What the F@%!

[Katganistan]

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?

Of course. Can you wait until 10:00 at night for the less family friendly fare? Because I'm sure reasonable parents have their kids in bed by then.

[Conserative Morality]

Of course. Can you wait until 10:00 at night for the less family friendly fare? Because I'm sure reasonable parents have their kids in bed by then.

And why must I cater to them? Why not vice versa?

[Katganistan]

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.

Watching porn is productive?

[Huntersunited]

sure people don't want to hear it. and do you know why? Because people call it a "bad word". All it is is a stronger word that you can use to express your opinion. For example, "I am so fucking happy right now!" does that sound negative to you? mIt's alot more effective than saying, " I am really happy right now!" And if you put it the other way, " I fucking hate exams" sounds stronger than 'I hate exams."

Blatant discussion of sex on T.V. is alright, just not saying: "Ow, I hurt my fucking toe!"

What, whose side are you on? Are you agreeing with me? Whether you are or not you made a good point, it's ok for the to talk about sex and drugs, but not say "fuck" when there angry?

[The Parkus Empire]

And why must I cater to them? Why not vice versa?

Tyranny by majority.

[Hamilay]

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

True. Because if they offend their customers (aka viewers), the customers will go elsewhere. The customers will also boycott the advertisers paying for the programming that viewers found offensive. It's happened before.

So... why do you think the FCC is useful again?

[Huntersunited]

sure people don't want to hear it. and do you know why? Because people call it a "bad word".

Well, yes, that's how most words acquire meaning, by people deciding what they mean.

All it is is a stronger word that you can use to express your opinion. For example, "I am so fucking happy right now!" does that sound negative to you? mIt's alot more effective than saying, " I am really happy right now!" And if you put it the other way, " I fucking hate exams" sounds stronger than 'I hate exams."

In time, I think most people will agree with you. But right now, it is still profane.

Your probably the most reasonable person I've argued with.

[New Limacon]

Anyway, eight-year-olds don't buy televisions.

Right, and as I said earlier, it is very difficult to prevent children from watching TV even if their family doesn't have one. I remember one of my brother's preschool friends who often talked about what he saw on Judge Judy, even though his parents didn't allow him to watch any TV and I don't believe they even owned one. The mild censorship of the FCC (and it is mild, compared to what has existed in the past and what still exists in many places) is nothing compared to the parental totalitarianism necessary to keep children from seeing any television, ever.

[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.

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.

I didn't say "citizens like us". I said citizens. You think they can get sold into slavery because they're a lesser animal or something?

You don't HAVE to pay for television. You don't. You WANT a particular style of television. It is not a necessity. You will not die without porn. If you want it, buy it.

[Flameswroth]

All it is is a stronger word that you can use to express your opinion. For example, "I am so fucking happy right now!" does that sound negative to you? mIt's alot more effective than saying, " I am really happy right now!" And if you put it the other way, " I fucking hate exams" sounds stronger than 'I hate exams."

To me it seems like a lazy man's "stronger word". For instance, you could say, "I am so incredibly happy right now." or "I am so amazingly happy right now" or in the other case "I really hate exams", "I despise exams", "I loathe exams", etc.

Besides, when a swear word functions as a 'sentence enhancer' (thanks, Spongebob) because of its offensive nature, not in spite of it. When you say "That was a fucking good hotdog", people are momentarily struck by the fact that you feel strongly enough to swear about it, while other words actually exist for the purpose of escalating the strength of a statement.

/shrug

[East Canuck]

I oppose the FCC but not because of censorship.
It has become a political tool for cryonism and retribution.
Friends of the people currently in power get nominated to the FCC for all the ills that does (exhibit a: Katrina response)
It is also used by said people to bash the opposition (exhibit B:the stupendous fine CBS recieved for Jant Jackson's nipple. CBS was also putting heat on the Bush administration for his stance on Irak at the time)

[Huntersunited]

And why must I cater to them? Why not vice versa?

Tyranny by majority.

But do the kids pat taxes? Do they work hard every day? Do they cook and clean the house? (maybe sometimes) Mostly no, so why should we put them above us?

[The Parkus Empire]

But do the kids pat taxes? Do they work hard every day? Do they cook and clean the house? (maybe sometimes) Mostly no, so why should we put them above us?

Paying taxes is not required to have a say in this nation. Besides that, you also have the parents' vote.

[Conserative Morality]

I didn't say "citizens like us". I said citizens. You think they can get sold into slavery because they're a lesser animal or something?

You don't HAVE to pay for television. You don't. You WANT a particular style of television. It is not a necessity. You will not die without porn. If you want it, buy it.

You know what else?

Parents don't HAVE to pay for television. They want a particular kind of television that also isn't a necessity. Children will not die without television.

[Huntersunited]

All it is is a stronger word that you can use to express your opinion. For example, "I am so fucking happy right now!" does that sound negative to you? mIt's alot more effective than saying, " I am really happy right now!" And if you put it the other way, " I fucking hate exams" sounds stronger than 'I hate exams."

To me it seems like a lazy man's "stronger word". For instance, you could say, "I am so incredibly happy right now." or "I am so amazingly happy right now" or in the other case "I really hate exams", "I despise exams", "I loathe exams", etc.

Besides, when a swear word functions as a 'sentence enhancer' (thanks, Spongebob) because of its offensive nature, not in spite of it. When you say "That was a fucking good hotdog", people are momentarily struck by the fact that you feel strongly enough to swear about it, while other words actually exist for the purpose of escalating the strength of a statement.

Yet none are as strong as "Fuck". You know why? Because that's why society dislikes those words, because there just strong words and apparently society doesn't want you to feel strong enough to use those words.

[Yootopia]

I didn't say "citizens like us". I said citizens. You think they can get sold into slavery because they're a lesser animal or something?

You don't HAVE to pay for television. You don't. You WANT a particular style of television. It is not a necessity. You will not die without porn. If you want it, buy it.

You know what else?

Parents don't HAVE to pay for television. They want a particular kind of television that also isn't a necessity. Children will not die without television.

Would you not be a bit bored sans telly? Computers demand a bit too much attention to be quite as social as sitting around the telly having a chat.

[Huntersunited]

But do the kids pat taxes? Do they work hard every day? Do they cook and clean the house? (maybe sometimes) Mostly no, so why should we put them above us?

Paying taxes is not required to have a say in this nation. Besides that, you also have the parents' vote.

The IRS still comes after you if you don't, and you should have to pay taxes to have a say.

[The Parkus Empire]

Right, and as I said earlier, it is very difficult to prevent children from watching TV even if their family doesn't have one. I remember one of my brother's preschool friends who often talked about what he saw on Judge Judy, even though his parents didn't allow him to watch any TV and I don't believe they even owned one. The mild censorship of the FCC (and it is mild, compared to what has existed in the past and what still exists in many places) is nothing compared to the parental totalitarianism necessary to keep children from seeing any television, ever.

If the child talks about Judge Judy, he's probably old enough to have heard and seen atrocious things at school. I now ask you this: should the FCC censor the internet? Children are bound to use a computer whether their parents allow it or not.

[Flameswroth]

I didn't say "citizens like us". I said citizens. You think they can get sold into slavery because they're a lesser animal or something?

You don't HAVE to pay for television. You don't. You WANT a particular style of television. It is not a necessity. You will not die without porn. If you want it, buy it.

You know what else?

Parents don't HAVE to pay for television. They want a particular kind of television that also isn't a necessity. Children will not die without television.

Now on that italicized I definitely agree. Though I feel its a topic for another thread at another time, I definitely feel children watch too much TV in general, regardless of whether said TV is censored by the FCC or not. I've already made a firm resolution in my mind that my children will not be using the computer for anything more than school work until they're at least in their late teens, so they can do more real world stuff instead

In general I think you make a valid enough point, and the question comes down to whether or not either preference warrants a change to the original system. Sure, parents don't have to pay for TV for their kids, but is their preference outweighed by the preference of those who want less censorship, such that a change is warranted? I wouldn't think so. Looking at it from that perspective, it seems like a wash; neither groups feelings should outweigh the other, so there is no harm in keeping it the way it is.

[Katganistan]

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.

Except that the Senate and the House developed that way, as any third grader knows, to give more equal representation to smaller, less populous states -- not to split up duties that already exist. And the Senate and the House have far more duties than to decide what is proper vis a vis broadcast. So yes, comparing the FCC to the Congress is a strawman.

I haven't provided any information? Like the quotation of the statute that created the FCC, and what it was meant for? I haven't provided support for my argument? Now who's making false statements?

Buy your porn. It's not hard to come by or expensive to maintain.

[The Parkus Empire]

The IRS still comes after you if you don't,

No kidding. I just got a letter from them for making a mistake.

and you should have to pay taxes to have a say.

You don't need a job to vote and a child is legally protected even if his mother wishes him dead.

[Conserative Morality]

Except that the Senate and the House developed that way, as any third grader knows, to give more equal representation to smaller, less populous states -- not to split up duties that already exist. And the Senate and the House have far more duties than to decide what is proper vis a vis broadcast. So yes, comparing the FCC to the Congress is a strawman.

Except that the Senate and the House developed, as anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the founding of our country knows, to balance the power in a unicameral system, and this manifests itself in one of several ways, one being the splitting of duty.

And Kat, learn the definition of a strawman.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Not misrepresentation via example of a subject of debate (Which, may I remind you, I did not), misrepresentation of an opponent's position!

And really? presented no evidence? Not like I quoted the statute that created the FCC or anything, right?
Who's making false statements, now?

It's not like I didn't even mention evidence in that post.

Oh, wait...

Buy your porn. It's not hard to come by or expensive to maintain.

Get over yourself. The morals of many should not dictate the freedom of a few.

[Riaka]

What's wrong with the Flying Cunts of Chaos?

[Katganistan]

I didn't say "citizens like us". I said citizens. You think they can get sold into slavery because they're a lesser animal or something?

You don't HAVE to pay for television. You don't. You WANT a particular style of television. It is not a necessity. You will not die without porn. If you want it, buy it.

You know what else?

Parents don't HAVE to pay for television. They want a particular kind of television that also isn't a necessity. Children will not die without television.

The FCC is supposed to provide communication suitable for everyone without discrimination, and that includes kids.

Next?

[Karsol]

I didn't say "citizens like us". I said citizens. You think they can get sold into slavery because they're a lesser animal or something?

You don't HAVE to pay for television. You don't. You WANT a particular style of television. It is not a necessity. You will not die without porn. If you want it, buy it.

You know what else?

Parents don't HAVE to pay for television. They want a particular kind of television that also isn't a necessity. Children will not die without television.

The FCC is supposed to provide communication suitable for everyone without discrimination, and that includes kids.

Next?

I don't see why swearing is such a big issue.