Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

[Emperor Devon]

sex, yes of course it is bad for little children,

 

Okay... Explain how this is consistent with your views that there should be absolutely no form of censoring. If something on TV is bad for children to see, it's only logical it should be blocked in some way.

[Samnmax221]

Okay... Explain how this is consistent with your views that there should be absolutely no form of censoring. If something on TV is bad for children to see, it's only logical it should be blocked in some way.

And the parents can do that, unless of course they are incompetent, and in that case it isn't my problem, it isn't your problem, and it's certainly not the governments problem.

[Samuel Dravis]

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.

No, they wouldn't want to watch that. I agree. I hold that the way that the U.S. media portrays the war right now, it's all too easy to be complacent about the fact we're even in a war. The war doesn't affect anyone if they don't want to let themselves be affected. They will watch their newscasts, read their newspaper, and not one thing in it will be abnormally disturbing to them. Because that's the way they want it.

 

I don't really want to see guts on the TV either. In fact, it's not really necessary. All it would need is to convey to the viewer that someone just died. That it wasn't just a number under the list marked 'casualties.' There are some of this type of videos on the internet, taken from bomber planes and the like. It's incredibly disturbing even though there is no blood or gore visible.

 

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.

The military has to take any scenario seriously, whether it warrants it or not. They even have a plan for invading Canada. Still, if there was real concern about it I'd have thought they would shut down places like this first.

[Samuel Dravis]

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.

No, they wouldn't want to watch that. I agree. I hold that the way that the U.S. media portrays the war right now, it's all too easy to be complacent about the fact we're even in a war. The war doesn't affect anyone if they don't want to let themselves be affected. They will watch their newscasts, read their newspaper, and not one thing in it will be abnormally disturbing to them. Because that's the way they want it.

 

I don't really want to see guts on the TV either. In fact, it's not really necessary. All it would need is to convey to the viewer that someone just died. That it wasn't just a number under the list marked 'casualties,' 'kills,' 'estimated civilian deaths.' There are some of this type of videos on the internet, taken from bomber planes and the like. It's incredibly disturbing even though there is no blood or gore visible. I mean disturbing in that antiabortion video that's floating around somewhere kind of way.

 

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.

The military has to take any scenario seriously, whether it warrants it or not. They even have a plan for invading Canada. Still, if there was any real concern about it I'd have thought they would shut down places like this first.

[Windu Chi]

Okay... Explain how this is consistent with your views that there should be absolutely no form of censoring. If something on TV is bad for children to see, it's only logical it should be blocked in some way.

 

 

This is not my problem, what other people kids see.

I'm still not going to change my mind, that I don't want no censors in my movies and tv programs.

So, you're just going to have to deal with it.

But, for violence I still don't see the big deal, Myself, my sister and brother with their friends grew up looking at violence on TV, we didn't turn out evil or violent.

Also growing up in the hood, violence was a routine phenomenon.

But, by not being inherently violent don't mean we are pure pacifists; me, my sister and brother will surely kick serious ass, to protect ourselves.

[Samnmax221]

The military has to take any scenario seriously, whether it warrants it or not. They even have a plan for invading Canada. Still, if there was real concern about it I'd have thought they would shut down places like this first.

Well , War Plan Orange was shelved for years. It eventually did come in handy, albeit I don't think I could ever imagine Canada being anything like early 20th century Japan.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, they wouldn't want to watch that. I agree. I hold that the way that the U.S. media portrays the war right now, it's all too easy to be complacent about the fact we're even in a war. The war doesn't affect anyone if they don't want to let themselves be affected. They will watch their newscasts, read their newspaper, and not one thing in it will be abnormally disturbing to them. Because that's the way they want it.

 

There's so many reasons for us to be blase to it all, from being desensitised by the media, films and video games, blind support or opposition to war, not knowing anyone serving over there. On some level I agree that we choose to shut it out because we hear about it so much, but I think it'd be very sad if it were true that we simply stopped caring about it.

 

I don't really want to see guts on the TV either. In fact, it's not really necessary. All it would need is to convey to the viewer that someone just died. That it wasn't just a number under the list marked 'casualties,' 'kills,' 'estimated civilian deaths.' There are some of this type of videos on the internet, taken from bomber planes and the like. It's incredibly disturbing even though there is no blood or gore visible. I mean disturbing in that antiabortion video that's floating around somewhere kind of way.

 

Mulan, if you hadn't seen it, shows the aftermath of battles including villages burnt to the ground and dead soldiers in the snow. Even though there's nothing graphic about these images they're effective, I read especially on older audiances because they have a much better grasp on life, death and war. I'm not sure if showing anything like this would be of any great benefit, I'd want to respect the families of those who had died, but by the same token and to be fair you can use these arguements for things such as showing Insurgent attacks and building a case for how evil they are.

 

The military has to take any scenario seriously, whether it warrants it or not. They even have a plan for invading Canada. Still, if there was any real concern about it I'd have thought they would shut down places like this first.

 

Give us a look at this. Yeah, given how even fictional works have real life details changed you have to wonder about something like this. I wouldn't mind trying it myself actually but if it's really ex Delta guys teaching Delta secrets, it's probably not the best thing to have.

