Which Laws Should be Abolished?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

No, you don’t seem to get it, and you won’t until you have children of your own, and mature a bit more.

I never once stated that it was your responsiblity, or anyone elese’s. All I am asking for is a break from the constant bombardment of inappropriate material coming from the media. My specific request relative to TV: Place mature programming on at a later time.

You seem to think it’s easy to prevent children form seeing, hearing and then copying such things. Your “do your job as a parent” is old and out of touch! Did you read what other parents want form the surveys I posted? Did you walk away as ignorant of their desires as you did before you read them? I guess you did.

Your following statement proves how little you know, yet how much you think you know:

“Why do I seem to know more about what your kids would be fine seeing than you seem to be?”

Just like the guy who knows more about lifting weights than you do, yet he has never touched a weight. You get a kick out of folks like that. And I am getting a kick out of you…you nut LOL :slight_smile:

You just “know” huh? Was it a bolt of lightening that has given you your divine seer like powers?

LOL…

222

[quote]malonetd wrote:
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…

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!

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

Mine are doing other things as I have repeatedly stated. I am speaking to a the broader issue of children and television.

Here are more facts for you.

"Children spend more time watching television than in any other activity except sleep. - Huston and Wright, University of Kansas. “Television and Socialization of Young Children.”

“44% of kids say they watch something different when they’re alone than with their parents (25% choose MTV)”

Hey…wait a minute 44% watch something different? Those rotten parents are not doing thier job professor would claim! Like I stated earlier: If some guy plants enough landmines in some poor guys yard he is bound to step in one and be harmed for life…

This is not a “parents fault” issue. It’s a clean up the media issue!

By the way all most of the programs that you listed had did use sexual innuendos. That is relatively harmless compared to what is promoted as “normal” in todays television programs. Guys have been putting on dresses for as long as there has been comedy. Ever hear of Milton Berle?

Three’s company was totally harmless compared to just about any of the top prime time shows of today…no comparison, and I think you know that.

223

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
And ZEB, you can get the entire series of Little House on DVD for 30 bucks. [/quote]

My daughter requested that for her birthday (among other things). Again, as I have stated repeatedly (you guys have got to read all of the posts) this is a problem for every parent throughout the country! Many parents do not have the option of making an extra purchase in order to replace what used to be free and family oriented.

224

[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]

The TV is a tool that is broken! The prime time lineup is filled with trash. This argument also transcends the TV! It is a global media problem.

225

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.”

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?[/quote]

That happens to be a statistic. You chose the low end of the spectrum to make a weak point. Let’s now look at the majority of the spectrum for a little reality.

Do you feel the same way about the 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 year olds as well? In your liberal wonderland do you care about those groups? Do they not count because YOU didn’t mention them?

226

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]

All In The Family was a controversial show, no question. However, it was also easy to avoid one or two shows from the 70’s or early 80’s. Do you think that that programs are getting better for children? Is that the point that you are trying to make by mentioning an exception?

I’d like to read that post. Show me how prime time TV has become more family oriented. If not then I guess your little All In The Family example is full of crap :slight_smile:

227

More facts:

“A majority of parents say they are “very” concerned about the amount of sex (60%) and violence (53%) their children are exposed to on TV. After being read arguments on both sides of the issue, nearly two-thirds of parents (63%) say they favor new regulations to limit the amount of sex and violence in TV shows during the early evening hours, when children are most likely to be watching (35% are opposed). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.”

Point being, as I have stated numerous times: “early evening hours” or prime time viewing has become unsuitable for families.

228

Anyone really want to debate that “Three’s Company” and a host of other 70’s programming was even close to the mature oriented prime time shows that we have now?

“In a sample of programming from the 2001-2002 TV season, sexual content appeared in 64% of all TV programs. Those programs with sexually related material had an average of 4.4 scenes per hour. Talk of sex is more frequent (61%) vs. overt portrayals (32%). 1 out of every 7 programs includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse.”

If you think that the above is suitable prime time viewing for young children, you have a real problem!

To those who say “turn it off” I agree. My point being (as it has always been) how come (good) parents are denied access to good family programming during prime time hours? One could make an argument that Hollywood is discriminating against the family. Why does the professors (or anyone else) right to watch mature programs during prime time, trump my right as a parent to watch more family oriented shows during prime time?

Seems that we could have both types of programs if we only moved the adult oriented themed shows to a later time.

Make sense? It does to the majority of parents in the United States.

