Say Goodbye to Family Friendly TV

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LindaChavez/2007/10/26/say_goodbye_to_family_friendly_tv


Say Goodbye to Family Friendly TV

Am I imagining it or is television becoming even more family unfriendly? For years now, primetime television fare has offered a steady diet of comedies that depend on sexual innuendo and situations for laughs, crime dramas that make the world seem like it's filled with sadistic predators and perverts, often within our own homes, and cable "news" programs that spend as much time dissecting the bizarre antics of this week's celebrity bad girl (or boy) as they do covering real news.

But avoiding objectionable material has become more difficult, despite V-chips, which allow parents to control access to certain programs. And one of the more toxic areas is now the ads.

[DoctorDoom]

It will get worse. Much worse. The "entertainment" industry has been catering to the basest, most degraded members of society for years, always with the "arguments", "if you don't like it, don't watch it," and, "We're just giving the people what they want."

"'You don't have to read it.' 'You can switch it off if you are offended.' These and other cliches... have been used to justify a situation where the tastes of a small minority have progressively infused the whole culture. On the assumption that no one's freedom is thereby impaired, violence and obscenity fill the media, despite the fact that this material does not reflect the choice of the average adult."
-- John H. Court

"A sense of right and wrong is necessary for the life of a community. Without it the society will destroy itself. History shows that the loosening of moral bonds is the first stage of disintegration."
-- Lord Devlin, British jurist, in the book, "The Enforcement of Morals"

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke

As for the "V-chip", that will be the justification for TV programming sinking into the reeking sewer of immorality.

[Wolfcounsel]

Television? PFFFT! It's like this: You don't want to stare at a fresh pile of dog shit, don't watch it. Get yourself cable TV and program the remote to bypass all but your reliable channels. When Nielsen contacts you about a TV survey, tell them to shove it. Better yet, get yourself a cheap, disposable TV, and tell your kids that you will smash it to smithereens if you catch them watching crap on it. And then do it for real, in their presence, on your authority. I watch SpongeBob Squarepants, the Discovery Channel, the History channel, and Fox News. End of line-up. My grandkids watch the Disney channel and Nickelodeon.

[Beowulf]

Yeah, it does seem that television is less family oriented. Sex, violence, drug use and homosexuality are becoming more prevelent. I don't watch very much TV so it's not a big deal to me. Still, I say, "If you don't like whats on, shut it off or change the channel."

Before I went to 3rd shift, I watched "CSI: Miami" religiously. It fits the non-family profile but it's still a good show.

[TeenageRepublican]

I only know of one channel that puts family friendly shows on it. My family is bizzare. We don't watch family friendly shows, we watch shows like "The X-Files", "House", "Beyond Belief", "Red Green", "Malcolm in the Middle", and many others. So, I can't really think of a family friendly show off the top of my head. I can only think of "The Waltons" (I like it, even though it gets sort of cheesy) and "Little House on the Prarie" (My mom loves that show).

[Suzie]

I watch the Food Network and HGTV. No one has sex or swears or does drugs on there ... ever.

[DoctorDoom]

Still, I say, "If you don't like whats on, shut it off or change the channel."Silence = assent. The producers and advertizers have no clue that the viewers refuse to pollute their homes with the sewage on the tube UNLESS the people express their strong displeasure in a manner that cannot be ignored.

[Beowulf]

I was just speaking in a manner of choice, Doc. Nothing more. I'll always stay with "if you don't like it, shut it off or turn the channel."

[DoctorDoom]

The problem with that is that the absence of vocal opposition to the raw sewage that is pervasive on TVs and in movies is a silent reassurance that the crap is what people want. Thus they make even more crap, and the "matter of choice" becomes moot as there is less and less choice left.

Surrendering a valuable resource like TV to the creators and purveyors of filth is folly.

[Rhino]

Say Goodbye to Family Friendly TVI said goodbye to that a long time ago.

[Wolfcounsel]

"The problem with that is that the absence of vocal opposition to the raw sewage that is pervasive on TVs and in movies is a silent reassurance that the crap is what people want." --DoctorDoom

I see those stooges as judges who decide what is best for the people, and who legislate from the bench. They won't listen to anything short of a slegehammer upside the head.

[Lubbock]

I watch the Food Network and HGTV. No one has sex or swears or does drugs on there ... ever.

Yes, but you see, everything, no matter how "friendly" has a drawback.

I watched too much of the Food Network and the next thing I knew, the Khols ladies department became my best friend. Had to switch off FN before I graduated to the Khols Women's department.

My Home Depot card can't afford HGTV, so I'm staying away from that one.

[mateusrosé]

And please don't get me started on how men (fathers, in particular) are portrayed these days, even in commercials. :flame:

[Wolfcounsel]

"And please don't get me started on how men (fathers, in particular) are portrayed these days, even in commercials. :flame:" --mateusrosé


You mean, incompetent, defective, comical, dirty old men when talking with their daughters, stupid, moronic, of no consequence, et cetera? That is the goal of the fruits and feminazis combined. They enjoy the hell out of trying to make this world sex-neutral, or shall I say, "gender"-neutral.

Okay, I won't.

[DoctorDoom]

ARE today's men incompetent, bumbling idiots? Judging by portrayals in some advertising, the answer seems to be yes — much to the dismay of some men.

The portrayals began as a clever reversal of traditional gender roles in campaigns, prompted by the ire of women and feminist organizations over decades of ads using stereotyped imagery of an incompetent, bumbling housewife who needed to be told which coffee or cleanser to buy.

As those images disappeared, the pendulum swung, producing campaigns portraying men in general, and husbands and fathers in particular, as objects of ridicule, pity or even scorn. Among them are ads for Bud Light, Domino's, Hummer, T-Mobile and Verizon.Men Are Becoming the Ad Target of the Gender Sneer (http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/at_male_matters_june_17_men_are_the_ad_target_of_t he_gender_.htm)

[Rhino]

I watch the Food Network and HGTV. No one has sex or swears or does drugs on there ... ever.Give them time. Quite a few channels used to be able to say the same thing. It was a sad day when we had to restrict our kids from watching some shows on Nickelodeon.

[Riverboat]

The problem with that is that the absence of vocal opposition to the raw sewage that is pervasive on TVs and in movies is a silent reassurance that the crap is what people want.Memo to all board members: Don't bother writing letters to networks. Write letters to the sponsors. They are deathly afraid of losing money, and they won't sponsor shows that affect the bottom line.

Mateusrose: And please don't get me started on how men (fathers, in particular) are portrayed these days, even in commercials.

That explains why I have never watched five consecutive minutes of The Simpsons.

[gnome]

In the age of digital television, isn't it EASIER to tell what people are and aren't watching?

I'm not really convinced that media producers are broadcasting all this crap and are somehow ignorant that most people don't want it. In fact I think it's the opposite, they offer more of what audiences respond to, and unfortunately the audiences are responding to family-unfriendly junk.

I'm sure most of you are straight up about your TV preferences, but really it's easier for you to get people to complain than it is to get them to stop watching. Until the latter somehow begins to occur, there will be no real change...

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm sure most of you are straight up about your TV preferences, but really it's easier for you to get people to complain than it is to get them to stop watching. Until the latter somehow begins to occur, there will be no real change...

I disagree somewhat. I'll give you the fact that many people embrace doing things unseen -- example: the porn industry literally exploded with the advent of the VHS tape and then exploded again thanks to the internet.

