Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 241 of 310 (397679)
04-27-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Rahvin
04-26-2007 11:34 PM


Re: No to Censorship
So, you ARE dense. Let me spell it out: showing that the level of violence present in childrens programming is increasing has absoluitely nothing whatsoever to do with showing that the violence is damaging or harming the children.
"A national opinion poll shows that 80% of Americans believe television violence is harmful to society."
from: FCC V-Chip Fact Sheet, 7/1/99
We don't need a survey to tell us that we as a nation feel violence is harmful to society. So it only stands to reason, that an increase in violence on TV, is not a good thing, and the airwaves need to be more censored.
.....
I think I found the link here:
I love this awesome quote:
"While the Constitution protects the right to speak, it certainly doesn't protect a right to get paid for that speech."
and
The FCC study was requested in 2004 by a bipartisan group of 39 House members and will set the stage for legislation. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said he planned to introduce a bill in the next few weeks.
"Violent television content is reaching epidemic proportions," he said. He called protecting children from extremely violent shows "one of the most critical communication issues of our time."
I'd ask that you specify to whom you are replying, then, just to make it easier to respond for the rest of us.
my bad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 11:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by nator, posted 04-27-2007 9:34 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 249 by Rahvin, posted 04-27-2007 4:39 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 242 of 310 (397680)
04-27-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rahvin
04-26-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Let them eat "boobies"
HOW does it harm children? HOW are "boobies" somehow dangerous? HOW do sexual organs being visible, or honest discussions about sex harm children?
Where you understanding what I wrote at all?
I did not say they harm children. IT's all about the context they are shown in.
Telling your child that a woman can get pregnant from a man inserting his penis in her vagina, is way different that telling a child that John gets his rocks off when french fucking Sally, while spot the dog licks her anus. :frazzeled:
Can you point to any actual real-world harm caused by nudity or consensual sex being shown, other than your discomfort and personal gut reaction?
I would say porn altered my view of things when I was a child, and that I was exposed to it, a little too early in life. It took many years to understand and see how this happened.
There are many things I would have not desired if I had not seen them before I was ready to make intelligent decisions about whether they are good for me or not.
humor disclaimer:
Now I am a sick, perverted, kinky bastard who wants sex all the time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 11:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Rahvin, posted 04-27-2007 7:04 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 243 of 310 (397681)
04-27-2007 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Rahvin
04-27-2007 12:02 AM


Re: No to Censorship
Thank you for not simply talking out of your ass like Rat.
Hey! my ass is smart!
Realistically, only a child's parents can possibly tell whether a child is being adversely affected by anything as nebulous as media exposure, violent or otherwise,
I am a parent with 5 children. I have witnessed it in all of them, from violent video games, to wrestling on TV.
So I am not talking out of my ass, and I do not need a mint, thank you.
I think even Rat will agree that two children from two different families can have compeltely different reactions to identical exposure to media based on other factors including their culture's societal norms and taboos, and their relationships with their parents.
Yes, agreed. But either way, as that level is increased, it does more harm than good.
Rat is complaining that an ad for Desperate Housewives was shown on television while his kids were watching.
You need to stop singling that out. My original complaint was that a bunch of 3-7 year olds witnessed a person getting his head blown off in full detail during a basketball game on a Sunday afternoon.
You wouldn't have to watch TV long to see something just as disturbing, as the FCC states in it's fact sheet:
An hour of prime-time television includes about five violent acts.1 An hour of children's Saturday morning programming includes 20 to 26 violent acts.
I think we all can agree that TV is violent, and that it has been steadily increasing in violence since it's inception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Rahvin, posted 04-27-2007 12:02 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 04-27-2007 9:47 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 04-27-2007 10:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 244 of 310 (397685)
04-27-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 7:59 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
"A national opinion poll shows that 80% of Americans believe television violence is harmful to society."
57% of Americans believe in the existence of ESP.
A really good article about scientific illiteracy in the US and Europe. It isn't good news
Does that mean that ESP really exists, or does it only mean that people believe it does?
At one time, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, but that didn't make it true, now did it?
Reality is not determined by majority belief.
quote:
We don't need a survey to tell us that we as a nation feel violence is harmful to society.
Hold on, now.
Violence is indeed harmful to society. Real violence.
But what we have been talking about is violence in children's programming on TV, and if it has a harmful effect upon children, not all violence in society.
Please do not move the goalposts.
quote:
So it only stands to reason, that an increase in violence on TV, is not a good thing, and the airwaves need to be more censored.
You have not demonstrated that children seeing violence on TV results in more violent behavior, or damages children in any way. I am not saying that it doesn't harm them, by the way. I am open to the idea that it isn't good. You have simply not supported your claim, that's all.
Until you do, anything you say is not based upon fact but upon nothing more than your biases and prejudices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 7:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:18 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 310 (397690)
04-27-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 8:15 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
My original complaint was that a bunch of 3-7 year olds witnessed a person getting his head blown off in full detail during a basketball game on a Sunday afternoon.
We have proceeded with this discussion assuming your memory of this incident is accurate, but I am not so sure.
What can you remember about it, and can you find any reference to it on the internet?
Surely, if this really happened on a sunday afternoon, many, many people would have contacted the network to complain and it would have been reported.
I think it is likely that you are misremembering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 8:15 AM riVeRraT has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 246 of 310 (397698)
04-27-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 8:15 AM


