[quote]Professor X wrote:
firemedichcfr14 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
LOL - In addition to morals, ProfessorX needs a job to occupy his time.
You do realize that he is an M.D., right? As in physician, doctor of medicine, 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 1 year internship, 2 years residency.
Yea, that’s what he says he has.
If you want to know my full title and specialty, all you have to do is pm me. Why you think anyone would need to lie about what they do is beyond me, but I don’t give out specifics on the open forum. Yes, I do keep it vague for a reason.
[/quote]
News flash for you, people lie on the Internet. I’m sorry I had to break that news to you.
And you Pm’ing your info to me is as worthless as you posting a photo and saying that it’s you.
It might be you, it might be your someone else who knows, who cares. You might be a doctor, you might be a street cleaner. I don’t care either way. You have enough wrong opinions to just focus on those and not worry about what you do for a living.
I’m the marketing director for a national chain of gyms, or I’m not, who cares?
[quote]Vyskol wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
…
As a teen, I still had enough respect to realize that I have no right to act as a negative influence to other people’s young children.
…
Just to make sure I have this straight…
You’re saying that a naked woman is a negative influence on children?[/quote]
what a simplistic take on my original post. come on man you are smarter than that.
Too much sex pushed at a kid at too young of an age can steer them in the direction of having sex at too young of an age. Which can lead to all sorts of problems for them and YOU.
No matter how much you talk to your kid and I talk to my kids all the freaking time.
The RAND Corp put together the data and implications from the 2004 RAND article previously cited with additional work on the potential positive effect of behavior shown on TV programs into this citation:
with this as a concluding paragraph:
“Reducing teens? exposure to portrayals of sex on television poses challenges, however. An alternative approach that has worked with violent content may also work with sexual content: having parents view programs with their children and discuss their own beliefs regarding the behavior depicted. Doing so can reinforce the benefits of accurate risk information and positive messages and may help to limit the negative effects of sexual portrayals that do not contain risk information.”
This emphasizes the concept of “Do” parenting instead of “Don’t” parenting. The idea is one best illustrated with the following example:
When a child is expressing themselves in whine-y voice, a frazzled parent might say “Stop whining!” However, this little child doesn’t have many experiences from which to select a replacement for whining. A “Do” parent alternative would be to say “I’m sorry you’re feeling bad but, please use your regular voice.” The concept of watching media with your children and discussing their feelings and your recommendations for addressing their feelings in a way consistent with the moral direction you’re trying to impart seems to be the message of success parenting presented by the above RAND paper as well as other studies (from RAND and elsewhere).
Beyond the influence of sex in uncontrolled media access is the message of eating junk food or “stuff” over-consumption presented in media. All of the media messages are blasting our children. All of them must be dealt with in a similar way: control access to media, participate in media with children, discuss the ploys used by media, the feelings of the child experiencing them and the alternative responses the children can have.
And that must mean apply those principles to your children wrt T-Nation. It is not a family friendly website and never implied otherwise.
1.) No I don’t have your study but the whole point of that out of context idea was that with any type of data, and any background in statistical analysis you can make the data say what you want. [/quote]
You made that point in your last post. I only have two things in response:
The study was done by a very reputable company “RAND.” Here it is in it’s entirity, if there is something that is flawed about it please point it out. As far as I know RAND has no ax to grind one way or the other:
If it is so easy to make figures say whatever you want them to, how come Hollywood has not contracted their own study which demonstrates that showing more sex on TV during early hours, as they have been doing over the past several years, does not want to make kids have LESS sex?
In other words, for the third time, where is your data contradicting my statistics, and especially the very high level study done by “RAND”?
I am being fair, am I not?
I think that is an excellent insight on your part! That is indeed one more problem that faces children and teens.
I totally agree with you, it would seem to make common sense. The problem is that most people are not like you and I. If I have a problem with something that has been broadcast I will pick up the phone or write a letter (and even more).
However, your statistic that there were 12 million complaints filed regarding sexually themed programming shows me that more and more even the average citizen is fed up with the crap that Hollywood is passing off as entertainment.
