NATION

PASSWORD

What the F@%!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Do you like the FCC

Yes, I'm tired of the censorship
84
55%
No, It's essential for our children saftey
17
11%
Other
20
13%
I don't give a F
32
21%
 
Total votes : 153

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:58 am

Conserative Morality wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:its not me and me alone now is it.

Argumentum ad populum is not valid.

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.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Flameswroth
Senator
 
Posts: 4773
Founded: Sep 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

It's true. I got "entertained" a half dozen times yesterday alone! :twisted:
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.



User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

I'm throwing a fit because I don't believe in censorship. I watch very little TV.
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.

Where did I say it was?
The FCC is not making you watch censored versions of stuff. They are not stopping you from watching whatever filth you want.

Why is it filth, hmm?
If you spent less time whining about Ashmoria and more time googling you could be getting entertained right now.

Smunkee, there is one thing you certainly don't know about me: This IS my entertainment. I prefer debating over gaming, over roleplaying, over reading, over everything except family reunions, and family reunions usually end up with me debating with somebody.

I love doing this. :)
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

Apathy is not a good thing Yootopia.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
Verzia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1153
Founded: Nov 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

^this

User avatar
Huntersunited
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Dec 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


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.

User avatar
The Araucania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 694
Founded: Dec 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


YEAH!
FOR A CELTIC UNITY
CHRISTIAN AND PROUD
LUTHERAN
NatSit 1| NatSit 2|NatSit 3|NatSIt 4|NatSit 5|NatSit 6|NatSit 7|
DEPENDENCES
New Cork and Helsinsk, Araucanian Antartica

ARGENTINA

User avatar
Verzia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1153
Founded: Nov 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Verzia » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 am

Hamilay wrote:Your poll doesn't make sense.

your opinion about the poll makes no sense...

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 am

Conserative Morality wrote:
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.

Apathy is not a good thing Yootopia.

There's a difference between apathy and looking at the alternatives and going 'nah'.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby 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'.

Can you honestly say that most people do look at the alternatives? Or consider them in any amount of detail? :meh:
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
Smunkeeville
Minister
 
Posts: 2775
Founded: Aug 09, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

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.

Why is it filth, hmm?

Seriously?
I love doing this. :)

I guess.
"I like vacuuming, I find it cathartic. It's like I imagine all the people who tick me off being little pieces of lint and I'm sucking them up a tube into a vortex of terror, it's a healthy way to deal with my frustrations." - Smunkling, aged 8

User avatar
Flameswroth
Senator
 
Posts: 4773
Founded: Sep 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

AFAIK, that's only insofar as the more general stations, like those broadcast over there air. There are plenty of stations on extended cable, or available through subscription on cable/satellite/whatever that seem to be able to play whatever the fuck they want. So it's not so much that they're preventing you from watching what you want, but that they're preventing you from getting it without additional cost. And I'm not sure a right to watch any station at equal cost is a right that actually exists...
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.



User avatar
Huntersunited
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Dec 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.

User avatar
Smunkeeville
Minister
 
Posts: 2775
Founded: Aug 09, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

Are not.
"I like vacuuming, I find it cathartic. It's like I imagine all the people who tick me off being little pieces of lint and I'm sucking them up a tube into a vortex of terror, it's a healthy way to deal with my frustrations." - Smunkling, aged 8

User avatar
Smunkeeville
Minister
 
Posts: 2775
Founded: Aug 09, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

You're too full of bullshit to talk to.
"I like vacuuming, I find it cathartic. It's like I imagine all the people who tick me off being little pieces of lint and I'm sucking them up a tube into a vortex of terror, it's a healthy way to deal with my frustrations." - Smunkling, aged 8

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55275
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


Yep. I think that rating and leaving to the individual choices (and to parents' responsibility) is the only viable choice. If the kids really really want to get pr0n, they'll find a way to do it. So it's better to educate them to look at other things also, and this is something only the parents (and the school) can do - as the kid spends time with parents and teachers, not with the FCC.
.

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

Actually, I'd probably get out of the thread and wait for someone else to do it.
Seriously?

Yes. I want to know why you believe it's filth.
I guess.

It's what I like to do. Can't fault me for doing what I enjoy doing in my spare time, can you? :lol:
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13660
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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.

Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of 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.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55275
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


If you're an adult, you can go to a movie rental place and rent whatever you can find. Well, except snuff movies and governmental secrets (at least legally).
.

User avatar
Huntersunited
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Dec 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Last edited by Huntersunited on Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13660
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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

Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.
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.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Huntersunited
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Dec 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


But John Locke called them natural rights.

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13660
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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.

Which means the same thing.
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.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Huntersunited
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Dec 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:15 am

Smunkeeville wrote:
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.

Are not.


Isn't censorship against our right to freedom of speech anyway?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Fartsniffage, Ifreann, Locmor, Outer Bratorke, The Black Forrest, Western Theram

Advertisement

Remove ads