Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

[Nancy Allen``]

It's true that women like strong men. Arrogance, however, and an ego the size of Mars, is a complete turn off.

 

Now that I got that off my chest how many times have I said that ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake? Let me reiterate. ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake. 与性交的进入与伊拉克性交是一个该死的差错。與性交的進入與伊拉克性交是一個該死的差錯。****ing die in het ****ing van Irak gaat was een ****ing fout. Das Scheisse Einsteigen in das Bumsen von von dem Irak war ein ****ing Fehler. Το ****ing που πηγαίνει το Ιράκ ήταν ένα ****ing λάθος. Entrare vaffunculo nello scopare Irak era un errore ****ing. イラクの性交に性交に入ることはとても間違いだった。이라크를 성교하기로 성교에게 감것은 지독한 과오 이었다. Entrar fodendo em foder Iraq era um erro do caralho. ****ing идти в ****ing Ирак была ****ing ошибка. Does that make it clearer?

[Spider AL]

Typical, disagree with a neoconservative and they accuse you of arrogance.

 

Look, you're still ignoring the truth. It wasn't a mistake.

 

"OOPS! I've accidentally invaded Iraq with my thousands of fellow accidental good-guys."

 

It was a deliberate invasion for financial and political gain. I've tried my best to show you as much evidence as possible to convince you of this self-evident truth... but you're just not absorbing it. Please... absorb it.

[Windu Chi]

It's true that women like strong men. Arrogance, however, and an ego the size of Mars, is a complete turn off.

 

Now that I got that off my chest how many times have I said that ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake? Let me reiterate. ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake. 与性交的进入与伊拉克性交是一个该死的差错。與性交的進入與伊拉克性交是一個該死的差錯。****ing die in het ****ing van Irak gaat was een ****ing fout. Das Scheisse Einsteigen in das Bumsen von von dem Irak war ein ****ing Fehler. Το ****ing που πηγαίνει το Ιράκ ήταν ένα ****ing λάθος. Entrare vaffunculo nello scopare Irak era un errore ****ing. イラクの性交に性交に入ることはとても間違いだった。이라크를 성교하기로 성교에게 감것은 지독한 과오 이었다. Entrar fodendo em foder Iraq era um erro do caralho. ****ing идти в ****ing Ирак была ****ing ошибка. Does that make it clearer?

You got me cracking up.

[Nancy Allen``]

Bush is the greatest evil the world has ever seen, is that what you want to hear?

 

Tough.

[Mace MacLeod]

Before Skinwalker locks this thread, can we get back on topic, please?

 

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.

This right here is why I think far more media coverage and attention should be paid to the realities of the current Iraqi Conquest. I know I've seen the report of the 3000th US death in Iraq about five times. It's not that I think there should be vivid, glowing coverage of brutal torture and death on US airwaves, but by allowing the US government to heavily censor any and all information about the true cost of the war, the US public is handing them carte blanche to make things up as they go along and deprive the public of the information necessary to make informed decisions about the way their country conducts its business. And that's a very dangerous state of affairs.

 

Now that I got that off my chest how many times have I said that ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake? Let me reiterate. ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake. 与性交的进入与伊拉克性交是一个该死的差错。與性交的進入與伊拉克性交是一個該死的差錯。** **ing die in het ****ing van Irak gaat was een ****ing fout. Das Scheisse Einsteigen in das Bumsen von von dem Irak war ein ****ing Fehler. Το ****ing που πηγαίνει το Ιράκ ήταν ένα ****ing λάθος. Entrare vaffunculo nello scopare Irak era un errore ****ing. イラクの性交に性交に入ることはとても間違いだった。이라크를 성교하기로 성교에게 감것은 지독한 과오 이었다. Entrar fodendo em foder Iraq era um erro do caralho. ****ing идти в ****ing Ирак была ****ing ошибка. Does that make it clearer?

Nancy, if this is the sh!t you want to talk, just go hang around on the Grand Theft Auto forums. Splash around in the kiddie pool until you've got it out of your system and quit embarrasing yourself.

[Windu Chi]

Bush is the greatest evil the world has ever seen, is that what you want to hear?

 

Tough.

Are you talking to Spider ?

You know I don't believe, Bush is the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

[Samuel Dravis]

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

How she feels about it doesn't change the facts, and those are that 1) they have the right to free speech, 2) they are not completely unjustified in their anger, and 3) I'd rather they vent on TV and not with an AK; words don't kill people.