riVeRraT writes:
I think we all can agree that TV is violent, and that it has been steadily increasing in violence since it's inception.
No. I don't agree with that.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 8:15 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:21 PM ringo has replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 247 of 310 (397747)
04-27-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 7:54 PM


Re: No to Censorship
And what, pray tell, could someone possibly put on TV that would hurt a child's mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 7:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:26 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 248 of 310 (397748)
04-27-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by riVeRraT
04-18-2007 5:45 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Well, judging from past examples, the cause of that would likely be preexisting mental illnesses and/or years of psychological abuse by peers. Neither of which television have any effect on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by riVeRraT, posted 04-18-2007 5:45 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 249 of 310 (397765)
04-27-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 7:59 AM


Re: No to Censorship
"A national opinion poll shows that 80% of Americans believe television violence is harmful to society."
from: FCC V-Chip Fact Sheet, 7/1/99
We don't need a survey to tell us that we as a nation feel violence is harmful to society. So it only stands to reason, that an increase in violence on TV, is not a good thing, and the airwaves need to be more censored.
From an appeal to incredulity to an appeal to popularity. The fact that most people have opinions regarding matters they know nothing about does not mean they are right. HOW is media violence harmful? What harm is it doing? For your next reply, please try something that's NOT a logical fallacy.
I love this awesome quote:
"While the Constitution protects the right to speak, it certainly doesn't protect a right to get paid for that speech."
Quite right. This is why Imus got fired - the company paying for the airtime is under no obligation to continue to support his or anyone else's opinions if they don't wish to. That DOESN'T mean that Free Speach doesnt cover any speach involving money.
The FCC study was requested in 2004 by a bipartisan group of 39 House members and will set the stage for legislation. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said he planned to introduce a bill in the next few weeks.
"Violent television content is reaching epidemic proportions," he said. He called protecting children from extremely violent shows "one of the most critical communication issues of our time."
That's a quote from a Senator, not a quote from a peer reviewed study showing violence is harmful. He's saying he and his constituents don't like it, not proving the FCC has the right to bend the Constitution.
I think I found the link here:
That link is to a NEWS ARTICLE, not a peer reviewed freaking study! The only "evidence" you've shown so far is a bunch of opinion, appeals to incredulity, and an appeal to popularity.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 7:59 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 250 of 310 (397772)
04-27-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by nator
04-27-2007 9:34 AM


Re: No to Censorship
A really good article about scientific illiteracy in the US and Europe. It isn't good news
I have been saying that for years. As a matter of fact, I pointed that out here once, and I got ridiculed for it, I think it was you.
Does that mean that ESP really exists, or does it only mean that people believe it does?
No it means that people like the idea of ESP, just like they don't approve of violence on TV.
Reality is not determined by majority belief.
That is why this newest study released by the FCC confirms already what everyone believes.
Come on nator, your the big live by sirvey person, what's the matter, because this one doesn't rub you the right way, it's no good?
I will also say it again, I don't need a freakin study to tell me that too much violence on TV is no good for our youth. It's as easy as pie.
But what we have been talking about is violence in children's programming on TV, and if it has a harmful effect upon children, not all violence in society.
Please do not move the goalposts.
Sorry, I meant to say violence on TV.
You have not demonstrated that children seeing violence on TV results in more violent behavior, or damages children in any way.
The FCC has.
I am not saying that it doesn't harm them, by the way. I am open to the idea that it isn't good.
I am extremely glad for that, and I have restored faith now.
I think it is likely that you are misremembering.
Hell no. And it was many years ago. You don't forget something like that. Either way, I see too much violence on TV, everyday. Haven't you read the facts link?
Violence on TV exists, and in huge quantities, there is no denying that. The networks make money off of showing you and your children this violence.
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nator, posted 04-27-2007 9:34 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Rahvin, posted 04-27-2007 6:58 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 256 by nator, posted 04-27-2007 9:23 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 251 of 310 (397773)
04-27-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ringo
04-27-2007 10:08 AM