[Emperor Devon]

This is not my problem, what other people kids see.

 

Then tell me how you can believe children shouldn't be allowed to see sex while disagreeing with the means that prevents them from seeing it.

[Windu Chi]

Then tell me how you can believe children shouldn't be allowed to see sex while disagreeing with the means that prevents them from seeing it.

Look, I'm not going to change my mind.

I don't want no censors in my damn movies and tv programs.

 

:lol:Are you deviously trying to manipulate me into changing my opinions with logic?

Because, I have contradictions in my arguments.

It's not going to happen.

So, stop trying.

[Mace MacLeod]

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.

I think not showing them does a tremendous disservice both to the dead and their families. Instead of honouring their sacrifices, the government is sweeping them under the rug and treating them like a dirty little secret that shouldn't ever be shown or mentioned. By doing so, they're just trying to keep the voting public confronted with as few reminders as possible that the war the US started really is a shooting war, not just some abstract concept of something going on "over there", far away from anyone's daily life. And the more remote and abstract it becomes in the public's mind, the less important it becomes to stop it or pay close attention to just what the US government is running around doing.

[Nancy Allen``]

Given how Americans have voted in the last election it seems to be a very important issue, so I wouldn't worry too much that we are not seeing Insurgents gun down American soldiers on TV, the point of how much of a mistake Iraq was is still getting through.

[Samuel Dravis]

Given how Americans have voted in the last election it seems to be a very important issue, so I wouldn't worry too much that we are not seeing Insurgents gun down American soldiers on TV, the point of how much of a mistake Iraq was is still getting through.

It has taken four years, twenty-one thousand, seven hundred seventy-eight wounded and two thousand, eight hundred seventy-two dead Americans for it to get through. There have been a minimum of forty-seven thousand seven hundred eighty-one dead Iraqi civilians. I'd say it hasn't got through fast enough.

[Nancy Allen``]

Why are you so desperate to have dead American soldiers and footage of soldiers being killed shown on TV? The Democrats have power in the Senate, you don't think they'd be trying to pull the troops out of Iraq if they could?

[Emperor Devon]

Look, I'm not going to change my mind.

 

Personally, it doesn't matter to me at all if you change your mind or not. I just like discussing the topic.

 

Because, I have contradictions in my arguments.

 

Explain how you can have these contradictions while claiming to hold a valid opinion.

[Samuel Dravis]

Because I don't want my sister's fiancee to die. I don't want his friends to die. I don't want his countrymen to die. I don't want those civilians to die. I don't even really want those insane extremists to die either. The worst thing about it is that I haven't been able to discover a single good reason for them to be dead or endangered.

 

Oh, I agree that the dems will attempt to get them out, but it's unlikely they're going to get anywhere without the cooperation of the Republicans. That cooperation will probably not come with this censorship in place.

[Nancy Allen``]

So, by having footage of soldiers gunned down by Insurgents, them being captured and tortured to death, you hope that enough pressure will be placed on Bush for him to abandon the Iraqi people and bring the troops home? Iraq was a mistake, no question, but wouldn't there then be a massive backlash for not trying to fix the mess that was created by going into Iraq in the first place?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

So, by having footage of soldiers gunned down by Insurgents, them being captured and tortured to death, you hope that enough pressure will be placed on Bush for him to abandon the Iraqi people and bring the troops home? Iraq was a mistake, no question,

First of all, you keep obsessively focussing on one man: Bush. He's one man, he's a figurehead, it's doubtful that he even influences policy decisions in any meaningful way. Stop obsessing over Bush.

 

And frankly, anyone who believes that US atrocities abroad will be mitigated to any appreciable degree by the Democrats getting back into power is simply deluding themselves. Much of the damage done to Iraq was done during the Clinton regime's tenure, with bombings and sanctions taking a terrible toll on the Iraqi people. Democrats are usually as damaging as Republicans... they're just quieter about it.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

but wouldn't there then be a massive backlash for not trying to fix the mess that was created by going into Iraq in the first place?

As established in earlier threads, the "mess" isn't going to be fixed by a US presence in Iraq, (US presence is merely a focus for violence) and the American people would NEVER accept the spending of the huge amount of money it would take to repair the damage caused by decades of sanctions and now three years of an invading force ruining the Iraqi infrastructure. This paltry spending that we've done in Iraq is like trying to put out a forest fire by urinating at it.

 

And even the money we HAVE sent in has been misused and/or misplaced.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay, how do you propose we solve the problem then?

[Windu Chi]

Explain how you can have these contradictions while claiming to hold a valid opinion.

 

You want argue about contradictions in my opinions.

Then explain Good God in your quote below, you are a atheist you don't believe in God so how can you called it good.

And don't come up with that bullsh*t that this is impertinent.

This is a contradiction in your opinion that you don't believe in God.

Which, I mean everybody opinions have some contradictions, because their opinions are base on the specific belief and experience of the individuals, which, is bias.

Bias, because the emotions of the specific individuals and their individual experiences.

 

:lol:You don't see me posting nothing good about that thing, because I hate it.

:lol:All my posts about God are angry hateful thoughts.

Good God. The first one definitely got me. I actually screamed out loud, and started sweating. If only I had a picture...

 

Lord Darth Bane, I am going to hunt you down, throw you into a small pit, and have screaming noises loud enough to shatter windows play anywhere from several minutes to three months. After twenty years, I will end your suffering. With a spoon.

 

Edit: Oh, here's the car commercial.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Okay, how do you propose we solve the problem then?

Let's first define the problem: We illegally invaded a country, after battering the same for a decade with barbarically damaging sanctions. Now, the people of this country have no infrastructure, no safety and little in the way of basic amenities.

 

How could we solve this problem?

 

Let's ask the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people don't want us there in the way that we are currently there. They view us as an occupying force, and they're not wrong. So first step: Leave. We have no rights over there, we have only one responsibility: Do as our victims TELL us to do. But we're unlikely to leave until we've made sure that our puppet regime isn't going to be toppled by freedom fighters as soon as we're gone. That's why we have recently making approaches to places like Iran for assistance.

 

Secondly as aggressors we should pay out LOADS of money to make amends for our transgression. But that's not going to happen, as the amount of money we'd have to spend would probably be unprecedented in size, as has been stated before.

 

So there are several ways to solve the problem we have created... but we're not going to do it! Oh happy day!

[Samuel Dravis]

So, by having footage of soldiers gunned down by Insurgents, them being captured and tortured to death, you hope that enough pressure will be placed on Bush for him to abandon the Iraqi people and bring the troops home? Iraq was a mistake, no question, but wouldn't there then be a massive backlash for not trying to fix the mess that was created by going into Iraq in the first place?

Like I said before, it needen't be graphic. It simply would have to convey unmistakably what is happening.

 

I would like for the troops to come back. However, if everyone is given a quite clear depiction of the reality of war and they still want it, I can live with that. I of course disagree, but I wouldn't want to subvert the democratic process. We'd just have to live with ourselves after we're done.

 

If there is a backlash then I daresay it can't be worse than how leaving Vietnam tarnished our reputation. Sometimes knowing when to quit can be a good thing. If we did I'd say one of the factions would gain control of the government and start a theocracy just like we've been supposedly against all along, but at least it wouldn't be a war zone.

 

Perhaps if this kind of exposure was in place beforehand, we wouldn't have leaders so willing to start unnecessary wars. They'd at least know that they'd be getting some extremely negative publicity, and not all of it would come from easily demonized/marginalized factions of politics like the opposing party.

 

EDIT: I agree with Spider on his points as well.

[Nancy Allen``]

Let me ask something if I may. If this did happen how would you feel if there were people who hated Bush, hate the fact we're in Iraq, hate America, cheer the deaths of Americans they see on TV and cheer their killers when they are seen commiting these killings?

[Samuel Dravis]

Let me ask something if I may. If this did happen how would you feel if there were people who hated Bush, hate the fact we're in Iraq, hate America, cheer the deaths of Americans they see on TV and cheer their killers when they are seen commiting these killings?

I wouldn't mind much. It's free speech, of course. They're entitled to their own opinion, and I cannot say they are totally unjustified in their hatred. The only thing that I wouldn't want allowed is for them to be cheered on (i.e., encouraging more killing). I don't want that allowed for our side either. It amounts to saying killing is good, and I don't think it is ever good. It may be justified in some circumstances, but it is not good.

[Nancy Allen``]

How would your sister feel about it knowing her fiance is over there, or God forbid should he become a casultie?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Let me ask something if I may. If this did happen how would you feel if there were people who hated Bush, hate the fact we're in Iraq, hate America, cheer the deaths of Americans they see on TV and cheer their killers when they are seen commiting these killings?

Your mind refuses to face the conclusion: If we accept the obvious fact that our war in Iraq was unjustified, amoral and self-interested, we must also accept the fact that as an invading force, we can't complain about people's poor opinion of us.

 

The Iraqis have been HORRIBLY WRONGED. If they decided to cheer when our soldiers die... they have a right to do so. We invaded their country. We demolished their economy. It's OUR FAULT. Not their fault, ours.

 

Further, if our soldiers die out in Iraq, it's our fault. We weren't defending ourselves by invading. We weren't being altruistic. So all these young men and women who have been lied to and subjected to idiotic recruitment advertising campaigns... They're dying and being wounded for the sake of an amoral invasion. Our fault.

 

Thirdly, the insurgents' actions against our forces are routinely called terrorism by our government and our media. But since when has attacking an illegally occupying military force been terrorism? It's the most ludicrous nonsense I've ever heard. Our invasion could technically be called terrorism. The subsequent attacks on our soldiers CANNOT by definition be terrorism. Terrorism is targetting civilians, for ideological reasons.

 

Our armies aren't "the good guys". Our armies are out there ruining other nations. That's why people hate us. Not because they're "jealous" or because they "hate democracy". It's because we go around crushing people into submission. I can cite many more examples than Iraq, too.