In News pwwbf.6204$AS6.1844@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S. Maizlich
at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News HXtbf.6126$AS6.5595@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S.
Maizlich at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News WCtbf.5721$m81.3175@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S.
Maizlich at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News Tvrbf.4969$2y.3306@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S.
Maizlich at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:

"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:_YCdnb0IVsW0BfDeRVn-pg@giganews.com:

Perhaps if there were more groups like the Parents Television
Council
monitoring the trash the networks broadcast, there would be a
little more decency injected into family viewing time.

I turn the TV off. My kids don't watch any on school nights,
and one hour per day on weekends, if they remember we *have* a
TV. Are you Christians too stupid to find the "off" switch?

Why are you berating the guy for this? The "change
channel" button on the remote is very close to the
"off" button. This PTC (I don't know anything about
them) are recommending that people use it. It doesn't
seem to me they're saying the stuff shouldn't be
broadcast, although perhaps they would prefer it not
be; rather, they are recommending people not watch it,
*if* they are looking for suitable family fare.

That would seem sort of like a given though, wouldn't it? If you
don't like what you are watching, change the channel.

There's a little more to it than that, though. I don't
want to sit down for what I wrongly guess to be a
little family programming with my young son, and have
some inappropriate material be shown. At that point
it's too late. If I can learn something about the
programming from some source I trust, that's helpful in
making my initial choice of what to view, and to allow
my son to view.

Who decides what is or is not appropriate?

In my household, I do. Do you have a problem with that?

Obviously, I meant the question to be of a more general nature.

If enough people were changing
the channel, then they wouldn't be making a profit on what you deem
as inappropriate.

Right. And that is precisely what the PTC (and J
Young) is advocating: change the channel. What's your
problem with their advocacy of that?

But why would you need to advocate such. Wouldn't it be automatic?

Why would you think it would be?

Why would you think it wouldn't be?


I can think of plenty

of reasons it might not be. The point of the PTC is
not to impose any values on anyone. It is, rather, to
encourage those who share those values to act on them.

So you don't think that people can be trusted with their own decisions?

If you're sitting watching some program that takes an
offensive turn, don't just sit there and go "tut-tut"
when the offensive material comes along, then let your
kids continue to watch the show; instead, show some
backbone, and switch the channel; then, perhaps write
to the sponsors and express your disgust.

I typically took the high road and watched the programs first to see if they
were suitable for my children. Of course, my kids were more into books, and
playing baseball than they were television anyway. They had to be since
their television time was restricted. This is called parenting.

I am quite certain that all of the lockstep
goose-stepper who have taken J Young to task over this
are offended at the idea that people would write to the
sponsors and request that they not sponsor the
offensive material. Why would anyone be offended by
that? How can they possibly make the FALSE inferential
leap that this urge is an urge for censorship? It
isn't. Censorship is ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY:
when the government prohibits you from broadcasting
something. I contend that the majority of the lockstep
goose-steppers are not really opposed to censorship;
rather, they are opposed to people holding J Young's
views being the censors.

Censorship comes in many forms, and it is not always limited to the
goverment.

It would seem that the media is responding to the demands
of the majority.

The PTC is trying, through constitutionally protected
advocacy, to change what comprises the majority.
What's your problem with that?

Why? Don't you believe that the majority can already decide for
themselves?

"Majorities" don't decide anything; individual people
make decisions. The PTC is trying to influence
individual people, and I see nothing wrong with that.
You're free to try to influence the same people in the
opposite direction.

I have no need to try to subject others to my particular world view.
Majorities are made up of individuals, but if you want to argue semantics,
go right ahead.


--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

In News pwwbf.6204$AS6.1844@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S. Maizlich
at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News HXtbf.6126$AS6.5595@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S.
Maizlich at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News WCtbf.5721$m81.3175@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S.
Maizlich at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Andrealphus wrote:

In News Tvrbf.4969$2y.3306@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net,, S.
Maizlich at s.e.maizlich@hertzburgh.eduu, typed this:

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:

"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:_YCdnb0IVsW0BfDeRVn-pg@giganews.com:

Perhaps if there were more groups like the Parents Television
Council
monitoring the trash the networks broadcast, there would be a
little more decency injected into family viewing time.

I turn the TV off. My kids don't watch any on school nights,
and one hour per day on weekends, if they remember we *have* a
TV. Are you Christians too stupid to find the "off" switch?

Why are you berating the guy for this? The "change
channel" button on the remote is very close to the
"off" button. This PTC (I don't know anything about
them) are recommending that people use it. It doesn't
seem to me they're saying the stuff shouldn't be
broadcast, although perhaps they would prefer it not
be; rather, they are recommending people not watch it,
*if* they are looking for suitable family fare.

That would seem sort of like a given though, wouldn't it? If you
don't like what you are watching, change the channel.

There's a little more to it than that, though. I don't
want to sit down for what I wrongly guess to be a
little family programming with my young son, and have
some inappropriate material be shown. At that point
it's too late. If I can learn something about the
programming from some source I trust, that's helpful in
making my initial choice of what to view, and to allow
my son to view.

Who decides what is or is not appropriate?

In my household, I do. Do you have a problem with that?

Obviously, I meant the question to be of a more general nature.

If enough people were changing
the channel, then they wouldn't be making a profit on what you deem
as inappropriate.

Right. And that is precisely what the PTC (and J
Young) is advocating: change the channel. What's your
problem with their advocacy of that?

But why would you need to advocate such. Wouldn't it be automatic?

Why would you think it would be?

Why would you think it wouldn't be?

I can think of plenty
of reasons it might not be. The point of the PTC is
not to impose any values on anyone. It is, rather, to
encourage those who share those values to act on them.

So you don't think that people can be trusted with their own decisions?

If you're sitting watching some program that takes an
offensive turn, don't just sit there and go "tut-tut"
when the offensive material comes along, then let your
kids continue to watch the show; instead, show some
backbone, and switch the channel; then, perhaps write
to the sponsors and express your disgust.

I typically took the high road and watched the programs first to see if they
were suitable for my children.

Of course, my kids were more into books, and
playing baseball than they were television anyway. They had to be since
their television time was restricted. This is called parenting.

I am quite certain that all of the lockstep
goose-stepper who have taken J Young to task over this
are offended at the idea that people would write to the
sponsors and request that they not sponsor the
offensive material. Why would anyone be offended by
that? How can they possibly make the FALSE inferential
leap that this urge is an urge for censorship? It
isn't. Censorship is ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY:
when the government prohibits you from broadcasting
something. I contend that the majority of the lockstep
goose-steppers are not really opposed to censorship;
rather, they are opposed to people holding J Young's
views being the censors.

Censorship comes in many forms, and it is not always limited to the
goverment.

It would seem that the media is responding to the demands
of the majority.

The PTC is trying, through constitutionally protected
advocacy, to change what comprises the majority.
What's your problem with that?

Why? Don't you believe that the majority can already decide for
themselves?

"Majorities" don't decide anything; individual people
make decisions. The PTC is trying to influence
individual people, and I see nothing wrong with that.
You're free to try to influence the same people in the
opposite direction.

I have no need to try to subject others to my particular world view.

Majorities are made up of individuals, but if you want to argue semantics,
go right ahead.