HOWEVER, I think in regards to television, because it is standard to have a television in one's home, it becomes not a matter of watching or not watching, but a matter of choosing what to watch from what is offered. Let me give an example of what I'm talking about (I think I've used this example elsewhere, but I don't remember how long ago it was or what thread it was in, so if you've heard it before, bear with me please):

I took a sales course when I was a representative for a home-party organization (Home Interiors). We were trained using specific sales techniques, one of which make me think of the television situation. We were told when offering products, don't ask "Do you want to buy these candle globes?", but instead to ask "Would you like the green or the clear candle globes to go with those candles?" People often pick from the choices given, forgetting the choices not voiced -- don' buy any candle globes.

It's the same with television. People "forget" (for lack of a better word) that they can simple turn the telly off. Instead they will "choose" from what is offered, picking the less undesirable from the undesirables. So the producers, writers, etc. continue to push the envelope of what is accepted, and people continue choosing from what is offered, because to NOT do so means you're "weird" or "out of touch".

[gnome]

I think we're both probably arguing refinements of the same point. Your example is perfect. So how does one keep from being a sucker? And then, how does one keep others from being willing suckers? How involved should we get in keeping others from being willing suckers?

[Maggie_T]

As for the "V-chip", that will be the justification for TV programming sinking into the reeking sewer of immorality.

Can't disagree with that one. The "V-chip" did for TV what birthcontrol did for sex: delete responsibility.

Before I went to 3rd shift, I watched "CSI: Miami" religiously. It fits the non-family profile but it's still a good show.--Beowulf

Oh, yes. Jim and I watch the CSI series (Miami, Las Vegas, New York) regularly. And while I could dispense with some of their "graphics," I must say it's a good show. I also like Shark (James Wood) and Law & Order. I really don't like Bones. Hubby is the only one who watches that (between you and me, I think he likes the protagonist more than the show itself :biggrin: ).

We have no kids, you see. http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/smilies2/icon88.gif

What I NEVER watch is Desperate Housewives, House, Sex in the City, and other similar garbage. Never. Trashier stuff I have yet to find.

Jim and I watch a lot of oldies. You know. AMC stuff. You can always rely on those.

Silence = assent. The producers and advertizers have no clue that the viewers refuse to pollute their homes with the sewage on the tube UNLESS the people express their strong displeasure in a manner that cannot be ignored.--DocDoom

Correct. Unfortunately, people who express their strong displeasure in a manner that cannot be ignored are few and far between. It's easier to just switch the TV off or change channels ... if they even do that.

And please don't get me started on how men (fathers, in particular) are portrayed these days, even in commercials. :flame:--Mateusrose

Oh, my dear, you are SO right! You all know me. I take second place to nobody in my pro-male stance. Particularly, my pro-conservative-straight-white-male stance. Brigitte Bardot was once asked if she was a feminist. She replied she was a "masculinist." That's me. It infuriates me the way they portray men in films these days. Unless, of course, they happen to be pro-gay, or gay, or have some other rotten liberal view. If I had the power, I would declare The Simpsons, and similar trash, illegal. :flame: And don't bother to come to me with 1st freedom "arguments."

[Maggie_T]

Gnome and Sis, you both make good points. But I'm afraid I agree more with gnome. While it's true that people are given two undesirable alternatives, and they choose the least undesirable one, as Sis points out, gnome makes a good point when he asks: How do you keep yourself and other people from being suckers?

How do you alert people to the fact that there is a "choice not voiced"?

[Neil Peart]

The biggest problem with modern programming is that they are very well written, and the creators are obviously talented at writing, but the excellence is compromised by unnecessary vulgarity. South Park is one such example.

[Forget_the_Truth]

they have sex scenes in most programming, movies and shows, when it isnt needed at all

years ago, they just had the two people close a door and you got the idea what they were planning, there is no need for endless sex scenes and degrading imagry on most of TV

[DoctorDoom]

The lamest "arguments" for more sex, violence and foul language:

1. "We give the people what they want." I have searched diligently, but I have yet to find one example of crowds of people marching to the studios and networks demanding more screwing, killing and cussing. The majority of people DON'T want that crap, but they don't register their disapproval with those that produce it. And the producers read the silence to mean that if a little filth is okay, more filth will be better.

2. "The sex and violence are essential to the plot." Obviously, if the plot is written so that it requires sewage, then the sewage is "essential". What they never say is, "We know that the same story could be told without the crud, but we like the crud."

3. "If you don't like it, don't look at it. You can turn it off or leave." As the John Court quote in post #2 says, that rationalization has opened the floodgates to an outpouring of increasingly vile programs and films. It is reaching a point where there won't be alternatives.

Mind you, the libs who use that argument are the same one who have fits of rage at the sight of a cross or a creche on public land, and demand that the "offensive" object be removed. Liberal hypocrisy is boundless.

[BarryC]

One of my big problems with tv nowadays is drug advertising. I can't remember anymore when it all started. In my memory I can't find a starting point for it. But I know drugs were not advertised on TV in the past. But it annoys the heck out of me. And the worst part is when I'm watching Fox News and I have to see Cialis and Levitra commercials. That really ticks me off. When I have control of the remote I will mute the tv or change the channel.
Another thing is the new program called Saving Grace. It's an amazingly good show and I really enjoy it. But the language is beyond belief. All but one of the cuswords commonly heard are used on this show, just about non-stop throughout each episode. The only word not used is the F word. I was shocked the first time I watched it. It doesn't have to be that way.

So what's next on TV? Explicit sex on the major networks? Soon nothing will be taboo at all.

[Ronald]

I think worse than the shows being unfriendly to families is how low-brow, dumbed-down, and base they are. Most television these days is filled with trite stories with cliche characters and little redeeming entertainment value. Same with most films.

Then again I haven't watched TV in about eight or so months so maybe the situation has improved. But you know, I don't miss it at all.

[DoctorDoom]

Welcome to FC, Ronald. Is your username in honor of our favorite Ronald?

Then again I haven't watched TV in about eight or so months so maybe the situation has improved. But you know, I don't miss it at all.I haven't been a regular viewer since the second season of X-Files. And I don't miss it, either.

[RogerFGay]

Aren't those family friendly cable stations getting any business? Isn't Hallmark, for example, supposed to be family friendly?

[Hotspur]

I haven't been a regular viewer since the second season of X-Files. And I don't miss it, either.

I watch very little TV, and it's surprising how little you do miss it after a while. BBC News, occasionally some US drama like Law and Order or CSI, a few British sitcoms, and the sublime QI are about all I bother with. Not really because of any moral objections as such, but just because so little of it has any entertainment value.

If a tiny fraction of the committed couch potatoes out there could be weaned off their screens and introduced to the joy of a good book, imagine how much better the world could be... :)

[Deagle]

Fox News really annoys me. They always do fluff pieces about spring breaks and mardi gras, and use just about any opportunity to flash as much skin as possible. How is that news?

[Kathy30]

Drug commercials are so popular some shows have nothing but drug and car commercials. Have you noticed how many drug commercials contain the statement "May result in death". That's a selling point!

[Deagle]

Drug commercials are so popular some shows have nothing but drug and car commercials. Have you noticed how many drug commercials contain the statement "May result in death". That's a selling point!
Really? Holy crap, talk about truth in advertising.

[Taylor1]

Theres family friendly TV? I haven't seen family friendly tv in quite a while.

[TeenageRepublican]

The biggest problem with modern programming is that they are very well written, and the creators are obviously talented at writing, but the excellence is compromised by unnecessary vulgarity. South Park is one such example.

