Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

[Point Man]

Not every child is vulnerable, to violent images.

Not every child, but enough that we need to protect them.

Those studies are flawed, in my opinion.

How are they flawed? I read them and found them to be methodologically sound. So did the editors of the journals and the reviewers who went over the articles prior to publication. How can you even say the studies are flawed if you don't know what studies I am referring to? In order for you to have a basis for your decision, I did some searching and found this website with a ton of references to look up. http://www.georgegerbner.net After you have actually looked at the research, come back and say what the flaws were in the studies.

 

Forgive me, but I think just about everyone would agree that the facts presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals carry more validity than your opinions.

[Windu Chi]

How are they flawed? I read them and found them to be methodologically sound. So did the editors of the journals and the reviewers who went over the articles prior to publication. How can you even say the studies are flawed if you don't know what studies I am referring to? In order for you to have a basis for your decision, I did some searching and found this website with a ton of references to look up. http://www.georgegerbner.net After you have actually looked at the research, come back and say what the flaws were in the studies.

 

Forgive me, but I think just about everyone would agree that the facts presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals carry more validity than your opinions.

Yeah, like I was saying, I'm not evil my sister is not evil and my brother and their friends aren't evil or violent.

I don't trust no damn studies, Jimbo.

Those studies are just local microscopic evidence, not globle.

Which I mean, they don't account for every single child on this planet.

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, like I was saying, I'm not evil my sister is not evil and my brother and their friends aren't evil or violent.

I don't trust no damn studies, Jimbo.

Those studies are just local microscopic evidence, not globle.

Which I mean, they don't account for every single child on this planet.

 

The study has to have enough subjects in it to be valid, and they try to control for variables like age, gender, race, etc. I've seen a number of studies that were huge, multi-university studies done with tens of thousands of patients over a number of years, and their research directly shapes some of what's done in my office in terms of patient treatment. These studies are what have advanced medicine and science. They can't be ignored because one or two people aren't happy with the findings.

 

Obviously not every kid is included in these studies, but enough have been that we can make some conclusions about how violence affects children.

[Windu Chi]

The study has to have enough subjects in it to be valid, and they try to control for variables like age, gender, race, etc. I've seen a number of studies that were huge, multi-university studies done with tens of thousands of patients over a number of years, and their research directly shapes some of what's done in my office in terms of patient treatment. These studies are what have advanced medicine and science. They can't be ignored because one or two people aren't happy with the findings.

They are still experimenting, that is why it is called a study.

Obviously not every kid is included in these studies, but enough have been that we can make some conclusions about how violence affects children

Yes, weak-minded children, that violence may have a strong effect on.

[Jae Onasi]

They are still experimenting, that is why it is called a study.

That does not negate the importance of such studies. If we found out aspirin protects thousands of people from heart attacks, does that mean a doctor should ignore giving it to his/her patients just because the study wasn't done on the entire world population? No. It's still very useful for us to know. The point of the study is that if you have a certain sample size, you can extrapolate the findings in that group to the population as a whole, if you've accounted for things like age/gender/race/etc.

 

Yes, weak-minded children, that violence may have a strong effect on.

Quantify 'weak-minded'. The studies were done on a variety of children.

 

You may not like the results that violence does affect children to some degree or another. However, it happens, and the government needs to protect kids because the media industry obviously doesn't want to.

Just because some want to see violence and cuss-words doesn't mean that the FCC should allow children to be exposed to it as well.

 

And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway.

Unlike you, I would rather spend my time campaigning against the violence in the world rather than campaigning against imaginary violence on the TV. The answer to the alleged problem of children being de-sensitised to violence through watching violent TV programmes... is increased parental responsibility, not increased censorship. If the TV is showing your child glamourised violence, don't let the child watch the TV. It's really that simple.

 

As an adult, I have a right to watch violent shows and movies if I so desire. Censorship infringes my rights, in order to do the job that parents of impressionable children should already be doing- protecting their kids.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

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.

Unfortunately for yourself and Jimbo, once he decided to join an army that was participating in immoral and ill-advised actions in foreign lands, his actions, his life and- God forbid- his death, became the direct concern of the public that is footing the bill for the invasion.

 

The public right to see all the consequences of the wars that are being instigated in their name outweighs your personal desire to conceal the "flag-draped coffins" in case some terrorist somewhere decides to laugh maniacally at the images.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

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.

The idea that showing anonymous coffins on a news report would decrease your personal safety in any meaningful way is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia. I can only assume that it's indicative of the same culture of fear that resulted in broad US public quiescence when confronted with the totally mis-named "Patriot Act".

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

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'.

Addressed above. Once again, the needs of the family do NOT outweigh the need of the public- who are subsidising this immoral occupation- to be made aware of ALL the consequences of the war that's being waged in their name. By concealing such powerful images from the public as pictures of the returning US/UK dead, the US/UK power centres are merely serving their own interests and using the "feelings of the family of the deceased" as a convenient excuse. And why? Because such images might spur more citizens into speaking out against the invasion. That's the last thing they want.