 

I wouldn't feel the best about him dying over there either. He's a pretty nice guy. I would still have to tell her that she'd be wrong about completely censoring them from the tv though, and I definitely wouldn't like that. Still, I think she would see what I mean, even if she would be angry about it.

 

Bush is the greatest evil the world has ever seen, is that what you want to hear?

 

Tough.

No, I don't think he is. Hitler was worse.

 

Seriously, we are not attacking you personally Nancy. I've never asked if you think Bush is evil, and I don't think you need to pass judgement on Bush at all to talk about censorship being a good/bad thing.

 

Nancy, if this is the sh!t you want to talk, just go hang around on the Grand Theft Auto forums. Splash around in the kiddie pool until you've got it out of your system and quit embarrasing yourself.

Mace, please stop. This is a good discussion. :/

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis:

How she feels about it doesn't change the facts, and those are that 1) they have the right to free speech, 2) they are not completely unjustified in their anger, and 3) I'd rather they vent on TV and not with an AK; words don't kill people.

 

I wouldn't feel the best about him dying over there either. He's a pretty nice guy. I would still have to tell her that she'd be wrong about completely censoring them from the tv though, and I definitely wouldn't like that. Still, I think she would see what I mean, even if she would be angry about it.

Samuel's stance here is morally courageous. Censorship of wartime casualties and atrocities is never justified, no matter how upsetting the images might be to some people. Even if those close to you would be upset by honest reporting, you must campaign for it.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Bush is the greatest evil the world has ever seen, is that what you want to hear?

 

Tough.

Either you're so flustered that you're ignoring what people are saying, or you're trolling. For the fiftieth time, Bush is an irrelevance, a figurehead, he's not in control, he's the transient public face of a shambolic and corrupt ruling elite who ARE in control.

 

What do I want to hear? Well I'd like to hear you actually admit that the US has committed gratuitous war crimes by invading Iraq. Not going to happen of course, but it would be nice. Honesty is always nice.

[Nancy Allen``]

Uh huh. Like you ignoring topics and attacking faults in others rather than admit you're wrong?

[Mace MacLeod]

Mace, please stop. This is a good discussion.

Now that I got that off my chest how many times have I said that ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake? Let me reiterate. ****ing going into ****ing Iraq was a ****ing mistake. 与性交的进入与伊拉克性交是一个该死的差错。與性交的進入與伊拉克性交是一個該死的差錯。** **ing die in het ****ing van Irak gaat was een ****ing fout. Das Scheisse Einsteigen in das Bumsen von von dem Irak war ein ****ing Fehler. Το ****ing που πηγαίνει το Ιράκ ήταν ένα ****ing λάθος. Entrare vaffunculo nello scopare Irak era un errore ****ing. イラクの性交に性交に入ることはとても間違いだった。이라크를 성교하기로 성교에게 감것은 지독한 과오 이었다. Entrar fodendo em foder Iraq era um erro do caralho. ****ing идти в ****ing Ирак была ****ing ошибка. Does that make it clearer?

Define "good".

 

I stand by my remarks.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If you think the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, then you hate Bush and think the US shouldn't have fought Hitler either! Oh, and invading Iraq was a mistake. I can throw tantrums about that and not look like an idiot while still slamming anyone who doesn't support the ongoing occupation, right?

 

()

 

As for the censor, I say drop it. Warnings prior to "strong" scenes will do by far. That, and there's just more and more digital Parent Control stuff that lets mum and dad control what their kiddies watch without said mom and dad even needing to come home.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Uh huh. Like you ignoring topics and attacking faults in others rather than admit you're wrong?

Perhaps you'd care to provide any evidence that I'm wrong about anything that I've asserted in this thread... if you can. I've provided much evidence in the form of logical argument to support my assertion that YOU'RE wrong. The least you can do is reciprocate.

 

As for ignoring topics... I haven't brought any subject up out of the blue in this thread. I have responded to others' comments only.

 

Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod:

Define "good".

 

I stand by my remarks.

And apart from your use of profanity, I stand by your remarks as well Mace.

[Mace MacLeod]

@DE: Hey, where's the quote tags! Don't napster me here, dude!

[Samuel Dravis]

Define "good".

I'll define it as "interesting enough that I don't want it closed and no one talk about it any more." Whether the comments are warranted or not, that's probably going to be the result if the personal attacks keep up - so please, don't do it. I realize this is an a forum on the internet and we need a flame war once in a while just to be true to ourselves, but let's not be hasty turning this topic into one.

[Mace MacLeod]

^^^Imagine if the profanity blocker also worked in German...

 

Anyway...moving on...nothing to see here folks...

 

Censorship = bad!