I can understand the reason why they write in vulgarity. This generation is nothing like the old generation. A four year old just ran up to me a few days ago and said:
"I'm going to beat your mother-****ing ass, bitch!"
The sad fact is that some ten year olds, like the ones on South Park, do use unnecessary vulgarity.
The South Park creators are infamous for bringing this up. Parents called it "shocking" and "crude". You know what? I bet that parent's son talks like that all the time behind his parent's back.



Oh, yes. Jim and I watch the CSI series (Miami, Las Vegas, New York) regularly. And while I could dispense with some of their "graphics," I must say it's a good show. I also like Shark (James Wood) and Law & Order. I really don't like Bones. Hubby is the only one who watches that (between you and me, I think he likes the protagonist more than the show itself :biggrin: ).

We have no kids, you see. http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/smilies2/icon88.gif


Bones really turned me off when they started over-doing the sex in it. And the sex wasn't even believable. Having sex on the evidence table? You've got to be kidding me.
I mostly watch old sitcoms and House. House has a very pro-life side to it which I admire.

I wouldn't be too shocked by this non-family friendly television. This generation's not the first ones to produce it. Charlie's Angels was far from family-friendly. Farrah Fawcett always managed to wear a shirt without a bra.
Baywatch always had Pamela Anderson in a swimsuit and she always ended up running in slow motion.
Police Woman was also far from family-friendly.

What I NEVER watch is Desperate Housewives, House, Sex in the City, and other similar garbage. Never. Trashier stuff I have yet to find.[/quote]

[DeclinetoState]

Baywatch always had Pamela Anderson in a swimsuit and she always ended up running in slow motion. In the original "Bionic Woman," Lindsay Wagner was often running in slow-motion (like Lee Majors in the "$6 Million Man"). Of course, I don't think they ever put her in a swimsuit (and if they did, it was for just one episode).

[hosl]

The lamest "arguments" for more sex, violence and foul language:

1. "We give the people what they want." I have searched diligently, but I have yet to find one example of crowds of people marching to the studios and networks demanding more screwing, killing and cussing. The majority of people DON'T want that crap, but they don't register their disapproval with those that produce it. And the producers read the silence to mean that if a little filth is okay, more filth will be better.

2. "The sex and violence are essential to the plot." Obviously, if the plot is written so that it requires sewage, then the sewage is "essential". What they never say is, "We know that the same story could be told without the crud, but we like the crud."

3. "If you don't like it, don't look at it. You can turn it off or leave." As the John Court quote in post #2 says, that rationalization has opened the floodgates to an outpouring of increasingly vile programs and films. It is reaching a point where there won't be alternatives.

Mind you, the libs who use that argument are the same one who have fits of rage at the sight of a cross or a creche on public land, and demand that the "offensive" object be removed. Liberal hypocrisy is boundless.

1. People could register that they don't like violence and sex by not watching a show, thus the ratings will plummet, leaving the network to take it off the air.

2. Listen, if you're writing about a mafia member and his gang (obvious Sopranos nudge), they're going to let an FBI informant go off without a slap on the wrist. People write TV shows to show the other side of life, the darker, grittier side. Would you watch a show about suburbia where everyone leads their own lives and nothing interesting happens? No! But that's what people write, interesting things that happen, and they usually involve death or sex.

3. How has it opened up? See argument 1.

It's not liberal hypocracy. Libs don't like seeing religious articles on government property because that would mean that the government is favoring one religion and not liking the others. Plus, and yes, liberals can watch things at their own free will too.

If you don't like what's on TV, don't watch it. No one is forcing you, you have free will. Still angry? Start your own television station, and only air "clean" programming. See how many ratings that'll get ya.

NOTE: I am not mad and do not hate the poster of the quote. My point-by-point arguments are always cynical, but I'm a nice guy in real life. Trust me.

[hosl]

[COLOR=#006400]The South Park creators are infamous for bringing this up. Parents called it "shocking" and "crude". You know what? I bet that parent's son talks like that all the time behind his parent's back.


It's true.

[Wolfcounsel]

Let me find out any of my grandkids, all minors, are talking like potty mouths in the presence of adults, I have free reign over that from their parents. I'm not naive to expect them to talk with clean mouths in the presence of their peers though.

[TeenageRepublican]

I'm trying to clean up my language, but some members on here just put me in a not-so-good mood.

[hosl]

I'm trying to clean up my language, but some members on here just put me in a not-so-good mood.

I apologize.

[Banana]

The government has no business getting involved in broadcast or cable television, cable especially as getting cable is a choice.

If there is a demand for "family friendly broadcasting" the free market will see to it that demand is met.

If you don't like what is shown on your television turn it off and read a book, but for goodness sake stop complaining.

People wanting government to get involved in things they have no business meddling in. :shame:

[DoctorDoom]

1. People could register that they don't like violence and sex by not watching a show, thus the ratings will plummet, leaving the network to take it off the air.And the networks will know that you are not watching their bullscheiss by what magical, mystical means? Unless you're a Nielsen family, your choice of TV fare is absolutely unknown and irrelevant to the producers of the slime.

2. Listen ...Sorry, child, but my monitor is solely visual. However, my puter cooling fans are audible, and their drone is far more intellectually stimulating than the average liberal post.

... Would you watch a show about suburbia ...No, but then my taste in entertainment is above "f**k" used as punctuation and naked groping. Give me aliens, car chases, explosions and creative dismemberment of bodes. :evilgrin:

... where everyone leads their own lives and nothing interesting happens? No! But that's what people write, interesting things that happen, and they usually involve death or sex.And the justification for smut about a mythological "suburbia" is? You're proving my point that the producers of the raw sewage deliberately choose topics and scenarios that "require" fillth. So of course the writers provide filth.

3. How has it opened up? See argument 1.Argument 1 is typical liberal piffle, and was refuted.

It's not liberal hypocracy.Liberalism is hypocrisy. Ergo liberals are hypocrites.

Libs don't like seeing religious articles on government property because that would mean that the government is favoring one religion and not liking the others.And that has what to do with the thread topic? Are you one of those pain-in-the-ass atheists who are "offended" at the merest reference to

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/God-1.gif" /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/God-2.gif" /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/God-3.gif" />

on public property? Buy a clue, kid: the majority of taxpayers are Christians or IAC are not "offended" by creches, Decalogues on courthouse walls, and post office employees saying "Merry Christmas". If such things distress heathens, TS! We really don't care what those fools "think".

Plus, and yes, liberals can watch things at their own free will too.Color me impressed. :rolleyes:

If you don't like what's on TV, don't watch it. No one is forcing you, you have free will.And if you don't like a cross or a manger scene in a public park, don't look at it. No one is forcing you, you have free will. The problem with obnoxious atheists is that their "advice" applies only to those whom they offend, not to them when they are "offended".

Still angry? Start your own television station, and only air "clean" programming. See how many ratings that'll get ya.Aside from the fact that there are many channels offering family fare, your "argument" is that because there are mindless, low-IQ assholes who like to watch visual sewage, their disgusting tastes must be catered to, and let those who are offended by it STFU.

Does it ever occur to you liberalosers that there is no mandate to corrupt entertainment in order to satisfy the degenerates of society? I have no objection to their repugnant version of "entertainment" being made available, but let the sickos go an extra mile to get it. There is no call to pollute over-the-air or "basic" cable/satellite channels with the kind of crap that appeals to their sordid tastes.

NOTE: I am not mad and do not hate the poster of the quote.You will. I'll make it my goal for today.

