Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
And this contradicts my statement that it is directly correlated to intensity of religious belief ... how?Stormbringer wrote:Frankly, it's doesn't boil down to Christians vs everyone else. Because there are plenty of more moderate christians that don't want to see this kind of censorship for the sake of lazy parents.
Mike, I think you're trying to engineer an arguement where there is none.Darth Wong wrote:And this contradicts my statement that it is directly correlated to intensity of religious belief ... how?Stormbringer wrote:Frankly, it's doesn't boil down to Christians vs everyone else. Because there are plenty of more moderate christians that don't want to see this kind of censorship for the sake of lazy parents.
PS. This is like disproving the link between alcohol and drunk driving by pointing out that moderate drinkers tend not to drink and drive.
How so? You say it's soccer moms, I say it's Christianity. Those are not the same statement.Stormbringer wrote:Mike, I think you're trying to engineer an arguement where there is none.
For the umpteenth time, prove that this attitude is correlated to "soccer moms" rather than devout Christians (who just happen to run all of the advocacy websites demanding these kinds of changes). I'm growing tired of your "it's true because I say so" technique.The soccer mom, while not necessarily having extreme religious veiws, want to force anything offensive from TV to protect the children.
See above.Where as a lot of others, not necessarily differing in their veiws, don't feel the need to force it onto people.
No, they're not. What I'm saying is that it's a specific group of them. Not ever Christian out there.How so? You say it's soccer moms, I say it's Christianity. Those are not the same statement.
And showing that groups which have defended against 'devout' (read: extremeist) Christians morals being imposed, have actively supported this measure isn't good enough?For the umpteenth time, prove that this attitude is correlated to "soccer moms" rather than devout Christians (who just happen to run all of the advocacy websites demanding these kinds of changes). I'm growing tired of your "it's true because I say so" technique.
See earlier point regarding alcohol (I grow tired of having to point out each point I made several times before you deign to address it). The fact that a correlation between factor A and outcome B exists does not necessarily mean that every individual exhibiting any degree whatsoever of factor A must show outcome B, for fuck's sake. Do you know NOTHING of statistics?Stormbringer wrote:No, they're not. What I'm saying is that it's a specific group of them. Not ever Christian out there.How so? You say it's soccer moms, I say it's Christianity. Those are not the same statement.
Ah yes, your example of Tipper Gore, the Southern Baptist who supports this measure. No, it's not good enough.And showing that groups which have defended against 'devout' (read: extremeist) Christians morals being imposed, have actively supported this measure isn't good enough?For the umpteenth time, prove that this attitude is correlated to "soccer moms" rather than devout Christians (who just happen to run all of the advocacy websites demanding these kinds of changes). I'm growing tired of your "it's true because I say so" technique.
Yes, I do. And I'm failing to see why saying a specific group of Christianity has been largely responsible for it is cause for an arguement.See earlier point regarding alcohol (I grow tired of having to point out each point I made several times before you deign to address it). The fact that a correlation between factor A and outcome B exists does not necessarily mean that every individual exhibiting any degree whatsoever of factor A must show outcome B, for fuck's sake. Do you know NOTHING of statistics?
And how about the rest of the Democratic Party as well?Ah yes, your example of Tipper Gore, the Southern Baptist who supports this measure. No, it's not good enough.
Look at all the websites which are most strident about these kinds of "offensive" sexual material on TV. Notice how many of them mention the Bible. Put 2 and 2 together, for once.Stormbringer wrote:Yes, I do. And I'm failing to see why saying a specific group of Christianity has been largely responsible for it is cause for an arguement.
What about them? Unless you have some evidence that they are somehow unrepresentative of the broad prevalence of Christian close-mindedness that permeates American society, it's a red herring.And how about the rest of the Democratic Party as well?Ah yes, your example of Tipper Gore, the Southern Baptist who supports this measure. No, it's not good enough.
Bowdlerizing the airwaves takes that choice AWAY from you.Trytostaydead wrote:I don't see anything wrong with increasing the fines for these public stations. What you do, watch or hear in the privacy of your own home is of course a matter for yourself to determine.. meaning you choose the channels and most importantly, what you choose to subscribe to.
Wow, a TV owner who is in control of his own TV set. How unlikely.While privately owned, and subscription-based cable companies can showcase whatever they want because it is up to the owner to subscribe to the station, and therefore have control of the content being transmitted to their home, public channels broadcasted freely offer no such control but for the owner to be 24/7 in control of their set.
The decision of what is offensive speaks volumes about the sexual repression in American society, which happens to be the subject of this thread. If you don't get it, don't waste time pushing air.So why is it so bad to set stricter rules in regards to what is deemed acceptably non-offensive material as long as it does not interfere with the right to free-press and non-censoring of ideas and information.
Funny that this thread's purpose is to ask why American society is this way, and you have apparently not noticed.There should be a general consensus on what is acceptable public material that can be reasonably accessed by children without parental supervision. And at least in the United States, we still live in a somewhat puritanical society. Probably you can blame it on the church, but that's society. Until you get parents, of all creeds to say "Breasts on TV are okay. Cussing and swearing are acceptable" you're not encroaching on free-speech since the government is not censoring propoganda, etc but enforcing a public decency.
It's also totally irrelevant to the subject of asking why American society is so puritanical.For example, we have laws against having sex in public. Maybe you have sex in the middle of a park that is rarely visited so you're reasonably certain kids won't see you banging away. But there's still a chance. Now, if it was a private park like a cable company, as long as the groundskeeper doesn't complain, bang away.
Yes, it's a tough to decide when something encroaches on free-speech and censorship and when another is in conflict with a large consensus of the populace's ethics.
Does it? Probably. But where do you draw the line then and say this is too much? At breasts? The vagina? Actual penetration? Is it just Christian values? Or are those "Christian" values (not just Christian values) also a set of social laws that we have adopted as well, and what would you have them changed to? What would be considered too puritanical or too liberal? And it's not just the airwaves, what about public billboards, ads, what you see in public?Bowdlerizing the airwaves takes that choice AWAY from you.
No, a TV owner is in control of his television of what he chooses to watch, and what he chooses to subscribe to. If the owner just has bunny-ears, he is taking in public airwaves that would be answerable to whom and which social standards? Whereas if say he subscribes to cable channels, it is his choice to allow such material into his home.Wow, a TV owner who is in control of his own TV set. How unlikely.
No, I get it. But you're talking about a country that has problems trying to talk about sex even for sex safety. And its not just Christians. And in a lot respects it becomes hard sometimes to differentiate ethics versus religion.The decision of what is offensive speaks volumes about the sexual repression in American society, which happens to be the subject of this thread. If you don't get it, don't waste time pushing air.
No, I noticed. I also noticed the immediate attack on the Christian right. However, in regards to the topic of the FCC regulations that this originally stemmed from in regards to Ms. Jacksons teets, I thought it appropriate to point out that we're talking about public decency.Funny that this thread's purpose is to ask why American society is this way, and you have apparently not noticed.
It's also totally irrelevant to the subject of asking why American society is so puritanical.
Oh yes, of course, Christianity has nothing to do with American societal puritanismTrytostaydead wrote:No, I noticed. I also noticed the immediate attack on the Christian right.
It's wrong because she didn't hurt anyone, fuckwit. And no one but a raving lunatic would say that thousands of televised murders and beatings will scar a child's mind less than two seconds of boobie.For all the cries of "Family values" and "Christian values," or "America's sexual repression," where do you draw the line and say no further? Perhaps Marge Simpson said it best when she said, 'Fox gradually slipped into softcore porn you never noticed' (or something like that). While it's an exaggeration.. how can you say it's wrong to say, "Hey, we will not tolerate aging stars stunts for publicity by flashing her tit and dancing like this was the Spearmint Rhino. Anyone else try that again and we'll fine your ass hard."
Very nice red-herring.You can even make the same argument for marijuana Sure, it's probably more harmless than cigarettes, but if you let one go, you ebb the line again. Is that "Christian" values? Or "Family" values?
And this has what to do with the subject of this thread, which asks only why America is so puritanical?You draw the line in the sand, and the US that line covers a good portion of what adults view as acceptable public behavior. And while yes, it might stem from Christian roots we should be thankful it also allows room for change and accomodation. Just be thankful we didn't start out from Islamic roots.
I bolded parts that I found especially comedic. Can you imagine the damage done to a woman by having to view a naked woman on a model airplane? The horror, the horror!Steve Larson at ModelWaships.com wrote:...For example, some modeling websites post pictures of wingy things with full frontal nudes on the planes' noses. I know the model is probably historically accurate and that during WWII aircrews often painted nudes on their planes. But it's pornography. Even in 1/48th scale it's still pornography. I wish these modelers would have chosen another subject to use as inspiration and that the webmaster refused to post the pics. Afterall, how many kids and women view these sites? I wouldn't want my kids exposed to that kind of model. I certainly don't display porn in my home and I wouldn't want it on the nose of anything in my curio for my children, my wife and guests to see.
It bugs me that decal manufacturers print decal sheets with 1/48th scale full frontal nudes. There are plenty of colorful markings of aircraft flown by honorable, patriotic, skilled and tenacious aircrews who did not paint porn on their aircraft. I wish the decal manufacturers would print those markings. Is titillation really necessary to sell their product?
Our current military forbids such imagery on its equipment. As an Army officer I testify that we don't let our soldiers paint anything like that on their vehicles. And the good news is that our soldiers don't want to. Why? Simply because those kinds of images erode morale and are anathema to maintaining good order and discipline. My friends in the Air Force all say that it's a serious offense to paint such an image on Air Force aircraft for the same reason. I suspect the Navy has similar policies. It may have been acceptible in 1944 but it is certainly not in 2004.
I just wish more modelers, moderators and webmasters took action like you did, Abe. Thanks.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are only "different faiths" if you stick your head in the sand and blow sunshine out your ass.Trytostaydead wrote:Gripe and moan all you want about it being a Christian problem, but I am sure there will be a strong constituent of people of different faiths arguing for tighter control of the material broadcasted PUBLICLY.
Yes, social standards which just happen to coincide with intensity of religious devotion, in a pattern that has been consistent around the world and through history. Pure coincidence, of courseWhen in Rome do as the Romans, and I'm sure you won't go tell people in the Islands to cover their tits, beause it's a different standard and claim them to be too sexually liberated its perverse and they should stop wantonly sleeping with each other.
And to compare Canada vs the US is hard in itself. To say, "we allow nudity and cussing" against the US is not so much a measure of religion anymore but social standards.
And you assume that they will all give the same answer ... why? Why are all of the advocacy groups on the Internet for this kind of censorship religious in nature? Another of your coincidences?While religion may have helped dictate social standards of today and its sexual repression, it has evolved into a social standard. I can walk across the street and ask my Jewish neighbor if he wants his children to see Janet Jackson's sagging tits. Or my Buddhist neighbor, or Muslim or atheist.
AND THIS STANDARD IS CORRELATED TO RELIGION, moron. How many times do I have to say this?Why do some societies allow women to go topless and others don't. It's a social moral/ethical standard. That's why nudists are relegated to certain areas they can express themselves freely.
If you will please, sir, get your head out of your ass and stop jumping up and down to say, "It's religion! It's religion!" you will see that I never argue you on that point. My point is that regardless of the roots, it's now a social standard. So you can point all you want and blame the culprit of Christianity, it's a moot point.Darth Wong wrote: AND THIS STANDARD IS CORRELATED TO RELIGION, moron. How many times do I have to say this?
I'm thinking they're on their last legs, they'll probably kick the bucket pretty soon.Durandal wrote:Why is this? It's my personal belief that, despite the public's attitudes toward such things, the same kinds of people are still the ones voting on the laws. Crusty, old white Christians who like to prattle on about "family values," which basically translate to "don't ever talk show sex on TV." So what's going on here? Are we doomed to have the same types of people voted into Congress?
I keep hoping.His Divine Shadow wrote: I'm thinking they're on their last legs, they'll probably kick the bucket pretty soon.
And he's asking how is it moot point given that's the very cause of it.Trytostaydead wrote:If you will please, sir, get your head out of your ass and stop jumping up and down to say, "It's religion! It's religion!" you will see that I never argue you on that point. My point is that regardless of the roots, it's now a social standard. So you can point all you want and blame the culprit of Christianity, it's a moot point.Darth Wong wrote: AND THIS STANDARD IS CORRELATED TO RELIGION, moron. How many times do I have to say this?
As the OP asked as to whether or not we're doomed to stay the same, while religion, Christianity in particular, is a big stick to be wielded in terms of "Family" value, the major part is also what we learn sitting on our daddy's knee. And those customs tell us to keep our breasts covered in public, and it's rude to cuss.
And as a social standard, until someone successfully argues how it violates their civil rights without offending everyone else if it was changed, most likely it will stay that way.
Bullshit. Are you saying that if Christianity vanished from America tomorrow, this "social standard" would be unchanged? You're full of shit. If it really was a purely social standard as you say, it would not CONTINUE to be correlated to intensity of religious devotion. Your supporting assertion (that American atheists are just as likely as American christians to feel this way) is also bullshit; you have provided not one shred of evidence for it while I have noted that ALL of the identifiable major advocacy groups for these kinds of legislative changes are heavily christian in nature.Trytostaydead wrote:If you will please, sir, get your head out of your ass and stop jumping up and down to say, "It's religion! It's religion!" you will see that I never argue you on that point. My point is that regardless of the roots, it's now a social standard. So you can point all you want and blame the culprit of Christianity, it's a moot point.Darth Wong wrote:AND THIS STANDARD IS CORRELATED TO RELIGION, moron. How many times do I have to say this?
And you think that those customs would be utterly unchanged if Christianity disappeared? You are honestly so fucking stupid that you think all of this shit has passed completely out of religion and become part of a secular societal standard, equally shared among christians and atheists? Again, bullshit.As the OP asked as to whether or not we're doomed to stay the same, while religion, Christianity in particular, is a big stick to be wielded in terms of "Family" value, the major part is also what we learn sitting on our daddy's knee. And those customs tell us to keep our breasts covered in public, and it's rude to cuss.
Irrelevant to the question of why the US got this way and what keeps the US this way.And as a social standard, until someone successfully argues how it violates their civil rights without offending everyone else if it was changed, most likely it will stay that way.