Parental responsibility = good!

windu6 in charge of tv programming = really bad!

[Point Man]

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

It is everyone's problem. The hallmark of a civil society is that it protects those who are most vulnerable.

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.

I took a college psychology course entitled Children and Television. In it, we looked at studies that showed a strong correlation between viewing violent television programs and engaging in violent behavior. Basically, television programming is much more violent than normal life. Children see this and believe that the world is more violent than it really is. They are then more likely to perceive even neutral acts as intentionally violent and will respond in kind. It's a phenomenon known as cultivation. I would have to do some digging to find the sources for this, but, if you want, I can look.

[TK-8252]

I took a college psychology course entitled Children and Television. In it, we looked at studies that showed a strong correlation between viewing violent television programs and engaging in violent behavior. Basically, television programming is much more violent than normal life. Children see this and believe that the world is more violent than it really is. They are then more likely to perceive even neutral acts as intentionally violent and will respond in kind. It's a phenomenon known as cultivation. I would have to do some digging to find the sources for this, but, if you want, I can look.

 

The world is incredibly violent. Don't say that children are being influenced by television to believe that the world is more violent than it is. They're being shown the TRUE nature of the world - not just the sheltered view that parents want their children to see.

 

Perhaps those studies just show something that is obvious - kids who are violent off the bat are more likely to be drawn towards watching violent shows.

 

What's MORE likely to cause children to be violent is when parents are beating their kids, using corporal punishment, because that shows that violence is ACCEPTABLE if it gets you results. Watching violence on television and seeing your PARENTS engaging in a violent act is nothing comparable. Children do what their parents do - parents who smoke are more likely to have children who smoke, and fat parents are more likely to have fat children. Just as parents who strike their children are likely to have those children grow up to use violence as a way to get what they want.

[Emperor Devon]

You want argue about contradictions in my opinions.

 

Don't you get it? If your arguments have contradictions, they are invalid arguments. In a debate tournament, I'd win on the spot for your inconsistencies.

 

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.

 

*Sighs* Three things...

 

1. "Good God!" when put in that context is an expression of shock, not an appraisal of God.

 

2. My lack of religion doesn't mean I can't use expressions. Even with your anti-God views, I imagine you've said "Holy ****!" or something similar in your life.

 

3. Religion and all arguments related to it are irrelevant in this thread.

 

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

 

Er, do you know what that means? You used it in an improper context.

[Jae Onasi]

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.

 

I disagree that it honors their sacrifice by displaying their coffins for the entire world to see. If Jimbo died, I wouldn't want his flag-draped coffin on cable news for the entire world to see (and terrorists to laugh at). His death would be a private affair for me and my family; not me, my family, and untold millions deciding to enjoy a little voyeurism on his death at my family's expense. No thank you.

 

There is the other very real issue of security/safety for the family--we have people in the US actually robbing homes when they know the family is gone at a funeral. I wouldn't want the risk of millions of people knowing who he was, who I was, where he lived, how they can find his widow and her children because they know 'the man of the house' isn't coming home, especially if they know my family would be receiving a life insurance check. There are some real wackos out there that I don't want knowing my husband had just croaked. It's all too easy to figure out when burials are going to be when you see the coffins on the plane. I also wouldn't want Katie Couric shoving a microphone in my face at the wake and asking me "So, how does it feel to know your husband got blown to bits by an IED?" On average, about 2 soldiers are dying per day (don't quote me on the math--I'm roughing it)--it's not that hard to see a coffin on a particular day and figure out just who it belongs to and then go pester (or do something worse) to the family.

 

I can't possibly miss the fact that we're in a shooting war--the media makes a point every single day of saying who got blown up, by whom, when it happened, how it happened, how many people died on each side, how many civilians got killed or injured, you name it. I'm not saying don't publicize information on casualties--I think it's important for people to have some information available. However, the needs of the family in regards to their deceased loved one vastly outweigh any need of the media or the government to show dead people in order to 'get the news out'.

Children do what their parents do - parents who smoke are more likely to have children who smoke, and fat parents are more likely to have fat children. Just as parents who strike their children are likely to have those children grow up to use violence as a way to get what they want.

That doesn't quite follow. Children may, for instance, be more likely to be overweight when their parents are overweight, but that isn't because the parents are shoving food down their kids' throats. There are a ton of physical issues that come into play in that, e.g. genetics, metabolism, etc.

 

My city is not nearly as violent as what's seen on CSI (of any flavor), the Sopranos, Scarface, anything by Tarantino, and so on. In fact, most peoples' days are pretty darn boring--they get up, take a shower, get dressed, drink their coffee and have breakfast, go to work, have some lunch, work some more, go home, have dinner with their families, watch a little TV, go to bed....wash, rinse, repeat. There are a lot more violent things happening on the TV shows I happen to watch than happen here in the Real World. Any cop will tell you just how unrealistic a lot of cop shows can be in terms of the amount of action they see vs. the amount of time they spend making phone calls to track down leads, write reports, and totally other boring things.

[Windu Chi]

Don't you get it? If your arguments have contradictions, they are invalid arguments. In a debate tournament, I'd win on the spot for your inconsistencies.

 

What the hell you mean you won?

Who the hell said, this was a contest?

opinions~bias

Got it?

 

*Sighs* Three things...

 

1. "Good God!" when put in that context is an expression of shock, not an appraisal of God.

 

2. My lack of religion doesn't mean I can't use expressions. Even with your anti-God views, I imagine you've said "Holy ****!" or something similar in your life.

 

3. Religion and all arguments related to it are irrelevant in this thread.

:lol:Well, I guess I'm blinded by hate because I don't say good God or Holy Sh*t.

[Emperor Devon]

What the hell you mean you won?

 

In an actual debate, yes, I would have.

 

Even in this case, however, it is clear my arguments have more merit than yours. Unless you can come up with new ones for your side of the issue, we have nothing further to debate about it. Discussing is another matter, though.

 

Well, I guess I'm blinded by hate because I don't say good God or Holy Sh*t.

 

Your beliefs are irrelevant. I was explaining why I said "Good God!"

[Windu Chi]

In an actual debate, yes, I would have.

 

Even in this case, however, it is clear my arguments have more merit than yours. Unless you can come up with new ones for your side of the issue, we have nothing further to discuss about it.

I didn't ever plan to have a debate on my opinions.

My plan was to see other people opinions.

You started this debate about my opinions.

 

 

Your beliefs are irrelevant. I was explaining why I said "Good God!"

I know what the hell you was explaining, Devon.

I was saying I don't say that in context of shock.

[Point Man]

The world is incredibly violent. Don't say that children are being influenced by television to believe that the world is more violent than it is. They're being shown the TRUE nature of the world - not just the sheltered view that parents want their children to see.

Television DOES NOT COME CLOSE to the true nature of the world. At the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, studies on television programming revealed the following:

1) Males comprise 65% of the roles on TV. In reality, more than half the world population is female.

2) About 350 characters are portrayed on prime time TV each night, and seven get murdered. At that rate, the world population would be down to less than one in just over three years.

Perhaps those studies just show something that is obvious - kids who are violent off the bat are more likely to be drawn towards watching violent shows.

Children who have previously shown violent behavior are more attracted to violent programs. However, George Gerbner has conducted some outstanding research that controlled for this and showed how preschoolers who were shown violent programs then went on to be more violent with their classmates than did the children who watched nonviolent programs.

 

What's MORE likely to cause children to be violent is when parents are beating their kids, using corporal punishment, because that shows that violence is ACCEPTABLE if it gets you results... Just as parents who strike their children are likely to have those children grow up to use violence as a way to get what they want.

The problem with all the "cycle of violence" research is that it is all retrospective. I don't think anyone disputes that violence begets violence, but the research is lacking to prove it. What is really lacking is any research that shows negative outcomes from normal spanking. There just is no proof that spanking kids in a controlled manner as part of a well-rounded discipline system causes violent behavior later in life. There is, however, good evidence that children who watch violent television programs are more violent later in life than those who do not.

[Windu Chi]

It is everyone's problem. The hallmark of a civil society is that it protects those who are most vulnerable.

Not every child is vulnerable, to violent images.

 

I took a college psychology course entitled Children and Television. In it, we looked at studies that showed a strong correlation between viewing violent television programs and engaging in violent behavior. Basically, television programming is much more violent than normal life. Children see this and believe that the world is more violent than it really is. They are then more likely to perceive even neutral acts as intentionally violent and will respond in kind. It's a phenomenon known as cultivation. I would have to do some digging to find the sources for this, but, if you want, I can look.

Those studies are flawed, in my opinion.

I only kick ass, if I have to.

I don't like the use of violence, if it is pointless to used it.

I don't trust studies; they are still studying.

Studies change with time.

[Nancy Allen``]

This is a religious quote so I'm not sure how far it'll fly with some of you, but Jesus once said "He who is without sin cast the first stone." What this basically means is that we're eager to be judge jury and executioner on the FCC, Bush, whatever. Perhaps a bit more time could be spent looking at our own faults.