My point-by-point arguments are always cynical ...Many liberals have come here with a shoulder chip the size of a sequoia, and have left whimpering and carrying their pureed asses home in a Tupperware bowl.

... but I'm a nice guy in real life. Trust me.Trust is earned.

[hosl]

Actually, unlike liberals, I do have some criteria to what I will watch. For one, I refuse to watch "dumb" shows and shows close to torture porn.

And plus, I'm not one of those atheists who's offended at the merest reference to God (gasp!). I am an atheist though. And plus, when I hear "Merry Christmas" at the post office, I think "Hey, he's wishing me a happy December 25th" not "OMG HE SAY CHRISTMAS!"

[hosl]

Aside from the fact that there are many channels offering family fare, your "argument" is that because there are mindless, low-IQ assholes who like to watch visual sewage, their disgusting tastes must be catered to, and let those who are offended by it STFU.


Wonderful, then why are you so angry about the subject? Watch that then. And plus, my argument is that that's what viewers watch and networks listen to what viewers watch. Know why? Because they like money. But then again, who doesn't?

[DoctorDoom]

Wonderful, then why are you so angry about the subject?Newby, when you've been here more than a few days, and have gone through the numerous threads on this subject, then you will be qualified to challenge my PoV based on knowledge.

Watch that then.I don't waste my time "watching" anything on the tube. The concept presupposes passive, mindless viewing, and dazzlingly brilliant people of my exalted level don't indulge in that unproductive behavior.

And plus, my argument is that that's what viewers watch and networks listen to what viewers watch. Know why? Because they like money. But then again, who doesn't?And by that lame-assed argument, the sole criterion for programming is what makes money.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Culture/PornIncome.png

Internet Pornography Statistics (http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html)

Pornography is a multi-billion-dollar industry, ergo there is a large market for it. You therefore support flooding the airwaves with it. And since there are people who will buy child porn, their tastes should be catered to as well.

Is that about right, kid?

[hosl]

Newby, when you've been here more than a few days, and hwve gone through the numerous threads on this subject, then you will be qualified to challenge my PoV based on knowledge.

I don't waste my time "watching" anything on the tube. The concept presupposes passive, mindless viewing, and dazzlingly brilliant people of my exalted level don't indulge in that unproductive behavior.

And by that lame-assed argument, the sole criterion for programming is what makes money.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Culture/PornIncome.png

Internet Pornography Statistics (http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html)

Pornography is a multi-billion-dollar industry, ergo there is a large market for it. You therefore support flooding the airwaves with it. And since there are people who will buy child porn, their tastes should be catered to as well.

Is that about right, kid?

I don't support porn and child porn being made available on cable television. I don't even support child porn and frankly think that anyone caught distributing it should be given the chair, or needle in today's time.

But do I need religion telling me what's appropriate on television or not, since Reagan was pressured to found the FCC, and who supports the FCC? The christian conservative type!

[DoctorDoom]

But do I need religion telling me what's appropriate on television or not ...Let me guess. You're the latest atheistic fool to pollute the shores of FC. How unexpected. :rolleyes:

... since Reagan was pressured to found the FCC ...Clue time, ignorant child.

About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of

1934

and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.FCC > About the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html)

Reagan was born on February 6, 1911, which means that he was 23 when the FCC came into being.

After graduating from Eureka in 1932, Reagan worked at radio stations WOC in Davenport, Iowa, and WHO in Des Moines as an announcer for Chicago Cubs baseball games.[12] While traveling with the Cubs in California, Reagan took a screen test in 1937 that led to a seven-year contract with Warner Brothers studios.[13]Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)

You are now directed to describe the critical role that a Chicago Cubs announcer played in the formation of the FCC in 1934.

You might seriously consider doing a little basic research before posting.

... and who supports the FCC?Inasmuch as it is a federal agency, the taxpayers support it.

The christian conservative type!Ah, yes. The average atheist's concept of the very demons of hell, the most dangerous people in the country, if not in the universe. O Woe Is Us! The EEEEEE-vill "christian conservative type" will destroy us all!

First, you bloody bigot, Christian is capitalized. Second, FC is a board populated largely by the "Christian conservative type", a fact of which you were well aware when you registered. And third, we tolerate trolls like you for a while, but I expect that your lifespan here will be short.

[Livia]

Television? PFFFT! It's like this: You don't want to stare at a fresh pile of dog shit, don't watch it. Get yourself cable TV and program the remote to bypass all but your reliable channels. When Nielsen contacts you about a TV survey, tell them to shove it. Better yet, get yourself a cheap, disposable TV, and tell your kids that you will smash it to smithereens if you catch them watching crap on it. And then do it for real, in their presence, on your authority. I watch SpongeBob Squarepants, the Discovery Channel, the History channel, and Fox News. End of line-up. My grandkids watch the Disney channel and Nickelodeon.

Agree completely except one thing, why break a perfectly good TV when you can just make them go get a switch from the whippin tree. ;)

[Kylester1987]

I come from the mindset of if offended, turn the channel, and find something less offensive to your sensibilities.....just saying.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Agree completely except one thing, why break a perfectly good TV when you can just make them go get a switch from the whippin tree. ;)" --Livia

I've yet to see a TV that was worth more than any of my kids or grandkids. And kids are more impressed with the Gunny Highway (HEARTBREAK RIDGE) theatrics than with a paddling.:evilgrin:

Paddling I reserve for recacitrant grandkids who need good steering.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I come from the mindset of if offended, turn the channel, and find something less offensive to your sensibilities.....just saying.

Except when there's nothing less offensive left. When the bar for "less offensive" keeps getting lowered over and over and over, where is a parent to go? The STANDARD should be what is LEAST offensive to the GREATEST number, and make the "other" stuff pay-per-view or premium. We have no TRUE choice when it comes to television, because we cannot purchase the channels we wish to watch, we're stuck accepting channels to get others in "packages" determined NOT by the public, but by the cable companies.

[Kylester1987]

Except when there's nothing less offensive left. When the bar for "less offensive" keeps getting lowered over and over and over, where is a parent to go? The STANDARD should be what is LEAST offensive to the GREATEST number, and make the "other" stuff pay-per-view or premium. We have no TRUE choice when it comes to television, because we cannot purchase the channels we wish to watch, we're stuck accepting channels to get others in "packages" determined NOT by the public, but by the cable companies.

Well, thats your take on it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Well, thats your take on it.

Can you refute it?

[Kylester1987]

I believe in fairness, i believe families should have their shows, but people like me want our shows, can we both get what we want within reason?

[hosl]

DoctorDoom:

First off, I apologize for my misguided research about the FCC. Second,

Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian


Now I've learned to now capitalize religions. Third, when I came on here, I did say on my introduction forum that I do disagree on some subjects with than the average conservative, and this happens to be one of them. I apologize if I've offended you.

Fourth,
Bigot (n):
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I do not hate Christians. I just disagree with some of the teachings.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I believe in fairness, i believe families should have their shows, but people like me want our shows, can we both get what we want within reason?

What I said wasn't reasonable? YOU want what YOU want, ergo shouldn't YOU pay for it? Why is it not reasonable that the least cost should be for the standard that's acceptable to the most people? Why is it not reasonable, with today's technology, for cable companies to come up with a way that subscribers can choose a cost package and fill it with the channels THEY want to watch ... after all, they ARE the customer, and isn't the customer supposed to always be right? I see nothing unreasonable or unfair about either of those.

