riverrat writes:
But I don't really care, because it seems fair enough to me, the whole ratings system, and what the FCC does. It is more fair than unfair, and it is way to complicated to be left to the average American to decided what should, and should not go on the airwaves.
'Too complicated for average Americans' implies that nobody on here, including yourself, can have a legitimate opinion. Leaving your fate in the hands of the authorities (especially if you feel that the current head of state is a tool) is not good ethics.
Is scientific evidence really necessary?
Just the part about the child abuse, which seemed very hyperbolic from my stance. But you know, if it's an opinion, I guess nobody can take that from you.
But thats not even the point. The point is that it didn't match the ratings of the show I was watching, and things like this seem to happen way to often.
See, there's where you have a decent point--regardless of whether or not violence and sex can be on TV, should programs that do not incorporate such things have commercials for programs that do?
If you answer yes to this(and you do, from what I've read) then you answer the topic question as 'the airwaves should be more censored in this way ______ because ______'. And there you have a legit case.
I'm not trying to be condescending; it just seemed like the ways you presented your point just made you an easy target.
And we all know that Dan eats the souls of easy targets...
I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.
™ Version 4.2