[Windu Chi]

That does not negate the importance of such studies. If we found out aspirin protects thousands of people from heart attacks, does that mean a doctor should ignore giving it to his/her patients just because the study wasn't done on the entire world population? No. It's still very useful for us to know. The point of the study is that if you have a certain sample size, you can extrapolate the findings in that group to the population as a whole, if you've accounted for things like age/gender/race/etc.

I understand statistical patterns and data, Jae.

I know that I shouldn't discount the results completely.

But I'm still not convince, that violent images affect normal(but I still believe this definition is vague) kids strongly.

Quantify 'weak-minded'. The studies were done on a variety of children.

 

You may not like the results that violence does affect children to some degree or another. However, it happens, and the government needs to protect kids because the media industry obviously doesn't want to.

Just because some want to see violence and cuss-words doesn't mean that the FCC should allow children to be exposed to it as well.

I mean, children with mental illness or diseases, easily influence by violent images or anything, can't reason good/evil or right/wrong choices properly, emotional instability, behavioral problems, and/or cognitive dysfunction or impairment.

For example: bipolar disorder(maybe), schizophrenia(maybe a est. 70% chance of probability), insanity, paranoia(Joseph Stalin), delusional(Joseph Stalin) sociopathic(maybe a high probability and I'm assuming Joseph Stalin) and certain personality types that may have a strong effect on which child, will be more affected by violent images and movies/programs on TV.

And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway.

I'm not going into this again.

[Jae Onasi]

Unlike you, I would rather spend my time campaigning against the violence in the world rather than campaigning against imaginary violence on the TV.

 

Seeing as this thread is about the FCC and censorship and not particularly the war in Iraq itself, I addressed that rather than violence in the world. However, you're making an incorrect assumption that I don't 'campaign against the violence in the world'. I'm mandated to report child abuse in particular, and any cases where I believe assualt/battery/other major illegal actions are happening (which helps cover the elder abuse angle). And I have done just that. In fact, I pestered Child Protective services in my town until they actually did something about the horrible situation I knew 5 kids were living in. I have unfortunately had the duty to report other cases of suspected child abuse, too, and very sadly, I was only wrong once (and very happy to be wrong, let me tell you). I've helped some women get out of abusive situations, helped teach a number of other folks self-defense techniques, and kept a guy from beating the snot out of his girlfriend in my office until the police could arrive. I have a young family, a profession, and a couple of hobbies/church/volunteer things that take a lot of time, so no, I'll never be a Cindy Sheehan on a particular war issue, but I'll make a difference in my little corner of the world.

 

The answer to the alleged problem of children being de-sensitised to violence through watching violent TV programmes... is increased parental responsibility, not increased censorship. If the TV is showing your child glamourised violence, don't let the child watch the TV. It's really that simple.

It would be that simple if parents were able to be home with their kids a lot more. A lot of single parents work long hours or 2 jobs, or both parents have to work just to keep a roof over their families' heads. A number of studies have shown violence in TV increases violence in kids. We as a society have a responsibility to protect those who can't protect themselves. Children don't always have the ability to determine what's appropriate content. I'd love to say that the v-chip is working at my home, but a lot of the time it blocks things incorrectly. Until the technology catches up, there needs to be some kind of oversight. It's not just a parent problem when the parent doesn't do their job. The child is affected, and a violent child affects the people around him or her, disrupts learning in classrooms, attacks other kids, and has a tendancy to grow into an adult that may be more violent. It's not just a parent problem, it's a society problem.

As an adult, I have a right to watch violent shows and movies if I so desire. Censorship infringes my rights, in order to do the job that parents of impressionable children should already be doing- protecting their kids.

Then buy cable. Most of the violent movies are crap anyway and not worth my time or money.

Since my tax dollars help run the government and the government regulates the airwaves, I do have the right to campaign against violence on the airwaves.

Unfortunately for yourself and Jimbo, once he decided to join an army that was participating in immoral and ill-advised actions in foreign lands, his actions, his life and- God forbid- his death, became the direct concern of the public that is footing the bill for the invasion.

The public right to see all the consequences of the wars that are being instigated in their name outweighs your personal desire to conceal the "flag-draped coffins" in case some terrorist somewhere decides to laugh maniacally at the images.

And as a taxpayer myself and the person who was related to the one who made the ultimate sacrifice, I think I have the right to deny the public permission to view the coffin. He is no longer in the Army when he's dead. The decision on what to do with his remains once he's gone is mine and my family's, not some media out let who would do heaven knows what with any images.

The idea that showing anonymous coffins on a news report would decrease your personal safety in any meaningful way is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia.

 

I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now.

 

I wasn't referring to anonymous coffins (which the government has shown--I saw a news clip about how soldiers are brought home to their final resting places). My concern is the media attaching names with those coffins, in which case millions would have more information than they really need to know. Unfortunately, there are too many people willing to take advantage of a grieving widow.

