What the F@%!

[New Limacon]

key word there is BUY. Do you know why we have to buy it? Because parents are too lazy to monitor there kids. If there was no censorship, they might not be free, but they would have to lower prices to compete with other stations.

I'm a little sick of "it's the lazy parents fault if their kids see something they shouldn't." TV and radio signals are broadcast pretty much nonstop. Turning on TV or radio requires the cognitive and motor skills most children possess by age three. Assuming there is no censorship of any kind, and the networks take full advantage of this lack of censorship, for a parent to guarantee their children don't see what they shouldn't would require endless supervision; it would be unpleasant for both the adults and children.

[Conserative Morality]

Basically yes. I think if you could hear my tone of voice it would have made more sense.

It certainly didn't make sense here.

Did I mention my foot hurts?

Then don't debate.

[Huntersunited]

Can a four year old be an adult before they mature? Can a six year old? Can a two year old?

Can a parent, oh, I don't know, control what their child watches on the television set?

Exactly!

[Huntersunited]

key word there is BUY. Do you know why we have to buy it? Because parents are too lazy to monitor there kids. If there was no censorship, they might not be free, but they would have to lower prices to compete with other stations.

I'm a little sick of "it's the lazy parents fault if their kids see something they shouldn't." TV and radio signals are broadcast pretty much nonstop. Turning on TV or radio requires the cognitive and motor skills most children possess by age three. Assuming there is no censorship of any kind, and the networks take full advantage of this lack of censorship, for a parent to guarantee their children don't see what they shouldn't would require endless supervision; it would be unpleasant for both the adults and children.

It's called parental controls

[Katganistan]

Why introduce more bureaucracy so we can pay two completely different groups for doing what one does now?

Good question. Why do we separate the Senate and the House? Because putting all the power in one government body, or one body of any kind, is not always a good thing.

In fact, it's RARELY a good thing.

Nice strawman. Our government developed that way to give equal representation to small states and large states, but never mind that, there's a completely specious argument to be made!!!! Given that BOTH DUTIES ARE ALREADY THE JOB OF THE FCC, it's pointless to create another body.

You're just being completely unreasonable and making up wild arguments because you can't fathom that people disagree with you that free TV should be what you dictate.

BUY CABLE. You can get everything you want there. But you'd rather rant about how the current system is oppressive because it includes programming that's suitable for those who CAN'T buy it -- that is, children.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm a little sick of "it's the lazy parents fault if their kids see something they shouldn't." TV and radio signals are broadcast pretty much nonstop. Turning on TV or radio requires the cognitive and motor skills most children possess by age three. Assuming there is no censorship of any kind, and the networks take full advantage of this lack of censorship, for a parent to guarantee their children don't see what they shouldn't would require endless supervision; it would be unpleasant for both the adults and children.

Because it's impossible and unheard of to keep an eye on your child at age three.

Because it's impossible to set time restrictions.

Because it's impossible to unplug the TV.

And so on.

[United Dependencies]

Can a four year old be an adult before they mature? Can a six year old? Can a two year old?

Can a parent, oh, I don't know, control what their child watches on the television set?

Exactly!

Not on older TV sets.

[Flameswroth]

Most T.V. stations would still censor their material without the influence of the FCC.

I too believe that would be very likely. At the very least they won't make any particular efforts to change to a more 'edgy' formatting just because the FCC disappeared.

It makes me wonder if the stance against its existence is more of a conceptual, ideological stance rather than a practical one. People don't like the idea that the FCC exists and is holding mainstream TV to a set standard, but unless they're an individual seeking free sexual content or one of Macfarlane's drones there really isn't a set goal in mind. It's the gnawing knowledge that sometime, somewhere on some channel someone got bleeped instead of having the word heard, or the sex scene from Original Sin was 'editted for content' during the Saturday matinee.

EDIT: The point I'm driving at is actually kind of a question: what would be the objective of eliminating that organization? It seems like it'd just be a 'moral victory' (though some might call it an 'immoral victory, teehee), with only very minor changes coming from it as a result.

[Yootopia]

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?

If argumentum layus in doubtum, castum aspersiones ad everyone elsum, eh?