[quote]4.) I agree with a previous poster neither side is invalid. Both sides are right. This is true.
I’m outie[/quote]
Nice talking with you and I thank you for bringing some FCC information to the debate!
[quote]Tech9 wrote:
Funny thing was a couple pics showed naked mannequins, but they were like seeing big plastic dolls. It wasn’t anything racy, for all the negative commentary TC said he got.
Sorry to say, your avatar got trumped by a 6’ Barbie doll.
Was there a public uproar when Sean fucked the Kimber RealDoll in Nip/Tuck ? That`s way beyond a forum post … yet no Nipplegate class action against the networks.
(If there was one, it sure didn`t get tons of media coverage in my part of Eastern Canada.)
It cracks me up that this thread was originally about a poster apologizing for the way he had acted in other threads. He apologised for being crude, rude, obnoxious and juvenile.
You know, everything that terribleivan is being now.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I’m just giving the fools on this thread exactly what I needed when I was 18 years old.
[/quote]
Good luck in converting people here. While a good portion of them are open-minded, another portion is very, very passionate about their viewpoints. You may encounter much more feedback than you expect. But in the end it`s all good. This site changes people for the better. Both physically and mentally.
Take your major networks like NBC and remove ALL sexual and violent content. Then all the grumpy old people could watch it with their sheltered kids.
Then allow networks like F/X to be as sexual and violent as they want, any time they want.
The grumpy old people could block networks like F/X easily and watch NBC while giving others the freedom to watch all the quality sexual and violent shows they please.
That way there’s no worthless half-measures. Family shows wouldn’t be “ruined” by sexual and violent content, and more adult-geared shows wouldn’t be ruined by censorship.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Even when I was young and dumb, I would have never put an avatar up like that, and if an adult with kids asked me to take it down, I would have. As a teen, I still had enough respect to realize that I have no right to act as a negative influence to other people’s young children.
[/quote]
Pardon my ignorance, but this is not a teen website, or a website for stupid parents either. Its a, as one poster rightly said, R` rated site, and a very REAL representation of REAL people of DIFFERENT viewpoints and of many many DIFFERENT backgrounds.
Some people here have kids. Some dont. Some like porn. Some dont. Some like models. Some dont. Some like babes. Some dont. (Ad nauseam. Any point of view here has an alternate an opposite equivalent.)
I gave people the CHOICE to keep the avatar up. Either answer is OK. But I wont put it down just because of one request either (Im in favor, the other is not, null vote).
I happen to believe one doesn`t help people by censoring reality. And it just so happend that a NONsexual picture of a good looking woman is in my book 1) no worse nor better than a comic book babe (whether on paper or on the Saturday morning cartoons), 2) a very real part of real life, 3) inconsequential considering this site is geared toward ADULTS who know better than play VICTIMS and therefore can CHOOSE.
So that`s why I asked for a poll. To get a representative vote. So far, results are still under heavy debate.
(By the way, what would you do in Amsterdam? Burn the whole city?)
[quote]Massif wrote:
It cracks me up that this thread was originally about a poster apologizing for the way he had acted in other threads. He apologised for being crude, rude, obnoxious and juvenile.
You know, everything that terribleivan is being now.[/quote]
Yup. Dead on. He`ll learn. Eventually. Even a stubborn dude like me did. Let it be.
Some people here have kids. Some dont. Some like porn. Some dont. Some like models. Some dont. Some like babes. Some dont. (Ad nauseam. Any point of view here has an alternate an opposite equivalent.)
[/quote]
I think the thing is that if we are looking for poon and titty pics on the internet you should log into a porn site, or nude model site,…whatever, but when you do that you knowingly log onto that kind of material. However i click on a “I apologize” thread in a bodybuilding off-topic forum and this bare ass is staring me in the face.
I did not ask for it, I did not log into a T&A site so as far as I’m concerned you are violating my rights on the internet. It’s that simple.