I can only assume that it's indicative of the same culture of fear that resulted in broad US public quiescence when confronted with the totally mis-named "Patriot Act".

You can assume that, but it would be incorrect. I have young children to protect. I want the risk of something happening to them to be as low as I can possibly make it. And if it means that some anti-war groups aren't able to get their yukks out of seeing a bunch of coffins, too bad.

 

Addressed above. Once again, the needs of the family do NOT outweigh the need of the public- who are subsidising this immoral occupation- to be made aware of ALL the consequences of the war that's being waged in their name.

I disagree. I also pay taxes, and I theoretically have just given up the primary breadwinner in my family to the country, regardless of whether someone thinks the war is immoral or not. My need and right for privacy and the fact that I've just endured The Sacrifice is more than enough to outweigh whatever the public feels they're 'entitled' to. I live in the US where we honor individual rights as well as society rights.

 

By concealing such powerful images from the public as pictures of the returning US/UK dead, the US/UK power centres are merely serving their own interests and using the "feelings of the family of the deceased" as a convenient excuse. And why? Because such images might spur more citizens into speaking out against the invasion. That's the last thing they want.

Oh, please. Respecting the family of the deceased is a 'convenient excuse'? They've just given up everything. It's the least the government could do to protect the families from further pain by people who care less about how the family feels and more about making some political statement at the family's expense.

 

can't reason good/evil or right/wrong choices properly

That would be pretty much the definition of every single young child, windu6. Some of the older children have it together, but the younger ones don't have the cognitive ability to make appropriate decisions. That's why we don't let them vote and drive.

[Nancy Allen``]

I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now.

 

He said what? That really is a sick comment to make, especially how it has nothing to do with trying to shame people into opposing the war in Iraq, which is probably the reason he's such a strong supporter of allowing such images in the first place. The reason we don't parade our dead in front of TV cameras is because we don't want to traumatise the deceased family's any more by glorifying another American killed fighting in a war that people want no part of waged by a man nutcases want dead. I was actually contemplating a civil, thoughtful discussion on Iraq, but if this is the type of stunts he's going to pull forget it.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'll let Spider respond to you Jae, although I disagree. "I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now." What? He gave his reasons, and while they may be condescending they were hardly flaming or defamatory.

 

Nancy - The only part of your post that was not an ad-hominem attack was

 

"The reason we don't parade our dead in front of TV cameras is because we don't want to traumatise the deceased family's any more by glorifying another American killed fighting in a war that people want no part of waged by a man nutcases want dead."

 

If those coffins are anonymous then how is the family going to know which one it is and be traumatized by it? Who said anything about glorifying people's deaths? Their deaths are the very thing I want to avoid! And once again, Bush is of no consequence in this discussion on censorship.

 

Please just post relevant comments... It's irritating to me when I see everyone apparently trying to start a flame war. Control yourselves. It's just a friendly discussion on a forum. The world will not end if Spider, I or anyone says something that ruffles a few feathers.

[Nancy Allen``]

Ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. (from Wikipedia).

 

Saying that the comment "The idea that showing anonymous coffins on a news report would decrease your personal safety in any meaningful way is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia" is sick is considered ad hominem? If so, then the quoted comment certainly would be as well. I don't want dead soldiers either, I say bring the troops home, but we can't because the Iraqi people will tear themselves apart, but parading dead soldiers on TV, for any reason, will never happen. There's too much respect for those who made that sacrifice and the families who have lost a loved one for that to ever occur.

[Jae Onasi]

I'll let Spider respond to you Jae, although I disagree. "I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now." What? He gave his reasons, and while they may be condescending they were hardly flaming or defamatory.

 

'Ludicrous' I can live with. However, implying I have paranoia, which has been considered a mental disorder for a long time, when in fact I have never been diagnosed as such, is very problematic and attacks my character.

I would argue that condescension is not exactly the best way to foster a continued debate, even if we all do have the rights of free speech.

[Samuel Dravis]

Nancy, you said his espousal of the comment was sick, implying that he was sick for promoting it. I'd say that qualifies.

 

Is that respect making it harder for the troops to come home, and thus by extension killing more of them needlessly? It is a strange kind of respect if so; I would not agree with such a concept. Honor is all well and good, but I wonder if you would choose honor or the life of a soldier when honor is clearly not getting them anywhere except six feet under.

 

'Ludicrous' I can live with. However, implying I have paranoia, which has been considered a mental disorder for a long time, when in fact I have never been diagnosed as such, is very problematic and attacks my character.

I would argue that condescension is not exactly the best way to foster a continued debate, even if we all do have the rights of free speech.

Given that I agree with you. For my part, I try to avoid any personal attacks so do tell me if I slip one in.

