|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We know you think that, rat. But you haven't demostrated that what you personally believe reflects reality. Lots of people believe astrology works, that there are canals on Mars, and that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the WTC attacks, but just becasue people believe it doesn't mean it is true. And I do hope you stop going to conventional doctors, since their knowledge and ability to cure cancer and other diseases is based upon all of those hated studies that you reject. Good luck with the psychic surgeon and the faith healers.
quote: Of course. However, when others attempt to replicate your study, they will see how much you "tweaked" your numbers and if you "tweaked" them too much, your study's claims will be considered invalidated and it will fade away, never to be cited or built upon by any other researcher.
quote: Yes. That is because the evidence does not justify that conclusion.
quote: Everyone has the power to do something about it. You turn the TV off, or you don't have it in your house in the first place, or use the VChip. Or, you make sure you are with your kids when they are watching so you can discuss what they see. You know...make parenting choices that put your kids first and your own desire to have TV in your home second.
quote: ROTFLMAO!!! Causation means that one event is a direct cause of another event. Correlation means that one event is associated with the incidence of another event but that the second is not directly caused by the first. For example, one of the studies posted in this thread showed that kids who watch a lot of TV, no matter what the content, were more likely to be violent. Now, is that because they were not expending enough energy, or they were not learning social skills, or were extremely sensitive to any violence in ALL programming, or what? Don't know.
quote: If it is discovered to be true that ANY TV watching increases violent behavior in kids, will you get rid of your TV?
quote: No, but it doesn't show that it is. You seem to want to maintain your bias regardless of little evidence to support your beliefs.
quote: Sure, especially when the parents don't notice that the kids are watching a martial arts film, and don't talk to the kids about what they are seeing in the highly-choreographed stunt scenes, about the physical and mental discipline and control that martial artists must study for years to attain, about how it is all pretend and that the camera angles look like they are hitting each other but they are really missing, etc. When parents don't parent, bad things can happen from many different sources. Why do you blame it on Hollywood when nobody forced you to invite Hollywood into your home? Nobody forced you to plop your kids, unguided, in front of the TV to watch a martial arts film. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Sure, especially when the parents don't notice that the kids are watching a martial arts film, and don't talk to the kids about what they are seeing in the highly-choreographed stunt scenes, about the physical and mental discipline and control that martial artists must study for years to attain, about how it is all pretend and that the camera angles look like they are hitting each other but they are really missing, etc. When parents don't parent, bad things can happen from many different sources. Why do you blame it on Hollywood when nobody forced you to invite Hollywood into your home? Nobody forced you to plop your kids, unguided, in front of the TV to watch a martial arts film.
If there are parents out there that don't parent and want to plop their kids in front of the TV, then shouldn't they have regulated airwaves available if they want them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: They can already do that by blocking channels. TV exists for everybody and did so before parents started using it as a babysitter. It would be like not allowing the violence, sex, and swearing in R-rated movies because some parents drop their kids off at the theater and don't care what movies they see. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They can already do that by blocking channels. TV exists for everybody and did so before parents started using it as a babysitter.
But blocking the channels is not regulating the airwaves... Is your position that of no regulaion at all? Shouldn't poeple have regulated airwaves (not channel blocking) if they want it? Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, but from what I did read, its a lot of crap to dig through to find the good parts....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Research on whether watching violent programming actually causes aggressive behavior in children is inconclusive Then they say this:
These findings make clear, and the Commission today affirms, that exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children. Contradiction. If the studies are inconclusive, how can they be clear? Furthermore:
When it comes to protecting their children from such harm, parents are the first and last line of defense.
According to a recent Zogby poll, 88% of parents did not use a V-chip or a cable blocking device.
well gee, that's stupid, don't you think? You have a tool there--use it.
Only 8% of respondents in the Zogby poll could correctly identify the ratings categories.
Then maybe the parents, who are the first and last line of defense should learn what those ratings are and use the tools given to start with before we introduce restrictive legislation. I mean geez, this is common sense stuff. Of course the V-chip isn't working when so many damn parents aren't doing their "job". But wait, isn't it their "job" to "protect"? They're not doing that to begin with regardless the tools they have. Are these, then, negligent parents? Or are they just ignorant? If they're ignorant, teach them how to use the damn thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
one little nitpick, later I'll hit the rest:
Freedom of speech is supposed to be a positive thing, not a negative
Freedom of speech is actually a negative right. A positive right is like the right to health care. The difference? Positives gauruntee you something, while negatives protect something from being taken away. (Later I'll revise this, too. that's a pretty cruddy and vague definition).
Anyway, I think I, and the study has said enough. If the rest of you can't realize that it is a real problem, facing real Americans, and something needs to be done about it, then you guys are hypocrites. um, riight. A hypocrite is where you say one thing, and do another. Like "I will not lie" and then you proceed to lie. That's a hypocrite. We are not hypocrites if we don't see a problem and decide to do squat about a non-existant problem. Plus, we've even told you what you can do. You just don't like our suggestions (my guess is because they're too difficult [in your mind]).
Tell me, what is the difference between getting an abortion to control an unwanted pregnancy, and censoring the airwaves so that kids won't watch too much violent television? irrelevant. The topic is censorship, not abortion. You then follow with "unwanted" pregnancies. unwanted /= accidental.
