It's Official: Christian Conservatives Flooding FCC With Complaints...

Do those shows have the F bomb in them?

No. See, hypocrisy is not making distinctions between two different things.

Again, I can't comment on the opening of SPR because I never saw it.

 

I hear ABC will air "Terrence and Phillip - Asses Of Fire" next week.

 

When you draw a fine enough line things can get interesting. Those shows have "ass" and "bitch," NYPD Blue has the s-word and the f-"bomb." The adult content of the other two far outweighs language constraints. In the end I would rather discipline my kid for using a bad word or two than viewing violence as ok, or being exposed to sex too early.

 

Art=profanity therefore it is OK?

No, that is a terrible justification for the unrestricted profanity you seem to advocate.

If someone wants to make a movie that is shown in theatres and it contains whatever, fine with me. But don't put that movie on prime time TV and expect me to adjust to it. That is irresponsible and unfair.

Ultimately I could throw out my TV but again, why am I the one that has to adjust to the slippery slope that some seem to prefer. Just because some ignore the profanity doesn't make it acceptable. Anyone who cannot convey a reasonable idea without resorting to profanity needs to go back to elementary school and study vocabulary.

 

Now here is a good parent! I think the best way to raise a child is not by hiding things from him/her but showing them what things do to people. Wether its drugs, war, sex, etc... It should be something you show your child that has consequences. If not they will be misinformed and with things like drugs they will probably beleive the first friend that says "nothing is going to happen just try it" rather than if they wouldve met some people who have problems with drugs and discussed the effects of them, they would have learned that bad things really do happen, rather than it being something you stay away from because of god knows why.

 

James Dobson in a nutshell. How do you feel about that?

 

Profanity does not equal art but this movie is. And the movie is trying to convey as real as possible the realities of war. Sure you can take out the foul lauinguage but you know what, if you were to join the army thats exactly how people would talk in war. Or do you think soldiers in Iraq havent cursed since they got there? Speilberg was trying to replicate everything during those times and the language people spoke is one if them.

You can easily reverse the statement that you made to the other side of the coin. But ultimately I would rather have a choice in the matter than be blinded by a group that disagrees with a piece of art, book, idea or speech.

 

Holla.

I guess I can't wrap my fingers around AFA's outrage partly because of how my parents raised me. I spent most nights reading and playing (non-video) games instead of watching TV. If I did watch TV, it was whatever my parents had on - news or movies. And my parents let me watch pretty adult stuff, but they always gave the obligatory "The character in this film did this, but that's because he's a bad guy" lesson.

So I suppose it's hard for me to understand television as the primary source of entertainment. To me, TV programming has always been as much a matter of choice as rented videos and first-run movies in theaters.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I may have tried to say that art=representation of reality, wherein reality in this case = combat, and combat, to be fully and accurately represented, in the view of Stephen Spielberg, requires the use of profanity. But in reality, I said art=profanity.

Anyway, In the hands of the guy who directed All Quiet on the Western Front in, like, 1930, depicting war did not require profanity, and that,as I said, is a much, much better film than SPR.

Yes. That's exactly what I advocated. I wish the liberals would gain power and require Christians to swear in their services, and hell, even blaspheme their God. I may have thought I was requiring that people take responsibility for what comes into their homes, but in reality, I was calling for unrestricted profanity.

Responsibiliity in this case is exactly where it belongs: with the individual viewers.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you let your son play with toy guns?

 

I don't know how old you are, skip, but when I was growing up we had 6 channels, and I didn't have a TV in my bedroom until I was 16, and even then it was a 13" B/W TV with the aforementioned 6 channels.

I read all the time growing up, and it's a habit I encourage. My ex doesn't read very often, so I make it a point when my son is with me to expose him to reading as much as possible. It can be as simple as reading the paper everyday. I read at least 2 papers a day, and my son asked me why I did it. Once I explained it, he wanted to know what was going on in the paper, as well.

There is no better habit than reading the newspaper, everyday. Not just the sports, but all of it. It will rub off on your children. My dad read the paper everyday and I caught on just like my son is now.

 

Coach - good job on being a good parent.

I think.

Is it in our best interests to teach our children that war is hell? I mean, who fights our wars? 18-23 yr old kids, suckered into believing the whole nobility of of armed service, valorous battles, etc etc. After fighting and killing, they know its all a BS facade, but ain't gonna let on too much because, well, the VFW is a good place to get away from the wife and have a few beers, y'know?

If our kids all knew war was hell, they wouldn't join the army. Or they'd want to be paid better if they did. Either way, we'd no longer staff our armed forces with a representative slice of the population - yep, we'd move towards having a bunch of poor kids there, and then we'd even run into situations where our homegrown american officers are overseeing a bunch of furriners from mexico, puerto rico, and elsewhere - soldiers fighting for the US only for the benefits and expedited citizenship.

By then we'd be no different than the romans, gorging ourselves in our prosperity and building our defenses on foreigners, and when push comes to shove, well, the other side just wanted it more, eh?

What I guess I'm trying say is - thanks for jeopardizing our nation's future, coach. Hopefully while watching SPR your kid learned some choice words that will drive you nuts in the next few years...

(j/k)

 

But through all this prose, you still don't answer the basic question; why is it that those who object to this profanity the ones who have to change? It wasn't this way 15 years ago. What is the justification for the change????

 

My ex's family bought him some, but once we noticed how much he was obsessing over them we have taken tham all away. taking them away was just one part of it, though. He had to understand the consequence of guns, as well, so I think his viewing of SPR helped him see what guns can do.

 

He already learned those words from my ex's uncle who owns a garage. We figured that out when he was 2, picked up a screwdriver and said "dammit". Actually, at this point I think he figures all those words are just technical terms for various phases of automotive repair.

 

There is an endless supply of violence to numb him between now and adulthood. You've chosen the long and winding road. Best of luck.

 

I didn't get to this point last time because my boss came out. Anyway... once again, it looks like you're blurring distinctions between personal use of profanity and use of profanity by actors on TV. Like I suggested, I use profanity to convey relatively simple ideas, like "I wish I would quit hitting my head on these beams because it hurts." Spielberg here is using profanity to depict how soldiers act in combat. ABC decided to show this movie as a way of honoring veterans, esp the "Greatest Generation" veterans, of which my father was one. Now, Segroves made a great point early on, in effect that we've managed to honor veterans before SPR came out, and we can probably come up with ways of honoring them after this movie is forgotten. And like I said, I think it is a crummy movie. The battle scenes are harrowing, but some of the non-combat dialog is so corndog... anyway. To me, SPR is bad art, but we live in a society in which good art doesn't tend to have wide appeal, and Spielberg is a popular director, so that's where ABC goes to do what it wants to do. In short, they're making their decision based on the free-market model. Now, this probably shows the limits of markets when it comes to culture and morality, but that's the nature of the society we live in.

I would only add that I just read Skipshady's post, and that may very well be why I don't understand the objections, either. I was raised to understand that TV is not reality, nor is reality limited to what's on TV. That's why I tend to use "it's a big world out there... don't worry about what's on TV" sort of arguments. I mean, maybe it's easier because my wife and I didn't get cable when we moved into our new house, which essentially means we don't have TV, but I should also point out we rent a fair bit of movies, and we have friends of ours tape a tv show for us every week. It's that bastion of obscenity, Joan of Arcadia

 

I'd wondered that. My folks wouldn't let me have them when I was a kid, and I think that was a good thing. Obviously, other children were raised just fine with toy guns around, but I think they're generally a bad idea, at least for children who are too young to understand the difference between TV violence and the real thing.

 

Well, a lot of things aren't the way they are 15 years ago. For instance, why is it that I have to change because of Wal-Mart destroying the businesses downtown that I used to be able to walk to? What is the justification for this change????

I suspect that the answer to the question you pose and the question I pose is similar, if not identical.

 

But I would bet that Wal-Mart would not survive if the greeter met you with, "Good afternoon, M************."

Don't mean to be obstinate but my question still hangs in the air.

 

I'm sick of people splitting the infinitive.

 

Actually, the old stores I used to walk to struck me as much more friendly and real than Wal-Mart, in spite of the greeters at the latter.

What I was getting at is this: we live in a society where the market, and not morality, plays a dominant role in defining popular culture. As long as the market provides significant rewards for media outlets that are "edgier" (or raunchier) and more "real" (or obscene), then the media outlets are going to go that way. Now, what sucks is that SPR is given a mass audience, while AQWF gathers dust at video stores. The other thing that sucks, from my perspective, is that the AFA supports political candidates that favor the unfettered operation of the free market, but it's those very same operations that bring about the changes you mention and in many cases object to.

 

To be honest, the idea of this really makes me want to go to the local Walmart with a wad of cash and pay the greeter to say that as people walk in. The image of a fat lady or an octenagarian throwing that line out with a smile on their face just makes me laugh.

 

Remember this in your old age, and do it.