[Nancy Allen``]

Using the deaths of our soldiers to sway opinion on Iraq (if that isn't the reason why you support it please tell us what is), is it really worth it? I can promise you right now it won't work, all that'll happen is there'll be a backlash against it. You really want to put an end to the war? The best way is to attack Bush. People have voted him out of the Senate and because of that he's made the biggest indication yet that Iraq was a mistake (to appease those against the war, my stance is that Saddam was overthrown so there could be a regime change in Iraq). If enough people turn on Bush and the government then there'll be little choice but to give what the people want. You really want an end to the war in Iraq? Get out there and rally everyone you can against Bush and the government.

[Jae Onasi]

Is that respect making it harder for the troops to come home, and thus by extension killing more of them needlessly?

 

I don't think so--if you're talking about anonymous coffins, I think the American public will get rather blase about it after awhile and it'll have about as much meaning to the general public as the numbers themselves. I had a tough time grasping the Vietnam casaulty numbers until I had the chance to see The Wall in D.C. Seeing all the names there has a certain impact.

That would be something that I was OK with, providing Jimbo wanted it that way, because the intent is different.

[Samuel Dravis]

Using the deaths of our soldiers to sway opinion on Iraq (if that isn't the reason why you support it please tell us what is)

My opinion on the subject is that people are not aware enough of the actual human cost of the war. Showing said coffins and other images would hopefully create more awareness in that regard and I would hope that we would get out of there faster. However, like I said before, if the people still want the war after they've had the very real consequences shown to them, then I would have to accept that and we'd all have to live with ourselves.

 

is it really worth it? I can promise you right now it won't work, all that'll happen is there'll be a backlash against it. You really want to put an end to the war? The best way is to attack Bush. People have voted him out of the Senate and because of that he's made the biggest indication yet that Iraq was a mistake (to appease those against the war, my stance is that Saddam was overthrown so there could be a regime change in Iraq). If enough people turn on Bush and the government then there'll be little choice but to give what the people want. You really want an end to the war in Iraq? Get out there and rally everyone you can against Bush and the government.

Is it worth it? I know that our people won't die anymore; probably one faction over there will take over fairly quickly and Iraq will end up worse than it began - a devastatingly poor theocracy, with most of its infrastructure blown to bits by us kindly invaders. Am I happy with that? No. Am I happier with staying there for "as long as it takes"? No.

 

I don't think I have to worry about Bush being gone this next election, and it's very, very unlikely that people will actually be able to impeach and convict him since they haven't done so already.

 

I don't think so--if you're talking about anonymous coffins, I think the American public will get rather blase about it after awhile and it'll have about as much meaning to the general public as the numbers themselves. I had a tough time grasping the Vietnam casaulty numbers until I had the chance to see The Wall in D.C. Seeing all the names there has a certain impact.

Yes, that is a good memorial. 60 000 is a lot of people.

 

That would be something that I was OK with, providing Jimbo wanted it that way, because the intent is different.

The problem I have with it (not that I disapprove of the idea) is that it doesn't interject into mainstream conciousness. People don't go to it if they don't want to. I'm sure that showing coffins on TV will eventually become less effective, but I think it's better to do something that will make people realize what is happening. I hope you see what I'm trying to say; like I said before, the worst part about the casualties lists is just not seeing a good reason for them, and it's hard to justify them staying in my mind. Letting people see this kind of thing is something I think the situation justifies.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I wasn't referring to anonymous coffins (which the government has shown--I saw a news clip about how soldiers are brought home to their final resting places).

Your knowledge on the topic appears incomplete.

 

The US government has blocked the release of all such images since 1991. Even anonymous coffins. The only reason they were finally FORCED to show the images in April 2005 (of anonymous coffins, out of context) was a dedicated campaign fought in the court system. Censorship at its worst.

 

Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1473506,00.html

 

And no doubt if the US government had their way, they would never show such images. Only popular movements hold the regime to account in this respect, as in all respects.

 

Nice bit in that article about ol' Cheney and Bush senior by the way. Very revealing.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

You can assume that, but it would be incorrect. I have young children to protect. I want the risk of something happening to them to be as low as I can possibly make it. And if it means that some anti-war groups aren't able to get their yukks out of seeing a bunch of coffins, too bad.

How DARE you. How DARE you suggest that "anti-war groups" would "get their yukks" from seeing the images of young mens' coffins returning home from an illegal and immoral war that has claimed their lives. How DARE you. I am sickened by this ignorant and insulting remark.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Seeing as this thread is about the FCC and censorship and not particularly the war in Iraq itself, I addressed that rather than violence in the world. However, you're making an incorrect assumption that I don't 'campaign against the violence in the world'. I'm mandated to report child abuse in particular, and any cases where I believe assualt/battery/other major illegal actions are happening (which helps cover the elder abuse angle). And I have done just that.

And it's good that you've fulfilled your obligations as a public servant. But that doesn't alter the fact that your stance is rooted in a fundamental double standard. You said: "And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway." while you have been tacitly approving of the single greatest act of violent international aggression in recent years, namely the US/UK invasion of Iraq. Total double standard, railing against imaginary violence on the idiot-box while not railing against the invasion of Iraq.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

It would be that simple if parents were able to be home with their kids a lot more. A lot of single parents work long hours or 2 jobs, or both parents have to work just to keep a roof over their families' heads. A number of studies have shown violence in TV increases violence in kids. We as a society have a responsibility to protect those who can't protect themselves. Children don't always have the ability to determine what's appropriate content. I'd love to say that the v-chip is working at my home, but a lot of the time it blocks things incorrectly.

