I see an increasing number of personal ads from couples looking for a bi-woman to participate in threesomes. What is happening to our society? There are two conclusions. Either more woman are gaining lesbian tendencies or their sick husbands/bfs are forcing women into this Vile act. Or tragically it could be both. If woman are becoming more bi who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is obviouly a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the downfall of our society!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
A major decline in morality
- Thread starter wavelength
- Start date
I'm glad to see that your insanity isn't limited to the Philly board. Thats right the media is causing lesbianism! Not at all people tryin to expand their sexuality much like the sexual revolution of the sixties. BLAME THE MEDIA...Can't get it up... MEDIA... Food's cold... MEDIA...
RUN ITS MIKE WALLACE.
RUN ITS MIKE WALLACE.
A
am-fm
Guest
> If woman are becoming more bi
> who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is obviouly
> a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the
> downfall of our society!
A huge deficit, a war in Iraq, and Social Security in need of help and your worried about bisexuals? You know, people dont allways answer thoes ads in the paper. Just look, laugh, and move on.
And if the media is responsible for societies issues, can I sue Comedy Central for making me fat and lazy?
<P ID="signature">______________
AOL IM: wnjoldies or jamminoldies105
CBS-FM lives at http://67.83.115.5:8010
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
> who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is obviouly
> a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the
> downfall of our society!
A huge deficit, a war in Iraq, and Social Security in need of help and your worried about bisexuals? You know, people dont allways answer thoes ads in the paper. Just look, laugh, and move on.
And if the media is responsible for societies issues, can I sue Comedy Central for making me fat and lazy?
<P ID="signature">______________
AOL IM: wnjoldies or jamminoldies105
CBS-FM lives at http://67.83.115.5:8010
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
> > If woman are becoming more bi
> > who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is
> obviouly
> > a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the
>
> > downfall of our society!
>
> A huge deficit, a war in Iraq, and Social Security in need
> of help and your worried about bisexuals? You know, people
> dont allways answer thoes ads in the paper. Just look,
> laugh, and move on.
>
> And if the media is responsible for societies issues, can I
> sue Comedy Central for making me fat and lazy?
>
Are you related to Jerry. Ya know Jerry was a DJ before he became a rassler!
> > who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is
> obviouly
> > a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the
>
> > downfall of our society!
>
> A huge deficit, a war in Iraq, and Social Security in need
> of help and your worried about bisexuals? You know, people
> dont allways answer thoes ads in the paper. Just look,
> laugh, and move on.
>
> And if the media is responsible for societies issues, can I
> sue Comedy Central for making me fat and lazy?
>
Are you related to Jerry. Ya know Jerry was a DJ before he became a rassler!
"I see an increasing number of personal ads from couples looking for a bi-woman to participate in threesomes."
This partial information is not very useful. We need phone numbers.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
This partial information is not very useful. We need phone numbers.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
> I see an increasing number of personal ads from couples
> looking for a bi-woman to participate in threesomes. What
> is happening to our society? There are two conclusions.
> Either more woman are gaining lesbian tendencies or their
> sick husbands/bfs are forcing women into this Vile act. Or
> tragically it could be both. If woman are becoming more bi
> who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is obviouly
> a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the
> downfall of our society!
>
The media is certainly a player in this attitude shift, but I feel a big reason is: in today's culture, shame is as unfashionable as a lime-green leisure suit. Shame used to be a natual deterrent to sexual behavior that had no limits or rules. These days, it's "Anything goes"; "If it feels good, do it". Old standards of sexual behavior are ridiculed, shame is declared unconstitutional, and traditional standards of sexual expression like marriage are being attacked. Gays and Lesbians can celebrate more liberal attitudes in the general public as a good thing, but like any change in societal norms, there is the Dark Side. The removal of shame/guilt in the sexual arena, has also seen a significant increase in sexual abuse among children and minors.
The fact that sexual abuse among children is increasing as society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality is not even argueable. Not to say that gays and lesbians are all child abusers, but a more sexually tolerant society must also accept that removing old sexual mores greenlights more criminal sexual behavior in the eyes of the abuser. Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. When we as a society can allow Michael Jackson to walk free, how can we turn around and point fingers at fallen Catholic priests?
When shame is laughed at, and other people and children become just another adventure in sexual exploration, another facet of respect for human life falls.
Like abortion, murder, and human cloning, shameless sexual adventurism, the devaluation of human life continues unabated. The media is just the cheering spectator to this interactive tragedy, adding approval and encouragement. The real dark deeds are done by decieved individuals. The societies of Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't blame the media for their eventual destruction, and neither will America if history repeats itself.
> looking for a bi-woman to participate in threesomes. What
> is happening to our society? There are two conclusions.
> Either more woman are gaining lesbian tendencies or their
> sick husbands/bfs are forcing women into this Vile act. Or
> tragically it could be both. If woman are becoming more bi
> who do you blame? Is it the media? The answer is obviouly
> a big yes. MTV, Cinemax, HBO, ect are responsible for the
> downfall of our society!
>
The media is certainly a player in this attitude shift, but I feel a big reason is: in today's culture, shame is as unfashionable as a lime-green leisure suit. Shame used to be a natual deterrent to sexual behavior that had no limits or rules. These days, it's "Anything goes"; "If it feels good, do it". Old standards of sexual behavior are ridiculed, shame is declared unconstitutional, and traditional standards of sexual expression like marriage are being attacked. Gays and Lesbians can celebrate more liberal attitudes in the general public as a good thing, but like any change in societal norms, there is the Dark Side. The removal of shame/guilt in the sexual arena, has also seen a significant increase in sexual abuse among children and minors.