[Kylester1987]

What I said wasn't reasonable? YOU want what YOU want, ergo shouldn't YOU pay for it? Why is it not reasonable that the least cost should be for the standard that's acceptable to the most people? Why is it not reasonable, with today's technology, for cable companies to come up with a way that subscribers can choose a cost package and fill it with the channels THEY want to watch ... after all, they ARE the customer, and isn't the customer supposed to always be right? I see nothing unreasonable or unfair about either of those.
Well, we just might be agreeing on something here lol.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Well, we just might be agreeing on something here lol.

I guess then I don't understand what problem you had with my post, and how my "take" differed from yours in the first place.

[Banana]

We have no TRUE choice when it comes to television, because we cannot purchase the channels we wish to watch, we're stuck accepting channels to get others in "packages" determined NOT by the public, but by the cable companies.

But this is an issue of the free market. The government has no business getting involved.

If there is a market for more family friendly broadcasting (or a family friendly cable package) that demand will be met.

It's strange, you believe in a free market for medical care but I get the feeling you think the government should get involved in regulating broadcasting.

Do you? :question:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

But this is an issue of the free market. The government has no business getting involved.

Did I say that it did?

If there is a market for more family friendly broadcasting (or a family friendly cable package) that demand will be met.

Really? And just how are the cable companies going to find out about this "market"? They drive the market, they don't even give an option to find out if family fare will/would be chosen.

It is possible to be disgusted with what's going on and still not want government intervention.

It's strange, you believe in a free market for medical care but I get the feeling you think the government should get involved in regulating broadcasting.

Do you? :question:

Wouldn't it have been better to ask that question first, before going through all that above and THEN ask the question? Guess that's what you get for assuming, :smirk:

[Banana]

Did I say that it did?

Sorry if I was mistaken, it just sounded like that's the direction you were heading. I'm glad to hear that this is not the case.

Really? And just how are the cable companies going to find out about this "market"?

Tell them.

Everyone who wants more family friendly broadcasting should be bombarding the cable companies with emails, letters and phone calls.

The most basic principle of a free market is supply and demand. If there is a real demand for a product or service that means there is money to be made and the market WILL supply that product or service to satisfy that demand.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Sorry if I was mistaken, it just sounded like that's the direction you were heading. I'm glad to hear that this is not the case.

No prob. Just keep in mind what comes to mind when one assumes, :smirk:

Tell them.

Everyone who wants more family friendly broadcasting should be bombarding the cable companies with emails, letters and phone calls.

The most basic principle of a free market is supply and demand. If there is a real demand for a product or service that means there is money to be made and the market WILL supply that product or service to satisfy that demand.

There has been plenty of pressure from the "public" -- petitions, calls, etc., but nothing is being done. As I said, the cable companies drive the market, not the other way around. They keep pushing the envelope, but there is no recourse for the public save turning the tv off period. People "justify" the telly, accepting less than acceptable in one channel, to get another.

Would be nice, however, if some richie-rich were to invest in a cable company/media market and give the people a real option -- but just like this election, we keep getting the lesser of the evils shoved down our throats with no real option left, save revolution.

[Banana]

As I said, the cable companies drive the market, not the other way around. They keep pushing the envelope, but there is no recourse for the public save turning the tv off period.

Then that's the answer. Switch off. Television is mostly crap these days anyway. I barely watch it and certainly don't have cable television. Although that has less to do with offensive content than just what in my opinion is no content. There is basically very little that is worth watching.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Then that's the answer. Switch off.

YOU try selling that to my 220lb Bubba who loves watching NASCAR and college football, :lol:

Television is mostly crap these days anyway. I barely watch it and certainly don't have cable television. Although that has less to do with offensive content than just what in my opinion is no content. There is basically very little that is worth watching.

Well, the reason it seems that way is because there is so many channels. There really is still some good programming on, the sad part about it is, even if you're watching a show you don't mind your kids watching, there's no way to filter out the inappropriate commercials that come on at inappropriate times. Just this week, we were watching Star Trek (which I would consider family-friendly) and two commercials came on (this was during the 4-6pm time slot EST) --

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6krr40mdHM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6krr40mdHM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n2_Wi4R8uc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n2_Wi4R8uc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[DoctorDoom]

Well, thats your take on it.Can you refute it?If he could, he wouldn't have resorted to the schoolyard "argument".

[DoctorDoom]

Post #56:

DoctorDoom:

First off, I apologize for my misguided research about the FCC.Consider yourself more educated than you were when you posted it.

Second,

Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian

Now I've learned to now capitalize religions.Now that wasn't hard, hey, kid? Now write 100 times, "I'm still a guest here. Don't piss off the regulars."

Third, when I came on here, I did say on my introduction forum that I do disagree on some subjects with than the average conservative, and this happens to be one of them.I didn't read it. Despite my near-omniscience, there are still a few things that I don't know.

I apologize if I've offended you.I'm too old, and too conservative, to be offended.

I do not hate Christians. I just disagree with some of the teachings.Such as the ones that call for self-control and sexual temperance?

<hr>
Post #60:

But this is an issue of the free market. The government has no business getting involved.It does when the free market employs media controlled by the government. The free market offers you an enormous choice of vehicles, but when you're on the public roads, the law dictates how you'll driive. The fact that your car can do 120 MPH does not mean that you have a right to go that fast on the steets and roads.

If there is a market for more family friendly broadcasting (or a family friendly cable package) that demand will be met.And it is being met. That does NOT mean that the market for smut must be addressed on unrestricted channels. If perverts want to whack their willies watching mindless sex, let them pay for the "privilege".

It's strange, you believe in a free market for medical care but I get the feeling you think the government should get involved in regulating broadcasting.When my choice of medical care negatively impacts American society, then there will be a call for external control. Until then, your "argument" is a red herring.

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke

<hr>
Post #62:

The most basic principle of a free market is supply and demand. If there is a real demand for a product or service that means there is money to be made and the market WILL supply that product or service to satisfy that demand.The freedom to meet the demand depends entirely on the product that is in demand. There is a long list of products the availability of which are quite reasonably restricted by law. Porn is one of them.

If smut turns one on, that's his burden. But don't demand that smut be made available without restrictions. If one wants that shit, let him take the extra steps required to get it.

<hr>
Post #64:

Then that's the answer. Switch off. Television is mostly crap these days anyway. I barely watch it and certainly don't have cable television. Although that has less to do with offensive content than just what in my opinion is no content. There is basically very little that is worth watching.And could it just be possible that "There is basically very little that is worth watching" precisely because indifferent attitudes like yours have opened the floodgates for it? By not demanding worthwhile programming rather than saying, "Oh, well!" and switching it off, you have allowed the content of the media to be controlled by the lowest, most ignorant, most corrupt segment of humanity.

When you're moved to complain about the content of "entertainment", look no further than yourself for part of the reason.

[hosl]

And just so everybody knows, my hatred for the "cleaning up of TV" stems from going on http://www.parentstv.org/ to see what shennanigans they're getting up to. That may have been the only group upset by the whole Janet Jackson issue. I, as a kid, having watched the Janet Jackson incident live, have not changed in a negative way.

[DoctorDoom]

The Janet Jackson wardrobe "accident" was an example of the tasteless, sensation-hungry media trying to add sexuality where it was wholly inappropriate.

