What the F@%!

[Flameswroth]

im not forcing anything. im just on the winning end of government policy.

Change my words to 'supporting'.

yeah i support that there should be some media outlets that are forced to offer programming without "FUCK", without tits, without excessive sexual and violent content.

just as i support that there should be some media outlets where those rules do not apply.

are you really missing out because dr house can't say "fuck it all"?

I agree with your point, but believe you used a bad example. Society as a whole is most certainly missing out because of that

[Conserative Morality]

yeah i support that there should be some media outlets that are forced to offer programming without "FUCK", without tits, without excessive sexual and violent content.

just as i support that there should be some media outlets where those rules do not apply.

are you really missing out because dr house can't say "fuck it all"?

Not at all. Well, perhaps in some cases, although I'm not sure I can imagine him saying that. Why is 'fuck' so bad? Why is nudity and violent content so horrible it must be outright banned in certain places? Because YOU, and you alone find them offensive? Why are your tastes so important as to support outright censorship for everyone who's watching these channels?

[Conserative Morality]

I agree with your point, but believe you used a bad example. Society as a whole is most certainly missing out because of that

You agree that having your tastes dictate the law is a good thing?

[United Dependencies]

Some of the dubs of cluster f-bombs on tv are humorous.

[Cirona]

yeah i support that there should be some media outlets that are forced to offer programming without "FUCK",

what's wrong with the word fuck?

[Strykla]

I think excessive swearing, including use of more exotic swears, should be considered more like...a commodity. That is to say, the more extreme cases of language, violence and sex ought not to be broadcast freely over the air-waves. You should have to buy a cable package to include channels that have that kind of content. And from what I understand, that's kind of how things are now so...yeah.

I gotta say though, when you let twelve-year-olds run rampant with lingual autonomy, you get horrible dialogue, like the second half of District 9. It's kind of like having a 1/4" thick cake with 3" of icing on it. It just makes you sick.

Ok, maybe it went a little overboard with cussing, but didn't you hear? Niell Blomkamp had the actors make up their lines!

And swearing improves tolerance to pain. Bite yourself, then let it rip.

[Conserative Morality]

what's wrong with the word fuck?

It's the living incarnation of evil.

[Flameswroth]

I agree with your point, but believe you used a bad example. Society as a whole is most certainly missing out because of that

You agree that having your tastes dictate the law is a good thing?

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.

[Cirona]

what's wrong with the word fuck?

It's the living incarnation of evil.

and I thought that was Stewart Gilligan Griffin...

Yeah, but fuck is just a word. a word. it's not like when you say it, you are killing someone. its just a word.

[Conserative Morality]

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.

[Linux and the X]

yeah i support that there should be some media outlets that are forced to offer programming without "FUCK", without tits, without excessive sexual and violent content.

Why force them to? I expect many stations would still be interested in offering "family-friendly" content.

[Conserative Morality]

and I thought that was Stewart Gilligan Griffin...

Yeah, but fuck is just a word. a word. it's not like when you say it, you are killing someone. its just a word.

Not according to the censors. Every time you say 'fuck' you obviously bring a lifetime of misery to a blind child with two permanently broken legs.

[Flameswroth]

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.

Their taste is more exotic, so they pay the extra price involved. It's like unlocking the full features of a trial version of software, or paying for a name brand product when generic is available. /shrug

[Conserative Morality]

Why force them to? I expect many stations would still be interested in offering "family-friendly" content.

Channels offering taste-specific selections? Unheard of!

[Conserative Morality]

Their taste is more exotic, so they pay the extra price involved. It's like unlocking the full features of a trial version of software, or paying for a name brand product when generic is available. /shrug

It's more like buying Microsoft Word and only being able to use Times New Roman until you pay another ten dollars for every time you want to use a different font or font size.

[Smunkeeville]

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.

Nobody is oppressing you by charging you to watch Susie fuck 32 guys.

[Linux and the X]

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.

And what of station owners? Should they have to pay as well? How much do you suggest?

[Cirona]

and I thought that was Stewart Gilligan Griffin...

Yeah, but fuck is just a word. a word. it's not like when you say it, you are killing someone. its just a word.

Not according to the censors. Every time you say 'fuck' you obviously bring a lifetime of misery to a blind child with two permanently broken legs.

Every child must be blind with two permanently broken legs now

[Flameswroth]

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.

And what of station owners? Should they have to pay as well? How much do you suggest?

I think the current system that channels like HBO and Showtime use work just fine. In fact, the whole current system is just dandy as far as I'm concerned. I'm not really advocating any change from the status quo, really.

Their taste is more exotic, so they pay the extra price involved. It's like unlocking the full features of a trial version of software, or paying for a name brand product when generic is available. /shrug

It's more like buying Microsoft Word and only being able to use Times New Roman until you pay another ten dollars for every time you want to use a different font or font size.

More like Microsoft Word only starts by allowing you to use Times New Roman, but for 10 dollars a month you get a subscription allowing you to utilize other fonts.

[Conserative Morality]

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?

If your answer is yes, congratulations! You support an unelected oligarchy!

Nobody is oppressing you by charging you to watch Susie fuck 32 guys.

1. Eh, I wouldn't pay to see it.

2. I'm sure the internet has an answer to that, but I'm afraid to look it up.

Also probably against the site rules.

[Conserative Morality]

More like Microsoft Word only starts by allowing you to use Times New Roman, but for 10 dollars a month you get a subscription allowing you to utilize other fonts.

Why are all the other fonts pay only then? Because Bill doesn't like the way they look when he's typing all the zeroes in his bank account?

[Ashmoria]

yeah i support that there should be some media outlets that are forced to offer programming without "FUCK", without tits, without excessive sexual and violent content.

just as i support that there should be some media outlets where those rules do not apply.

are you really missing out because dr house can't say "fuck it all"?

Not at all. Well, perhaps in some cases, although I'm not sure I can imagine him saying that. Why is 'fuck' so bad? Why is nudity and violent content so horrible it must be outright banned in certain places? Because YOU, and you alone find them offensive? Why are your tastes so important as to support outright censorship for everyone who's watching these channels?

its not me and me alone now is it.

[Conserative Morality]

its not me and me alone now is it.

Argumentum ad populum is not valid.

[Totally Kicking Ass]

Your poll doesn't make sense.

If only the FCC could put a stop to this offense against the use of the English language.

[Smunkeeville]

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.

Nobody is oppressing you by charging you to watch Susie fuck 32 guys.

1. Eh, I wouldn't pay to see it.

2. I'm sure the internet has an answer to that, but I'm afraid to look it up.

Also probably against the site rules.

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.