Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

It has never, not once, been conclusively shown that seeing "boobies" damages children in any way. As a matter of fact, the same can be said for violence in games and TV/movies.There's another word for "common sense." It;s called an "argument from incredulity." It's also a logical fallacy.Seeing that ad for Desperate Housewives did not damage your children any more than American Idol or any other crap on TV. If you don't want your kids to see it, that's fine, and we can all respect your decision to isolate, er, protect them from the real world. But until you can show conclusive, scientific, experiment-based evidence PROVING that these forms of entertainment are damaging beyond your asinine gut reaction based on nothing more than your preconceived notions, I'll be damned before I concede that you, tjhe FCC, or anyone else should be able to bend the Constitution and make that decision for MY kids!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Are you dense? That "study" simply discusses the amount of violence present in childrens programming and has nothing whatsoever to say about the actual effects of violent programming on children, which is the only thing relevant to this discussion.Not to mention, I wouldn't trust a study from the Parent's Television Council even if it DID relate to the effects. Show me a single, conclusive study done by an unbiased (ie, a major state university) source that says "violent programming has this specific detrimental effect when shown to young children," and I'll concede the point.Until then, your red herrings are a waste of my time. Again, not an unbiased source, and on top of that it speaks to the effect of watching TV at all, regardless of content! The study found that watching more TV makes kids more likely to be "violent," but it doesn't matter if they watch Blade or the freaking Telletubbies. Come on, Rat. Actually reading and thinking about your sources might help your argument. Then link it. Judging by the quality (or lack thereof) of your other responses, I seriously doubt it actually says what you think it says. Until you provide a link to the actual study, I call bullshit.And ANY restriction of media based on content is a violation of the First Amendment, unless the speech directly causes harm (like yelling "Fire!" in a theater to cause a stampede). That's why the rest of us don't think you or the FCC or anyone else should be able to censor content. I didn't say that, so I'd appreciate if you got your quotes straight. Regardless, I'll thank you to get your nose the hell out of other people's business with raising THEIR kids until you can prove, conclusively, that the parents are doing harm.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

And what did the study actually say? I've seen many studies regarding television and video game violence and their effects on youth, and every single one I've seen has been inconclusive. Provide a link to an actual peer-reviewed study performed by an unbiased source that claims to conclusively show that violent media causes measurable harm to children, and I'll concede the point.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

lolI wonder if Rat, or anyone else, can point to the age where exactly breasts become "dangerous." I mean, since we censor them and the other sexual organs as if they would surely burn our retinas and turn our children into rampaging monsters, there must be a point where the child no longer says "mmm, lunch!"People so easily fail to realize that our social taboos with regards to sex are based on the discomfort of the adults when discussing sex, and have nothing to do with certain "damage" to the children if they should learn adults' horrible, dirty, shameful secret. There are other cultures, some even within the US, where nudity and human sexuality carry no social taboos, and these societies are hardly "evil."

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

hehe, point taken. But if it comes from a fundie school (and I think everybody knows the type I mean), I'd be more than a little skeptical of the study. And if it comes from an already anti-violence/sex group like Focus on the Family, I'd trust the study even less.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

So, you ARE dense. Let me spell it out: showing that the level of violence present in childrens programming is increasing has absoluitely nothing whatsoever to do with showing that the violence is damaging or harming the children. By all means, post it when it's available. In my experience, the media (and Congress, unfortunately) tends to jump the gun with such subjects and write articles insinuating that violent media causes future real-world violence, when the studies they quote say no such thing. It's the result of the all-too-common brainbug you've demonstrated. Saying "isn't it obvious" when the evidence has not shown something to be true is an argument from incredulity. I'd ask that you specify to whom you are replying, then, just to make it easier to respond for the rest of us.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