[Katganistan]

So since you want to use fonts not included, pay for them? What's so tough about it?

Oh waaaah, I want what other people pay for for free?

Perhaps that was a bad example.

Perhaps this:

I like the Maryland Political Times. It's controversial, appeals to my political sense, and doesn't artificially censor itself. However, a new government body, the Federal Newspaper Commission, now dictates that I may only buy the Maryland Political Times between 10:00 and 6:00, and I now must pay triple in addition to the normal weekly fee, for the Sunday paper.

I'm sure I have a few problems with that, but I feel it's a much better example.

Another ridiculous strawman, thanks.

[Huntersunited]

Can a four year old be an adult before they mature? Can a six year old? Can a two year old?

Can a parent, oh, I don't know, control what their child watches on the television set?

Exactly!

Not on older TV sets.

Well maybe children should be doing more productive things.

[The Parkus Empire]

Can a four year old be an adult before they mature? Can a six year old? Can a two year old?

Like I just said, Kat, without the FCC, most T.V. stations would still censor their content; parents would simply block stations that didn't provide this service.

[Katganistan]

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.

Except when you buy Showtime, and HBO, and Cinemax, and Adult channels, and Cable.... and DVDs.

Such oppression.

key word there is BUY. Do you know why we have to buy it? Because parents are too lazy to monitor there kids. If there was no censorship, they might not be free, but they would have to lower prices to compete with other stations.

No, it's because children are citizens too, and they are included in what stations offer as free programming.
Your choice and ability to pay for what you want is not censorship.

[Yootopia]

Can a four year old be an adult before they mature? Can a six year old? Can a two year old?

Can a parent, oh, I don't know, control what their child watches on the television set?

Exactly!

Not on older TV sets.

Well maybe children should be doing more productive things.

Any child that isn't a bit stupid, or doesn't have masochistic teachers, will have masses of free time after their homework is finished. I misspent my youth playing football and Theme Hospital and the like, others might watch TV. Unless your hours are 9:00->3.30 and you have zero chores to take care of, you aren't going to be able to control what your kids are watching at all times.

[United Dependencies]

Can a four year old be an adult before they mature? Can a six year old? Can a two year old?

Can a parent, oh, I don't know, control what their child watches on the television set?

Exactly!

Not on older TV sets.

Well maybe children should be doing more productive things.

That's fine with me.

[New Limacon]

Because it's impossible and unheard of to keep an eye on your child at age three.

Because it's impossible to set time restrictions.

Because it's impossible to unplug the TV.

And so on.

I said "cognitive and motor skills of a three year old" to show it didn't require much. There are plenty of things a parent wouldn't want an eight year old to see, though kids at that age are usually given more freedom.
And yes, it is impossible to set time restrictions and unplug the TV if your kid ever leaves the house. Have you ever been in a waiting room? At a friend's house? In an annoyingly TV-filled restaurant?* If TV a kid sees could really be limited to what is shown at his home, I doubt there would be as many restrictions.

*Seriously, why do they do that? Do they worry their diners lack the social competence necessary to take part in dinner conversation?

[Huntersunited]

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.

Except when you buy Showtime, and HBO, and Cinemax, and Adult channels, and Cable.... and DVDs.

Such oppression.

key word there is BUY. Do you know why we have to buy it? Because parents are too lazy to monitor there kids. If there was no censorship, they might not be free, but they would have to lower prices to compete with other stations.

No, it's because children are citizens too, and they are included in what stations offer as free programming.
Your choice and ability to pay for what you want is not censorship.

If children are citizens just like us, then why can't they vote? They don't have the same rights as us, and for gods sake, I should not have to pay for shows because the government censors the word "fuck". What's the big deal about that word? I hear children say it all the time, it's not like they've never heard it before.

[Conserative Morality]

Nice strawman.

It's not a strawman, unless you've forgotten the meaning of the term. I did not misrepresent you argument in any way. You asked why we should split one body up into two, more power-specific bodies. I answered with the example of the Senate and the House, and that concentrating power isn't exactly optimal.

Our government developed that way to give equal representation to small states and large states, but never mind that, there's a completely specious argument to be made!!!!

Really? I suppose that's why both Senate and House can introduce tax bills.

