27 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou edited my original post and the point I was making down to nothing and you are dodging the question.
I am not on TV. And I don't watch TV. Last time I checked, there was plenty of masturbation and heterosexual-intercourse on cable TV. Didn't hear you announce the End Of Freedom and the setting up of "1984" vis a vis that. I've suggested you try reading books and stuff. If this Adam Lambert celebrity puff thing has truly got your shorts in an apocapyptic knot a ...[text shortened]... e and yet apparently if they open about their homosexuality they have crossed "the line"?
Goodbye.
27 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWhat has 'masturbating in a queue for a cinema' got to do with Adam Lambert? What question was I dodging? I was taking you to task for, on one hand, lamenting the alleged ongoing loss of your own precious "freedom" because homosexuals are on TV instead of in their closets, and on the other hand you apparently reserving the right to draw "lines" here and there and everywhere defining what you accept as the "freedom" of others. What we believe to be indecent and immoral on TV we can censor ourselves using a small remote control device. The kind of hypocritical spiteful doubleplusgoodthink that people like you seem to want to impose of society is much more pervasive and unfortunately cannot be simply ignored at the press of a button.
You edited my original post and the point I was making down to nothing and you are dodging the question.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMF"doudleplusgoodthink"
What has 'masturbating in a queue for a cinema' got to do with Adam Lambert? What question was I dodging? I was taking you to task for, on one hand, lamenting the alleged ongoing loss of your own precious "freedom" because homosexuals are on TV instead of in their closets, and on the other hand you apparently reserving the right to draw "lines" here and there an ...[text shortened]... much more pervasive and unfortunately cannot be simply ignored at the press of a button.
Are you referring to Adams apple....you know....the one in his pants ?
Absolutely disgusting !
GRANNY.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIf you think that kissing gay men should not be shown on television, you can always vote for someone who proposes to ban such things. As long as it's within the general guidelines drafted by the democratically elected government, you'll just have to accept that networks may show anything that is within those guidelines. And indeed - if you don't like it, don't watch TV.
You bring up good points about reading, hobbies, etc, but you're missing the big picture.
The point people are trying to make is that we have a mass media (TV) that seems to be afraid of offending anyone and is letting a lot of questionable sexual/homosexual garbage make it's way onto any show , and the brainwashed public is in the same 1984 style fe ...[text shortened]... ehaviour needs to go back into the closet a bit for general morality and PUBLIC DECENCY.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNow to understand you correctly, I think you are saying that this show - which you think must offend many people - was broadcast in order to avoid offending anybody and that makes no sense. I see no evidence of timidity about offending at least certain people who are looking to be offended. So the rest of your comment somewhat fails to impress.
[b]You bring up good points about reading, hobbies, etc, but you're missing the big picture.
The point people are trying to make is that we have a mass media (TV) that seems to be afraid of offending anyone and is letting a lot of questionable sexual/homosexual garbage make it's way onto any show ,
I am not at all happy with the media projection of sexuality in pop culture which I agree is garbage (good a word as any other here; it is exploitative especially of women) but I think it is right and proper to acknowledge that, once this culture is accepted (as it is of course - whether I like it or not), we must expect and accept that some of the sexual behaviours expressed will be between consenting homosexuals or lesbians. No more shocking than having to tell my children about the stork.
You can see why I prefer chess.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFI don't believe that is prejudice, people can't just do whatever they want on tv (without warning) and get away with it, if people felt it was over the top they have every right to complain, they're simply using their freedom of speech.
Regardless of your frustrations and prejudices, turning off the TV, encouraging your kids to take up hobbies and to read, are all good ideas I think. Who wants to be mired in debating the miniscule degrees of how trashy trash TV is? Getting het up by this kind of stuff suggest that you yourself could perhaps seize life by the lapels and look for more meaningful stuff to animate your critical faculties.
Your comment about hobbies and encouraging his kids to read is somewhat condescending, it was uncalled for.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThat is precisely the difference as I understand they went on to simulate buggery which naturally disgusts normal people. Perverts can of course do what they like in private but not in public.
Then why didn't you just say "people kissing in public"? Why did you single out homosexuals, as if that's what made the difference?
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusDisgusts "normal" people? Normal in what way?
That is precisely the difference as I understand they went on to simulate buggery which naturally disgusts normal people. Perverts can of course do what they like in private but not in public.
How do you define perversion?
Why should your definition trump someone else's?
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe vast majority of people would so define it, I think. The alternative position is reminiscent of the proverbial 'awkward squad' which was out of step with rest of the regiment.
Disgusts "normal" people? Normal in what way?
How do you define perversion?
Why should your definition trump someone else's?
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo? I suppose you think you are being clever, but here the 'argumentum' very much turns on the position adopted by the 'populus', both literally and metaphorically speaking, since the question is all about what is acceptable to the majority as a public spectacle.
argumentum ad populum
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusAnd as I pointed out, what is acceptable to the majority is determined by the democratically elected government, which dictates the things that are not allowed to be shown on public television channels. Right now kissing gay men are allowed. Don't like it? Vote for someone who will ban it.
So? I suppose you think you are being clever, but here the 'argumentum' very much turns on the position adopted by the 'populus', both literally and metaphorically speaking, since the question is all about what is acceptable to the majority as a public spectacle.