The fact that sexual abuse among children is increasing as society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality is not even argueable. Not to say that gays and lesbians are all child abusers, but a more sexually tolerant society must also accept that removing old sexual mores greenlights more criminal sexual behavior in the eyes of the abuser. Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. When we as a society can allow Michael Jackson to walk free, how can we turn around and point fingers at fallen Catholic priests?
When shame is laughed at, and other people and children become just another adventure in sexual exploration, another facet of respect for human life falls.
Like abortion, murder, and human cloning, shameless sexual adventurism, the devaluation of human life continues unabated. The media is just the cheering spectator to this interactive tragedy, adding approval and encouragement. The real dark deeds are done by decieved individuals. The societies of Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't blame the media for their eventual destruction, and neither will America if history repeats itself.
> The media is certainly a player in this attitude shift,
Of course.. Blame the media.. Hey, I work in the media.. Let me tell you something... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT... Goes a long, long way.. Way more than all the V-Chips, Ratings Icons and Parental Locks in the world. Know what your kids are watching, listening to, looking at online and TALK TO THEM.
> The fact that sexual abuse among children is increasing as
> society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality is not even
> argueable. Not to say that gays and lesbians are all child
> abusers, but a more sexually tolerant society must also
> accept that removing old sexual mores greenlights more
> criminal sexual behavior in the eyes of the abuser.
Ok.. And what does homesexuality have to do with any this? No seriously.. I don't follow your argment that some how use as a whole tolerating homosexuality somehow leads to criminal sexual behavior.
> Think
> I'm exaggerating? I'm not. When we as a society can allow
> Michael Jackson to walk free, how can we turn around and
> point fingers at fallen Catholic priests?
Michael Jackson... You can say all you want, and I too believe that he shouldn't be around little kids, but the kid's family had no case. There wasn't any evidence that supported them and let's face it, his mother was a nut job.
The Priests.. Simple.. They had sex with alter boys. There's evidence. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the Catholic church. They should be procecuted to the full extent of the law.
Again.. MJ, not enough evidence for anything... Most of the priests.. Lots of evidence.
> When shame is laughed at, and other people and children
> become just another adventure in sexual exploration, another
> facet of respect for human life falls.
Huh?
> Like abortion, murder, and human cloning, shameless sexual
> adventurism, the devaluation of human life continues
> unabated. The media is just the cheering spectator to this
> interactive tragedy, adding approval and encouragement.
Allow me to reiterate.. In terms of Children, MONITOR WHAT THEY'RE USING IN THE MEDIA. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO PLAY BABYSITTER TO YOUR KIDS! As for you, if you don't like what we're showing, there's always EWTN, TBN and the Worship channel.
> The
> real dark deeds are done by decieved individuals. The
> societies of Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't blame the media for
> their eventual destruction, and neither will America if
> history repeats itself.
And they shouldn't, because it's not the Media's fault.
-A<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Of course.. Blame the media.. Hey, I work in the media.. Let me tell you something... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT... Goes a long, long way.. Way more than all the V-Chips, Ratings Icons and Parental Locks in the world. Know what your kids are watching, listening to, looking at online and TALK TO THEM.
> The fact that sexual abuse among children is increasing as
> society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality is not even
> argueable. Not to say that gays and lesbians are all child
> abusers, but a more sexually tolerant society must also
> accept that removing old sexual mores greenlights more
> criminal sexual behavior in the eyes of the abuser.
Ok.. And what does homesexuality have to do with any this? No seriously.. I don't follow your argment that some how use as a whole tolerating homosexuality somehow leads to criminal sexual behavior.
> Think
> I'm exaggerating? I'm not. When we as a society can allow
> Michael Jackson to walk free, how can we turn around and
> point fingers at fallen Catholic priests?
Michael Jackson... You can say all you want, and I too believe that he shouldn't be around little kids, but the kid's family had no case. There wasn't any evidence that supported them and let's face it, his mother was a nut job.
The Priests.. Simple.. They had sex with alter boys. There's evidence. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the Catholic church. They should be procecuted to the full extent of the law.
Again.. MJ, not enough evidence for anything... Most of the priests.. Lots of evidence.
> When shame is laughed at, and other people and children
> become just another adventure in sexual exploration, another
> facet of respect for human life falls.
Huh?
> Like abortion, murder, and human cloning, shameless sexual
> adventurism, the devaluation of human life continues
> unabated. The media is just the cheering spectator to this
> interactive tragedy, adding approval and encouragement.
Allow me to reiterate.. In terms of Children, MONITOR WHAT THEY'RE USING IN THE MEDIA. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO PLAY BABYSITTER TO YOUR KIDS! As for you, if you don't like what we're showing, there's always EWTN, TBN and the Worship channel.
> The
> real dark deeds are done by decieved individuals. The
> societies of Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't blame the media for
> their eventual destruction, and neither will America if
> history repeats itself.
And they shouldn't, because it's not the Media's fault.
-A<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
G
Guy_Incognito
Guest
> Ok.. And what does homesexuality have to do with any this?
> No seriously.. I don't follow your argment that some how use
> as a whole tolerating homosexuality somehow leads to
> criminal sexual behavior.
>
Let me start by saying that I agree with you on virtually every point you made.
Let me also say that the following isn't necessarily MY position, but rather my attempt to unravel the logic of one who takes this position.