Super Bowl XXXVIII, which was broadcast live on February 1, 2004 from Houston, Texas on the CBS television network in the United States, was noted for a controversial halftime show in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake in what was referred to as a "wardrobe malfunction".[1] The incident, sometimes referred to as Nipplegate,[2][3] was widely discussed. It, along with the rest of the halftime show, led to an immediate crackdown and widespread debate on perceived "indecency" in broadcasting[1], and resulted in a record $550,000 fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission to CBS,[4] as well as an increase of FCC fines per indecency violation from $27,500 to $325,000.[5] Additionally, the halftime show was seen by some as a sign of decreasing morality in the national culture.[6][7][8][9]

Among several other acts, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake performed a medley of their songs "All for You" and "Rhythm Nation" by Jackson[10] and "Rock Your Body" by Timberlake[11] during the halftime show. The performance featured many suggestive dance moves by both singers, and as the song reached the final line, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song," Timberlake pulled off a part of Jackson's costume, revealing her right breast (adorned with a large, sun-shaped nipple shield, a piece of jewelry worn to accentuate the appearance of a nipple piercing).[1][12] Besides Jackson's exposure, the show featured numerous dancers, alongside rappers Sean "Diddy" Combs (who was nicknamed "P. Diddy" at the time) and Nelly, who were grabbing their crotches,[13] along with other participants in costumes, such as Kid Rock wearing an American flag with holes for the sleeves and collar, which some viewers felt was offensive due to the "difficult times of war" going on.[14]

In the immediate aftermath, the CBS broadcast cut to an aerial view of the stadium, but was unable to do so before the picture was sent to millions of viewers' televisions. Many considered this indecent exposure, as a record-breaking 200,000 Americans contacted the FCC within the weeks following the show to complain, saying it was inappropriate in the context of a football game.[15]Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy)

Timberlake wails, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song," and them exposes JJ's boob. "Wardrobe malfunction", my ass.

MTV Networks has produced the Super Bowl halftime show since 2001. MTV released a statement shortly after the incident:

"The tearing of Janet Jackson's costume was unrehearsed, unplanned, completely unintentional and was inconsistent with assurances we had about the content of the performance. MTV regrets this incident occurred and we apologize to anyone who was offended by it," MTV.com reported.

CBS issued a statement apologizing to its viewers. "CBS deeply regrets the incident," said LeslieAnne Wade.

Here's Celebrity Chatter's take on the incident. Upon close inspection, it appears that Jackson was plenty prepared for the display. A jeweled star was deliberately placed and covered part of her exposed breast.

While some reports say that Jackson appeared stunned, in looking at photographs and watching video, the incident looked entirely choreographed. Wardrobe malfunction? How about stunning the world on live television?

It is estimated that 100 million television fans and 72,000 fans in Houston's Reliant Stadium saw much more of Jackson than expected.Super Bowl Halftime Incident Offends (http://www.ktvu.com/entertainment/2810285/detail.html)

An accident? MTV promised a "shocking surprise" for the half-time show, and given that MTV is an open cesspool, that meant something sexual.

I, as a kid, having watched the Janet Jackson incident live, have not changed in a negative way.That's piss-poor logic, kid. One incident seldom affects anyone adversely. However, the "entertainment" media are stumbling over each other in their competition to be the most offensive. And a steady barrage of foul, vulgar fare WILL have lasting effects on the audiences.

Joseph Stalin knew very well the immense power of the visual media to shape thinking and feeling. He said, "If I could control the medium of American motion pictures, I would need nothing else in order to convert the entire world to Communism."

Ever hear of agitprop?

Main Entry: ag·it·prop
Function: noun
Etymology: Russian, ultimately from agitatsiya agitation + propaganda
Date: 1935
: propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art

The power of the media to propagandize society has its own word.

If you believe the bullshit that TV imagery cannot influence viewers, then how do you explain the fact that for Super Bowl 42 (this year), Fox asked for and got $2.7 million for a 30-second ad spot? The defenders of violence and smut on TV lie to you that what one sees on TV has no effect. Ask the advertizers who are willing to fork over $2.7M for half a minute of air time whether they believe that viewers aren't influenced by TV.

It has long been known that vision is the primary source of human information gathering, far beyond the other senses combined. Porn relies on that. How many porno casettes or CDs or books have you heard of, kid? Pornography has always been a visual medium, and every new development in imaging technology was eagerly embraced by the smut-makers.

Ask yourself why pornography is a multi-billion-dollar business if visual stimuli have no effect on viewers. Do some research on the devastating sociological, cultural and moral effects of porn. And then decide whether it's "adult" to favor turning TV into an uncontrolled sewer.

Before someome wails, "CENSORSHIP!" as though it's an evil thing, let me state that I recall TV when there WAS censorship. The whole family could sit down for an evening of viewing, free of any chance of vile or offensive fare. There was excellent acting, clean humor, great drama and no boobs or cusswords. And America was a great and moral nation.

And then the social engineers decided that censorship imposed on the "freedom" to be immoral. The barriers were lifted and "entertainment" began to appeal to the basest tastes of man. The "stag films" were taken out of the smoky back rooms with the 8MM films and bedsheets on the wall, and were brought into the living rooms.

Compare the programming of 1958 with that of 2008. The difference is appalling. And then compare the cultures of those years. The same degeneration is evident. And this is what the civil libertarians call "progress". History makes clear that such "progress" inevitably destroyed the nations and civilizations that embraced it.

Historian Jim Black summarized the death of cultures this way:

"As I have looked back across the ruins and landmarks of antiquity, I have been stunned by the parallels between those societies and our own. For most of us the destruction of Carthage, the rise of the Greek city-states, and the Fall of Rome are mere ghosts of the past, history lessons long forgotten. And such things as the capture of Constantinople, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the collapse of the kingdoms of France and Spain, and the slow withering decline of the British Empire are much less clear and less memorable. Most of us do not remember much from our history lessons about the French Enlightenment or, for that matter, the issues that led to the American Revolution. But this is the legitimate background of our own place in history, it is vital that we reconsider the nature of life in those earlier times. For within those eras and movements are the seeds of the troubles we face today."

Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis:

(1) Increasing lawlessness;
(2) Loss of economic discipline;
(3) Oppressive bureaucracy;
(4) Decline of educational excellence;
(5) Weakening of cultural foundations;
(6) Loss of respect for tradition;
(7) Gross materialism;
(8) Gross immorality;
(9) Decay of religious belief; and
(10) Devaluing of human life.
-- Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1994)

When Nations Die (http://www.leaderu.com/common/nationsdie.html)

"If it feels good, do it," is the guiding principle of a nation in the process of suicide.

[hosl]

The Janet Jackson wardrobe "accident" was an example of the tasteless, sensation-hungry media trying to add sexuality where it was wholly inappropriate.

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy)

Timberlake wails, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song," and them exposes JJ's boob. "Wardrobe malfunction", my ass.

Super Bowl Halftime Incident Offends (http://www.ktvu.com/entertainment/2810285/detail.html)

An accident? MTV promised a "shocking surprise" for the half-time show, and given that MTV is an open cesspool, that meant something sexual.

It has long been known that vision is the primary source of human information gathering, far beyond the other senses combined. Porn relies on that. How many porno casettes or CDs or books have you heard of, kid? Pornography has always been a visual medium, and every new development in imaging technology was eagerly embraced by the smut-makers.

Ask yourself why pornography is a multi-billion-dollar business if visual stimuli have no effect on viewers. Do some research on the devastating sociological, cultural and moral effects of porn. And then decide whether it's "adult" to favor turning TV into an uncontrolled sewer.

Before someome wails, "CENSORSHIP!" as though it's an evil thing, let me state that I recall TV when there WAS censorship. The whole family could sit down for an evening of viewing, free of any chance of vile or offensive fare. There was excellent acting, clean humor, great drama and no boobs or cusswords. And America was a great and moral nation.