229

All in the Family and Threes Company began life as 9PM EST shows. The 8PM hour was family hour.

After 10PM I could care less how much the networks want to get away with. They could show porn for all I care, because that is the adult hours of TV. Children should be in bed. The 8PM time slot should be family shows.

With today’s cable we have so many choices. My kids ask to watch the Discovery Channel. When I was growing up all we had was Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom and Jaque Coustoue (sp).

My daughter was answering questions in her history class and when asked where she was learning this her responce was “My dad only lets us watch the History channel, Discover channel, and the Science channels”.

I agree that we as parents can turn the box off or choose a more family oriented shows. I would like to see the major networks again plan family shows for the 8 PM hour.

230

[quote]ZEB wrote:
All In The Family was a controversial show, no question. However, it was also easy to avoid one or two shows from the 70’s or early 80’s. Do you think that that programs are getting better for children? Is that the point that you are trying to make by mentioning an exception?
[/quote]

The point I am making is that there are enough options for this not to be that much of a concern for you. You can now literally BLOCK any channels you don’t want your kids to see. That means you are arguing for no reason. If you have the power to censor your own home to that degree, why the hell do you care about what I play in my home? THAT is the point you don’t seem to be getting.

There are HUNDREDS of kids’ shows on tv and children’s networks are several on cable. Nickelodeon, the cartoon network (before 10pm), The Discovery channel, etc. You have too many options to be claiming that your kids are being forced to watch porn. They aren’t. Anyone claiming that today with all of the options available needs to step up and do what they need to do in their own homes and quit trying to regulate everyone else.

In effect, YES, there are more children’s shows available today than there were in the 70’s and 80’s and more ways for you to monitor what they watch. You seem to have some need to regulate the world when all you need to be doing is worrying about your own house. Being conservative, though, that doesn’t surprise me.

231

[quote]ZEB wrote:
1 out of every 7 programs includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse."
[/quote]

How can you tell they are not just having a non-intercourse intimate moment? I mean, if they are not married…

Plus, come to think of it, I don’t think you even see deep kissing, tongues on the networks. Maybe rarely and very late.

The thing is, I think TV programmers have figured out that the kids are now playing video games 10 hours a day, and the parents are watching more of the TV shows with the kids in another room.

232

Anything that affects or restricts personal liberty. No one is moral enough to decide any mans actions.

233

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
How can you tell they are not just having a non-intercourse intimate moment? I mean, if they are not married…

Plus, come to think of it, I don’t think you even see deep kissing, tongues on the networks. Maybe rarely and very late.

The thing is, I think TV programmers have figured out that the kids are now playing video games 10 hours a day, and the parents are watching more of the TV shows with the kids in another room.
[/quote]

Why should there even have to be that kind of hair splitting in Prime time? The 7:00 - 8:00 time slot was supposed to be family programming. It hasn’t been that in a long time.

Why should those with children be treated as second class? Why must the networks cater to the 20-something calss of selfish idiots? They damn sure don’t spend the money that a middle-class family of 4 does.

Look at the movies. With the rare exception of a ‘Titanic’, the 10 box office draws every year are children’s/family oriented movies. Can’t network TV see this? Yet they cater to the selfish young adult crowd as if they have any money.

I guess that’s why the networks that Mufasa mentioned are making money, and the networks are losing viewers faster than Hilary can lose billing records.

234

[quote]Is the $500,000 fine to high for Titigate? Maybe so, but I look at it this way. If you speed down the road 50 times and never get a ticket, don’t complain if you get nailed with a big fine on your 51st attempt!
[/quote]

Why don’t we make it a $10,000,000 fine then? And have the same for speeding, and jaywalking, and turning right on red. Then no one would commit crimes, right? The punishment should fit the crime. I could let four elderly care patients wander outside in the winter and have them die from hypothermia and be fined less than half than if I had said “shit” on TV.

The fines apply to individuals as well, not just the networks.

235

[quote]rainjack wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
How can you tell they are not just having a non-intercourse intimate moment? I mean, if they are not married…

Plus, come to think of it, I don’t think you even see deep kissing, tongues on the networks. Maybe rarely and very late.

The thing is, I think TV programmers have figured out that the kids are now playing video games 10 hours a day, and the parents are watching more of the TV shows with the kids in another room.

Why should there even have to be that kind of hair splitting in Prime time? The 7:00 - 8:00 time slot was supposed to be family programming. It hasn’t been that in a long time.