But I have been told that is not going to happen so we should have abortion. . . .But we all know that this parental control is not going to happen, so what is the big deal about censorship? abortion /= censorship. If anything, making abortion illegal is censoring what the women chooses to do with her body. Making abortion legal repeals that "censorship". But really, abortion does not equal censorship. No hypocrisy here.
so what is the big deal about censorship? um, aside from being unconstitutional, censorship is just plain out wrong. When you censor things, you censor creativity, you limit it, you restrict it. You put a halt on advancement and progression. And since you have no problem with censorship, perhaps we should sensor the bible outright, no? (it's been on those lists before). Or do you just favor censorship when it works in your favor? Censorship is:
it is a great(piss poor)* short-term solution to a real problem It's hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys. turkeys really can't fly that well. I would think an eagle would have no problem flying away unless mobbed by the turkeys. *no clue how to do that text scratch out. seen it before, just don't remember the code. should an admin happen upon this, can you do the scrath on "great" in the quote? thanks. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm in a bit of a rush so I can't dig up real research but here are some bits of a recent New Scientist editorial and article.
The article is subscription only I'm afraid. Article:
quote: Editorial: In denial about on-screen violence quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
To me freedom of speech, is not a right to be irresponsible with what we are saying. Freedom of speech is to voice your opinion when the government, or anyone else trys to suppress it. But this should never be done at the cost of purposefully offending others (with intent to offend) or a license to show rated material to young children, who we know are watching TV. Freedom of speech is supposed to be a positive thing, not a negative. Freedom of speech is to protect us from being lied to, and allowing us to speak the truth about things. It's not to allow you to be irresponsible with what you say. It is not a license to be an asshole, and that is what Hollywood is, most of the time, assholes. It is also not a liscence for televangelists to lie to you either. If Freedom of Speech only meant freedom to say something that didn't offend anyone, it would disappear. Freedom of Speech is absolutely, 100% no question about it, the right to be an asshole. As you acknowledged earlier in this thread, only those opinions that are offensive need the protection of the First Amendment. Popular opinions by definition need no protection.
Anyone who would use freedom of speech to act like an asshole, is well just that, and asshole. I would stay away from people like that. I think it is taking advantage of a right given to us. This is probably the first thing you said in this thread that I agree with. It's also pretty much what most of us have been saying to you, so it's nice to see you starting to come around. If someone is being an asshole by taking advantage of the First Amendment in ways you don't like, stay away from them. That pretty much sums the whole thing up in a nutshell. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I won't purport to speak on nator's behalf, but it certainly is my position that there be no regulation of the airwaves at all. That's called Freedom of Speech, I can't see how anything else could be called Freedom of Speech.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
But you haven't demostrated that what you personally believe reflects reality. Have some kids, then you'll agree.
And I do hope you stop going to conventional doctors, since their knowledge and ability to cure cancer and other diseases is based upon all of those hated studies that you reject. Good luck with the psychic surgeon and the faith healers. Way to mix two different topics. That is completely irrelevant. For every study there is a counter study, or one that comes out a few years later, that contradicts the original stud I wonder if a study on studies has ever been done? Listen, I am not totally against studies, as I have pointed out to you in the past, but I will not live my life purely on studies, as I have seen them get it wrong too many times.
Of course. However, when others attempt to replicate your study, they will see how much you "tweaked" your numbers and if you "tweaked" them too much, your study's claims will be considered invalidated and it will fade away, never to be cited or built upon by any other researcher. Logically studies should become more accurate over time, as we factor in more variables, and an increase of knowledge is added to the sauce. But there is a saying, "the more we learn, the less we know"
Yes. That is because the evidence does not justify that conclusion. It also doesn't prove that it is not a causation.
Correlation means that one event is associated with the incidence of another event but that the second is not directly caused by the first. Thank you mrs.nator, can I be exused to go to the bathroom now?
If it is discovered to be true that ANY TV watching increases violent behavior in kids, will you get rid of your TV? I just might.
No, but it doesn't show that it is. You seem to want to maintain your bias regardless of little evidence to support your beliefs. I wouldn't call that study, and what I see directly with my kids "little evidence" I would call it overwelming evidence. That is an exptermely unfair statement.
When parents don't parent, bad things can happen from many different sources. And when people have irresponsible sex, they can get pregnant. Let's at least be consistent in our approach to life..... Exposing the lies, one truth at a time!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
But you haven't demostrated that what you personally believe reflects reality. Have some kids, then you'll agree. I have kids...I don't agree. What makes you think Schraf would agree if she had some?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
And when people have irresponsible sex, they can get pregnant.
Yes and thankfully theres a way to deal with the consequences without infringing on the rights expressed in your constitution. I fail to see what this has to do with censoring TV. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Let's be clear on this, that is not what I am supporting. I am supporting the protection of of our youth. Through censorship and the limiting/removal of the First Amendment!!!! Saying "It's for the children!!!" doesn't change that.
Yes, they do control it, and they do restrict it. 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.
And that is what I am arooied about, real harm. Can't you see that? or are you too busy calling a conservative and trying to guess my motives? 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.
The study shows that. Maybe you only read the first few pages, and selectively chose to quote what suits you, but the study sites many other studys. Plus, I do not need a study to know this. As a matter of fact, I am the one who hates studys. I only posted it for the benefit of those that live their lives by the study. 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.
Yes, and let's make that choice a clear choice, won't we? Just what am I going to see when I sit my kids down in the middle of the day. You see, this choice you talk about, is really irrelevant and unrealistic in this conversation, the fact sheet shows:Nielsen Media Research reports that 99% of American households have a television set. TV is a part of life, get over it. People are not going to start throwing their TV's out over this. Only a select few choose to do that. I only want things that are labeled as kids shows, to be just that, a kids show. What is so unrealistic about that? 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.
2/3 of the households do not have kids. There is a time for violence, and a time for kids shows. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Have some kids, then you'll agree. Have a pair of stepdaughters. Don't agree.
It also doesn't prove that it is not a causation. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Pretty much. You're a conservative, you should like that. Let the free market regulate itself. Actually, I don't disagree that advertizing should match the "rating" of the show it is shown during, and that there should be a clear rating system so people know what "octane" a show is about to be shown. But that's about it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024