Which Laws Should be Abolished?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Wrong again my friend! My kids watch very little TV because of the scum that is currently programmed! That is my very point! Options that used to be available to children are drying up faster than Janet Jacksons career.

There are ten to twenty times more quality educational shows on TV today compared to 10 years ago. The science and History channels are now truly producing high quality, informative and entertaining programs.

Or we can all go back to the late 70s and watch WKRP, Three’s Company and the Benny Hill show!

[/quote]

I agree, there are some very high quality programs relative to science and history. We watch those all the time, when we watch TV, which is not all that much. Howevever, there is far more harmufl programs on as well!

I’m speaking to the broader problem.

202

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
ZEB, I would be interested in having you mention 5-6 quality TV shows from the late 70s or early 80s that you wish your kids had the “choice” to watch something like today.[/quote]

It’s not a matter of listing a bunch of late 70’s TV shows. The point is that the lineup was clean, very suitable for children. Todays prime time lineup is filled with adult themed program unsuitable for children.

I thought I sort of made that clear maybe 7 posts ago…

203

mertdawg:

“As for the bookstore, thats free market plain and simple. If a bookstore displays books with objectionable covers, go somewhere else.”

You are kidding right? Every bookstore and newstand across the country displays covers of magazines that are not suitable for young children.

Do as I suggested to another poster, look at the covers through the eyes of a child, not a horny T-Man.

204

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s not a matter of listing a bunch of late 70’s TV shows. The point is that the lineup was clean, very suitable for children. Todays prime time lineup is filled with adult themed program unsuitable for children.

I thought I sort of made that clear maybe 7 posts ago…
[/quote]

I did too! Then you said there were fewer quality choices today.

205

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I did too! Then you said there were fewer quality choices today.
[/quote]

What is your definition of quality, mertdawg? There is a huge difference in quality and family friendly.

206

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Do as I suggested to another poster, look at the covers through the eyes of a child, not a horny T-Man.

[/quote]

You don’t seem to get it. It is no one else’s responsibility but YOURS to research what your kids watch and what they may be exposed to. YOU are in control of that. I just went to a bookstore a few weeks ago and I am sorry, I did not run across the hundreds of adult nudity related books on the shelves that you seem to be seeing. What I did see was neatly divided sections and an entire children’s area in the back with NOTHING but g-rated material. Maybe you need to move because you seem to be having problems no one else is. I also have yet to see these nude billboards that you claim are everywhere. WHERE ARE THEY?

You want to control others and put your responsibilities on other sources aside from your own hands. My parents were extremely religious so please, don’t act as if everyone else is crazy and you are the only sane one.

As far as children’s programming, there are some shows on that are extremely well produced with very in depth story lines and messages. Static Shock, a superhero cartoon that I even started watching is not dirty in any way. The stories are not as juvenile as cartoons were when I was a kid because kids are smarter (or rather learning more earlier) than they were 20 years ago. The morals are well put across without being cheesy. I was actually impressed when I sat and watched it (it caught my attention because a cartoon Shaquille O’neal was a guess character). Another one would be the Teen Titans cartoon. Again, it is made for kids, isn’t dirty and has deep moral lessons on each show and is more complex as far as the story line. Maybe you just need to get out more. The only programming I had as a kid was PBS and any cartoons were so basic that they make kid’s shows today look like college level courses in comparison.

It is no one else’s duty but yours to screen what your kids watch. Do your job and quit trying to make others do it for you. Why do I seem to know more about what your kids would be fine seeing than you seem to be? Listening to you, you would swear there was x-rated material being forced on your children all day and you were just helpless to stop it. Please.

207

I don’t have much time now, but I thought I’d respond to this point. It is quite cut and dry. You can control what happens inside your house, but not the homes of others. I would think you would know enough about the friend and her parents to decide if letting your daughter hang out over there was a good idea. What if they leave guns in accessible locations, for example. Anyway, perhaps suggest to the parents that they look into the filtering programs that you use. The thought of actually regulating all Internet content for indeceny is a task worthy of Sisyphus! I seriously doubt if it will ever happen, or if it does, if it would ever be enforceable.

208

[quote]rainjack wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
I did too! Then you said there were fewer quality choices today.

What is your definition of quality, mertdawg? There is a huge difference in quality and family friendly.
[/quote]

Not sure. I think family friendly would mean that you can trust that your kids could watch an episode by themselves without worrying about what they see. Quality would mean that you don’t get up after a 30 minute show and say: that was a total waste of time! There are too many shows like that now. I don’t watch ANY show now on a weekly basis at home-I don’t have cable. When I spend time at my parents house, I’ll watch ESPN or Fox News or the History Channel or Episodes of Star Trek TNG. And my the way, that was a good show, but if your kids watched that, you may still have to explain to them what it meant when they said that the Taldreans from Tannis four were tri-sexual.

The truth is, you can find almost any “family friendly” show from the early 80s on cable almost anytime, and your kids probably haven’t seen it yet.

Zeb just said: Wrong again my friend! My kids watch very little TV because of the scum that is currently programmed! That is my very point! Options that used to be available to children are drying up faster than Janet Jacksons career.

Is it fewer options or is it more scummy TV shows?

209

[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
ZEB, I would be interested in having you mention 5-6 quality TV shows from the late 70s or early 80s that you wish your kids had the “choice” to watch something like today.

It’s not a matter of listing a bunch of late 70’s TV shows. The point is that the lineup was clean, very suitable for children. Todays prime time lineup is filled with adult themed program unsuitable for children.

I thought I sort of made that clear maybe 7 posts ago…
[/quote]

I don’t know how clean some of those late 70’s/ early 80’s primetime shows were.

Three’s Company - The show was filled with sexual humor. And gay humor, too.

Bosom Buddies - Two guys dress as girls to live in an all-woman apartment building. Need I say more?

Dukes of Hazard - Everybody was hitting on Daisy…and her shorts! C’mon ZEB, her cut-offs and tiny flannel tops were as bad as anything on today.

All in the Family - Archie Bunker was the most racist man on TV. Every other thing to come out of his mouth was inappropriate for children’s ears.

Charlie’s Angels - An Aaron Spelling production. Nuff said.

Miami Vice - Cops, drugs and prostitution.

Soap - Featured every topic; homosexuality, infidelity, sexual performance problems, etc.

And let’s not forget all the night time soap operas; Dallas, Knot’s Landing, Dynasty, and more.

I don’t think prime time TV is any better or any worse than it was 20-25 years ago. I think that since there’s literally 100 more channels now, that means there is a lot more garbage to be seen. But there’s also a lot more quality TV, too. I think mertdawg mentioned the History Channel as one example.

It all comes down to this; there is more exposure to media outlets; the internet, more television channels; so there is going to be more garbage on TV. All of this “free space” can’t possibly be filled with only quality programming.

I still say your kids need to be out climbing trees, dammit!

Come and knock on our door…
We’ve been waiting for you…

210

And ZEB, you can get the entire series of Little House on DVD for 30 bucks.

211

I really am missing some of these arguments…

The History Channel?
The Learning Channel?
Animal Planet?
The Health Channel?
PBS?
Discovery Channel?
Disney? (and Disney even divides their fare into the most “Family Friendly”)
A&E?

Dora? Bob the Builder? Sesame Street? The Cartoon Channel?

Even if you long for the “clean” days of the 50’s and 60’s…there is “TV Land”, “Nick at Nite”…and you can purchase just about EVERY Classic Show in Box Sets!

The TV is a TOOL, folks…that can be used in whatever way you see fit for you and your family.

