A link.
Personally I don't think the FCC could find Decency with a road map and a search party. I really dislike the FCC in a lot of ways. I think what they do is pretty damn foolish for the most part, and something much done much better at a personal level.
People who expect the government to police their morailty bug me, and thats what the FCC is to me, an attempt to take the responibility out of their hands, and put it in Uncle Sams. And thats lazy.
The FCC and "decency".
The FCC and "decency".
Kick Rocks
If there are going to be fines, then they should be severe enough to count. $32,500 doesn't seem like much of a fine for a big company.
Other than that, this is going to be one of those 'people are responsible for their own choices' vs. 'people don't live in a vacuum' kind of arguments. I can turn off the TV if I don't like it, but I would prefer it, if the culture I lived in vaguely reflected my values. Makes things easier for me to be able to work with the world at large rather than against it.
Other than that, this is going to be one of those 'people are responsible for their own choices' vs. 'people don't live in a vacuum' kind of arguments. I can turn off the TV if I don't like it, but I would prefer it, if the culture I lived in vaguely reflected my values. Makes things easier for me to be able to work with the world at large rather than against it.
What was indecent about the superbowl? The nipple? Please! If you are that shocked over a boob flying out then how can you watch guys pile ontop of eachother or look at them wearing those tight pants? Need to get some perspective here.
They have cheerleaders and they are not exactlly fully cloth so talk about hypocrisy. One little boob flies out and it all "ohhh the horror" "ohh the poor children" blah blah blah ... Seem to recall that moment was a big "hit" with the TIVO people. It was so horrible they had to show it over and over and over again ...
They have cheerleaders and they are not exactlly fully cloth so talk about hypocrisy. One little boob flies out and it all "ohhh the horror" "ohh the poor children" blah blah blah ... Seem to recall that moment was a big "hit" with the TIVO people. It was so horrible they had to show it over and over and over again ...
-
Instant Cash
- Bondsman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:15 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
I don't care about the nipple specifically, but the whole routine sounded like the kind of music videos I don't let my kids watch. Didn't see it anyway, as I don't live in the US, and don't watch football. I'm just saying that things like that are why "just change the channel" isn't always a good answer.
crone = Amber, BTW
crone = Amber, BTW
It's a matter of perspective. Some people loved it, or, like me, simply found it funny. Others, however, were watching a football game with their children, or simply on their own, and were not expecting to see a woman's breast exposed in what was very clearly meant to be a sexual way. This completely precluded them from switching the channel, as the Super Bowl doesn't have any sort of "Girls! Girls! Girls! All topless, all the time!" type of sign or anything like that.They have cheerleaders and they are not exactlly fully cloth so talk about hypocrisy. One little boob flies out and it all "ohhh the horror" "ohh the poor children" blah blah blah ... Seem to recall that moment was a big "hit" with the TIVO people. It was so horrible they had to show it over and over and over again ...
And as soon as the cheerleaders start singing songs about sex, grinding with men, and flashing their tits, then you'll have a valid comparision to make with the whole Janet/Justin thing.
Eh. So the FCC regulates decency. I really couldn't care less. There are maybe three shows on broadcast television that are even remotely decent. And there's football, and playoffs for the other sports. My other 146 channels won't be affected. Let them regulate if they want. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and Christian.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Personally, as someone who's read Conan for a while, I'm amazed that you can show people get killed in gruesome, ghastly and supremely inventinve ways... but GOD forbid you should ever see a womans nipple. Same with movies. Pick a random action movie. Go on. I'll bet you'll see a lot of inventive ways to die... but there will be practically no frontal nudity.
I'm absolutely unable to comprehend why. If anyone could explain this to me, I'd be grateful.
I'm absolutely unable to comprehend why. If anyone could explain this to me, I'd be grateful.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
That's because violence never hurt anybody, but sex hurts every time.
Or am I just doing it wrong?
Or am I just doing it wrong?
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Heh. That's actually one of the reasons that the South Park movie had so much swearing in it. Parker and Stone were, at least in part, showing how stupid the ratings system is. Their movie Orgazmo got an X rating, simply because it had the porn industry as part of its setting. There was absolutely no nudity, and I think the only swearing in it is the use of "Assfuck Twins" a few times in one single scene.Personally, as someone who's read Conan for a while, I'm amazed that you can show people get killed in gruesome, ghastly and supremely inventinve ways... but GOD forbid you should ever see a womans nipple. Same with movies. Pick a random action movie.
Which is true. However I think its a collosal waste of money.Marius wrote:Eh. So the FCC regulates decency. I really couldn't care less. There are maybe three shows on broadcast television that are even remotely decent. And there's football, and playoffs for the other sports. My other 146 channels won't be affected. Let them regulate if they want. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and Christian.
I'm pretty pro change the channel if it bugs you. That we pay people to tell us this, sucks balls.
Kick Rocks
-
lordhellion
- Wuffle Grand Master
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: An underpass on I-5
- Contact:
I think this thread is excellent evidence of why government shouldn't legislate morality: because everyone's is different. I don't think morality is the sort of thing government should be involved in [unless it's in compelling national interest, as in the case of killing and so on] because I don't think it's the sort of thing that can or should be decided by a democratic vote, much less a democratically-representative-appointed decision.
-
lordhellion
- Wuffle Grand Master
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: An underpass on I-5
- Contact:
The problem is that if the majority decides that the government should regulate morality, then they give the government the ability to regulate morality. And as morally split as the country is these days, it's anyone's game.3278 wrote:I think this thread is excellent evidence of why government shouldn't legislate morality: because everyone's is different. I don't think morality is the sort of thing government should be involved in [unless it's in compelling national interest, as in the case of killing and so on] because I don't think it's the sort of thing that can or should be decided by a democratic vote, much less a democratically-representative-appointed decision.
Personally, I think that people relying on the government to control morals are too weak to control thier own morals--classic projectionists.
_No one was ever put in a history book for being a great conformist.