You don't need a chip, you need a cupboard that locks. If you're not around to supervise the child's use of the TV... he/she doesn't get to use the TV.

 

It's very similar to IT this respect. I'm sick and tired of "concerned parents" campaigning for censorship in video games, greater leglislation for control of internet content... all because they're not "concerned" enough to bother supervising their kid.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Then buy cable. Most of the violent movies are crap anyway and not worth my time or money.

Here you show a lack of taste and a lack of understanding with regards to cinema and the history of cinema. Some of the greatest, most influential, most critically acclaimed movies of all time have also been the most violent. The revisionist westerns of the seventies and nineties, pretty much every De Niro picture, from 'The Deer Hunter' to 'Taxi Driver',... the list is endless.

 

Hell, what would Shakespeare be without the violence? 'Titus Andronicus'... 'Macbeth'... You wouldn't have much text left if you excised the violence from them.

 

Violence has been an integral part of drama since time immemorial. Denying this is as futile as denying... oh... US war crimes.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Since my tax dollars help run the government and the government regulates the airwaves, I do have the right to campaign against violence on the airwaves.

Ah! The old "I pay my taxes... so I should get to decide what you can and cannot do and see and watch!" fallacy.

 

Yes Jae, in a society with free speech you have the right to campaign for anything, even campaign for the limiting of the free speech that allows you to campaign. Of course, I have the right to respond and to show exactly how immoral your stance is.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

And as a taxpayer myself and the person who was related to the one who made the ultimate sacrifice, I think I have the right to deny the public permission to view the coffin. He is no longer in the Army when he's dead. The decision on what to do with his remains once he's gone is mine and my family's, not some media out let who would do heaven knows what with any images.

The idea that "Once a soldier's dead he's no longer a public servant!" doesn't fly. He died for an illegal war that the public is paying for. Once again, the public's right to see ALL the consequences of wars fought in their name is inviolable.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I disagree. I also pay taxes, and I theoretically have just given up the primary breadwinner in my family to the country, regardless of whether someone thinks the war is immoral or not. My need and right for privacy and the fact that I've just endured The Sacrifice is more than enough to outweigh whatever the public feels they're 'entitled' to. I live in the US where we honor individual rights as well as society rights.

Once again, you are asserting that your right to withhold images of the coffin outweighs the entire US public's right to see it as it is a result of a war started in their name. Which is frankly ludicrous.

 

Jae's right to hide the truth vs. the entire US public's right to see the truth... Hmmm. Moral quandary.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now.

Show me some "defamatory, flaming comments". I've made none.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

'Ludicrous' I can live with. However, implying I have paranoia, which has been considered a mental disorder for a long time, when in fact I have never been diagnosed as such, is very problematic and attacks my character.

Oh do be serious. I called your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" ludicrous, bordering on paranoia. Which it clearly is. As for "implying that you're paranoid", that's your inference, not my implication.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I would argue that condescension is not exactly the best way to foster a continued debate, even if we all do have the rights of free speech.

It's typical for pro-war people to call anti-war people condescending. I think it has something to do with the shock of having their dearly-held pro-war delusions challenged.

 

--

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

You really want to put an end to the war? The best way is to attack Bush.

I'm going to be awfully charitable to you Nancy, and ignore all your personal attacks. But I will address this sentence. Bush is a figurehead. You must stop obsessing over Bush. He's not a policymaker. Start obsessing over ALL the architects of the war. Some politicians, yes, but corporate entities too. A whole mess of people. That's why we talk about the "Bush regime" or the "US government". We don't just talk about Bush.

[Windu Chi]

That's why we don't let them vote and drive.

Very funny, Jae!

[Jae Onasi]

Your knowledge on the topic appears incomplete.

My knowledge on many things is going to be incomplete--there's no way to know everything. I research the things I choose to learn more about, and frankly, the issue of displaying coffins is not on my top ten list.

The US government has blocked the release of all such images since 1991.

That's fine, but what I saw may have been released by the gov't itself. It's been too long for me to remember where and when I saw the clip/documentary/whatever it was.

How DARE you.

I find the use of images of what would be my husband's remains for political gain, pro OR con the war, to be just as immoral.

Total double standard, railing against imaginary violence on the idiot-box while not railing against the invasion of Iraq.

The thread's about the FCC and content on TV, not the Iraqi War or my stance on it, so I wrote my comments accordingly. Talking about the Iraqi war is actually off-topic for this thread--my views on anti-war protest has nothing to do with the FCC and censorship.

However, since you obliquely ask...we obviously should not have gone into Iraq, but now that we've done this, we need to fix it and get out.

There are multiple factors contributing to violence in society, and I think extreme violence on TV and in movies is one of the contributing factors. Since the content of TV directly affects my children far more than protesting the Iraqi war, I adjust my actions accordingly. You choose the Iraqi war as your windmill at which to tilt, violence on TV and against children and women is mine.

You don't need a chip, you need a cupboard that locks. If you're not around to supervise the child's use of the TV... he/she doesn't get to use the TV.

You don't have kids, do you? Yeah, you do need a chip. If I have a babysitter over and they decide to watch TV for instance, at least I know the inappropriate content theoretically will be blocked.

It's very similar to IT this respect. I'm sick and tired of "concerned parents" campaigning for censorship in video games, greater leglislation for control of internet content... all because they're not "concerned" enough to bother supervising their kid.

Video games--simple solution like what they did in Neverwinter Nights--have an adjustable violence setting.

Parents cannot keep up with all the things out on the internet--actually, no one can. My kids only use the internet while they're in the same room with me or hubby. That doesn't mean that they couldn't accidentally type something and end up at a porn site--something as similar as a single letter typo in amazon dot com or using dot com instead of dot gov when trying to access some government information sends someone to porn sites. I can black- and white-list sites, but many parents don't know how to do that kind of thing and don't know about programs like NetNanny.

One solution to that might be to put a 'rating warning page' on the home page of any adult content sites so that if someone accidentally ends up on an adult site, they aren't exposed to the adult content right off the bat. It's not going to stop someone from entering the site but it does give parents a warning ahead of time about content.

Here you show a lack of taste and a lack of understanding with regards to cinema and the history of cinema. Some of the greatest, most influential, most critically acclaimed movies of all time have also been the most violent.

I very specifically said *most*, not all. Please don't impugn my taste/understanding of cinema/history of cinema when you have no information on that--I wouldn't be surprised if I've seen and appreciated great (and sometimes violent) movies longer than you've been on this planet.

There are numerically a lot more crappy slasher and violent B-movies out there than there are critically acclaimed works like Schindler's List, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now. Viewing those is also a choice--I saw probably a dozen of the best 'Nam movies during my History of Vietnam course in college--and appreciated nearly all of them--but I was an adult choosing to take that course. The movies also have ratings, and theaters (theoretically) don't allow kids into R-rated movies without a parent.

Hell, what would Shakespeare be without the violence? 'Titus Andronicus'... 'Macbeth'... You wouldn't have much text left if you excised the violence from them.

If you're talking cable/movies, leave it be. Some things just should not be seen by children, however, and parents either need a warning ahead of time or the inappropriate material needs to be cut. It's impossible to expect parents to be familiar with new programming unless they have some kind of advisory information.

 

Yes Jae, in a society with free speech you have the right to campaign for anything, even campaign for the limiting of the free speech that allows you to campaign. Of course, I have the right to respond and to show exactly how immoral your stance is.

There is nothing immoral about wanting privacy to grieve and having control over what happens with a loved one's remains.

The idea that "Once a soldier's dead he's no longer a public servant!" doesn't fly. He died for an illegal war that the public is paying for. Once again, the public's right to see ALL the consequences of wars fought in their name is inviolable.

My individual rights are also inviolable. He died serving his country, regardless of whether someone feels it's illegal or not to do so.

Once again, you are asserting that your right to withhold images of the coffin outweighs the entire US public's right to see it as it is a result of a war started in their name. Which is frankly ludicrous.

Some individual rights do outweigh the public's 'right' to see or do something.

Jae's right to hide the truth vs. the entire US public's right to see the truth... Hmmm. Moral quandary.

Jae's right to privacy during a very difficult time in life vs. those who'd like to use those images for some political agenda, because that's the sole purpose I can see for the display of those images when the gov't already releases the numbers of dead/wounded. No moral quandary for me. If someone else wants to give permission for their soldier's or sailor's coffin to be displayed, that's their choice.

Oh do be serious. I called your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" ludicrous, bordering on paranoia. Which it clearly is. As for "implying that you're paranoid", that's your inference, not my implication.

So just what exactly was your implication with that particular comment?

 

It's typical for pro-war people to call anti-war people condescending. I think it has something to do with the shock of having their dearly-held pro-war delusions challenged.

I don't recall ever saying I was pro-war. We shouldn't have gone in, we need to take responsibility to fix our mistakes and get out. Just because I don't make anti-war protests doesn't mean I'm pro-war.

Chomsky--is a linguist, about as left-wing as Limbaugh is right-wing (and I give about equal weight to both their levels of bias accordingly). He is not a Middle Eastern political science expert. He may self-educate on war and Middle Eastern affairs to be sure, but it's not nearly the same as someone who has spent a lifetime studying the politics of that region. I give about as much credence to his views as I do Bush's comments that all is going well in Iraq.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Yeah, you do need a chip. If I have a babysitter over and they decide to watch TV, at least I know the inappropriate content will be blocked.