No. I don't agree with that.
How old are you? There has been a steady increase in violence on TV over the last 36 years I have been watching it, and the study by the PTC confirms that.
You'll have to explain why you don't agree, unless you were just making fun of how I expressed it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 04-27-2007 10:08 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ringo, posted 04-27-2007 7:04 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 252 of 310 (397776)
04-27-2007 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Cthulhu
04-27-2007 3:42 PM


Re: No to Censorship
And what, pray tell, could someone possibly put on TV that would hurt a child's mind?
Violence.
how do feral children act? They act the way they were taught.
Expose enough violence to a child, and without proper supervision, or even with proper supervision (whatever that is) it has an affect on the brain.
Well, judging from past examples, the cause of that would likely be preexisting mental illnesses and/or years of psychological abuse by peers. Neither of which television have any effect on.
I wouldn't bank on that, but by the same token, I am not blaming TV wholly, but partly. Maybe even a small part, but none the less, He was a by-product of his surroundings. There is a thread on it elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 3:42 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 253 of 310 (397800)
04-27-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 5:18 PM


Re: No to Censorship
That is why this newest study released by the FCC confirms already what everyone believes.
Come on nator, your the big live by sirvey person, what's the matter, because this one doesn't rub you the right way, it's no good?
READ YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE!
It confirms NOTHING! It simply restates "a lot of people don;t like this." It says jack and shit about any objective HARM being caused!
Do you not understand the difference? I don't like a lot of things, but a lot of the things I don;t like casue no harm to anyone. I simply abstain myself, I don;t ask the government to step in and take those things away from everyone to suit my preferences.
No it means that people like the idea of ESP, just like they don't approve of violence on TV.
Which doesnt mean the violence is harmful, any more than ESP exists.
The FCC has.
No, they have not. They have simply said the amount of violence is growing (and the article also specifically stated that the FCC never defined what counts as violence in the first place, which is a really shitty way to measure something), and that most people seem to not like that. It has nothing to do with proving the content is harmful.
I'm going to ask this again, Rat, and I'm not being rhetorical. Do you or do you not see that there is a difference between someone saying "I think that's bad," and actually objectively proving that harm is done?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:18 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by riVeRraT, posted 05-01-2007 9:16 AM Rahvin has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 254 of 310 (397801)
04-27-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 8:07 AM


Re: Let them eat "boobies"
Where you understanding what I wrote at all?
I did not say they harm children. IT's all about the context they are shown in.
Telling your child that a woman can get pregnant from a man inserting his penis in her vagina, is way different that telling a child that John gets his rocks off when french fucking Sally, while spot the dog licks her anus. :frazzeled:
First off: bestiality is not consensual sex between adults, and it's illegal in most states as far as I'm aware. False analogy.
Second: in what way does seeing John get a BJ from Sally harm a child? Will they be confused? Sure! Will they wonder why she's doing that? Sure!
But kids are awfully confused about just about everything until it's explained by their parents. How does that make it harmful to the kids?
I would say porn altered my view of things when I was a child, and that I was exposed to it, a little too early in life. It took many years to understand and see how this happened.
There are many things I would have not desired if I had not seen them before I was ready to make intelligent decisions about whether they are good for me or not.
Why do you say it was too early? What negative effect did it have on you?
humor disclaimer:
Now I am a sick, perverted, kinky bastard who wants sex all the time
Serious response: Welcome to the club, and I fail to see how that's harmful in any way whatsoever.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 8:07 AM riVeRraT has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 255 of 310 (397802)
04-27-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 5:21 PM


riVeRraT writes:
There has been a steady increase in violence on TV over the last 36 years I have been watching it....
(I've been watching it at least 10 years longer than that.)
How do you measure violence? Is there an "increase" in the number of violent acts? Or in the severity of individual acts? Or in the amount of time devoted to depicting violence?
Do you factor the severity of individual acts into the "total amount" of violence? How many assaults equal one murder?
Is an act "more violent" if it happens in full view than if it happened off-screen? If a serial killer killed dozens before the show started, does that count?
Do accidental deaths count as violence? Does the news count as violence?
Until you have a rigorous methodology for measuring an "increase" in TV violence, you have no right to expect everybody to agree with you.
And what do you want to censor? Just decapitations or all murders? What about assaults? What about the news?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:21 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024