Grendel wrote:The FCC makes judgments at the federal level based on their rules and how said rules pertain to local standards of decency.
Yet again, you repeat your mindless mantra that it is possible to harmonize a
single federal-level ruling with varying regional standards. That's only true if every region has the
same local standards, you idiot.
Surely this accounts for much of the subjectivity that you decry.
Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. The subjective nature of the FCC's rules is not "accounted for" in any way, shape, or form by your blather. It's still subjective.
No. Anything does not go. The FCC is warranted by the federal government with rules approved by the Supreme Court of the United States to regulate commercial frequencies for "indecent" content.
And "indecent" is defined in a subjective manner, fucktard. I grow tired of repeating myself. Do you not understand what "subjective" means?
The court specifically stated in a 1978 ruling (FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation -
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/f ... ifica.html - ) that the FCC does have the authority to enforce local decency standards at a federal level. In that ruling Justice Stevens wrote; "...Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid [728] those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely accessible to children. Pp. 748-750."
I must agree.
Appealing to a federal court decision in order to justify that decision? That's circular logic, you idiot. You're saying that they made the right decision because they
said they did. Your infantile level of debating may impress your fellow third-graders, but it doesn't work in the real world.
Exposure to a modicum of such behavior is rarely harmful. In the past, an individual must actively choose to seek out such subjects, however broadcast offers a unique medium by which to saturate our lives and presents the most risk to the fabric of society. Daily exposure to vulgarities, violence and sexuality desensitizes us to such behaviour and study after study has shown a real impact on our children. These children, desensitized to violence, language and sexuality are statistically more likely to participate in such behavior later in life. These individuals become problems that society must deal with. They become violent, they’re unable to form meaningful relationships with others, they’re unable to hold down jobs or function normally in society and the rest of us end up paying the price.
Yes brother, preach it! Tell us how two seconds of Janet Jackson's titty is going to cause the downfall of society! And preach it without a shred of evidence, based solely on your say-so!
As a subscriber to the “Social Contract” theory, I believe that as society becomes coarser, maintaining that contract becomes more difficult as the lubricating platitudes that society requires to function begin to break down. It is therefore my opinion that degrading our standards beyond where they are today does absolutely nothing towards adding value to our society. Allowing more foul language, more violence, more sexuality on television or radio does nothing to add to the value of our culture and I would argue that it actually stands to damage our society.
Hey fucktard,
didn't I tell you to start arguing in some manner other than appealing to your own goddamned unsupported opinion?
There are those who argue “But it’s only a word” or “There is so much worse that people are exposed to every day. Compared to that some of the words are very minor” and I agree. However we cannot justify bad behaviour or low standards by pointing out worse behaviour or lower standards. That only serves to compare all behaviour to the most base behaviour imaginable. Imagine a rapist being able to use “Hey, at least I didn’t rape a 12 year old” or a pedophile being able to say “Hey, at least I didn’t kill the kid” as justifications for lower sentences. We wouldn’t let out standards slide in those instances and, though the differences between murder and pedophilia when compared to television language, sexuality, and violence are readily apparent, they are still valid examples of why you should not justify bad behaviour by pointing to worse behaviour.
First you have to justify your claim that the behaviour in question is bad, you idiot. And "indecency" is not harmful. You are casually mixing televised depiction of violence (which
is permitted by the FCC, up to and including depictions of murder) into a debate about the FCC's indecency crackdown on foul language and titty shots. That's what we call "changing the subject", you asshole.
Don't give me orders, asshole. You lied, and even now you're making excuses.
I'll give any order I like. As I said, lying requires intent. Mistakes are not lies and what I made was a mistake, so I was not lying. I was wrong and for that I apologized. So don’t call me a liar unless you can prove intent.
I will call you whatever the fuck I want, troll. I gave you an opportunity to try and justify your argument instead of mindlessly repeating your opinion like the trolling moron that you are, and I see you have chosen to reject that opportunity. Grow the fuck up, idiot. You can't justify
anything by saying "I believe" and "my opinion", no matter how many goddamned times you say it.
More bullshit. Television stations are already influenced rather heavily by regional public support, due to the effect of advertising dollars. The idea that without the FCC's heavy-handed interference they would have no interest whatsoever in the wishes of their viewers and advertisers is so fucking idiotic that mere words cannot describe its stupidity.
Respectable companies with their own sets of standards who pull ads from broadcasts with objectionable materials are an example of the part of the system that works.
That's not part of "the system", you idiot. That is The People exerting their own will directly, without the FCC acting as Nanny to do it for them.
However there are other companies whose standards are lower than others. Such companies either use questionable content in their own advertising and/ or subscribe to the philosophy that any exposure is good exposure. They therefore cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
They can be trusted to do
what the public wants, because advertisers aren't stupid, unlike you. You base your entire argument upon "local standards" which are set by The People and those who give them what they want, and then you claim that Nanny needs to step in for them when they won't know what's good for them. You're really not accustomed to this "defend your position" thing, are you? You can't even keep your arguments straight.
Now, part of the Pacifica decision was based on a level of “zapability” where programming can suddenly divert from one standard to another. The 2004 Superbowl Halftime Show is just that example. Family friendly programming was suddenly made very adult by asshole “musicians” wearing ponchos made out of the flag, bumping and grinding all over the stage, and tearing each other’s clothes off. The whole program was made even more objectionable by a peppering of erectile dysfunction ads. Respectable advertisers didn’t have the ability to pull their ads and for others, the ads were themselves the issue. Again, I know that people are exposed to worse every day, but I still maintain that bad behaviour should not be justified by worse behaviour.
Prove that anyone was harmed by any of this. Oh yeah, you can't. All you're doing is REPEATING YOURSELF. Your whole argument is just endless repetitions of a single opinion, for fuck's sake.
That serves as an example of why, IMHO, regulation is indeed required.
Wow. Another repetition of your opinion in lieu of an argument. What a shock.
Face facts, dipshit: you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. When push comes to shove, all you have is "it's my opinion" and "yo' momma". Where did you learn to argue? From Eminem?
Heh... I thought that by trying to sink to your level of name calling and insulting that I might have a better idea of the type of person I was dealing with. Perhaps I ought to have sunk a little lower.
You obviously don't recognize the distinction between mindless generic trash-talk and pointing out the deficiencies in your opponent's argument and intellect. Of course, the
reason you fail to identify this distinction is obvious: you're an idiot.
PS. I'll give you one more chance to make a logical argument instead of a mindless "this is my opinion" post, which increasingly appears to be all that you are capable of.
Oh, thank you. Thank you for your generosity. May I kiss your ring, too?
In other words, you simply
refuse to justify any of your opinions. All you plan to do is continue saying "I believe" and "it's my opinion" over and over and over ad nauseum, along with the usual "it's bad for society because it's my opinion that it hurts society" bullshit, which is really nothing more than yet another opinion since you don't provide a shred of evidence (indeed, you don't even try to stay on topic, choosing to change the subject from foul language and titty shots to televised violence). There are only two possible interpretations of your behaviour at this point:
- Since you obviously aren't even trying to satisfy my demand that you provide some logical justification for your claims, you're just trolling, as some others have suggested.
- You're actually so incredibly stupid that you honestly believe you have been putting forth an actual argument, even though you have never presented a shred of evidence for any of your claims.
Either way, I won't lose any sleep over your disappearance from this forum. Goodbye, moron. I gave you a chance, and you chose to ignore me and continue repeating unsupported opinions as if they were facts.