Cupboard that locks. TV isn't as necessary as food or air, you know. No matter how convenient a substitute for actual care and attention it might be.

 

This is what freaks me out about the censorship mindset in all walks of life. People who want to say what others can and cannot watch, read, see or do... they always have these desires for essentially self-interested reasons. Yes, it might make your life easier to control what other people can see and do to conform to your standards... but it's totally immoral. Purely self-interested. Replacing personal responsibility with authoritarianism... Awful.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I find the use of images of what would be my husband's remains for political gain, pro OR con the war, to be just as immoral.

Ohhh quote it all, Jae, quote it all. You dared to type "if it means that some anti-war groups aren't able to get their yukks out of seeing a bunch of coffins, too bad." Suggesting that anti-war people would laugh at images of dead American soldiers. Is this REALLY the image you have in your head of the way Anti-war people think and feel? If so, you're deluded. If I were to be uncharitable, I'd suggest that such vitriolic lies totally invalidated any opinions you might hold on all related topics. But I'm not uncharitable, so I'm happy to continue to debate you.

 

Anti-war people don't hate America, nor do they hate US soldiers, nor do they gleefully sit around waiting for some US citizen to die so that they can "get their yukks". Anti-war people are moral, peaceful people, otherwise they wouldn't be anti-war.

 

As for your assertion that "using the images for political gain", what do you call withholding those images? It's clearly for political gain, not least because the ban was only instituted following Bush senior's distressing gaffe in 1989.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Video games--simple solution like what they did in Neverwinter Nights--have an adjustable violence setting.

Oh I'm all for adjustable violence settings in suitable games, because that means that more people of more ages will be able to experience the quality of the game. But an adjustable violence setting wouldn't work for something like Silent Hill, Undying or Call of Cthulhu, because those games are inherently adult and intentionally frightening in many respects other than mere violence. And that's good. Because we adults have our games, kids have their games (and family-accessible games), and everybody's happy.

 

Oh but wait! Mrs Smith from Portland Oregon is unhappy because her kid (whom she doesn't bother to supervise) got ahold of a copy of System Shock 2 from some bargain bin or other, and having played it (while she wasn't supervising him) he's now pathologically terrified that the toaster is going to come alive and eat him!

 

Face it, "concerned parents" from many nations thought to have a culture of freedom and free speech are always up in arms over the latest Soldier of Fortune or Res Evil. This is because they are too lazy to supervise their child properly.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

My knowledge on many things is going to be incomplete--there's no way to know everything. I research the things I choose to learn more about, and frankly, the issue of displaying coffins is not on my top ten list.

That's your choice, but if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on a specific topic, you really shouldn't vociferously defend your ill-informed opinions on that topic. Your government has been censoring all pictures of returning coffins since 1991. They were finally forced to release some anonymous images of coffins in mid 2005. That's a legacy of censorship that even YOUR past arguments don't support. They wouldn't even release ANONYMOUS IMAGES, which you were previously in favour of. You accuse those who want to make the images public of having a political agenda... look to your own government's censorship for a REAL political agenda.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The thread's about the FCC and content on TV, not the Iraqi War or my stance on the war. We obviously should not have gone in there, but now that we've done this, we need to fix it and get out.

You're supporting an illegal occupation of a scarred and embattled nation. You can't "fix it" without bankrupting yourself. It's taken fifteen years of war, sanctions and more war to ruin the country so completely, and you think it'll be fixed so easily? Add to this the fact that what paltry sums of money we HAVE put into Iraq to "fix it" have been either mis-spent or mislaid, and you have a situation in which the only moral course of action is to listen to the victims- the Iraqi people- and remove the occupying troops.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Parents cannot keep up with all the things out on the internet--actually, no one can. My kids only use the internet while they're in the same room with me or hubby. That doesn't mean that they couldn't accidentally type something and end up at a porn site--something as similar as a single letter typo in amazon dot com or using dot com instead of dot gov when trying to access some government information sends someone to porn sites. I can black- and white-list sites, but many parents don't know how to do that kind of thing and don't know about programs like NetNanny.

It's good that you supervise your kids on the net. You should do the same with the TV at all times, if you don't already. Then you wouldn't have to campaign for everyone to be denied perfectly good programmes and movies just because you wouldn't want your kid looking at them.

 

As for the argument for net censorship because "most parents don't know how how to black/white list"... Would you take your child out in a car if you "didn't know how to drive"? No? Well it's the same for the net. People are always whining about spyware, viruses, etcetera. I say to them: "You should have educated yourself before you clicked on that dubious Britney Spears e-mail, shouldn't you."

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I very specifically said *most*, not all. Please don't impugn my taste/understanding of cinema/history of cinema when you have no information on that--I wouldn't be surprised if I've seen and appreciated great (and sometimes violent) movies longer than you've been on this planet.

You have no information to support the assumption that you'd be surprised. I am quite the film buff. And my point stands, since your statement that "most violent movies are crap" is redundant, and could be applied equally to ALL movies. Most romantic comedies are crap. Most thrillers are crap. Most movies are crap.