=============================================================================
**Tolerance of homosexuality leads to criminal sexual behavior**
It's a basic "slippery slope" argument. For better or for worse, Society used to have extremely rigid rules regarding sexual behavior. These rules were almost entirely based on religious doctrine and were later codified as law. It was virginity until marriage and monogamy for life. As Society relaxed its standards -- accepting divorce, living together before marriage, serial monogamy -- the idea of homosexuality became less and less taboo. What was once considered not just deviant behavior but actually classified as a psychological illness less than one hundred years ago is now mostly accepted in today's world. As each of these walls has come down, it has made it easier for the next wall to fall.
So, the short argument is:
If the moral decay that allowed homosexuality to be acceptable continues, behavior that is currently considered deviant -- i.e. pedophilia, rape, bestiality -- will eventually be just as commonplace and permissible.
=============================================================================
Again, this is not necessarily how I feel about the matter, but it's my understanding of the thought process of this position.
> No seriously.. I don't follow your argment that some how use
> as a whole tolerating homosexuality somehow leads to
> criminal sexual behavior.
>
Let me start by saying that I agree with you on virtually every point you made.
Let me also say that the following isn't necessarily MY position, but rather my attempt to unravel the logic of one who takes this position.
=============================================================================
**Tolerance of homosexuality leads to criminal sexual behavior**
It's a basic "slippery slope" argument. For better or for worse, Society used to have extremely rigid rules regarding sexual behavior. These rules were almost entirely based on religious doctrine and were later codified as law. It was virginity until marriage and monogamy for life. As Society relaxed its standards -- accepting divorce, living together before marriage, serial monogamy -- the idea of homosexuality became less and less taboo. What was once considered not just deviant behavior but actually classified as a psychological illness less than one hundred years ago is now mostly accepted in today's world. As each of these walls has come down, it has made it easier for the next wall to fall.
So, the short argument is:
If the moral decay that allowed homosexuality to be acceptable continues, behavior that is currently considered deviant -- i.e. pedophilia, rape, bestiality -- will eventually be just as commonplace and permissible.
=============================================================================
Again, this is not necessarily how I feel about the matter, but it's my understanding of the thought process of this position.
You're all out of your collective minds except for RockManAC. Please do the world a favor and take a class in communication theory and there that the theories that support these type of arguments are almost unequvically (bad spelling aside) proven false.
It is that type of closed mindedness that fuels the fundamentalism that fuels terrorism on every level. And i'm not just talking about what is SEEN as terrorism, IE the closedminded view that is only those who are arab or follow Islam... I'm talking of abortion clinic bombings, draggin gay people behind cars and things of that nature.
Please for the sake of humanity and my unborn children try try to come to a point of understanding and tolerance for people's who views differ from you. Seek out education on these topics so we don't continue to blame the decline of morality on the media.
It is that type of closed mindedness that fuels the fundamentalism that fuels terrorism on every level. And i'm not just talking about what is SEEN as terrorism, IE the closedminded view that is only those who are arab or follow Islam... I'm talking of abortion clinic bombings, draggin gay people behind cars and things of that nature.
Please for the sake of humanity and my unborn children try try to come to a point of understanding and tolerance for people's who views differ from you. Seek out education on these topics so we don't continue to blame the decline of morality on the media.
> > The media is certainly a player in this attitude shift,
>
> Of course.. Blame the media.. Hey, I work in the media.. Let
> me tell you something... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT... Goes a
> long, long way.. Way more than all the V-Chips, Ratings
> Icons and Parental Locks in the world. Know what your kids
> are watching, listening to, looking at online and TALK TO
> THEM.
>
Did you even read the post? Or did your knee just jerk after the first 10 words? Hey, I used to work in the media too - a major TV affiliate in a top 50 market - so big friggin' deal. To deny that the media has SOME role (i.e. is "a player") in the society's evolving sexual tolerance is UNDENYABLE. I didn't say it was the ONLY factor as the original post claimed. Don't take my posts out of context. Sure parental involvement goes a "long, long way". Problem is the media's influence has long been a factor in the parent's attitudes about sex since the 60's. Parents blame the media as being responsible, the media blames the parents as lazy and disconnected. This convienent 20-year responsibility stalemate allows both sides to ultimately do NOTHING. In the meantime, the sexual preditors laugh at both sides and diddle away.
> > The fact that sexual abuse among children is increasing
> as
> > society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality is not even
>
> > argueable. Not to say that gays and lesbians are all child
>
> > abusers, but a more sexually tolerant society must also
> > accept that removing old sexual mores greenlights more
> > criminal sexual behavior in the eyes of the abuser.
>
> Ok.. And what does homesexuality have to do with any this?
> No seriously.. I don't follow your argment that some how use
> as a whole tolerating homosexuality somehow leads to
> criminal sexual behavior.
>
????? I can't understand what you are typing. "Homesexuality"? What's that? Sex with a house? What's an "argment"? STOP THE KNEE JERKING and read the post again, slowly. Consult a dictonary on words you haven't learned in school yet, then wait ten minutes, and type a coherent response. Use of a spell checker is handy too.
> > Think
> > I'm exaggerating? I'm not. When we as a society can allow
> > Michael Jackson to walk free, how can we turn around and
> > point fingers at fallen Catholic priests?
>
> Michael Jackson... You can say all you want, and I too
> believe that he shouldn't be around little kids, but the
> kid's family had no case. There wasn't any evidence that
> supported them and let's face it, his mother was a nut job.
You have just proved my point. Everybody knows MJ is engaging in sexual behavior with children, and he admits to letting non-related children sleep in his bed, and has NO SHAME in doing so. Because the prosecuter mishandled the evidence, and some key witnesses sucker-punched the prosecution's case, MJ walked. Even if the mother was in it for the money and is a "nut job", why should that excuse MJ's sexual deviancy? It shouldn't; but it does, even to you. You tolerate MJ's actions because of the level of evidence in a criminal trial, and because you like the mother less than MJ. My guess is that MJ's exhonneration will convince pedophile wannabees that taking kids to bed is OK, and that celebrity trumps right and wrong.
> > When shame is laughed at, and other people and children
> > become just another adventure in sexual exploration,
> another
> > facet of respect for human life falls.
>
> Huh?
>
Again, consult your dictonary. I frequently use words with more than six letters, so keep it handy. Your inability to follow a coherent "argment" convinces me your really DO work in the media.
> > Like abortion, murder, and human cloning, shameless sexual
>
> > adventurism, the devaluation of human life continues
> > unabated. The media is just the cheering spectator to this
>
> > interactive tragedy, adding approval and encouragement.
>
> Allow me to reiterate.. In terms of Children, MONITOR WHAT
> THEY'RE USING IN THE MEDIA. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO PLAY
> BABYSITTER TO YOUR KIDS! As for you, if you don't like what
> we're showing, there's always EWTN, TBN and the Worship
> channel.
>
Sorry, you don't get off that easy. If you are a broadcast media you have a LEGAL obligation to monitor and self-regulate what you put on the air. Ask CBS. Think the "We didn't know what Janet Jackson was gonna do.." lessened the FCC fine? NOPE. Stop dodging all responsibility. If you continue your arguement and avoid taking responsibility for what you broadcast, the government WILL do it for you; then everybody loses. You don't justify taking a crap in the middle of the street, by saying "Well, just use a different street.." when people start complaining.
> > The
> > real dark deeds are done by decieved individuals. The
> > societies of Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't blame the media
> for
> > their eventual destruction, and neither will America if
> > history repeats itself.
>
> And they shouldn't, because it's not the Media's fault.
>
Yeah, that'll make a great epitaph for Howard Stern if a new strain of air-transmitted viral AIDS starts to wipe us all out starting with NYC.
The media is first in line to take credit for all the good things they do. When one of the media's own goes over the line, though, they circle the wagons and act like the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys with the caption "It's not our fault" What a pitiful cop-out. The media is not entirely to blame, but it does play a part. It should also do more to be part of the solution. Your post and what I see in the media today, leaves me little hope for that to happen anytime soon.
>
> Of course.. Blame the media.. Hey, I work in the media.. Let
> me tell you something... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT... Goes a
> long, long way.. Way more than all the V-Chips, Ratings
> Icons and Parental Locks in the world. Know what your kids
> are watching, listening to, looking at online and TALK TO
> THEM.
>
Did you even read the post? Or did your knee just jerk after the first 10 words? Hey, I used to work in the media too - a major TV affiliate in a top 50 market - so big friggin' deal. To deny that the media has SOME role (i.e. is "a player") in the society's evolving sexual tolerance is UNDENYABLE. I didn't say it was the ONLY factor as the original post claimed. Don't take my posts out of context. Sure parental involvement goes a "long, long way". Problem is the media's influence has long been a factor in the parent's attitudes about sex since the 60's. Parents blame the media as being responsible, the media blames the parents as lazy and disconnected. This convienent 20-year responsibility stalemate allows both sides to ultimately do NOTHING. In the meantime, the sexual preditors laugh at both sides and diddle away.
> > The fact that sexual abuse among children is increasing
> as
> > society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality is not even
>
> > argueable. Not to say that gays and lesbians are all child
>
> > abusers, but a more sexually tolerant society must also
> > accept that removing old sexual mores greenlights more
> > criminal sexual behavior in the eyes of the abuser.
>
> Ok.. And what does homesexuality have to do with any this?
> No seriously.. I don't follow your argment that some how use
> as a whole tolerating homosexuality somehow leads to
> criminal sexual behavior.
>
????? I can't understand what you are typing. "Homesexuality"? What's that? Sex with a house? What's an "argment"? STOP THE KNEE JERKING and read the post again, slowly. Consult a dictonary on words you haven't learned in school yet, then wait ten minutes, and type a coherent response. Use of a spell checker is handy too.
> > Think
> > I'm exaggerating? I'm not. When we as a society can allow
> > Michael Jackson to walk free, how can we turn around and
> > point fingers at fallen Catholic priests?
>
> Michael Jackson... You can say all you want, and I too
> believe that he shouldn't be around little kids, but the
> kid's family had no case. There wasn't any evidence that
> supported them and let's face it, his mother was a nut job.
You have just proved my point. Everybody knows MJ is engaging in sexual behavior with children, and he admits to letting non-related children sleep in his bed, and has NO SHAME in doing so. Because the prosecuter mishandled the evidence, and some key witnesses sucker-punched the prosecution's case, MJ walked. Even if the mother was in it for the money and is a "nut job", why should that excuse MJ's sexual deviancy? It shouldn't; but it does, even to you. You tolerate MJ's actions because of the level of evidence in a criminal trial, and because you like the mother less than MJ. My guess is that MJ's exhonneration will convince pedophile wannabees that taking kids to bed is OK, and that celebrity trumps right and wrong.
> > When shame is laughed at, and other people and children
> > become just another adventure in sexual exploration,
> another
> > facet of respect for human life falls.
>
> Huh?
>
Again, consult your dictonary. I frequently use words with more than six letters, so keep it handy. Your inability to follow a coherent "argment" convinces me your really DO work in the media.
> > Like abortion, murder, and human cloning, shameless sexual
>
> > adventurism, the devaluation of human life continues
> > unabated. The media is just the cheering spectator to this
>
> > interactive tragedy, adding approval and encouragement.
>
> Allow me to reiterate.. In terms of Children, MONITOR WHAT
> THEY'RE USING IN THE MEDIA. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO PLAY
> BABYSITTER TO YOUR KIDS! As for you, if you don't like what
> we're showing, there's always EWTN, TBN and the Worship
> channel.
>
Sorry, you don't get off that easy. If you are a broadcast media you have a LEGAL obligation to monitor and self-regulate what you put on the air. Ask CBS. Think the "We didn't know what Janet Jackson was gonna do.." lessened the FCC fine? NOPE. Stop dodging all responsibility. If you continue your arguement and avoid taking responsibility for what you broadcast, the government WILL do it for you; then everybody loses. You don't justify taking a crap in the middle of the street, by saying "Well, just use a different street.." when people start complaining.
> > The
> > real dark deeds are done by decieved individuals. The
> > societies of Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't blame the media
> for
> > their eventual destruction, and neither will America if
> > history repeats itself.
>
> And they shouldn't, because it's not the Media's fault.
>
Yeah, that'll make a great epitaph for Howard Stern if a new strain of air-transmitted viral AIDS starts to wipe us all out starting with NYC.
The media is first in line to take credit for all the good things they do. When one of the media's own goes over the line, though, they circle the wagons and act like the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys with the caption "It's not our fault" What a pitiful cop-out. The media is not entirely to blame, but it does play a part. It should also do more to be part of the solution. Your post and what I see in the media today, leaves me little hope for that to happen anytime soon.
> You're all out of your collective minds except for
> RockManAC. Please do the world a favor and take a class in
> communication theory and there that the theories that
> support these type of arguments are almost unequvically (bad
> spelling aside) proven false.
>
> It is that type of closed mindedness that fuels the
> fundamentalism that fuels terrorism on every level. And i'm
> not just talking about what is SEEN as terrorism, IE the
> closedminded view that is only those who are arab or follow
> Islam... I'm talking of abortion clinic bombings, draggin
> gay people behind cars and things of that nature.
>
> Please for the sake of humanity and my unborn children try
> try to come to a point of understanding and tolerance for
> people's who views differ from you. Seek out education on
> these topics so we don't continue to blame the decline of
> morality on the media.
>
Typical liberal reaction: tell all conservatives that they are "out of their collective minds", tell the conservatives they're as bad or worse than Al Quida types, then make an appeal for more "tolerance and understanding" for people of all viewpoints (and on behalf of the unborn, too!).
SCRHack's new solution for world harmony: Club all conservative media critics over the head to smithereens while singing Lennon's "Give Peace A Chance". Sounds like a good plot for a "The Liberal Apprentice" reality series.
Here's to the hope that you teach your children tolerance and understanding and education, on including conservatives with the rest of humanity. Check back with us when your children turn 17, and let us know if you still think the media has no effect on the sexual values of children. It's amazing how the experience of raising children changes one's perspective on that topic.
> RockManAC. Please do the world a favor and take a class in
> communication theory and there that the theories that
> support these type of arguments are almost unequvically (bad
> spelling aside) proven false.
>
> It is that type of closed mindedness that fuels the
> fundamentalism that fuels terrorism on every level. And i'm
> not just talking about what is SEEN as terrorism, IE the
> closedminded view that is only those who are arab or follow
> Islam... I'm talking of abortion clinic bombings, draggin
> gay people behind cars and things of that nature.
>
> Please for the sake of humanity and my unborn children try
> try to come to a point of understanding and tolerance for
> people's who views differ from you. Seek out education on
> these topics so we don't continue to blame the decline of
> morality on the media.
>
Typical liberal reaction: tell all conservatives that they are "out of their collective minds", tell the conservatives they're as bad or worse than Al Quida types, then make an appeal for more "tolerance and understanding" for people of all viewpoints (and on behalf of the unborn, too!).
SCRHack's new solution for world harmony: Club all conservative media critics over the head to smithereens while singing Lennon's "Give Peace A Chance". Sounds like a good plot for a "The Liberal Apprentice" reality series.
Here's to the hope that you teach your children tolerance and understanding and education, on including conservatives with the rest of humanity. Check back with us when your children turn 17, and let us know if you still think the media has no effect on the sexual values of children. It's amazing how the experience of raising children changes one's perspective on that topic.
> Typical political response duck the real issues and label
> the person you're debating the exact opposite of whatever
> you are. I dont consider myself liberal or conserative. I
> make choices and base my beliefs on my personal experiences
> in life.
>
Read again. I labeled your reaction as typical of liberals. Didn't know if you were liberal or not. (although your reference to your unborn "children" i.e. not "unviable tissue masses" led me to suspect you were not a strident liberal anyway) I don't duck issues like this, as regular posters on this board will tell you.
I articulate a observation that claims the media is partially responsible for a liberalization of sexual standards in the US over the last 25 years. I back the contention up with anecdotal examples and related observations. These observations are made from someone who has worked in and out of the media several times and has been observing it for 35 years. They have been made from someone who, as a teenager, was influenced by the sexually-obsessed media of the sixties, and was in the frontlines of the abortion issue in the 70's when respect for human life began a 30-year freefall. I have been a father and a parent trying to council my sons to discern sexual fact from sexual fiction as portrayed by TV, movies, videos, and other media. I duck nothing; my kids can't afford it. For this, I am attacked by people who can't read my posts completely, can't follow an arguement or a thought past two sentences, can't articulate a coherent response in discernable English, and accuse me of saying things I don't say.
If you are not a duck; refrain from walking around in yellow attire going "quack, quack". You attack conservative thought like a liberal. You use innuendo, linking constitutionally-protected anti-media conservative ideas to criminal terrorist activity commited by deranged individuals, like a liberal. Then you step away from your attacks, and claim to be 'above the fray', and appeal for "tolerance" and "understanding" like a liberal. What difference does it make what you call yourself? Your comments, attitudes, and reactions to people with opposing viewpoints will identify your ideology for you, whether or not you have the political self-assurance to do so yourself.
If you can't be honest with yourself about your political allegiance, how valid will your beliefs and personal experiences be to your children? If I can tell where your politics is, your kids will certainly be able to figure it out.
There's nothing particularly noble about being a middle-of-the-road'er; they're the first ones to be run over.
> the person you're debating the exact opposite of whatever
> you are. I dont consider myself liberal or conserative. I
> make choices and base my beliefs on my personal experiences
> in life.
>
Read again. I labeled your reaction as typical of liberals. Didn't know if you were liberal or not. (although your reference to your unborn "children" i.e. not "unviable tissue masses" led me to suspect you were not a strident liberal anyway) I don't duck issues like this, as regular posters on this board will tell you.
I articulate a observation that claims the media is partially responsible for a liberalization of sexual standards in the US over the last 25 years. I back the contention up with anecdotal examples and related observations. These observations are made from someone who has worked in and out of the media several times and has been observing it for 35 years. They have been made from someone who, as a teenager, was influenced by the sexually-obsessed media of the sixties, and was in the frontlines of the abortion issue in the 70's when respect for human life began a 30-year freefall. I have been a father and a parent trying to council my sons to discern sexual fact from sexual fiction as portrayed by TV, movies, videos, and other media. I duck nothing; my kids can't afford it. For this, I am attacked by people who can't read my posts completely, can't follow an arguement or a thought past two sentences, can't articulate a coherent response in discernable English, and accuse me of saying things I don't say.
If you are not a duck; refrain from walking around in yellow attire going "quack, quack". You attack conservative thought like a liberal. You use innuendo, linking constitutionally-protected anti-media conservative ideas to criminal terrorist activity commited by deranged individuals, like a liberal. Then you step away from your attacks, and claim to be 'above the fray', and appeal for "tolerance" and "understanding" like a liberal. What difference does it make what you call yourself? Your comments, attitudes, and reactions to people with opposing viewpoints will identify your ideology for you, whether or not you have the political self-assurance to do so yourself.
If you can't be honest with yourself about your political allegiance, how valid will your beliefs and personal experiences be to your children? If I can tell where your politics is, your kids will certainly be able to figure it out.
There's nothing particularly noble about being a middle-of-the-road'er; they're the first ones to be run over.
> I articulate a observation that claims the media is
> partially responsible for a liberalization of sexual
> standards in the US over the last 25 years. I back the
> contention up with anecdotal examples and related
> observations. These observations are made from someone who
> has worked in and out of the media several times and has
> been observing it for 35 years.
Anectdotal is the key word there. Your experience definitly come into play but when put into practice and tested in situation the theories that you are trying to tell me about fall flat. It's been shown that the media and people affect and effect each other pretty evenly.
You attack conservative
> thought like a liberal. You use innuendo, linking
> constitutionally-protected anti-media conservative ideas to
> criminal terrorist activity commited by deranged
> individuals, like a liberal.
Actually, I attacked closedmindedness that leads to and breeds hate. The idea that people are so mind numbingly dumb that they are affected by the magic bullet of media is closed minded. The idea that homosexual behavior is somehow wrong is closed minded and secular. The thought that people may people are doing things not cause they want to try it or may enjoy it as opposed to being mindlessly lead by the evening news is down right silly.
Then you step away from your
> attacks, and claim to be 'above the fray', and appeal for
> "tolerance" and "understanding" like a liberal.
I call for tolerance and understanding like a human being should. I'd rather not live in a world full of hate like I do now.
> If you can't be honest with yourself about your political
> allegiance, how valid will your beliefs and personal
> experiences be to your children? If I can tell where your
> politics is, your kids will certainly be able to figure it
> out.
> There's nothing particularly noble about being a
> middle-of-the-road'er; they're the first ones to be run
> over.
There is something particularly noble about a person who rejects the common conventions of the political two party system here in our country and do what they believe is right by their own standards not some set beleifs that you pick out MOSTLY due to which way your parents are when you're my age. So thanks I'll be middle of the road and you can bring your bus but brotha, when the dust settles and the smoke clears me and my beliefs will still be standing.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SCRHack on 07/14/05 07:31 PM.</FONT></P>
> partially responsible for a liberalization of sexual
> standards in the US over the last 25 years. I back the
> contention up with anecdotal examples and related
> observations. These observations are made from someone who
> has worked in and out of the media several times and has
> been observing it for 35 years.
Anectdotal is the key word there. Your experience definitly come into play but when put into practice and tested in situation the theories that you are trying to tell me about fall flat. It's been shown that the media and people affect and effect each other pretty evenly.
You attack conservative
> thought like a liberal. You use innuendo, linking
> constitutionally-protected anti-media conservative ideas to
> criminal terrorist activity commited by deranged
> individuals, like a liberal.
Actually, I attacked closedmindedness that leads to and breeds hate. The idea that people are so mind numbingly dumb that they are affected by the magic bullet of media is closed minded. The idea that homosexual behavior is somehow wrong is closed minded and secular. The thought that people may people are doing things not cause they want to try it or may enjoy it as opposed to being mindlessly lead by the evening news is down right silly.
Then you step away from your
> attacks, and claim to be 'above the fray', and appeal for
> "tolerance" and "understanding" like a liberal.
I call for tolerance and understanding like a human being should. I'd rather not live in a world full of hate like I do now.
> If you can't be honest with yourself about your political
> allegiance, how valid will your beliefs and personal
> experiences be to your children? If I can tell where your
> politics is, your kids will certainly be able to figure it
> out.
> There's nothing particularly noble about being a
> middle-of-the-road'er; they're the first ones to be run
> over.
There is something particularly noble about a person who rejects the common conventions of the political two party system here in our country and do what they believe is right by their own standards not some set beleifs that you pick out MOSTLY due to which way your parents are when you're my age. So thanks I'll be middle of the road and you can bring your bus but brotha, when the dust settles and the smoke clears me and my beliefs will still be standing.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by SCRHack on 07/14/05 07:31 PM.</FONT></P>
> > I articulate a observation that claims the media is
> > partially responsible for a liberalization of sexual
> > standards in the US over the last 25 years. I back the
> > contention up with anecdotal examples and related
> > observations. These observations are made from someone who
>
> > has worked in and out of the media several times and has
> > been observing it for 35 years.
>
> Anectdotal is the key word there. Your experience definitly
> come into play but when put into practice and tested in
> situation the theories that you are trying to tell me about
> fall flat. It's been shown that the media and people affect
> and effect each other pretty evenly.
>
My obsevations may be anecdotal, but they are also true. I notice I sweat more in the summer, therefore I have anecdotal evidence that summers have higher temperatures. Do I need reams of evidence from NOAA to prove my point? I would hope not. I have observed sexual attitudes becoming more relaxed and respect for all stages of human life significantly lower than they were in the 70's. Are you denying my contention? Only someone living on Mars would challenge my "anecdotal" observations. Radio, television, movies, MTV, and the Internet are major players in this change. We've gone from Donna Reed to Paris Hilton, from Jack Parr to Howard Stern and from June Cleaver to Desperate Housewives. You may attempt to present the relationship between the media and society as another 'chicken or the egg' question, but that's an empty excuse for both sides to do nothing. TV and movies have always pushed the limits of sexual brinkmanship because they know sex sells, not in some boring journalistic excercise of reflecting current societal norms. It is the nature of the media to take the lead in expanding sexual frontiers. If ABC doesn't show nudity on NYPD blue, NBC will pick up the show and ace out ABC in the ratings. NBC is forced to come up with its own racy shows, then CBS, then cable, and on and on. The media's first commandment is to "make money", not "show society as it is". TV and movies make money by selling fantasies, in some cases plausable fantasies, but fantasies nontheless. "Reality Shows" has got to be a contender for first place as the "Oxymoron of the 21st Century"
>
> You attack conservative
> > thought like a liberal. You use innuendo, linking
> > constitutionally-protected anti-media conservative ideas
> to
> > criminal terrorist activity commited by deranged
> > individuals, like a liberal.
>
> Actually, I attacked closedmindedness that leads to and
> breeds hate. The idea that people are so mind numbingly dumb
> that they are affected by the magic bullet of media is
> closed minded. The idea that homosexual behavior is somehow
> wrong is closed minded and secular. The thought that people
> may people are doing things not cause they want to try it or
> may enjoy it as opposed to being mindlessly lead by the
> evening news is down right silly.
>
How do otherwise intelligent human beings stoop to eating cockroaches, swimming in leach tanks, and do the other gross stuff they do on "Fear Factor" if not by the "magic bullet of media"? The money and publicity the media offer seduce people into doing DUMB and DANGEROUS things. This is not some "close-minded" attitude. It is a fact. I never said homosexuality is wrong. Reread my post. The fact you (and others) thought I did is telling.
>
> Then you step away from your
> > attacks, and claim to be 'above the fray', and appeal for
> > "tolerance" and "understanding" like a liberal.
>
> I call for tolerance and understanding like a human being
> should. I'd rather not live in a world full of hate like I
> do now.
>
Your choices are pretty limited there. "Life's a beach" goes the saying, but death is no picnic either. With respect for life in the US dwindling, there are an increasing number of people who'd just as well see you not live either. That's why I decry the abuse of human life and humanity everywhere, but especially in the US, where citizens still have the freedom to fight for life.
> > If you can't be honest with yourself about your
> political
> > allegiance, how valid will your beliefs and personal
> > experiences be to your children? If I can tell where your
> > politics is, your kids will certainly be able to figure it
>
> > out.
> > There's nothing particularly noble about being a
> > middle-of-the-road'er; they're the first ones to be run
> > over.
>
> There is something particularly noble about a person who
> rejects the common conventions of the political two party
> system here in our country and do what they believe is right
> by their own standards not some set beleifs that you pick
> out MOSTLY due to which way your parents are when you're my
> age. So thanks I'll be middle of the road and you can bring
> your bus but brotha, when the dust settles and the smoke
> clears me and my beliefs will still be standing.
>
Hmmmmm, so you decide to stay in the middle of the road, eh? That sounds pretty "closeminded" to me.
Now you see the fine line that exists between being "resolute" in one's beliefs, and your definition of being "closeminded". It can often be two sides of the same coin.
Being "liberal" and "conservative" is not the same as being "Democratic" and "Republican" respectively. There are "liberal" Republicans (Olympia Snowe, & 'ol Ahhhhnold) and there are "conservative" Democrats (Evan Bayh & Zell Miller). I think very many people vote split tickets in the general election, but that's not the same as being a "middle-of-the-road"'er. Unfortunately, many say they are, to appear to be above others who are one way or the other. Get these same people in a political discussion, however, and the true philosophical ideologies come out rather quickly.
> > partially responsible for a liberalization of sexual
> > standards in the US over the last 25 years. I back the
> > contention up with anecdotal examples and related
> > observations. These observations are made from someone who
>
> > has worked in and out of the media several times and has
> > been observing it for 35 years.
>
> Anectdotal is the key word there. Your experience definitly
> come into play but when put into practice and tested in
> situation the theories that you are trying to tell me about
> fall flat. It's been shown that the media and people affect
> and effect each other pretty evenly.
>
My obsevations may be anecdotal, but they are also true. I notice I sweat more in the summer, therefore I have anecdotal evidence that summers have higher temperatures. Do I need reams of evidence from NOAA to prove my point? I would hope not. I have observed sexual attitudes becoming more relaxed and respect for all stages of human life significantly lower than they were in the 70's. Are you denying my contention? Only someone living on Mars would challenge my "anecdotal" observations. Radio, television, movies, MTV, and the Internet are major players in this change. We've gone from Donna Reed to Paris Hilton, from Jack Parr to Howard Stern and from June Cleaver to Desperate Housewives. You may attempt to present the relationship between the media and society as another 'chicken or the egg' question, but that's an empty excuse for both sides to do nothing. TV and movies have always pushed the limits of sexual brinkmanship because they know sex sells, not in some boring journalistic excercise of reflecting current societal norms. It is the nature of the media to take the lead in expanding sexual frontiers. If ABC doesn't show nudity on NYPD blue, NBC will pick up the show and ace out ABC in the ratings. NBC is forced to come up with its own racy shows, then CBS, then cable, and on and on. The media's first commandment is to "make money", not "show society as it is". TV and movies make money by selling fantasies, in some cases plausable fantasies, but fantasies nontheless. "Reality Shows" has got to be a contender for first place as the "Oxymoron of the 21st Century"
>
> You attack conservative
> > thought like a liberal. You use innuendo, linking
> > constitutionally-protected anti-media conservative ideas
> to
> > criminal terrorist activity commited by deranged
> > individuals, like a liberal.
>
> Actually, I attacked closedmindedness that leads to and
> breeds hate. The idea that people are so mind numbingly dumb
> that they are affected by the magic bullet of media is
> closed minded. The idea that homosexual behavior is somehow
> wrong is closed minded and secular. The thought that people
> may people are doing things not cause they want to try it or
> may enjoy it as opposed to being mindlessly lead by the
> evening news is down right silly.
>
How do otherwise intelligent human beings stoop to eating cockroaches, swimming in leach tanks, and do the other gross stuff they do on "Fear Factor" if not by the "magic bullet of media"? The money and publicity the media offer seduce people into doing DUMB and DANGEROUS things. This is not some "close-minded" attitude. It is a fact. I never said homosexuality is wrong. Reread my post. The fact you (and others) thought I did is telling.
>
> Then you step away from your
> > attacks, and claim to be 'above the fray', and appeal for
> > "tolerance" and "understanding" like a liberal.
>
> I call for tolerance and understanding like a human being
> should. I'd rather not live in a world full of hate like I
> do now.
>
Your choices are pretty limited there. "Life's a beach" goes the saying, but death is no picnic either. With respect for life in the US dwindling, there are an increasing number of people who'd just as well see you not live either. That's why I decry the abuse of human life and humanity everywhere, but especially in the US, where citizens still have the freedom to fight for life.
> > If you can't be honest with yourself about your
> political
> > allegiance, how valid will your beliefs and personal
> > experiences be to your children? If I can tell where your
> > politics is, your kids will certainly be able to figure it
>
> > out.
> > There's nothing particularly noble about being a
> > middle-of-the-road'er; they're the first ones to be run
> > over.
>
> There is something particularly noble about a person who
> rejects the common conventions of the political two party
> system here in our country and do what they believe is right
> by their own standards not some set beleifs that you pick
> out MOSTLY due to which way your parents are when you're my
> age. So thanks I'll be middle of the road and you can bring
> your bus but brotha, when the dust settles and the smoke
> clears me and my beliefs will still be standing.
>
Hmmmmm, so you decide to stay in the middle of the road, eh? That sounds pretty "closeminded" to me.
Now you see the fine line that exists between being "resolute" in one's beliefs, and your definition of being "closeminded". It can often be two sides of the same coin.
Being "liberal" and "conservative" is not the same as being "Democratic" and "Republican" respectively. There are "liberal" Republicans (Olympia Snowe, & 'ol Ahhhhnold) and there are "conservative" Democrats (Evan Bayh & Zell Miller). I think very many people vote split tickets in the general election, but that's not the same as being a "middle-of-the-road"'er. Unfortunately, many say they are, to appear to be above others who are one way or the other. Get these same people in a political discussion, however, and the true philosophical ideologies come out rather quickly.
G
Guy_Incognito
Guest
> You're all out of your collective minds except for
> RockManAC. Please do the world a favor and take a class in
> communication theory and there that the theories that
> support these type of arguments are almost unequvically (bad
> spelling aside) proven false.
I made it abundantly clear that this is not MY position, that I was only outlining the logic of those who espouse the position.
The best way to undo the conclusions of someone in any argument is to know the path that led him to his position.
Don't cast me down just for being able to understand and explain someone else's position, even when I don't hold that position myself.
> RockManAC. Please do the world a favor and take a class in
> communication theory and there that the theories that
> support these type of arguments are almost unequvically (bad
> spelling aside) proven false.
I made it abundantly clear that this is not MY position, that I was only outlining the logic of those who espouse the position.
The best way to undo the conclusions of someone in any argument is to know the path that led him to his position.
Don't cast me down just for being able to understand and explain someone else's position, even when I don't hold that position myself.
- Status