Cor, I dunno about that. "It works OK and most people honestly don't care" is a pretty reasonable ground for not changing stuff unnecessarily.
Advertisement
by Flameswroth » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:01 am
Smunkeeville wrote:If you spent less time whining about Ashmoria and more time googling you could be getting entertained right now.
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:02 am
Smunkeeville wrote:Nobody is forcing you to watch what they like. Case in point I've never seen LOST. You have access to the entertainment you want. Nothing is banned. You're just throwing a fit because you don't want to pay.
NSG is not in charge of what you google on your own time. You have a fucked up sense of boundaries if you think otherwise.
The FCC is not making you watch censored versions of stuff. They are not stopping you from watching whatever filth you want.
If you spent less time whining about Ashmoria and more time googling you could be getting entertained right now.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:03 am
Yootopia wrote:Cor, I dunno about that. "It works OK and most people honestly don't care" is a pretty reasonable ground for not changing stuff unnecessarily.
by Verzia » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:03 am
Surote wrote:I'm tired of the FCC censoring Television. I believe the govt can't tell me what is good for me to watch or not watch. If parents don't like programs don't let your kids watch be a parent(Lazy adults).
So what do ya'll think.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 am
Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
Of course I don't have a right to entertainment. But is it right for a small group of people to force their SPECIFIC TASTES on everyone else in this country?
Nobody is forcing you to watch what they like. Case in point I've never seen LOST. You have access to the entertainment you want. Nothing is banned. You're just throwing a fit because you don't want to pay.
by The Araucania » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 am
Surote wrote:I'm tired of the FCC censoring Television. I believe the govt can't tell me what is good for me to watch or not watch. If parents don't like programs don't let your kids watch be a parent(Lazy adults).
So what do ya'll think.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:05 am
Yootopia wrote:There's a difference between apathy and looking at the alternatives and going 'nah'.
by Smunkeeville » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:06 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Nobody is forcing you to watch what they like. Case in point I've never seen LOST. You have access to the entertainment you want. Nothing is banned. You're just throwing a fit because you don't want to pay.
I'm throwing a fit because I don't believe in censorship. I watch very little TV.
Why is it filth, hmm?
I love doing this.
by Flameswroth » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:06 am
Huntersunited wrote:That's not exactly true, the people who censor T.V. are forcing you to watch what they want, or rather not watch what you want.
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:07 am
Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote:I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.
Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.
Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.
Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
by Smunkeeville » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:07 am
Huntersunited wrote:
That's not exactly true, the people who censor T.V. are forcing you to watch what they want, or rather not watch what you want.
by Smunkeeville » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:08 am
Huntersunited wrote:
Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
by Risottia » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:08 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Risottia wrote:They should separate the two functions. With FCC going back to its original purpose, and a mixed governmental/academic/professional panel to check the contents and rate them.
I don't mind ratings, it's the outright restriction/banning that I mind. Although splitting it into two does sound like a good idea.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:09 am
Smunkeeville wrote:I think you DO believe in censorship. I think you don't want to admit it. I think if I posted goatse right now you'd probably report me to your dear moderators.
Seriously?
I guess.
by United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:09 am
Huntersunited wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote:I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.
Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.
Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.
Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Risottia » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:10 am
Huntersunited wrote:Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:10 am
United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote:I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.
Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.
Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.
Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:11 am
United Dependencies wrote:Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence, and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language.
by United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:12 am
Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote:I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.
Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.
Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.
Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.
Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:13 am
United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote:I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.
Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.
Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.
Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.
Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.
by United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:14 am
Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:Smunkeeville wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote:I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.
Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.
Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.
Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.
You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.
Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.
Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.
Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.
But John Locke called them natural rights.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:15 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Deblar, Dimetrodon Empire, Eahland, Ifreann, Platypus Bureaucracy, The Archregimancy, The Two Jerseys, Turenia, USHALLNOTPASS, Utquiagvik
Advertisement