Why should those with children be treated as second class? Why must the networks cater to the 20-something calss of selfish idiots? They damn sure don’t spend the money that a middle-class family of 4 does.

Look at the movies. With the rare exception of a ‘Titanic’, the 10 box office draws every year are children’s/family oriented movies. Can’t network TV see this? Yet they cater to the selfish young adult crowd as if they have any money.

I guess that’s why the networks that Mufasa mentioned are making money, and the networks are losing viewers faster than Hilary can lose billing records.

[/quote]
A very large majority of shows are family oriented during that time slot. When does Smallville or other shows like that come on? You all are acting as if things are different when this is how they have been. When did 90210 used to come on? And then Melrose place right after? Yes, those shows did and have been the largest grossing viewership for a long time, not kiddie shows at that time of night. Like was stated before, the cable networks offer several children based networks and programs. Exactly how much more programming do you think is necessary for kids when most watch too much tv as it is?

The average kid spends more time on a Playstation than worrying about what shows YOU may want them to watch. Why not simply turn the tv off? Why do you want them in front of the televison so much? As a babysitter?

236

Here is a novel idea.If you don’t like what is on t.v. turn it off.Teach your kids how to read and then let them. All of this crap about changing the networks programing and issuing fines is just a bunch of crap.Provide your children with good reading materials and let them run with it.They are cheap too. A library card costs next to nothing and gives access to an unlimited supply of books.Little House on The Prarie was originally a book series.Get that for the kids.
I did this with my neice.It realy does work.She read all the time now, has a great attention span, high comprehension level and is very creative. Had to start young though, like when she was 5-6 years old.You also have to set a good example by doing. Nothing spurrs a kids curiosity like doing something mysterious. Something like reading a book. Too bad that would require parents to become pro active in the life of their children, instead if sitting there like a fatass and complaining about the content of the television programing.
It also gives a great deal of control over the content. And you don’t have to live in a fantasy land where you think billion dollar industries are going to change because you think they should.
Maybee we should start fining parents for being lazy and unrealistic.Wonder where the kids these days get it?

237

[quote]Professor X wrote:
A very large majority of shows are family oriented during that time slot. When does Smallville or other shows like that come on? You all are acting as if things are different when this is how they have been. When did 90210 used to come on? And then Melrose place right after? Yes, those shows did and have been the largest grossing viewership for a long time, not kiddie shows at that time of night. Like was stated before, the cable networks offer several children based networks and programs. Exactly how much more programming do you think is necessary for kids when most watch too much tv as it is?[/quote]

All programming in the 7:00 - 8:00 hour should be family oriented - not just a majority. We don’t watch primtime broadcast TV because of the trash that is passed off as fimily programing - with the exception of American Idol.

[quote]The average kid spends more time on a Playstation than worrying about what shows YOU may want them to watch. Why not simply turn the tv off? Why do you want them in front of the televison so much? As a babysitter?
[/quote]

You are in absolutely no position to be opining, or divining what happens in my house. I will put my child rearing skills up against yours any day.

Oh - that’s right, you are a spoiled 20-something who has all the answers. Try having a kid before you become an expert. And yes - you do have to have one before you can develop a frame of reference from which to speak. Because as it stands right now, you are in left field with your head firmly wedged between your ass cheeks on this subject. But you probably knew at least 3 days ago that I was going to say that.

238

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The 7:00 - 8:00 time slot was supposed to be family programming. It hasn’t been that in a long time.
[/quote]

I don’t really watch TV much nowadays, except sports, so maybe I just have no idea what “garbage” is being shown during family hour.

Seriously, what is so horrible that is being shown in 7-8 pm time slot?

239

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Seriously, what is so horrible that is being shown in 7-8 pm time slot?[/quote]

I would like to know this as well. Is there some Jenna Jamison special that I didn’t know about?

240

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Oh - that’s right, you are a spoiled 20-something who has all the answers. Try having a kid before you become an expert. And yes - you do have to have one before you can develop a frame of reference from which to speak. Because as it stands right now, you are in left field with your head firmly wedged between your ass cheeks on this subject. But you probably knew at least 3 days ago that I was going to say that.
[/quote]

Also, was this one of those “non insults” that you all don’t throw out but complain about when they come your way? I just want to know. Spoiled? Anything I have I worked for. That is coming from having nothing to even move in a moving van two years ago. If that is spoiled than I might as well be royalty.

I don’t know if you or others have noticed yet, but others with children seem to be agreeing with me. Why is that?