HOW does it harm children? HOW are "boobies" somehow dangerous? HOW do sexual organs being visible, or honest discussions about sex harm children? When that baby in the amusing picture Jar postes saw a pair of tits, he wanted a snack. At what age do breasts suddenly HARM him, instead? Regardless of context. And HOW, exactly, does the harm manifest?Can you point to any actual real-world harm caused by nudity or consensual sex being shown, other than your discomfort and personal gut reaction?I saw nudity when I was a kid. I even saw some porn. It made me giggle and laugh. It did not harm me.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Thank you for not simply talking out of your ass like Rat. A quick Google of those articles didn't show me much, so I'll need to dig a little deeper to read the full text.But "Media violence exposure and frontal lobe activation measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in aggressive and nonaggressive adolescents" simply means brain activity was measured, and does NOT mean that violent actions were caused. And, as you yourself pointed out, violent thoughts are not necessarily harm.Realistically, only a child's parents can possibly tell whether a child is being adversely affected by anything as nebulous as media exposure, violent or otherwise, as no study (so far as I am aware) has shown that violent entertainment casues violent behavior.I think even Rat will agree that two children from two different families can have compeltely different reactions to identical exposure to media based on other factors including their culture's societal norms and taboos, and their relationships with their parents.Until it can be demonstrated that violent or sexual content truly does harm children (and not just "some" children, or casue an "increased predisposition"), censorship should NOT be forced on the population uniformly by the government. I see no evidence so far to warrant bending the rights given in the Constitution to accommodate gut reactions and brain activity suggestive of violent thought patterns.I should be able to let my kid watch whatever I choose to let him/her watch, so long as I take into consideration the child's mental and emotional state.Rat is complaining that an ad for Desperate Housewives was shown on television while his kids were watching. While I can understand his desire to make the choice for his own kids, he should not be able to restrict such content from reaching anyone else when no objective harm can be demonstrated against his child.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

From an appeal to incredulity to an appeal to popularity. The fact that most people have opinions regarding matters they know nothing about does not mean they are right. HOW is media violence harmful? What harm is it doing? For your next reply, please try something that's NOT a logical fallacy. Quite right. This is why Imus got fired - the company paying for the airtime is under no obligation to continue to support his or anyone else's opinions if they don't wish to. That DOESN'T mean that Free Speach doesnt cover any speach involving money. That's a quote from a Senator, not a quote from a peer reviewed study showing violence is harmful. He's saying he and his constituents don't like it, not proving the FCC has the right to bend the Constitution. That link is to a NEWS ARTICLE, not a peer reviewed freaking study! The only "evidence" you've shown so far is a bunch of opinion, appeals to incredulity, and an appeal to popularity.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

READ YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE!It confirms NOTHING! It simply restates "a lot of people don;t like this." It says jack and shit about any objective HARM being caused!Do you not understand the difference? I don't like a lot of things, but a lot of the things I don;t like casue no harm to anyone. I simply abstain myself, I don;t ask the government to step in and take those things away from everyone to suit my preferences. Which doesnt mean the violence is harmful, any more than ESP exists. No, they have not. They have simply said the amount of violence is growing (and the article also specifically stated that the FCC never defined what counts as violence in the first place, which is a really shitty way to measure something), and that most people seem to not like that. It has nothing to do with proving the content is harmful.I'm going to ask this again, Rat, and I'm not being rhetorical. Do you or do you not see that there is a difference between someone saying "I think that's bad," and actually objectively proving that harm is done?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

First off: bestiality is not consensual sex between adults, and it's illegal in most states as far as I'm aware. False analogy.Second: in what way does seeing John get a BJ from Sally harm a child? Will they be confused? Sure! Will they wonder why she's doing that? Sure!But kids are awfully confused about just about everything until it's explained by their parents. How does that make it harmful to the kids? Why do you say it was too early? What negative effect did it have on you? Serious response: Welcome to the club, and I fail to see how that's harmful in any way whatsoever.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

100% of people used to believe the Earth is flat. They were wrong. A survey showing how many people, even if it's the majority of people, feel or believe a certain way is evidence only of how they feel. It has no relationship whatsoever to reality. No, you're still wrong. Here's what your study, quoted directly, says:

quote:

---

6.research provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in children, at least in the short term.

---

quote:

---

There has been some dispute regarding the amount of research in the field of television violence and aggression.

---

Emphasis mine.Some of the thousands of studies that have done show a possible correlation with increased aggressive behavior, increased antisocial behavior, and fear of being victimized by violence after viewing violence in the media.Some.There are a large number of studies whose results do not reflect these results, and the fact is, I wouldn't even categorize these results as "harm." A short-term behavioral change?Here's the most telling quote:

quote:

---

Regarding causation, however, the studies appear to be less conclusive. Most researchers and investigators agree that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or even necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Although a consensus among researchers exists regarding the empirical relationships, significant differences remain over the interpretation of these associations and their implications for public policy.

---

A correllation, not causation. In other words, the behavioral changes cannot be directly attributed to viewing violent media. Their home environment, parents, and a whole host of other factors contribute to make a child "more or less likely" to engage in violent behavior.You're acting like this study proves that violence on TV makes kids go outside and fight, torture puppies, and pull the legs off of spiders. That's not the case. It shows a correlation. Perhaps the children who watch violent media simply have parents who don't pay any attention to their kids - not only what they watch, but also in providing them the basic set of rules like "don't kick Jimmy, even if you see it on TV." The harm, there, is in the parents who don't help their kids learn. And that can be done without censorship. As I recall, you're the one who used that analogy. I was simply refuting you. Which is a correlation, not causation. That study does not prove that violent TV causes violent behavior, only that they are correlated. Knives are correllated with stabbings. Do knives cause stabbings? Or is the presence of a knife simply an enabling factor for an unrelated cause? Voluntary doesn't mean ineffective, and whether v-chips work effectively or not does not eliminate the fact that it is YOUR choice to have a TV in the house, and YOUR responsibility to control what your children watch, if you wish to do so. It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether violent imagery causes harm.You finally attempted to provide actual evidence other than an opinion survey, Rat, and that's a good change. But really - read your sources before you post them, and think about what they really mean. Your study is not the "hands-down, violent media harms kids, WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!" proof you think it is.Aren't you a conservative, Rat? Aren't you supposed to be all about "personal resposibility?" Whose responsibility is it to raise YOUR kids? I don't think it's Uncle Sam's. I think parents should take responsibility for raising their own children, and not try to force their views and shift the blame onto everybody else.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I have to reply to this before I even touch the rest.Did you seriously just accuse me of trying to violate your First Amendment rights?!Rat, I have never, in this thread or anywhere else, suggested or even hinted that you shouldn't be able to voice your opinion. I've pretty consistently disagreed with you, and told you your opinions are flat-out wrong, but I'd defend your right to say whatever you please, wrong or not, the same as I'd defend your right to believe whatever you choose, even if I think it equates to believing in Santa Claus.YOU are the only one in this thread supporting censorship, the limiting or flat-out denying of the right to free speech as provided by the First Amendment. How DARE you try to turn that around and accuse me of being "un-American" for defending the Constitutional rights YOU want to restrict!The fact is, Rat, the government does not own the airwaves, any more than they own the paper we print books and newspapers on. The fact is, Rat, censorship restricts the free speech of the networks, filmmakers, artists, and individual broadcasters who create the media you may or may not find offensive.Now, the government may be justified in limiting that free speech somewhat, for the same reason you are not allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and cause a stampede. But only to prevent real, objective harm. And Rat, throughout this thread, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that violent media causes anything you and I would agree constitutes real, objective harm to children. And the fact is, you and your children are NEVER forced to watch any of the violent media, with or without ratings or v-chips or anything else. You watch TV by choice. You own a TV by choice. You ALLOW your children to watch TV by choice.If you have the right to voice your opinion, Rat, which I agree that you do, then the networks creating the programming you watch also have the right to express themselves however they choose, including through violent media.Besides, Rat, if you really want to appeal to the majority, lets try this: you have posted surveys where the majority of Americans say that violent media is harmful to children. This is irrelevant to whether it actually causes harm, being based entirely on "common sense" (the same reason people thought the world was flat), but let's run with it anyway.Why do the networks produce violent media, Rat? Becasue it gets ratings. What are ratings? Ratings are a reflection of the number of people who vote with their remotes, Rat - the number of people who actually want to watch those violent shows. The majority of Americans in those surveys may say they have a problem with it, but when it comes down to the real world and their own viewing preferences...violent shows are pretty damned popular. What gives you the right to censor what the majority of people want to watch, when you are never forced to watch the same?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Through censorship and the limiting/removal of the First Amendment!!!!Saying "It's for the children!!!" doesn't change that. And yet, Rat, their ability to restrict SPEECH on the airwaves is EXACTLY what we're debating! "They have the right to limit speech, because they do it! They do it because they have the right to!" Thanks for the circular argument. Yet you haven't proven that there IS real harm, and you havent addressed the fact that you don't need to let your kids watch TV when you arent around to censor it for them )and NOT everyone else) yourself. No, you IGNORE what the study says when it disagrees with your position, and continue to disparage scientific evidence that contradicts your "common (non)sense" position. TV is a part of life IF YOU CHOOSE IT TO BE! The fact that 99% of people have one or more is irrelevant - you are not FORCED to watch television, and are not FORCED to listen to anyones expression of free speech on the airwaves. Thus you have no right whatsoever to censor that speech in any way. Which is irrelevant, as the point I was making was that the "majority" of people find violence to be too prevalent, and yet "the majority" apparently watches those same violent shows.Your entire argument, Rat, coems down to an appeal to popularity, and "I said so!"

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Have a pair of stepdaughters. Don't agree. You can't prove a negative! Jesus.Rat, I've got a massive bruise on my head from bashing it against your Wall of Ignorance.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.