| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Regulating Decency; The battle over cable... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 25 2005, 06:09 AM (499 Views) | |
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 25 2005, 02:00 PM Post #26 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Sometimes its just fun to be a shit disturber. |
![]() |
|
| Buxtehude | Jul 25 2005, 02:32 PM Post #27 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Couldn't agree with you more... But when you take that position there's no fun in taking apart your argument. It tends to make you look like you COULDN'T defend your position. |
|
Sister, they don't know what to do with one of me. -- Riddick | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 25 2005, 02:43 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I'm really trying to shed a tear for ya. Limiting your freedom? How? You are not guaranteed to EVER find anything worth watching on TV. Hell, I had cable for years and 90% of the time the programming was schlock. I can see I need to use little words in order for you to keep up. My point, once again, stated slowly so you can comprehend it: 1. What they show on TV is not the issue I'm addressing. 2. Liberal hypocrisy is the issue I'm addressing. Now back to the TV thing: to keep it down to a level you can follow, suppose there were only 2 TV channels, and only 100 people to watch them. Suppose one of them showed things that were vulgar and offensive to 51 out of the hundred. Or, what the hell - say only 49% of them were offended. They complain, and ask that the vulgarity be toned down so they can continue enjoying the 2 channels like everyone else. Is it your point that the ones who didn't complain are being limited? How - by having to watch a program that is exactly the same as before except they aren't yelling F**K every other sentence? Are you so addicted to vulgarity that you *have* to have it? So those who aren't offended say "if you don't like it, change the channel." Ok.... now they only have one channel they can watch, but the lower common demoninator crowd still has 2 channels they can watch. Those who asked for more appropriate programming were punished for it by having to give up something. The group who apparently lack any moral fiber didn't give up anything. Which brings us right back to my point - liberals will defend filth, and become libertarian to make sure it isn't hindered. But if they had their way, religious programming would be taken off the air, through legislation if they could, through regulation if they can. In other words, you and every leftwing weenie who thinks you have a foundation to your argument, are hypocrites, and build a very strong case for a need for sticking the Ten Commandments under your nose every chance someone gets. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Buxtehude | Jul 25 2005, 03:17 PM Post #29 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Larry, no need to get condescending yet! Wait until I call you a clueless rube!
Hypocrisy is the currency of politics. Any other position is either hopelessly delusional or stubbornly inane. But let's talk about the distinction you've made:
I'm really hoping you're not equating defending the schlock that's on TV with religious equality/freedom. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But let's elaborate. Defending the seperation of Church and State (no 10 commandments in courthouses and no state sponsored prayers to Jesus) is hardly the same importance as whether or not a nipple is shown on TV. One is tantamount to maintaining social order. The other is a matter of personal taste. Trying to make them one and the same undermines the importance of the other. But let's talk about hypocrisy, and thus address your other point. I would think that a good right wing doobie such as yourself would be familiar with the notion of "sex sells." It seems to me that Republicans (leaders at any rate) are all sorts of willing to bend over backwards and take it from the commercial sector because it makes for delightful contributors. In your example of two channels (which, is pretty ludicrous, if you don't mind me saying) let's say that 10% of the viewing population made up 85% of the demographic that paid for advertising. Which 10% would the industry listen to? By the rightwing POV that's who makes the decisions. Don't bother saying I'm wrong. I'm not. Money talks. THAT's what important in this discussion. The people with disposable income want to see nipples and stuff blowing up. That's why there's so much crap on TV. Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT left wing. You must be confusing me with someone else.
I'm a bad example. I AM addicted to vulgarity. It's a hobby. |
|
Sister, they don't know what to do with one of me. -- Riddick | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 25 2005, 05:17 PM Post #30 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
WTF if the Big 10 posted are in public buildings? They compliment the topless Lady Liberty statues quite nicely. If I had my way I hang Rubens nudes in the hallways and Hieronyous Bosch's and Durer's woodcuts in the courtrooms. Some Frederick Remington bronzes and Charlie Russell paintings might go well in the front lobbies. ...A few Francis Bacon paintings might just balance everything out too. |
![]() |
|
| Buxtehude | Jul 25 2005, 05:24 PM Post #31 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Would you feel the same if your religion didn't embrace 'em? Of course you wouldn't. Let's say they decided that the Wiccan Creed should be posted. How twisted would your nickers get? And you also do a faboo job of underscoring the hypocrisy of the other side (something Larry seems to ignore). A bared breast in art is vulgarity but state sponsored religion is acceptable - if you kidlets agree with said religion. |
|
Sister, they don't know what to do with one of me. -- Riddick | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 25 2005, 05:40 PM Post #32 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
They are welcome to display Druid stone crafts and Shaman masks for all I care. The Big 10 simply aren't an issue. |
![]() |
|
| Buxtehude | Jul 25 2005, 05:46 PM Post #33 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Of course the Big 10 aren't for you! They belong to your religion. And they're not posting druid stones or shaman masks or native american totems in the name of historical context. What are they doing? They're raising a Christian dogma to the elevation of government. That's what the issue is. Sheesh. Are you intent on being difficult about it or just chumming the waters. I delight in both. |
|
Sister, they don't know what to do with one of me. -- Riddick | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 25 2005, 05:56 PM Post #34 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
They do? By cracky, you learn something new[d] everyday |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







WTF if the Big 10 posted are in public buildings? They compliment the topless Lady Liberty statues quite nicely. 
4:13 PM Jul 10