Compare the programming of 1958 with that of 2008. The difference is appalling. And then compare the cultures of those years. The same degeneration is evident. And this is what the civil libertarians call "progress". History makes clear that such "progress" inevitably destroyed the nations and civilizations that embraced it.

Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis:

(1) Increasing lawlessness;
(2) Loss of economic discipline;
(3) Oppressive bureaucracy;
(4) Decline of educational excellence;
(5) Weakening of cultural foundations;
(6) Loss of respect for tradition;
(7) Gross materialism;
(8) Gross immorality;
(9) Decay of religious belief; and
(10) Devaluing of human life.
-- Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1994)


To my knowledge, I believe the bra was supposed to show, not the breast.

I think that back in 1958, when you saw a toilet and you had to ask three religious men to air an episode of "I Love Lucy" that involved given birth, it was pretty bad censorship. I'm sad to say it but television has opened up taboo conversations, but putting restrictions on television's standards' will just shut dumb America (not you guys!) up from being open.

And yes, if we reverted to 1958 TV, no one would watch it. Why? Because we are a progressing society.

There's also a big difference between seeing a naked woman and being sexually aroused and seeing violence and wanting to kill. One of them is a mental defect or human nature (depends how you look at it), as the other is
natural and cannot be controlled (the arousal).

Jim Nelson Black is dominion, which is, and I quote (from Wikipedia), "a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy."

Jim Nelson Black has obviously not read the Treaty of Tripoli. Jim Nelson Black is a biased historian who wants the whole "freedom of religion" thing BANNED. He wants everyone to conform to Christianity instead of pursuing the religion right for them. Jim Nelson Black should step back and see that economical decay and religious decay are not part of a society that will explode in the future. We had "economic decay" in the 30s, but we got through that, and we also had "religious and social decay" in the 60s and 70s too (remember the flower generation? Yeecchhh!)

Nevertheless, we got through those and the USA hasn't exploded and become a cesspool yet.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And yes, if we reverted to 1958 TV, no one would watch it. Why? Because we are a progressing society.

No we're not. We're a DEGRADING, DEVOLVING society. Standards are ALWAYS being lowered, never raised. You must be blind in one eye, deaf in the other.

Nevertheless, we got through those and the USA hasn't exploded and become a cesspool yet.

Enjoy the water frog, your hot tub is almost ready. :rolleyes:

[GreatDredScott]

ABC Family is anything but family-oriented. A "new kind of family" indeed.

[Trevelyan]

ABC Family is anything but family-oriented. A "new kind of family" indeed.

Very true. When I was still at home, my brothers would watch this show called "Kyle XY" on ABC Family, and I couldn't believe some of the content of that show considering it was supposed to be a family channel. I know if I were a parent, I would feel extremely uncomfortable watching that show with kids, which I would assume would be something you should be able to do on a so-called family network.

"ABC Family: You're going to be young grandparents” I think that is the "new kind of family" they are shooting for.

[DoctorDoom]

To my knowledge, I believe the bra was supposed to show, not the breast.*cough* *bullshit* *cough* Explain this bit of jewelry (http://www.janetjacksonflash.com/images/janetclose.jpg). Why would someone wear that obviously uncomfortable device if no one was intended to see it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Entertainment/JJ-malfunction1.jpg

If this was accidental, why the snaps around the piece that he's holding, and why is there no evidence of tearing of the red material?

Kid, the spin jobs after the fact cannot conceal that it was deliberate.

I think that back in 1958, when you saw a toilet and you had to ask three religious men to air an episode of "I Love Lucy" that involved given birth, it was pretty bad censorship.Actually, it was called broadcast standards, which continued until the destroyers of culture forced an end to them.

I'm sad to say it but television has opened up taboo conversations, but putting restrictions on television's standards' will just shut dumb America (not you guys!) up from being open.There are things that should not BE "open". Sex and nudity were NEVER meant to be entertainment. The fact that it is defended by the "anything goes" hedonists speaks volumes.

And yes, if we reverted to 1958 TV, no one would watch it. Why? Because we are a progressing society.WADR, going from walking through a flowery pasture to jumping into every pile of cow shit hardly constitutes "progressing".

There's also a big difference between seeing a naked woman and being sexually aroused and seeing violence and wanting to kill.Do you need to be stimulated by nakedness on TV? And do you demand that your lusts be satiated on unencrypted channels?

One of them is a mental defect or human nature (depends how you look at it), as the other is natural and cannot be controlled (the arousal).You gotta learn to keep your pants python under control. Constant sexual stimulation rots your brain and makes you post dumb things on Web BBs.

Jim Nelson Black is dominion, which is, and I quote (from Wikipedia), "a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy."If I read that babble correctly, Christians must be forbidden from availing themselves of America's political process to seek public office in order to further their goals. Never mind that their success or failure depends on convincing the voters of one's position, and that they have the final say.

That ban of course does not apply to atheists, who are using the political system to drive God out of America and replace HIm with their secular humanist crap.

Jim Nelson Black has obviously not read the Treaty of Tripoli.And have you read anything else?

Jim Nelson Black is a biased historian who wants the whole "freedom of religion" thing BANNED.Would you care to prove that, atheist? Or must we accept your crap just because you posted it? You do realize, of course, that the ONLY reason that freedom of religion exists in America is because it was founded as a Christian nation. Spend a while in Saudi Arabia or any other Islamocracy and discover what the freedom of religion in NON-Christian nations is like. Or visit China, NoKo, Cuba and other atheistic "paradises" and check out their freedom of religion.

Godless fools are free to peddle their piffle in America precisely because of the religion that they loathe so rabidly.

He wants everyone to conform to Christianity instead of pursuing the religion right for them.Evidence? Or another "just so" tale?

Jim Nelson Black should step back and see that economical decay and religious decay are not part of a society that will explode in the future.They have already occured, and are an ongoing cultural lifeblood-letting.

We had "economic decay" in the 30s, but we got through that ...Why was that "decay"? Research the causes of the Depression. It was an economic setback of major dimensions, but it had nothing to do with decay.

Governments confiscate the majority of your paycheck and spend it on supporting functionless welfare parasites who refuse to support themselvers. THAT is economic decay.

... and we also had "religious and social decay" in the 60s and 70s too ...It began when arrogant, ignorant man decided that he was too "modern" and too "intellectual" to bother with God any more. When God is not welcome, He obliges the fools who think they can succeed without His help and guidance.

(remember the flower generation? Yeecchhh!)I remember it because I lived through it. What about you, kid?

Nevertheless, we got through those and the USA hasn't exploded and become a cesspool yet.Wrong. It's already a cesspool, but since you're not old enough to remember anything else, you assume that it has alawys been this way. You've been drinking cultural sewage all your life, so you cannot be expected to know what pure water tastes like. But many on this board have seen the "before" and "after" of cultural degeneration. The "after" sucks.

[CzechPrince]

I think the issue is what exactly does, "family friendly" mean to each of us? What is acceptable and what isn't, with regard to speech, sexual content, etc? I'm curious as to what everyone's own beliefs on this are.

[GreatDredScott]

If I hear the Treaty of Tripoli mentioned one more time, I think I'm going to hurl. No doubt I'll hear it time and time again between now and the time I'm called home, so I better keep a bucket nearby at all times.

