Monday Night Football Opening

[mojorisin]

I'm just trying to compromise. If it were up to me, all network television would be wholesome family entertainment. Adults can get pay channels if they want to watch graphic content.

Why compromise? If people want to watch that type of programming they can get cable. I would have no problem with this.

 

[mojorisin]

What you're NOT going to have is Mom taking her clothes off and having sex with your Dad right there in front of you.

You never know these days

 

[Tonio]

I'm torn about this. On one hand, I don't want to expose my daughters to language or sexual content or violent content on TV. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of the government regulating content. Even responsible broadcasters, ones who would never think of airing obscene content, say that government involvement scares most broadcasters from airing anything that might get them in trouble, like stuff on controversial social issues. I guess as a parent, I want to be the one that decides what's appropriate for my kids, and I don't like the idea of some bureaucrat or political appointee making that decision for me.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm torn about this.

What a surprise.

I guess as a parent, I want to be the one that decides what's appropriate for my kids, and I don't like the idea of some bureaucrat or political appointee making that decision for me.

The only reason I care about what YOUR kids watch is because then they go to school and tell MY kids aaaaallllllll about it. What YOU think is appropriate isn't necessarily what I think is appropriate. Then YOUR son goes to school and sexually harrasses MY daughter because he thinks it's okay because he sees it on TV. Then YOUR daughter dresses like a hooch and has sex with boys, then taunts MY daughter for being a "baby" because she's not doing the same thing.

Now all this "your" business is purely hypothetical - I'm not literally talking about your, Tonio's, children. I'm talking about kids in general.

I think Austin Powers is too graphic for pre-teens and younger. Our daughters' friends' parents didn't think so and our girls were the "babies" because they hadn't seen the movies. Our 15 year old could probably see it now, but at the time she was far too young, in my opinion. And our now 13 year old was DEFINITELY too young.

The 15 year old's best girlfriend gets to do pretty much whatever she wants. She brought that David Bowie movie - Velvet something-or-another - to the bebe mama's house when they were all spending the night there. Imagine the bebe mama's surprise when she went downstairs to see graphic sex on her TV set! She said, "Anna, where did you get that movie???!!!" Reply? "My folks got it for me for my birthday."

So, no offense, but I don't trust you to know what is and isn't appropriate for your children. And I'm not willing to subject my children to your poor judgements and social experiments.

 

[SoMDGuy1980]

What a surprise.

The only reason I care about what YOUR kids watch is because then they go to school and tell MY kids aaaaallllllll about it. What YOU think is appropriate isn't necessarily what I think is appropriate. Then YOUR son goes to school and sexually harrasses MY daughter because he thinks it's okay because he sees it on TV. Then YOUR daughter dresses like a hooch and has sex with boys, then taunts MY daughter for being a "baby" because she's not doing the same thing.

Now all this "your" business is purely hypothetical - I'm not literally talking about your, Tonio's, children. I'm talking about kids in general.

I think Austin Powers is too graphic for pre-teens and younger. Our daughters' friends' parents didn't think so and our girls were the "babies" because they hadn't seen the movies. Our 15 year old could probably see it now, but at the time she was far too young, in my opinion. And our now 13 year old was DEFINITELY too young.

The 15 year old's best girlfriend gets to do pretty much whatever she wants. She brought that David Bowie movie - Velvet something-or-another - to the bebe mama's house when they were all spending the night there. Imagine the bebe mama's surprise when she went downstairs to see graphic sex on her TV set! She said, "Anna, where did you get that movie???!!!" Reply? "My folks got it for me for my birthday."

So, no offense, but I don't trust you to know what is and isn't appropriate for your children. And I'm not willing to subject my children to your poor judgements and social experiments.

Very good point, vraiblonde. I never thought about government regulation that way, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[mojorisin]

What YOU think is appropriate isn't necessarily what I think is appropriate.

Exactly my point. What you find offensive might not be offensive to me or vise versa. This is why they should move it all to cable.

 

[Tonio]

So, no offense, but I don't trust you to know what is and isn't appropriate for your children. And I'm not willing to subject my children to your poor judgements and social experiments.

While I hate being judged by other people, it sounds like you're just using me as an example, and you don't mean that personally. (At least I hope you don't.)

My wife and I are pretty strict with what we let our kids watch. In fact, they almost never watch anything that isn't off a tape or DVD that we chose ourselves. They get a maximum of one tape or DVD a day, unless it's during a long trip.

And yes, you're completely right about other kids being a bad influence. That's playing a huge part in our decisions about where to send our kids to school. I've seen students at schools where you can tell the parents have zero interest in the kids' learning. I've been at kids' events where parents completely ignore their kids and let them run riot, while the parents go off and yammer with other adults. No wonder their daughters turn into hoochie mamas (cute phrase, Vrai.)

As far as TV is concerned, I think a better solution would be for parents to band together to publicly boycott any network (and its sponsors) that shows inappropriate material during family viewing time. I'm a free-market conservative about this--we as consumers have the ultimate control in the marketplace, and we should use that power to make broadcasters more responsible. If the NFL wants to cater to horny Maxim-reading guys, then it should hold the games after 11 p.m. I don't think I trust the government to make broadcasters more responsible, because these are the same bureaucrats who perpetuate welfare and underperforming schools and $500 hammers.

 

[vraiblonde]

While I hate being judged by other people, it sounds like you're just using me as an example, and you don't mean that personally. (At least I hope you don't.)

Now all this "your" business is purely hypothetical - I'm not literally talking about your, Tonio's, children. I'm talking about kids in general.

Let's get something straight. I'll judge you if I want and as I see fit. It is my right, as a citizen of the free United States, to make judgements regarding other people. If you don't like it, that is your problem and not mine.

Here is your lecture:

You, Tonio, and people like you are the problem. You shrink from judging others and you get all offended if anyone DARES judge you. You don't have the balls to say "That's wrong" and you definitely don't want anyone telling you that YOU are wrong. You want to be able to do any stupid thing you please and not ever have anyone call you on it. Nor will you call anyone on the stupid things THEY do that are a detriment to society and our general welfare.

You don't trust yourself or your judgement, which is why you hesitate to call a wrong a wrong. Well, guess what? I don't trust you, either. Does that surprise you? Why should it? You know yourself better than I do and if YOU don't trust you, why should I???

Now, you can get all pissed off and offended, or you can think about what I just said. The choice is yours and I will judge you accordingly.

 

[Tonio]

Vrai, you don't get my point about judgment. All of us are judged on our words and actions all the time, and that's the way it should be. I'm accountable for what I say and do, and I welcome that accountability. I'm saying there's a distinction between judging a person's actions and a person's worth.

Plus, the idea of telling strangers how to live their lives just sounds rude to me. There may be times when it's warranted, but I don't have a clear idea of when. Sure, if I have solid evidence that someone I know is abusing their spouse or their children, damn right I'm going to call the authorities. But if they're letting their 5-year-old watch "Girls Gone Wild," do I have any legal or ethical justification for intervening, even though they're not doing right by the child? Maybe all I can do as a parent is not to have my family associate with that family, or at least not have my children play at that house. What would you do in that hypothetical situation?

 

[SmallTown]

ST, what part of "public airwaves" do you not understand? Make the stuff that's accessible to everyone PG at the very most. If you want more, you can get cable and pay for it.

This is part of that whole liberal bullshit argument - "Well, I shouldn't HAVE to pay to see naked women! I shouldn't HAVE to pay to see sex on TV! What if I can't afford it????"

Yea, tight-ass convervatives want to have sesame street playing 24-7.

If that monday night football intro is what you call watching sex on TV, your honeymoon must have been incredible

 

[Larry Gude]

God, that was EZ!!!

IE no cussing, nudity or other crap you see on the major networks these days. I would leave the pay channels alone.

Good man.

I have no problem with Chappel and South Park being on later, 10pm on, and we can buy or rent damn near anything we'd like, either for ourselves or our children so there is not even a censorship issue to begin with.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm saying there's a distinction between judging a person's actions and a person's worth.

I disagree. I think a person's actions determine their worth.

Plus, the idea of telling strangers how to live their lives just sounds rude to me.

I'm not afraid to be rude to people who are being rude themselves and subjecting my children to their own warped morals. At some point we need to stand up, as a society, and say, "You can't do that. It's wrong and we will not tolerate it."

What would you do in that hypothetical situation?

I'd refuse to associate with them and tell them why - because they're immature, irresponsible dirtbags. There's probably not a law against letting your kid watch porn, let alone Girls Gone Wild, so there's nothing more you can do about it other than shun them.

 

[Tonio]

Yea, tight-ass convervatives want to have sesame street playing 24-7.

SmallTown, both liberals and conservatives are concerned about what's on TV, even though their concerns are often about different types of objectional content. You don't have to be a tight-lipped purtian (small p, not the Pilgrim kind) to agree that, say, MTV went too far during the Super Bowl.

 

[vraiblonde]

we can buy or rent damn near anything we'd like, either for ourselves or our children so there is not even a censorship issue to begin with.

Exactly. These nutties cry "censorship" over the damndest things. Stern thinks he was censored because a particular radio conglomerate wouldn't run his show anymore. That's not censorship.

People cry "censorship" when they can't use certain language on here. That's not censorship, either.

Censorship is when you are effectively silenced, not when a company decides not to give you a public forum for your views. If you are still free to attract an audience in another venue, you haven't been censored.

 

[vraiblonde]

If that monday night football intro is what you call watching sex on TV, your honeymoon must have been incredible

Just the sort of juvenile remark I'd expect from someone like you.

 

[dems4me]

SOLD! I don't watch network TV but I might if it wasn't a bunch of stupid garbage.

What are your preferred viewing channels? :shrug:

 

[SmallTown]

SmallTown, both liberals and conservatives are concerned about what's on TV, even though their concerns are often about different types of objectional content. You don't have to be a tight-lipped purtian (small p, not the Pilgrim kind) to agree that, say, MTV went too far during the Super Bowl.

Concerned? Yes. Having everything be staight laced PG? Hardly. Networks put out shows that people want to watch. They do this because the more people who watch, the more money they get from advertisers. It is simple math. If it was shown that viewership is dropping as fast as Vrai would like it to, then they would change to meet the current market.

 

[SmallTown]

Just the sort of juvenile remark I'd expect from someone like you.

 

[vraiblonde]

What are your preferred viewing channels? :shrug:

Cable news, Discovery, History Channel, Food Network, AMC.

 

[dems4me]

Cable news, Discovery, History Channel, Food Network, AMC.

All my children? What about lifetime for women channel, or biography, animal or any history channels :shrug: