lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: What are y'all opinions on the FCC?
I hate it; time to take it outback and have it shot 3 20.00%
It's ok 3 20.00%
We need the FCC; for balance or to protect children's innocence 8 53.33%
It's got to go 1 6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 11-27-2006, 02:35 AM   #161
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. (from Wikipedia).

Saying that the comment "The idea that showing anonymous coffins on a news report would decrease your personal safety in any meaningful way is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia" is sick is considered ad hominem? If so, then the quoted comment certainly would be as well. I don't want dead soldiers either, I say bring the troops home, but we can't because the Iraqi people will tear themselves apart, but parading dead soldiers on TV, for any reason, will never happen. There's too much respect for those who made that sacrifice and the families who have lost a loved one for that to ever occur.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 02:45 AM   #162
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
I'll let Spider respond to you Jae, although I disagree. "I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now." What? He gave his reasons, and while they may be condescending they were hardly flaming or defamatory.
'Ludicrous' I can live with. However, implying I have paranoia, which has been considered a mental disorder for a long time, when in fact I have never been diagnosed as such, is very problematic and attacks my character.
I would argue that condescension is not exactly the best way to foster a continued debate, even if we all do have the rights of free speech.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 02:49 AM   #163
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,971
Nancy, you said his espousal of the comment was sick, implying that he was sick for promoting it. I'd say that qualifies.

Is that respect making it harder for the troops to come home, and thus by extension killing more of them needlessly? It is a strange kind of respect if so; I would not agree with such a concept. Honor is all well and good, but I wonder if you would choose honor or the life of a soldier when honor is clearly not getting them anywhere except six feet under.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
'Ludicrous' I can live with. However, implying I have paranoia, which has been considered a mental disorder for a long time, when in fact I have never been diagnosed as such, is very problematic and attacks my character.
I would argue that condescension is not exactly the best way to foster a continued debate, even if we all do have the rights of free speech.
Given that I agree with you. For my part, I try to avoid any personal attacks so do tell me if I slip one in.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 02:57 AM   #164
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Using the deaths of our soldiers to sway opinion on Iraq (if that isn't the reason why you support it please tell us what is), is it really worth it? I can promise you right now it won't work, all that'll happen is there'll be a backlash against it. You really want to put an end to the war? The best way is to attack Bush. People have voted him out of the Senate and because of that he's made the biggest indication yet that Iraq was a mistake (to appease those against the war, my stance is that Saddam was overthrown so there could be a regime change in Iraq). If enough people turn on Bush and the government then there'll be little choice but to give what the people want. You really want an end to the war in Iraq? Get out there and rally everyone you can against Bush and the government.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 02:57 AM   #165
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Is that respect making it harder for the troops to come home, and thus by extension killing more of them needlessly?
I don't think so--if you're talking about anonymous coffins, I think the American public will get rather blase about it after awhile and it'll have about as much meaning to the general public as the numbers themselves. I had a tough time grasping the Vietnam casaulty numbers until I had the chance to see The Wall in D.C. Seeing all the names there has a certain impact.
That would be something that I was OK with, providing Jimbo wanted it that way, because the intent is different.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 03:13 AM   #166
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Using the deaths of our soldiers to sway opinion on Iraq (if that isn't the reason why you support it please tell us what is)
My opinion on the subject is that people are not aware enough of the actual human cost of the war. Showing said coffins and other images would hopefully create more awareness in that regard and I would hope that we would get out of there faster. However, like I said before, if the people still want the war after they've had the very real consequences shown to them, then I would have to accept that and we'd all have to live with ourselves.

Quote:
is it really worth it? I can promise you right now it won't work, all that'll happen is there'll be a backlash against it. You really want to put an end to the war? The best way is to attack Bush. People have voted him out of the Senate and because of that he's made the biggest indication yet that Iraq was a mistake (to appease those against the war, my stance is that Saddam was overthrown so there could be a regime change in Iraq). If enough people turn on Bush and the government then there'll be little choice but to give what the people want. You really want an end to the war in Iraq? Get out there and rally everyone you can against Bush and the government.
Is it worth it? I know that our people won't die anymore; probably one faction over there will take over fairly quickly and Iraq will end up worse than it began - a devastatingly poor theocracy, with most of its infrastructure blown to bits by us kindly invaders. Am I happy with that? No. Am I happier with staying there for "as long as it takes"? No.

I don't think I have to worry about Bush being gone this next election, and it's very, very unlikely that people will actually be able to impeach and convict him since they haven't done so already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I don't think so--if you're talking about anonymous coffins, I think the American public will get rather blase about it after awhile and it'll have about as much meaning to the general public as the numbers themselves. I had a tough time grasping the Vietnam casaulty numbers until I had the chance to see The Wall in D.C. Seeing all the names there has a certain impact.
Yes, that is a good memorial. 60 000 is a lot of people.

Quote:
That would be something that I was OK with, providing Jimbo wanted it that way, because the intent is different.
The problem I have with it (not that I disapprove of the idea) is that it doesn't interject into mainstream conciousness. People don't go to it if they don't want to. I'm sure that showing coffins on TV will eventually become less effective, but I think it's better to do something that will make people realize what is happening. I hope you see what I'm trying to say; like I said before, the worst part about the casualties lists is just not seeing a good reason for them, and it's hard to justify them staying in my mind. Letting people see this kind of thing is something I think the situation justifies.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 04:37 AM   #167
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I wasn't referring to anonymous coffins (which the government has shown--I saw a news clip about how soldiers are brought home to their final resting places).
Your knowledge on the topic appears incomplete.

The US government has blocked the release of all such images since 1991. Even anonymous coffins. The only reason they were finally FORCED to show the images in April 2005 (of anonymous coffins, out of context) was a dedicated campaign fought in the court system. Censorship at its worst.

Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...473506,00.html

And no doubt if the US government had their way, they would never show such images. Only popular movements hold the regime to account in this respect, as in all respects.

Nice bit in that article about ol' Cheney and Bush senior by the way. Very revealing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

You can assume that, but it would be incorrect. I have young children to protect. I want the risk of something happening to them to be as low as I can possibly make it. And if it means that some anti-war groups aren't able to get their yukks out of seeing a bunch of coffins, too bad.
How DARE you. How DARE you suggest that "anti-war groups" would "get their yukks" from seeing the images of young mens' coffins returning home from an illegal and immoral war that has claimed their lives. How DARE you. I am sickened by this ignorant and insulting remark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Seeing as this thread is about the FCC and censorship and not particularly the war in Iraq itself, I addressed that rather than violence in the world. However, you're making an incorrect assumption that I don't 'campaign against the violence in the world'. I'm mandated to report child abuse in particular, and any cases where I believe assualt/battery/other major illegal actions are happening (which helps cover the elder abuse angle). And I have done just that.
And it's good that you've fulfilled your obligations as a public servant. But that doesn't alter the fact that your stance is rooted in a fundamental double standard. You said: "And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway." while you have been tacitly approving of the single greatest act of violent international aggression in recent years, namely the US/UK invasion of Iraq. Total double standard, railing against imaginary violence on the idiot-box while not railing against the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

It would be that simple if parents were able to be home with their kids a lot more. A lot of single parents work long hours or 2 jobs, or both parents have to work just to keep a roof over their families' heads. A number of studies have shown violence in TV increases violence in kids. We as a society have a responsibility to protect those who can't protect themselves. Children don't always have the ability to determine what's appropriate content. I'd love to say that the v-chip is working at my home, but a lot of the time it blocks things incorrectly.
You don't need a chip, you need a cupboard that locks. If you're not around to supervise the child's use of the TV... he/she doesn't get to use the TV.

It's very similar to IT this respect. I'm sick and tired of "concerned parents" campaigning for censorship in video games, greater leglislation for control of internet content... all because they're not "concerned" enough to bother supervising their kid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Then buy cable. Most of the violent movies are crap anyway and not worth my time or money.
Here you show a lack of taste and a lack of understanding with regards to cinema and the history of cinema. Some of the greatest, most influential, most critically acclaimed movies of all time have also been the most violent. The revisionist westerns of the seventies and nineties, pretty much every De Niro picture, from 'The Deer Hunter' to 'Taxi Driver',... the list is endless.

Hell, what would Shakespeare be without the violence? 'Titus Andronicus'... 'Macbeth'... You wouldn't have much text left if you excised the violence from them.

Violence has been an integral part of drama since time immemorial. Denying this is as futile as denying... oh... US war crimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Since my tax dollars help run the government and the government regulates the airwaves, I do have the right to campaign against violence on the airwaves.
Ah! The old "I pay my taxes... so I should get to decide what you can and cannot do and see and watch!" fallacy.

Yes Jae, in a society with free speech you have the right to campaign for anything, even campaign for the limiting of the free speech that allows you to campaign. Of course, I have the right to respond and to show exactly how immoral your stance is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

And as a taxpayer myself and the person who was related to the one who made the ultimate sacrifice, I think I have the right to deny the public permission to view the coffin. He is no longer in the Army when he's dead. The decision on what to do with his remains once he's gone is mine and my family's, not some media out let who would do heaven knows what with any images.
The idea that "Once a soldier's dead he's no longer a public servant!" doesn't fly. He died for an illegal war that the public is paying for. Once again, the public's right to see ALL the consequences of wars fought in their name is inviolable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I disagree. I also pay taxes, and I theoretically have just given up the primary breadwinner in my family to the country, regardless of whether someone thinks the war is immoral or not. My need and right for privacy and the fact that I've just endured The Sacrifice is more than enough to outweigh whatever the public feels they're 'entitled' to. I live in the US where we honor individual rights as well as society rights.
Once again, you are asserting that your right to withhold images of the coffin outweighs the entire US public's right to see it as it is a result of a war started in their name. Which is frankly ludicrous.

Jae's right to hide the truth vs. the entire US public's right to see the truth... Hmmm. Moral quandary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I don't appreciate defamatory, flaming comments. Those need to stop. Now.
Show me some "defamatory, flaming comments". I've made none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

'Ludicrous' I can live with. However, implying I have paranoia, which has been considered a mental disorder for a long time, when in fact I have never been diagnosed as such, is very problematic and attacks my character.
Oh do be serious. I called your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" ludicrous, bordering on paranoia. Which it clearly is. As for "implying that you're paranoid", that's your inference, not my implication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I would argue that condescension is not exactly the best way to foster a continued debate, even if we all do have the rights of free speech.
It's typical for pro-war people to call anti-war people condescending. I think it has something to do with the shock of having their dearly-held pro-war delusions challenged.

--

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

You really want to put an end to the war? The best way is to attack Bush.
I'm going to be awfully charitable to you Nancy, and ignore all your personal attacks. But I will address this sentence. Bush is a figurehead. You must stop obsessing over Bush. He's not a policymaker. Start obsessing over ALL the architects of the war. Some politicians, yes, but corporate entities too. A whole mess of people. That's why we talk about the "Bush regime" or the "US government". We don't just talk about Bush.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 05:15 AM   #168
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
That's why we don't let them vote and drive.
Very funny, Jae!
Windu Chi is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 12:17 PM   #169
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Your knowledge on the topic appears incomplete.
My knowledge on many things is going to be incomplete--there's no way to know everything. I research the things I choose to learn more about, and frankly, the issue of displaying coffins is not on my top ten list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
The US government has blocked the release of all such images since 1991.
That's fine, but what I saw may have been released by the gov't itself. It's been too long for me to remember where and when I saw the clip/documentary/whatever it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
How DARE you.
I find the use of images of what would be my husband's remains for political gain, pro OR con the war, to be just as immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Total double standard, railing against imaginary violence on the idiot-box while not railing against the invasion of Iraq.
The thread's about the FCC and content on TV, not the Iraqi War or my stance on it, so I wrote my comments accordingly. Talking about the Iraqi war is actually off-topic for this thread--my views on anti-war protest has nothing to do with the FCC and censorship.
However, since you obliquely ask...we obviously should not have gone into Iraq, but now that we've done this, we need to fix it and get out.
There are multiple factors contributing to violence in society, and I think extreme violence on TV and in movies is one of the contributing factors. Since the content of TV directly affects my children far more than protesting the Iraqi war, I adjust my actions accordingly. You choose the Iraqi war as your windmill at which to tilt, violence on TV and against children and women is mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
You don't need a chip, you need a cupboard that locks. If you're not around to supervise the child's use of the TV... he/she doesn't get to use the TV.
You don't have kids, do you? Yeah, you do need a chip. If I have a babysitter over and they decide to watch TV for instance, at least I know the inappropriate content theoretically will be blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
It's very similar to IT this respect. I'm sick and tired of "concerned parents" campaigning for censorship in video games, greater leglislation for control of internet content... all because they're not "concerned" enough to bother supervising their kid.
Video games--simple solution like what they did in Neverwinter Nights--have an adjustable violence setting.
Parents cannot keep up with all the things out on the internet--actually, no one can. My kids only use the internet while they're in the same room with me or hubby. That doesn't mean that they couldn't accidentally type something and end up at a porn site--something as similar as a single letter typo in amazon dot com or using dot com instead of dot gov when trying to access some government information sends someone to porn sites. I can black- and white-list sites, but many parents don't know how to do that kind of thing and don't know about programs like NetNanny.
One solution to that might be to put a 'rating warning page' on the home page of any adult content sites so that if someone accidentally ends up on an adult site, they aren't exposed to the adult content right off the bat. It's not going to stop someone from entering the site but it does give parents a warning ahead of time about content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Here you show a lack of taste and a lack of understanding with regards to cinema and the history of cinema. Some of the greatest, most influential, most critically acclaimed movies of all time have also been the most violent.
I very specifically said *most*, not all. Please don't impugn my taste/understanding of cinema/history of cinema when you have no information on that--I wouldn't be surprised if I've seen and appreciated great (and sometimes violent) movies longer than you've been on this planet.
There are numerically a lot more crappy slasher and violent B-movies out there than there are critically acclaimed works like Schindler's List, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now. Viewing those is also a choice--I saw probably a dozen of the best 'Nam movies during my History of Vietnam course in college--and appreciated nearly all of them--but I was an adult choosing to take that course. The movies also have ratings, and theaters (theoretically) don't allow kids into R-rated movies without a parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Hell, what would Shakespeare be without the violence? 'Titus Andronicus'... 'Macbeth'... You wouldn't have much text left if you excised the violence from them.
If you're talking cable/movies, leave it be. Some things just should not be seen by children, however, and parents either need a warning ahead of time or the inappropriate material needs to be cut. It's impossible to expect parents to be familiar with new programming unless they have some kind of advisory information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Yes Jae, in a society with free speech you have the right to campaign for anything, even campaign for the limiting of the free speech that allows you to campaign. Of course, I have the right to respond and to show exactly how immoral your stance is.
There is nothing immoral about wanting privacy to grieve and having control over what happens with a loved one's remains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
The idea that "Once a soldier's dead he's no longer a public servant!" doesn't fly. He died for an illegal war that the public is paying for. Once again, the public's right to see ALL the consequences of wars fought in their name is inviolable.
My individual rights are also inviolable. He died serving his country, regardless of whether someone feels it's illegal or not to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Once again, you are asserting that your right to withhold images of the coffin outweighs the entire US public's right to see it as it is a result of a war started in their name. Which is frankly ludicrous.
Some individual rights do outweigh the public's 'right' to see or do something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Jae's right to hide the truth vs. the entire US public's right to see the truth... Hmmm. Moral quandary.
Jae's right to privacy during a very difficult time in life vs. those who'd like to use those images for some political agenda, because that's the sole purpose I can see for the display of those images when the gov't already releases the numbers of dead/wounded. No moral quandary for me. If someone else wants to give permission for their soldier's or sailor's coffin to be displayed, that's their choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Oh do be serious. I called your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" ludicrous, bordering on paranoia. Which it clearly is. As for "implying that you're paranoid", that's your inference, not my implication.
So just what exactly was your implication with that particular comment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
It's typical for pro-war people to call anti-war people condescending. I think it has something to do with the shock of having their dearly-held pro-war delusions challenged.
I don't recall ever saying I was pro-war. We shouldn't have gone in, we need to take responsibility to fix our mistakes and get out. Just because I don't make anti-war protests doesn't mean I'm pro-war.
Chomsky--is a linguist, about as left-wing as Limbaugh is right-wing (and I give about equal weight to both their levels of bias accordingly). He is not a Middle Eastern political science expert. He may self-educate on war and Middle Eastern affairs to be sure, but it's not nearly the same as someone who has spent a lifetime studying the politics of that region. I give about as much credence to his views as I do Bush's comments that all is going well in Iraq.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.


Last edited by Jae Onasi; 11-27-2006 at 12:32 PM.
Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 02:09 PM   #170
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Yeah, you do need a chip. If I have a babysitter over and they decide to watch TV, at least I know the inappropriate content will be blocked.
Cupboard that locks. TV isn't as necessary as food or air, you know. No matter how convenient a substitute for actual care and attention it might be.

This is what freaks me out about the censorship mindset in all walks of life. People who want to say what others can and cannot watch, read, see or do... they always have these desires for essentially self-interested reasons. Yes, it might make your life easier to control what other people can see and do to conform to your standards... but it's totally immoral. Purely self-interested. Replacing personal responsibility with authoritarianism... Awful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I find the use of images of what would be my husband's remains for political gain, pro OR con the war, to be just as immoral.
Ohhh quote it all, Jae, quote it all. You dared to type "if it means that some anti-war groups aren't able to get their yukks out of seeing a bunch of coffins, too bad." Suggesting that anti-war people would laugh at images of dead American soldiers. Is this REALLY the image you have in your head of the way Anti-war people think and feel? If so, you're deluded. If I were to be uncharitable, I'd suggest that such vitriolic lies totally invalidated any opinions you might hold on all related topics. But I'm not uncharitable, so I'm happy to continue to debate you.

Anti-war people don't hate America, nor do they hate US soldiers, nor do they gleefully sit around waiting for some US citizen to die so that they can "get their yukks". Anti-war people are moral, peaceful people, otherwise they wouldn't be anti-war.

As for your assertion that "using the images for political gain", what do you call withholding those images? It's clearly for political gain, not least because the ban was only instituted following Bush senior's distressing gaffe in 1989.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Video games--simple solution like what they did in Neverwinter Nights--have an adjustable violence setting.
Oh I'm all for adjustable violence settings in suitable games, because that means that more people of more ages will be able to experience the quality of the game. But an adjustable violence setting wouldn't work for something like Silent Hill, Undying or Call of Cthulhu, because those games are inherently adult and intentionally frightening in many respects other than mere violence. And that's good. Because we adults have our games, kids have their games (and family-accessible games), and everybody's happy.

Oh but wait! Mrs Smith from Portland Oregon is unhappy because her kid (whom she doesn't bother to supervise) got ahold of a copy of System Shock 2 from some bargain bin or other, and having played it (while she wasn't supervising him) he's now pathologically terrified that the toaster is going to come alive and eat him!

Face it, "concerned parents" from many nations thought to have a culture of freedom and free speech are always up in arms over the latest Soldier of Fortune or Res Evil. This is because they are too lazy to supervise their child properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

My knowledge on many things is going to be incomplete--there's no way to know everything. I research the things I choose to learn more about, and frankly, the issue of displaying coffins is not on my top ten list.
That's your choice, but if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on a specific topic, you really shouldn't vociferously defend your ill-informed opinions on that topic. Your government has been censoring all pictures of returning coffins since 1991. They were finally forced to release some anonymous images of coffins in mid 2005. That's a legacy of censorship that even YOUR past arguments don't support. They wouldn't even release ANONYMOUS IMAGES, which you were previously in favour of. You accuse those who want to make the images public of having a political agenda... look to your own government's censorship for a REAL political agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The thread's about the FCC and content on TV, not the Iraqi War or my stance on the war. We obviously should not have gone in there, but now that we've done this, we need to fix it and get out.
You're supporting an illegal occupation of a scarred and embattled nation. You can't "fix it" without bankrupting yourself. It's taken fifteen years of war, sanctions and more war to ruin the country so completely, and you think it'll be fixed so easily? Add to this the fact that what paltry sums of money we HAVE put into Iraq to "fix it" have been either mis-spent or mislaid, and you have a situation in which the only moral course of action is to listen to the victims- the Iraqi people- and remove the occupying troops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Parents cannot keep up with all the things out on the internet--actually, no one can. My kids only use the internet while they're in the same room with me or hubby. That doesn't mean that they couldn't accidentally type something and end up at a porn site--something as similar as a single letter typo in amazon dot com or using dot com instead of dot gov when trying to access some government information sends someone to porn sites. I can black- and white-list sites, but many parents don't know how to do that kind of thing and don't know about programs like NetNanny.
It's good that you supervise your kids on the net. You should do the same with the TV at all times, if you don't already. Then you wouldn't have to campaign for everyone to be denied perfectly good programmes and movies just because you wouldn't want your kid looking at them.

As for the argument for net censorship because "most parents don't know how how to black/white list"... Would you take your child out in a car if you "didn't know how to drive"? No? Well it's the same for the net. People are always whining about spyware, viruses, etcetera. I say to them: "You should have educated yourself before you clicked on that dubious Britney Spears e-mail, shouldn't you."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I very specifically said *most*, not all. Please don't impugn my taste/understanding of cinema/history of cinema when you have no information on that--I wouldn't be surprised if I've seen and appreciated great (and sometimes violent) movies longer than you've been on this planet.
You have no information to support the assumption that you'd be surprised. I am quite the film buff. And my point stands, since your statement that "most violent movies are crap" is redundant, and could be applied equally to ALL movies. Most romantic comedies are crap. Most thrillers are crap. Most movies are crap.

This has nothing to do with the quantity of violence in those movies. It's their casting, scripting, cinematography, scoring... Well, suffice it to say that my point stands. Violence is a necessary part of some pieces of drama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Schindler's List, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now.
You had to pick the three most overrated movies in the history of moviemaking to illustrate your expertise on the subject, didn't you.

No, to be fair Schindler isn't bad. But the style of Apocalypse is sensationalist and the politics of Platoon (like that in all of Stone's films) is juvenile and heavy-handed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

If you're talking cable/movies, leave it be. Some things just should not be seen by children, however, and parents either need a warning ahead of time or the inappropriate material needs to be cut. It's impossible to expect parents to be familiar with new programming unless they have some kind of advisory information.
Then don't sit the child down in front of a "new programme". Tape it, watch it first before showing it to them. It's your responsibility as a parent. Besides, I'm not against advisory information, I'm against people saying (as you have said) that "And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway."i You're not talking about "advisory information" there, you're talking about deciding what I can and cannot watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

There is nothing immoral about wanting privacy to grieve and having control over what happens with a loved one's remains.
There is if it infringes on the rights of the rest of the US population to know the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

My individual rights are also inviolable. He died serving his country, regardless of whether someone feels it's illegal or not to do so.
Your individual rights are not inviolable when weighed against the rights of the rest of the US population. You're just an individual. There's a whole NATION that's paying for an illegal war, they have the right to see ALL the consequences of that war. How can they make informed choices otherwise? They cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Some individual rights do outweigh the public's 'right' to see or do something.
You are correct. The right to remain clothed when the public would like to see one's boddeh, for instance.

But not THIS individual right that we are discussing, because the public's concern is not a trivial one, nor is it personal, and the individual's concern is PURELY personal... though tragic... still personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Jae's right to privacy during a very difficult time in life vs. those who'd like to use those images for some political agenda, because that's the sole purpose I can see for the display of those images when the gov't already releases the numbers of dead/wounded. No moral quandary for me. If someone else wants to give permission for their soldier's or sailor's coffin to be displayed, that's their choice.
Those "numbers" you cite are good for the pro-war camp, because they're dry and faceless and anonymous and possible to ignore. Actually seeing the bodies coming home makes it real for people. The coffins are hidden for political reasons. They have to be shown for moral reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

So just what exactly was your implication with that particular comment?
What, my comment that your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" was ludicrous, bordering on paranoia? Well as well as being true, it's also a clear and unambiguous statement, with no hidden implications. And people call the anti-war camp "conspiracy theorists"... Ha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I don't recall ever saying I was pro-war. We shouldn't have gone in, we need to take responsibility to fix our mistakes and get out. Just because I don't make anti-war protests doesn't mean I'm pro-war.
You're vocally pro-occupation, which is indeed part of the war, and in previous threads you have argued against the conclusion that the invasion was anything but altruistic, and was in fact a war crime... which it most certainly was. This level of denial is understandable considering your personal situation... but it's still denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Chomsky--is a linguist, about as left-wing as Limbaugh is right-wing (and I give about equal weight to both their levels of bias accordingly). He is not a Middle Eastern political science expert. He may self-educate on war and Middle Eastern affairs to be sure, but it's not nearly the same as someone who has spent a lifetime studying the politics of that region. I give about as much credence to his views as I do Bush's comments that all is going well in Iraq.
Oh you went and listened to some Chomsky as I suggested! Well, thanks for listening to my suggestion.

As for Chomsky's politics, he's been described as a fascist by the far left, a commie by the far right and everything in between. He's essentially apolitical in terms of classical party affiliations, and has fought for the rights of left wing people, right wing people... this is all a matter of public record. He's no loony lefty. Many people may disagree with his reasoning on many points (mostly spurious points), but even most of his critics acknowledge his intellect. At any rate, he's a wonderful introduction to dissident thinking.

As for his credentials regarding the Middle East... he HAS spent a lifetime on the topic. It's not his professional field, but it's a testament to his work-ethic that he has become an acknowledged authority on both his professional topic of linguistics, but also world political history and philosophy, and US foreign policy. He's been publishing scholarly works on US foreign policy since the Vietnam war, and he's about EIGHTY now. Still publishing.

Your argument that his assertions should be discarded because he doesn't get PAID for this aspect of his scholarship... Is frankly ludicrous.

Listen to more Chomsky! Listen to Vidal, listen to Pilger and Fisk. They're giants, you won't regret it if you absorb and analyse their theories.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 11-27-2006, 02:14 PM   #171
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I'm going to temporary lock this thread until I can get the time to review it. I've had several complaints about flames/insults, and, quite honestly, I'm a little burdened with school projects this week. I've a paper and oral presentation to prepare on the use of GPS in archaeology and it needs to be complete by next week.

I'll review this over the course of the next day or two. But if a visiting admin or supermod had on opportunity, please feel free.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.