It’s not who right or who’s wrong. If you walk the streets carrying a sign like your avatar, you might get arrested. If it is posted on your car it would be “indecent” and most likely the cops would write you up and destry the image.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
However i click on a “I apologize” thread in a bodybuilding off-topic forum and this bare ass is staring me in the face.
I did not ask for it, I did not log into a T&A site so as far as I’m concerned you are violating my rights on the internet. It’s that simple.
It’s not who right or who’s wrong. If you walk the streets carrying a sign like your avatar, you might get arrested. If it is posted on your car it would be “indecent” and most likely the cops would write you up and destry the image.
What is the difference here?[/quote]
I get the point … but would a bikini-clad babe have passed the test? I do get the point, but the line decent and indecent is rather fuzzy, too.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Even when I was young and dumb, I would have never put an avatar up like that, and if an adult with kids asked me to take it down, I would have. As a teen, I still had enough respect to realize that I have no right to act as a negative influence to other people’s young children.
Rockscar, I believe that too many of the kids on this website have missed out on one of the most important things I got as a child…severe beatings with the belt.
And, yes, I remember Samantha Fox…He, he…
[/quote]
I agree this is an issue of respecting others views and beliefs. Even though I could mow my lawn at 6am I don’t, out of respect for my neighbors. I swear, but I don’t when I’m around young kids, and it’s disrespectful to swear in front of kids, even though there is no law against it.
[quote]MrChill wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
However i click on a “I apologize” thread in a bodybuilding off-topic forum and this bare ass is staring me in the face.
I did not ask for it, I did not log into a T&A site so as far as I’m concerned you are violating my rights on the internet. It’s that simple.
It’s not who right or who’s wrong. If you walk the streets carrying a sign like your avatar, you might get arrested. If it is posted on your car it would be “indecent” and most likely the cops would write you up and destry the image.
What is the difference here?
I get the point … but would a bikini-clad babe have passed the test? I do get the point, but the line decent and indecent is rather fuzzy, too.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct, and it’s up to us individually to flirt with or cross that line, no matter what it may be.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Even when I was young and dumb, I would have never put an avatar up like that, and if an adult with kids asked me to take it down, I would have. As a teen, I still had enough respect to realize that I have no right to act as a negative influence to other people’s young children.
Rockscar, I believe that too many of the kids on this website have missed out on one of the most important things I got as a child…severe beatings with the belt.
And, yes, I remember Samantha Fox…He, he…
I agree this is an issue of respecting others views and beliefs. Even though I could mow my lawn at 6am I don’t, out of respect for my neighbors. I swear, but I don’t when I’m around young kids, and it’s disrespectful to swear in front of kids, even though there is no law against it.
[quote]MrChill wrote:
Was there a public uproar when Sean fucked the Kimber RealDoll in Nip/Tuck ? That`s way beyond a forum post … yet no Nipplegate class action against the networks.
(If there was one, it sure didn`t get tons of media coverage in my part of Eastern Canada.)
[/quote]
I didn’t get into Nip/Tuck until last season so I missed that one.
There was a public uproar about a month ago around here when a Victoria Secret’s store had some mannequins which were posed provocatively.
Some people said they wouldn’t return to the mall until the display (which was inside the store) was taken down, which it was after a few days.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
What is the difference here? [/quote]
I think the difference here is that this is, like some others have said, basically an R-rated website. That’s “website,” as in the whole thing, not just sections of it.
Now, I don’t want you to take this as a personal attack. Almost everyone here has kept this a fairly clean, honest, and intelligent debate, except for terribleivan. He comes along and turns this into elementary school name-calling and an internet tough guy show.
I’ve had more than a couple run-ins with Zeb and a few others, and he is a stubborn son-of-a-bitch, but he at least debates reasonably without resorting to childish antics. Terribleivan and the couple othes that have jumped on his lead have added nothing to this thread.
Oh, and on last thing, terribleivan, if I ever saw you “severely beat a child with a belt” I would beat the living shit out you. I don’t know how that slipped by everybody. I only hope that you were exaggerating when you said that.
