uncle's coffin on TV)

3. Morale

4. Sometimes the military hasn't been able to reach all the family members (happens sometimes when people are on vacation, are ill in the hospital, are staying with other members of the family, on business trips, that kind of thing). They don't want people learning about the deaths in their families by watching a news channel or seeing a picture of their loved one's coffin on the internet.

[Samuel Dravis]

There are a few reasons for not showing the coffins.

1. Respect for the dead

Personally I value the living more.

 

2. Respect for the families of the dead (I wouldn't want the world to have seen my great uncle's coffin on TV)

4. Sometimes the military hasn't been able to reach all the family members (happens sometimes when people are on vacation, are ill in the hospital, are staying with other members of the family, on business trips, that kind of thing). They don't want people learning about the deaths in their families by watching a news channel or seeing a picture of their loved one's coffin on the internet.

They needn't be identified.

 

3. Morale

I'd ask what purpose this morale serves but that'd go a bit far from the original topic. I don't think there's a good reason that this type of censorship should occur, and I think it would be a good thing for reality to hit people once in a while.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm not sure about the thread heading into a 'we should be showing things that make America look bad' direction, but since the question of whether or not news events, footage of war, ect should be edited, here's my answer. There's a lot of good reasons for war footage to be either edited or simply not shown, and not just for the reasons already given, or because it might make America look bad. Remember Saving Private Ryan? Remember the footage of soldiers being ripped apart by bullets, blown up, burnt alive, one survivor searching for and picking up his arm, medics desperately trying to save them as their entrails are spilling out, priests given them the last rites? I doubt anybody would want their families confronted by such images as they have their dinner watching the evening news. There's also the issue of what news footage might be captured that were it broadcast might tell the enemy something. One such example would be if full unedited footage of a Delta Force mission could be taken and shown, people could watch it and pick up on tactics Delta uses, what weapons and equipment they use, formation, how they attack a target, ect. This isn't just an excuse, games such as Rainbow Six were questioned because of how realistic they were on whether terrorists could possibly use them as a training tool, or to counter stratergies against them. To be honest I consider the likelihood of someone being able to become an effective soldier, or an effective gunsmen, from reading a book or playing a game to be quite low, but there's research in that field, there's serious questions about this after Columbine, enough so for people in the military to take the matter seriously, so maybe.