 

This has nothing to do with the quantity of violence in those movies. It's their casting, scripting, cinematography, scoring... Well, suffice it to say that my point stands. Violence is a necessary part of some pieces of drama.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Schindler's List, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now.

You had to pick the three most overrated movies in the history of moviemaking to illustrate your expertise on the subject, didn't you.

 

No, to be fair Schindler isn't bad. But the style of Apocalypse is sensationalist and the politics of Platoon (like that in all of Stone's films) is juvenile and heavy-handed.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

If you're talking cable/movies, leave it be. Some things just should not be seen by children, however, and parents either need a warning ahead of time or the inappropriate material needs to be cut. It's impossible to expect parents to be familiar with new programming unless they have some kind of advisory information.

Then don't sit the child down in front of a "new programme". Tape it, watch it first before showing it to them. It's your responsibility as a parent. Besides, I'm not against advisory information, I'm against people saying (as you have said) that "And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway."i You're not talking about "advisory information" there, you're talking about deciding what I can and cannot watch.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

There is nothing immoral about wanting privacy to grieve and having control over what happens with a loved one's remains.

There is if it infringes on the rights of the rest of the US population to know the truth.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

My individual rights are also inviolable. He died serving his country, regardless of whether someone feels it's illegal or not to do so.

Your individual rights are not inviolable when weighed against the rights of the rest of the US population. You're just an individual. There's a whole NATION that's paying for an illegal war, they have the right to see ALL the consequences of that war. How can they make informed choices otherwise? They cannot.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Some individual rights do outweigh the public's 'right' to see or do something.

You are correct. The right to remain clothed when the public would like to see one's boddeh, for instance.

 

But not THIS individual right that we are discussing, because the public's concern is not a trivial one, nor is it personal, and the individual's concern is PURELY personal... though tragic... still personal.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Jae's right to privacy during a very difficult time in life vs. those who'd like to use those images for some political agenda, because that's the sole purpose I can see for the display of those images when the gov't already releases the numbers of dead/wounded. No moral quandary for me. If someone else wants to give permission for their soldier's or sailor's coffin to be displayed, that's their choice.

Those "numbers" you cite are good for the pro-war camp, because they're dry and faceless and anonymous and possible to ignore. Actually seeing the bodies coming home makes it real for people. The coffins are hidden for political reasons. They have to be shown for moral reasons.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

So just what exactly was your implication with that particular comment?

What, my comment that your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" was ludicrous, bordering on paranoia? Well as well as being true, it's also a clear and unambiguous statement, with no hidden implications. And people call the anti-war camp "conspiracy theorists"... Ha!

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I don't recall ever saying I was pro-war. We shouldn't have gone in, we need to take responsibility to fix our mistakes and get out. Just because I don't make anti-war protests doesn't mean I'm pro-war.

You're vocally pro-occupation, which is indeed part of the war, and in previous threads you have argued against the conclusion that the invasion was anything but altruistic, and was in fact a war crime... which it most certainly was. This level of denial is understandable considering your personal situation... but it's still denial.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Chomsky--is a linguist, about as left-wing as Limbaugh is right-wing (and I give about equal weight to both their levels of bias accordingly). He is not a Middle Eastern political science expert. He may self-educate on war and Middle Eastern affairs to be sure, but it's not nearly the same as someone who has spent a lifetime studying the politics of that region. I give about as much credence to his views as I do Bush's comments that all is going well in Iraq.

Oh you went and listened to some Chomsky as I suggested! Well, thanks for listening to my suggestion.

 

As for Chomsky's politics, he's been described as a fascist by the far left, a commie by the far right and everything in between. He's essentially apolitical in terms of classical party affiliations, and has fought for the rights of left wing people, right wing people... this is all a matter of public record. He's no loony lefty. Many people may disagree with his reasoning on many points (mostly spurious points), but even most of his critics acknowledge his intellect. At any rate, he's a wonderful introduction to dissident thinking.

 

As for his credentials regarding the Middle East... he HAS spent a lifetime on the topic. It's not his professional field, but it's a testament to his work-ethic that he has become an acknowledged authority on both his professional topic of linguistics, but also world political history and philosophy, and US foreign policy. He's been publishing scholarly works on US foreign policy since the Vietnam war, and he's about EIGHTY now. Still publishing.

 

Your argument that his assertions should be discarded because he doesn't get PAID for this aspect of his scholarship... Is frankly ludicrous.

 

Listen to more Chomsky! Listen to Vidal, listen to Pilger and Fisk. They're giants, you won't regret it if you absorb and analyse their theories.

[SkinWalker]

I'm going to temporary lock this thread until I can get the time to review it. I've had several complaints about flames/insults, and, quite honestly, I'm a little burdened with school projects this week. I've a paper and oral presentation to prepare on the use of GPS in archaeology and it needs to be complete by next week.

 

I'll review this over the course of the next day or two. But if a visiting admin or supermod had on opportunity, please feel free.