Given that BOTH DUTIES ARE ALREADY THE JOB OF THE FCC, it's pointless to create another body.

I'm sure the supporters of the Articles of Confederation said the same thing about making two congressional houses.

You're just being completely unreasonable and making up wild arguments because you can't fathom that people disagree with you that free TV should be what you dictate.

Kat, I'm not the one who's been unreasonable in this thread. So far, you've accused me, falsely, of making a strawman argument, and presented an astounding lack of information on the subject of discussion. I haven't made up wild arguments, only arguments you've been unable to refute, unless excessive use of exclamation points count. I can very well fathom that people disagree with my view of censorship. I attempt to bring them over to my side with logical arguments, arguments that you seem to have trouble accepting.

BUY CABLE. You can get everything you want there.

Who said I wanted it? This is a matter of principle, not personal taste.

But you'd rather rant about how the current system is oppressive because it includes programming that's suitable for those who CAN'T buy it -- that is, children.

Because channels don't appeal to niche markets?

Because TV would degenerate entirely without the FCC controlling it?

Because children's channels are so hard to come by, and expensive to maintain?

And so on.

[United Dependencies]

Because it's impossible and unheard of to keep an eye on your child at age three.

Because it's impossible to set time restrictions.

Because it's impossible to unplug the TV.

And so on.

*Seriously, why do they do that? Do they worry their diners lack the social competence necessary to take part in dinner conversation?

Only in sports bars. Or other such places.

[Conserative Morality]

If argumentum layus in doubtum, castum aspersiones ad everyone elsum, eh?

[Katganistan]

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.

The pursuit of happiness? REALLY? You think you have a right to TV?
The pursuit of happiness meant you could own land, have certain freedoms, and be able to own your own business. It did not mean the rest of us have to support your wish for raw language or porn on free television.

Go. Buy. Cable.

What if you had to buy cable to have censorship, how would you feel?

If that is what I wanted, then yes, I would buy the "I will never ever be offended channel."

But given that television is not a right, and that from the beginnings of it in the US it was decided that certain things were not appropriate family fare, I have no problem with the current system.

It's actually relaxed quite a bit from the time when you couldn't say a woman was pregnant, or show a married couple had a single bed. And you can have swearing and nudity on TV -- NYPD Blue was famous for it. There are ratings which show you what is appropriate for each age group.... and there are alternatives for those who want adult programming. What YOU want is for fewer people's preferences to be taken into consideration. It's selfish.

[Katganistan]

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.

The pursuit of happiness? REALLY? You think you have a right to TV?
The pursuit of happiness meant you could own land, have certain freedoms, and be able to own your own business. It did not mean the rest of us have to support your wish for raw language or porn on free television.

Go. Buy. Cable.

What if you had to buy cable to have censorship, how would you feel?

If that is what I wanted, then yes, I would buy the "I will never ever be offended channel."

But given that television is not a right, and that from the beginnings of it in the US it was decided that certain things were not appropriate family fare, I have no problem with the current system.

It's actually relaxed quite a bit from the time when you couldn't say a woman was pregnant, or show a married couple had a single bed. And you can have swearing and nudity on TV -- NYPD Blue was famous for it. There are ratings which show you what is appropriate for each age group.... and there are alternatives for those who want adult programming. What YOU want is for fewer people's preferences to be taken into consideration. It's selfish.

[Conserative Morality]

Another ridiculous strawman, thanks.

Kat, I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the FCC, or don't understand what a strawman is.

[United Dependencies]

There is a difference between creating another legislative house and splitting an executive body.

[Conserative Morality]

I said "cognitive and motor skills of a three year old" to show it didn't require much. There are plenty of things a parent wouldn't want an eight year old to see, though kids at that age are usually given more freedom.
And yes, it is impossible to set time restrictions and unplug the TV if your kid ever leaves the house. Have you ever been in a waiting room? At a friend's house? In an annoyingly TV-filled restaurant?* If TV a kid sees could really be limited to what is shown at his home, I doubt there would be as many restrictions.

*Seriously, why do they do that? Do they worry their diners lack the social competence necessary to take part in dinner conversation?

I doubt that Waiting Rooms and Family Restaurants would be showing porn.