Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 149 of 310 (394502)
04-11-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 4:59 PM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
TV is a part of life.
If you so choose, yes.
I don't have TV in my life, by choice. We have a TV in the house, because we love movies, but that's all we use it for.
I do watch a few TV shows, but I get them in DVD form, without any ads.
We got rid of TV because we tended to waste a lot of time flipping around the channels becasue there was nothing good on.
The point is, nobody is forcing you to have a TV. Nobody is forcing you to turn it on. Nobody is forcing you to watch prime-time programming with your children.
You choose to do all of those things.
quote:
Turning it off, or being able to turn it off is not the answer.
Why not?
It was my answer, and Brenna's answer, and NosyNed's answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 4:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:03 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 310 (394506)
04-11-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 7:52 PM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
I find it wrong to have a R rated commercial during a G rated basketball game
If that game was broadcast during prime time, and the game was something that adults would watch, then you had plenty of warning that ads for shows that have prime-time-allowable content might be shown.
And I'll bet that there were beer commercials showing just as much women's skin during the game. And I'll also bet that they showed the cheerleaders in their skimpy outfits at least once during the game too.
So, was the game really G-rated, as you say? Or was it something closer to PG-13?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 7:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:08 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 310 (394603)
04-12-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 8:03 PM


Re: No to Censorship
I don't have TV in my life, by choice. We have a TV in the house, because we love movies, but that's all we use it for.
quote:
I actually admire that. I think about doing that often, but it never seems to happen.
Well, maybe you actually like TV. Neither Zhimbo nor I care about sports the way that you seem to, so I can understand someone who likes to watch sporting events wanting access to ESPN and the like.
BUT, if it is broadcast during prime time, then you tak your chances that prime-time-rated stuff will be shown.
The point is that when we realized that we didn't like most of the content that was available on TV, our reaction was very different from yours.
Your reaction was to censor what is broadcast to match Riverrat's sensibilities.
Our reaction was to not have it come into our house in the first place, because we have the choice to do that.
Why not?
It was my answer, and Brenna's answer, and NosyNed's answer.
quote:
Well, it's just part of life. It's like anything else.
It is only a part of your life if you choose it to be.
You can also choose to not have it be part of your life.
Nobody has a gun to your head to force you to pay for or watch TV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:03 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 04-13-2007 10:25 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 168 of 310 (394605)
04-12-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Apology
quote:
I just want to apologize to anyone who thinks that I want to restrain peoples right to free speech, that's not my intention.
That's wonderful.
But then you go on to say:
quote:
And I still don't think that you should have a right to offend people, ON PURPOSE.
You want to criminalize bad manners now?
Welcome to Riverrat's dictatorship, where you can be thrown into prison for being rude!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:06 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 169 of 310 (394606)
04-12-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 8:08 PM


Re: No to Censorship
And I'll bet that there were beer commercials showing just as much women's skin during the game.
quote:
Childrens shows have women in bathing suits, I find nothing wrong with that.
Beer commercials are notorious for lots of really blatant sexual innuendo, rat. The implication of the ads are, basically, if you drink our beer, hot women will think you are cool and want to screw you.
In other words, many beer ads have just as much sexual innuendo as that desperate Housewives commercial.
You know this. Therefore, for you to pretend that that beer ads broadcast during sports programming depict women in bathingsuits similar to how they are depicted on children's shows is dishonest.
And what about the cheerleaders?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:08 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 173 of 310 (394618)
04-12-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Dan Carroll
04-12-2007 10:37 AM


We LOVE these!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-12-2007 10:37 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ramoss, posted 04-12-2007 3:50 PM nator has not replied
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 04-12-2007 4:02 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 180 of 310 (394889)
04-13-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
04-13-2007 10:25 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
TV has changed much over the years, and it keeps inching in a direction that IMO is not favorable to children. I would love to know the justification, besides freedom of speech.
I know why, rat.
M O N E Y
I mean, how much Masterpiece Theater do you and your kids watch? Probably about as much as the rest of the population.
If Masterpiece Theater was as popular as Desperate Housewives, that's what we would see much more of.
quote:
It is really not that far fetched of an idea, as most private institutions will punish you for offending people.
Jesus, rat, are you really incapable of seeing the difference between what your job requirements are for being polite and innoffensive to others and criminal behavior?
quote:
Bad mannors and offending people on purpose are two different things, I don't know why you would describe it that way.
No, they really aren't different things WRT the First Ammendment.
quote:
When did I ever say I support the beer commercials?
Well, you didn't mention them as being offensive, even though they are probably just as raunchy as a Desperate Housewives commercial.
And, again, what about the cheerleaders?
And, just to reiterate:
TV is only a part of your life if you choose it to be.
You can also choose to not have it be part of your life.
Nobody has a gun to your head to force you to pay for or watch TV.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 04-13-2007 10:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by riVeRraT, posted 04-18-2007 5:41 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 310 (396054)
04-18-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by riVeRraT
04-18-2007 5:41 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Jesus, rat, are you really incapable of seeing the difference between what your job requirements are for being polite and innoffensive to others and criminal behavior?
quote:
Yes, I am incapable.
So, if I am rude to a customer at work on purpose, the police should have the authority to cart me off and charge me with...what crime?
And, again, what about the cheerleaders?
[quuote]What about cheerleaders?
Male or female?[/quote]
You didn't mention the cheerleaders as being objectionable for your kids to see, even though they probably were appearing as sexual as the people in the Desperate Housevives commercial.
TV is only a part of your life if you choose it to be.
quote:
Living in America is only part of my life if I choose it to be.
Unresponsive, though correct.
The point is, rat, that if you don't like what's on TV, turn it off.
You can also choose to not have it be part of your life.
Nobody has a gun to your head to force you to pay for or watch TV.
quote:
IMO, that has nothing to do with it.
That has everything to do with it. It is the main point that everybody else for nearly 200 posts has been making.
quote:
TV is very much a part of life.
TV is not a part of MY life at all, by my CHOICE.
If you CHOOSE it to be very much a part of YOUR life and you CHOOSE to expose YOUR children to it, then it is up to YOU to decide what YOUR children watch on the TV that YOU CHOSE to allow in YOUR home.
quote:
That will never change.
You keep saying that as if you haven't been told that you are wrong.
It did for me. And Brenna. And NosyNed. And my friend Leon. And several of my coworkers. And several of my husband's coworkers. And also for many other people.
quote:
Also, since so many people do watch, and let what they see dictated how and why they think about things, you should be concerned. They even have TV's on line in the store now, and while they may not be doing anything more than marketing to you, it just shows how intergrated we are with the concept of TV.
Yeah, but you don't have to have it in your home if you don't want it to be.
YOU have to CHOOSE to have it in YOUR home.
quote:
If there was an emergency, you would turn on the TV, or radio to see what is going on, so it is very much a neccessity.
Um, I also have a computer.
For information, a computer is far, far superior to any TV or radio.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by riVeRraT, posted 04-18-2007 5:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 11:23 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 310 (396255)
04-19-2007 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by riVeRraT
04-19-2007 11:08 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
your an idiot.
I love this so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 11:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Fosdick, posted 04-19-2007 12:14 PM nator has not replied
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 7:47 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 190 of 310 (396259)
04-19-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by riVeRraT
04-19-2007 11:23 AM


Re: No to Censorship
So, if I am rude to a customer at work on purpose, the police should have the authority to cart me off and charge me with...what crime?
quote:
I wasn't refering to what is, but as to how it should be.
I know. That's why I used the word "should" in the above sentence, which I have bolded for you.
quote:
I would say that most of the nations employment services have requirements to not be offensive to people, yet our nation does not. ON PURPOSE!, not by accident from speaking the truth. I need to keep stressing that.
OK, then. How about answering the question:
So, if I am rude to a customer at work on purpose, the police should have the authority to cart me off and charge me with...what crime?
What law would you pass that would make it illegal for me to be intentionally rude to a customer?
The point is, rat, that if you don't like what's on TV, turn it off.
quote:
It's America, and I have an opinion, and my opinion is to watch TV, and have some sort of effective ratings system in place. This is not too far off from what actually is.
That's a change from what you have also been saying.
You have also been saying that content should be censored to meet your personal standards.
quote:
I still don't see how this is an enfrigement on Freedom of Speech, which everyone has tried to turn it into.
You think it should be illegal for people to offend others on purpose.
That is exactly the kind of speech that the first ammendment protects.
Therefore, you are interested in infringing upon everyone's rights.
TV is not a part of MY life at all, by my CHOICE.
quote:
As I said, that is great and I admire that, but are you telling me that you would not care if TV was affecting those around you in a negative way?
No. It's their choice.
Because I do not have TV reception in the house and purchase or rent the TV I want to watch on DVD, I am having an impact upon the future of TV.
If you CHOOSE it to be very much a part of YOUR life and you CHOOSE to expose YOUR children to it, then it is up to YOU to decide what YOUR children watch on the TV that YOU CHOSE to allow in YOUR home.
quote:
Right, and if I turn on a G rated program, then I expect G rated material to be shown throughout.
Then write the network.
Um, I also have a computer.
For information, a computer is far, far superior to any TV or radio.
quote:
The emergency braodcast system does not broadcast over the internet.
I can set up my computer to send me alerts for weather, local news and other events. I can also listen to the radio on my computer.
A radio is good, too, but the TV? Not needed for emergency information. Besides, I have my computer on 24/7. I hope that's not true of your TV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 11:23 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 7:49 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 200 of 310 (396394)
04-19-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by riVeRraT
04-19-2007 7:49 PM


Re: No to Censorship
What law would you pass that would make it illegal for me to be intentionally rude to a customer?
quote:
I don't think I have to pass a law, it's called harrassment.
Really?
Can you explain the legal definition of "harrassment" and how my being intentionally rude to a customer qualifies as breaking laws against harassment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 7:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 9:33 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 201 of 310 (396396)
04-19-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by riVeRraT
04-19-2007 7:47 PM


no, not at all
No, you didn't offend me.
I just love the phrase "your an idiot" when it is written in precisely that way because it is so wonderfully, deliciously ironic.
--------------------------------------
Rat, the words, "your" and "you're" have different meanings.
"You're" is a contraction of "you are", as in "You're an idiot".
"Your" is a posessive form of "you", like in "Your use of "your" instead of "you're" in the above sentence is ironic."
Here's the trick I use to help me remember which one to use:
If you are unsure, substitute "you are" in any sentence. If it fits, then you should use "you're".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 7:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 9:34 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 205 of 310 (396431)
04-19-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by riVeRraT
04-19-2007 9:34 PM


Re: no, not at all
quote:
cute, I wish I had enough time in my life to care about spelling.
But I was refering to offending kuresu
Yeah.
You called him an idiot.
While you were doing that, you made an extremely basic error in punctuation that we all should have learned in the fourth grade.
Thus the ironical funny.
Look, I'm not saying that my spelling or grammar or punctuation is always perfect; far from it, in fact.
However, I do care about it, because it is the way we communicate here, and I care about being understood, and I care about the impression I make on others.
Using words and grammar and punctuation incorrectly at best makes it more difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate, and at worst it conveys sloppiness, carelessness, a poor education, and even a less-than-great level of intelligence (even if the person graduated from Harvard with honors).
It is sort of like a lawyer showing up in court in torn jeans, a stained teeshirt, her hair a rat's nest and last night's makeup on her face and booze on her breath.
Even if she is, in reality, well-prepared and capable, would her appearance inspire you to come to that conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by riVeRraT, posted 04-19-2007 9:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by riVeRraT, posted 04-20-2007 8:13 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 207 of 310 (396469)
04-20-2007 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by riVeRraT
04-20-2007 8:13 AM


Re: no, not at all
Hahaha.
That was pretty funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by riVeRraT, posted 04-20-2007 8:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 212 of 310 (396895)
04-23-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by riVeRraT
04-23-2007 8:57 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
I guess you are not really a parent then, and would not understand the complexity's of having both parents trying to work to provide for the family, and having enough time to take the kids to little league practice, cook dinner, clean the house, and watch them every second they are watching TV.
Yes, it is difficult to manage all that.
But you chose this life, with all these kids, didn't you?
You also chose to have a TV in your home, didn't you?
If you don't like what is on TV, but are too harried and busy to have time to "watch them every second they are watching TV", then maybe you should get rid of that unneccessary luxury item.
It's all a matter of priorities, wouldn't you agree?
(Or, perhaps you should just finally admit that you don't want to get rid of TV because YOU like having it and you don't want to give it up even if your kids see things on it you don't want them do.)
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by riVeRraT, posted 04-23-2007 8:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by riVeRraT, posted 04-24-2007 7:40 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024