To blame what comes INTO it on others is a bit confusing to me…

Mufasa

212

[quote]ZEB wrote:
“2004 Super Bowl: Nielsen estimates that 6.6 million kids 2-11 were watching at about the time that CBS’s little halftime fiasco developed when Justin Timberlake ripped off a piece of Jackson’s bodice, exposing her right breast to the nationwide audience. Another 7.3 million teens 12-17 were tuned in at that time as well.”[/quote]

I also just wanted to touch on this. What 2 year old would even know what was going on? How many 2 year olds were following every play and keeping track of the score in the game when…“Oh my, was that a breast? It has warped my wee little mind forever!!” I was watching the half time show and it was flashed so quickly that I didn’t even see a nipple ring until the news later replayed it 500 times and freeze-framed the image. Again, in that instance, the backlash was much larger and disproportionate to the act itself. If the media didn’t blow it up like they did, I seriously doubt any kid who saw that would be scarred in any way. It was a breast. Every single kid watching had more than likely been sucking on of those just years earlier…but now it is cause for panic? Why? Because you say so?

213

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I really am missing some of these arguments…

The History Channel?
The Learning Channel?
Animal Planet?
The Health Channel?
PBS?
Discovery Channel?
Disney? (and Disney even divides their fare into the most “Family Friendly”)
A&E?

Dora? Bob the Builder? Sesame Street? The Cartoon Channel?

Even if you long for the “clean” days of the 50’s and 60’s…there is “TV Land”, “Nick at Nite”…and you can purchase just about EVERY Classic Show in Box Sets!

The TV is a TOOL, folks…that can be used in whatever way you see fit for you and your family.

To blame what comes INTO it on others is a bit confusing to me…

Mufasa[/quote]

Agreed. The cartoon channel goes pretty far to seemingly keep things clean for kids until late at night. There are no commercials even for things other than kid stuff. I used to hate not having cable as a kid because I never got to watch the Discovery channel. I was into things like that and the only alternative on regular tv was PBS. I don’t understand this all out assault of x-rated images that Zeb is experiencing, not only on his tv, but at the bookstore and on every billboard. Maybe his tv gets stations that most of us have to pay for with a security code.

If I remember right, wasn’t All In The Family one of the most controversial shows out in the late 70’s-early 80’s? Some of things that show touched on wouldn’t even be appropriate now so I don’t understand his longing for the “glory days” of television.

Much like football, things were never that damned innocent.

214

This thread has spun completely out of control.

215

[quote]rainjack wrote:
This thread has spun completely out of control.

[/quote]

I don’t think it’s out of control. Yeah, it has went out on a slight tangent, but I think it’s still a good, clean debate.

216

[quote]malonetd wrote:
rainjack wrote:
This thread has spun completely out of control.

I don’t think it’s out of control. Yeah, it has went out on a slight tangent, but I think it’s still a good, clean debate.[/quote]

He’s upset because one of his fellow conservatives isn’t backing up his claims too well.

217

I know I’m a little late, so forgive me please.
It doesn’t matter what laws are eliminated or what new ones are passed.
The only things I haven’t done so far are murder and rape. No law ever stopped me from doing anything. The problem is the lack of emphasis on enforcing the laws that exist.Except for tax laws. If you try to pick Uncle Sams pocket, he will kick your ass.
Folks that think that drugs don’t hurt anyone but the user never saw the crack babies that populate my neighborhood.They also never owed money to a dealer.It’s not all happy hippy shit once you get past street level.Thats where people get hurt.Thats also where the dime bags of the “kind bud” originate.

218

Oh, I forgot, The thing about me comitting crimes, That was a long time ago, and a lot has changed.

219

[quote]Professor X wrote:
He’s upset because one of his fellow conservatives isn’t backing up his claims too well.[/quote]

Yeah - that’s what it is Prof. When have I ever quit a debate?

I’m suprised you didn’t predict me saying this a couple of days ago.

220

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yeah - that’s what it is Prof. When have I ever quit a debate?

I’m suprised you didn’t predict me saying this a couple of days ago.
[/quote]

I did, actually, but the vision I had of you dressing in your wife’s undergarments when she isn’t home cancelled it out.