They're not censoring anything political last time I checked.
Advertisement
by United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:15 am
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 10:16 am
United Dependencies wrote: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.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:16 am
Huntersunited wrote:Isn't censorship against our right to freedom of speech anyway?
by Smunkeeville » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:16 am
Yes. I want to know why you believe it's filth.
by Schwabenreich » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:17 am
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:18 am
Smunkeeville wrote:Why?
Why I believe what is filth?
by Katganistan » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:18 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 United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:19 am
Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote: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.
Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.
wikipedia wrote:natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal
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 Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:19 am
Huntersunited wrote:Well, I'm insulted by censorship, does that not count?
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:20 am
Katganistan wrote:There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.
If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:20 am
Katganistan wrote: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.
There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.
If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.
by Katganistan » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:21 am
Risottia wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:The FCC was first made to prevent channels and radio stations from using the same frequencies. Now it's little more than the US department of censorship.
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.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:21 am
Huntersunited wrote:If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:21 am
United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote: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.
Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.wikipedia wrote:natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal
by United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:21 am
Huntersunited wrote:Katganistan wrote: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.
There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.
If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.
If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.
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 United Dependencies » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:22 am
Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote: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.
Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.wikipedia wrote:natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal
You can't trust wikipedia
historycentral wrote:Natural rights - rights, freedoms and privileges which are such a basic part of human nature that they cannot be taken away. These are different from rights which are given to people by the law. According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights include "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 Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:22 am
Katganistan wrote:Why introduce more bureaucracy so we can pay two completely different groups for doing what one does now?
by Katganistan » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:22 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Ashmoria wrote:yes.
...
So you support forcing your personal choice on thousands of other people because of a difference of taste? Wow.because i dont like it, i support that it is restricted. im not creating restrictions that dont already exist. i appreciate that there are some outlets that are forced to obey some rules of decency.
And you get to define decency. How nice, Empress. Mind if I grovel as well, perhaps get the FCC to start censoring NSG to your tastes as well?just as i appreciate that there are some outlets that can offer rougher mostly unregulated fare.
Uh huh. So if there's something that you don't like, you don't mind if it's banned from all but a few places? That's a very strange sentiment to be expressing on this particular day.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:23 am
Katganistan wrote:She supports the status quo. No need to get all nasty about it. You support change. Expect resistance.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:23 am
United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:United Dependencies wrote: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.
Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.wikipedia wrote:natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal
You can't trust wikipedia
I disagree.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:24 am
Huntersunited wrote:It can be changed by anyone
by Katganistan » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:24 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Flameswroth wrote: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.
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:25 am
United Dependencies wrote:Huntersunited wrote:Katganistan wrote: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.
There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.
If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.
If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.
So because some people get around it we obviously need to get rid of it?
by Huntersunited » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:26 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Huntersunited wrote:It can be changed by anyone
So can an election. But the chances of someone casting a vote for some crackpot candidate just for the hell of it without someone voting for a respectable candidate to even it out are about the same as someone messing up wikipedia without someone correcting it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Neu California
Advertisement