[Rhino]

Jim Nelson Black has obviously not read the Treaty of Tripoli.I don't think you have either, at least not the original version. What got presented in Congress was a translation, and it was incorrect.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n6

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm

If I hear the Treaty of Tripoli mentioned one more time, I think I'm going to hurl. No doubt I'll hear it time and time again between now and the time I'm called home, so I better keep a bucket nearby at all times.I didn't mention the name. :evilgrin:

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

And yes, if we reverted to 1958 TV, no one would watch it. Why? Because we are a progressing society.
No, we're a regressing society. We are a people being reduced to our most base and primitive qualities. As a result the moral concepts which produced our liberties are becoming foreign and incomprehensible to crude minds.

This moral degradation is the result of a deliberate agenda being orchestrated by the marxist left. The founders stated over and over that freedom is built upon morality and that only a moral people can be free. Which is why it's no coincidence that advancing immorality is one of the consistent goals of the left. The left understands that to make us unfree they must first make us immoral.

I've come to love old TV shows. They're all story and plot and devoid of the vast amounts of worthless smut and filth permeating present day entertainment. There's a reason (gradually increasing over the years until our present copious amounts) smut and filth is being injected into our entertainment however. It corrupts and regresses its viewers.

...the other is
natural and cannot be controlled (the arousal).
Yes it can. It's called wearing clothes. There's a reason people are required to be clothed.

Nevertheless, we got through those and the USA hasn't... become a cesspool yet.
Uhhh, yes, it has.

I rather like how the movie Idiocracy seems to capture this ongoing deterioration. It shows the people of the future reduced to mindless sex-crazed morons addicted to depraved and vulgar entertainment. Every business, like Starbucks, caters to the depraved masses by being Coffee shops/whore houses. It illustrates in what the process, happening right now, will ultimately result quite nicely.

If I hear the Treaty of Tripoli mentioned one more time, I think I'm going to hurl. No doubt I'll hear it time and time again between now and the time I'm called home, so I better keep a bucket nearby at all times.
The misconstruing of the wording of that treaty has been corrected (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57234&highlight=treaty+tripoli&page=11) by many numerous times. Arm yourself with the truth.

[Kathy30]

I can't believe that anyone would fail to understand that we have indeed become a cesspool compared to the way things were in say 1958.

Unbelievable!

[hosl]

No, we're a regressing society. We are a people being reduced to our most base and primitive qualities. As a result the moral concepts which produced our liberties are becoming foreign and incomprehensible to crude minds.

This moral degradation is the result of a deliberate agenda being orchestrated by the marxist left. The founders stated over and over that freedom is built upon morality and that only a moral people can be free. Which is why it's no coincidence that advancing immorality is one of the consistent goals of the left. The left understands that to make us unfree they must first make us immoral.

I've come to love old TV shows. They're all story and plot and devoid of the vast amounts of worthless smut and filth permeating present day entertainment. There's a reason (gradually increasing over the years until our present copious amounts) smut and filth is being injected into our entertainment however. It corrupts and regresses its viewers.


Yes it can. It's called wearing clothes. There's a reason people are required to be clothed.


Uhhh, yes, it has.

I rather like how the movie Idiocracy seems to capture this ongoing deterioration. It shows the people of the future reduced to mindless sex-crazed morons addicted to depraved and vulgar entertainment. Every business, like Starbucks, caters to the depraved masses by being Coffee shops/whore houses. It illustrates in what the process, happening right now, will ultimately result quite nicely.


The misconstruing of the wording of that treaty has been corrected (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57234&highlight=treaty+tripoli&page=11) by many numerous times. Arm yourself with the truth.

Got it.

[DesertFox]

I can't believe that anyone would fail to understand that we have indeed become a cesspool compared to the way things were in say 1958.

Unbelievable!Not at all unbelievable. What's unbelievable to me is that there are so many people who have no clue as to what a cesspool America was in 1958, just because the nasty crap was kept underground.

If you never saw a XXX film from the 'Fifties -- one including Marilyn Monroe, for one example -- then you have absolutely no basis for comparing today with 1958 in terms of cesspools.

[DoctorDoom]

Not at all unbelievable. What's unbelievable to me is that there are so many people who have no clue as to what a cesspool America was in 1958, just because the nasty crap was kept underground.There was porn in 1958. There has been porn since man discovered how to communicate. But your own argument belies your PoV: "... just because the nasty crap was kept underground." In 1958, America had the good sense to force the providers of filth to traffic in their smut out of the mainstream of socxiety. And then the "freedom = license" arschlochs decided that censorship was evil, and the floodgates opened wide.

Remember "stag shows", where men gathered in back rooms to watch grotesquely bad 8-MM film strips projected on bed sheets? Now the crap is on the cable systems and satellites and the Internet and in the video rental shops, and it's in the living rooms. And what's the "argument" offered in rebuttal to those who complain about a culture in decline? "If you don't like it, don't look at it." IOW, "We're going to turn America into an immoral shithole, and don't try to stop us."

If you never saw a XXX film from the 'Fifties --Since US movie ratings began in 1968, no 50s films had ANY ratings.

... one including Marilyn Monroe, for one example -- then you have absolutely no basis for comparing today with 1958 in terms of cesspool.I DID live through the 50s, and I know very well that our society is now not only skin-diving in the cesspool, but it is feeding off the slimy chunks on the bottom.

Was it necessary to "rate" movies in 1958? Were Monroe porn flicks shown in the local theaters? Was it necessary for every film to have characters using "f**k" like punctuation in the dialog, and for "stars" to be naked at least once in each film?

There were "racy" films, to be sure, but compared to the typical "R" fare in 2008. they were "Mary Poppins" in comparison.

And what of the music of the two times?

<hr>
1958: Everly Brothers, "Bye Bye Love"

Bye bye happiness, hello loneliness
I think I'm-a gonna cry-y
Bye bye love, bye bye sweet caress, hello emptiness
I feel like I could di-ie
Bye bye my love goodby-eye
There goes my baby with-a someone new
She sure looks happy, I sure am blue
She was my baby till he stepped in
Goodbye to romance that might have been

Chorus

I'm-a through with romance, I'm a-through with love
I'm through with a'countin' the stars above
And here's the reason that I'm so free
My lovin' baby is through with me

Chorus

Bye bye my love goodby-eye
Bye bye my love goodby-eye..

<hr>
2008: Gorilla Zoe f/ Boyz N Da Hood - Welcome To The Zoo - Real Motherf**ker (http://tinyurl.com/456ttb)

Yeah you real motherf**ker gangster out on these streets nigga
Gimme your money
Hustle up your money
Aint takin no short no loss
Don't give give a f**k whatever these niggas say
Shit

[Hook]
If yous a real motherf**ker (I f**k I f**ks with ya)
If you is a hustler (Yeah I f**ks with ya)
If you is a ganster my boys'll keep it real yeah (I f**ks with ya)

If yous a real motherf**ker (I f**k I f**ks with ya)
If you is a hustler (Yeah I f**ks with ya)
If you is a ganster my boys'll keep it real yeah (I f**ks with ya)

OK aye well I'm a take the time for a minute (Time for a minute)
To let ya know whats goin on on the mind of a menace (Mind of a menace)
See I been to known to grind for a minute (Grind for a minute)
Had to hustle for a year to survive in the city (Survive in the city)
That's why I only f**k with a percentage
I'm committed to the street but not made like me (Made like me)
Hey and I dont f**k with y'all rappers cuz a lotta y'all lame and a lotta y'all hear me
I'm just another nigga here from the ghetto homie
Tryin to make a livin (Yeah) wit my ghetto homies (Yeah)
These pussies aint real they just a actin like ya they don't have to like ya (Ha ha)


Yep, nothing has changed since 1958. :rolleyes: