Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:58 amSmunkeeville 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!
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
What the F@%!
Page 3 of 13
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:58 amPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:01 amIt's true. I got "entertained" a half dozen times yesterday alone!
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:02 amSmunkeeville 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:03 amYootopia 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:03 amSurote 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
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 amSmunkeeville 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 amSurote 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!
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 amHamilay wrote:Your poll doesn't make sense.
your opinion about the poll makes no sense...
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:04 amThere's a difference between apathy and looking at the alternatives and going 'nah'.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:05 amYootopia 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?
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:06 amConserative 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:06 amHuntersunited 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...
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:07 amSmunkeeville 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:07 amHuntersunited 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:08 amHuntersunited 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:08 amConserative 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:09 amSmunkeeville 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?
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:09 amHuntersunited 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:10 amHuntersunited 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).
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:10 amUnited 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
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:11 amUnited 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:12 amHuntersunited 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:13 amUnited 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.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:14 amWhich means the same thing.
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:15 am