As with a lot of things, it's a matter of choice. The TV has an on/off switch, so does the computer. It's the parents' responsibility to watch over the child's wellbeing: not the state's.

Wrong, it is the parent's privilege to watch over the child's well-being, abuse of this turns responsibility over to the state. I have already confirmed this with the post explaining how social workers can take away children from parents who aren't watching out for the child's well-being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the decision on what's good for the child resides with the parent as their privillige. What you deem wrong for your child doesn't necesarily mean I would consider it wrong for MY child as well. You propose the state deciding for everyone what's good for everybody's children: how much state-intervention in a human's personal life do you want before you start calling it a totalitarian regime ?

 

 

 

By the way, asking in your topic title for other countries' point of views, than bluntly telling someone being 'wrong' for presenting a different view than yours, is rather self-righteous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The frowned upon content on TV isn't usually broadcasted until after a specific time. It's the parents job to get their kids to bed before that :P There are contentblockers available for internet. Still concerned about what your child does on the net ? Sit with her/him rather than seeing the computer as a substitute nanny.

 

 

 

What if the parent isn't concerned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if I don't see the parent's distinterest as my concern ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell your beliefs (be them religious or not) on life's issues before your child goes looking for answers on him/herself. Don't rely on others doing it for you through censorship.

I'm not talking beliefs, I'm talking harmful psychological effects on children through the media. I'm not saying all media is having negative effects on children but you have to be very ignorant to say that all media has positive psychological effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't say all media have positive effects, if that was aimed at me, because I don't see me mentioning media in that quote even. Do you want to censor kids in the neigbourhood/playmates/classmates as well ? These make up a big part in the child's everyday life as well, don't you agree ? It's the parents responsibility to provide the kid with a benchmark on what's wrong or right, by conveying their beliefs (be it religious beliefs or not) to that child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A parallel between child abuse and being exposed to harmful content I have never heard of.

Think out side of the box. If a child is being exposed to parents who do drugs, sex, alcohol in the home around the child, that child will be taken away by social workers. Now if the child is being exposed to the same things in the media, our right of "freedom of speech" keeps the child in an exposed environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine that, the media being a representation of the bigger world the kid lives in. It's TV/computer exposure, while the kid is living in a normal stable family. Do you really think, that kid cannot differentiate between the two ? It's the parent's responsibility to tell the child drugs are bad for you when it's televised, alchohol taken moderately and sex in the privacy of a bedroom. It's not the state's responsibility to act these things don't exist by muting the media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically supporting laws against child abuse but being against censorship is hypocritical. I'm not saying you are wrong that parents should be responsible, because they are, I'm just saying it isn't realistic of the government not to censor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is being anti-censorship synonymous with pro-child abuse? Further, it's completely realistic for the government not to censor. It's called personal responsibility. People have common sense, we're not sheep who need to be herded in the "right" direction because we don't know what's right and wrong. You can figure these things out for yourself without some higher power telling you what's good and bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read anything that I wrote? It is hypocritical because the government has laws against damaging children psychologically and physically. If you want to disagree with me then do so and give a reason. For example the media doesn't damage children psychologically because exposure to drugs, sex, and all of the above doesn't influence their mental perceptions at all, back that up with a good argument and you solved the entire controversial issue. Congrats =D>

 

 

 

You're assuming that if censorship was abolished all children would be psychologically scarred, where this would not be the case. It would be a sharp reality check for parents to actually start taking responsibility in what their kids do watch, whereas now they assume since the government censors things they don't need to. I'm not going to disagree that there's content that can scar kids, but just because kids can be scarred doesn't mean it should be banned. Instead, censorship should be ended and the responsibility should be given to parents. With censorship ended parents should have a choice in what channels they receive, or maybe a password they put in to access these channels. It seems stupid to censor things just because parents seem incapable of having a little responsibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not against freedom, I'm against abuse of freedom.

 

 

 

So pretty much limit freedom out of assuming the worst out of people.

I don't understand your view on this. Are you disagreeing with me, agreeing with me, or trying to put words in my mouth? :-s

 

 

 

I'm sarcastically mocking your opinion.

i agree with u xplsvbam, there is not enough censorship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there is too many immoral things on our tvs these days like nudity, violence n sex. all of those things can cause damage not just to our children but to us as well - how is it healthy to watch ppl shooting each other?? how is it healthy to watch ppl having sex on tv??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the answer is its not, all the nudity and the sex on tv now incourages sex before marriage which is wrong and it is not just hurting our society from a moral point of view, but from a physical one too by all the diseases sex before marriage spreads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is your name Joke?

 

 

 

My name is Common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All people are different, so therefore your morals and theirs may differ in the things they choose to watch on the television, choose to wear etc...

 

 

 

You say there is a lot of violence on T.V. well then do not watch it.

 

 

 

How is it healthy for people watching people shooting each other/having sex? Well it may not be but it is ENTERTAINING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised you watch dragon ball z, which has shooting in it :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, why do you care? You believe in God, right? According to that, the world is going to end sooner than later anyways. So why do you care about censorship? Why do you care about anything? Seems your faith in God isn't that strong if you're actually concerned about worldly politics...Does the Bible not say you shouldn't even get involved in such things? Obviously for that reason...The world will end eventually and nothing you worked for will ever matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is not a good interpretation of the Bible. God doesn't want us to be idle. When asked what he would do if he knew the world would end tomorrow, Martin Luther replied: "I would plant a tree". Just because we are on the earth and not in heaven doesn't mean we can't still do God's will. We were created to rule the earth, not to stop living and guess when Jesus returns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, and that's fine...But worrying about laws that will babysit your kids for you so you don't have to be a parent is irrelevant and not worth wasting our time on.

 

 

 

I didn't say anything about censorship. My opinion regarding censorship is pretty much what Paul says in 1 Cor 10:23:

"Everything is permissible"ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Edit: As for Captain "Still in highschool, but in MENSA, which means I'm smart and people actually think my opinion matters!", noone cares. Wow, you're in MENSA? That's great. How does it feel to have to be put into a group just to declare yourself brilliant? "Lookit meee! I'm in this group! That means I'm smarrrrrt! Yaaaay!" No, shut up. I don't even know what the hell MENSA is (heard of it, but didn't have it 'round here), and I don't have to be in a group to say I'm smarter than you.

 

 

 

You rambling about how I'm smarter than you. W/e. BTW saying you have not clue what Mensa is only furthers my belief in you own ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is, it doesn't matter when the world will end. It's irrelevant

 

 

 

Then you are completely refuting your own first post. I can deal with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as is trying to change laws that are also irrelevant. Wow, your kid is seeing boobies on TV? Guess what? Not our problem. It's yours. Learn2parent and he wouldn't be seeing them, would he? As for the rest of us, we're mature enough to say "Hmm, those are boobies on the TV...I'm going to not watch this because I don't really want to see some skank's boobies on TV." That's what I do. Some may find it odd that I don't wish to see boobies on my TV 24/7, but it gets kinda' old after the first and second and 487th time I saw them on TV by the time I was 13. I (and many others) just don't care anymore. Girls Gone Wild commercial? No thanks, kill yourself. Late night boobie-movies? No thanks, die in a fire. It's just stupid to try to censor things like that. Some people want to see it, and the rest of us are mature enough to say "Eh, honestly...I didn't need to see that." and turn the freakin' channel. The rest of the diaper-troopers just whine and say we need laws making it illegal for us to see boobies on TV so that you can flick through channels at 3 AM and not feel as if God is going to smite you because you accidentally saw some [bleep].

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not sure why you are railing against me on this as I also said censorship is unnecessary and irrational.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get over it, aye? Because the first tiny step in censorship is the first tiny step to communism. I know that sounds like crazy conspiracy theory crap, but it's true...If you censor something so trivial like that, what's next? Perhaps we won't be able to speak out against the government next? Perhaps we won't be able to watch and do as we please? No thanks, I'd rather risk seeing a boobie or two and just turn the channel when I don't want to see it.

 

 

 

Censorship=Step to communism. Right....thats some infallible logic right there. [/sarcasm] Wow there is a communist country that censors lots of things. That does not mean censoring things leads to communism. Thats like saying if a bomb goes off then there will be fire. Then going outside seeing fire and thinking that a bomb must have gone off. One leads to the other not the other way around. Although I would like to set off a bomb near you mainly to see if it would knock some common sense into your thick skull.

 

They hardly had any imports/exports 10 years ago and now they have probably more than any other country on earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you're joking. China has always been a major player in trade since the ancient times.

Yeh mabie in ancient times but not over the past however many years while they were communist. Communist countries try to be entirely self-sufficient which means shutting out all imports/exports possible and it's only recently (past decade) that companies have been moving all of their production to China.

Yeh mabie in ancient times but not over the past however many years while they were communist. Communist countries try to be entirely self-sufficient which means shutting out all imports/exports possible and it's only recently (past decade) that companies have been moving all of their production to China.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're talking about the economic reform that they had, that started over 30 years ago, not exactly recent. And they're not getting rid of communism anytime soon either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It may be improving, but it's still a bleep hole.

If you're going to censor television because a child could see something bad on it, you might as well stop your child from going to school, because he could see something bad there, or hear about it from a fellow student. You may as well stop them from having friends at all, because one of them might end up telling him what the word "damn" means, or possibly how sex works, due to his natural curiosity. And this is such a bad thing, isn't it? :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, the parents and the government should all collaborate and work together so that children will be safe from all the dangers of the world. Thus, any persons under the age of 18 will be forbidden to leave the house, use a computer or watch a television without supervision by a government official, and shall not read any books not approved by a specialized committee. Tutors will visit the homes to impart knowledge deemed acceptable by the government to each child. Any knowledge deemed forbidden, inappropriate, or unacceptable cannot be taught to the child under any circumstances. If a child somehow learns this, they must be sent away, to a special camp, where they are made to forget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what, let's just do that for everybody. The government knows best, laws are always right, and the Bible is the absolute truth, so let's just make everything controlled by government committees, the Bible the only legal book, remove everything except government-sanctioned material from the computer and television, add a secret police force and voila! Perfect world. Of course censorship is a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll:

If you're going to censor television because a child could see something bad on it, you might as well stop your child from going to school, because he could see something bad there, or hear about it from a fellow student. You may as well stop them from having friends at all, because one of them might end up telling him what the word "damn" means, or possibly how sex works, due to his natural curiosity. And this is such a bad thing, isn't it? :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, the parents and the government should all collaborate and work together so that children will be safe from all the dangers of the world. Thus, any persons under the age of 18 will be forbidden to leave the house, use a computer or watch a television without supervision by a government official, and shall not read any books not approved by a specialized committee. Tutors will visit the homes to impart knowledge deemed acceptable by the government to each child. Any knowledge deemed forbidden, inappropriate, or unacceptable cannot be taught to the child under any circumstances. If a child somehow learns this, they must be sent away, to a special camp, where they are made to forget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what, let's just do that for everybody. The government knows best, laws are always right, and the Bible is the absolute truth, so let's just make everything controlled by government committees, the Bible the only legal book, remove everything except government-sanctioned material from the computer and television, add a secret police force and voila! Perfect world. Of course censorship is a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, aside from the bible part, you just hit north korea's philosiphy right on the head.

BTW saying you have not clue what Mensa is only furthers my belief in you own ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, because said group isn't around where I live, that means I'm ignorant. Nice logic. How about this - I've heard of it, I know it's some group that makes smart little kids think they're geniuses when they're not, and that's about it. Other than that, I haven't a clue what their purpose is...Probably nothing more than that. Whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of your post can be summed up in one word...Stupid. Go tell your MENSA buddies how smart you are, because noone here cares about your silly little club. Some of us here are actually adults who don't need to join a club that tells us we're smart in order to not feel like a moron.

If you're going to censor television because a child could see something bad on it, you might as well stop your child from going to school, because he could see something bad there, or hear about it from a fellow student.

You don't get the point. Bad media is unnecessary. Going to school is necessary because it is social and education is good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My motivation behind this isn't my children because I have no children. My motivation is not my future children because I have been a child and realize now, at 18, what I should not have been exposed to. I will be very aware of what media my children get exposed and will not let them be exposed to explicit material. Do I feel I am worse off because of the media I've been exposed to? Without a doubt. Do I feel I need to force parents raise their children a certain way? No. I feel that the media is out of control. How is this not realistic? Am I over zealous in saying that the media, like everything, can be bad in large amounts, or unrestricted amounts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically what I'm getting from everyone here is that there should be no limits on media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you are against everything I am then answer me this. Do you think that there should be no limits on media?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have not proposed any radical Christian views on censorship on everything not G rated. Most of you don't even realize that I haven't specifically mentioned anything that should be censored. And I don't want to. I feel that there should be a government agency that protects our society from bad media. All I have condoned is that the media is out of control and there needs to be action.

Most of you don't even realize that I haven't specifically mentioned anything that should be censored. And I don't want to. I feel that there should be a government agency that protects our society from bad media. All I have condoned is that the media is out of control and there needs to be action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ah I see and what is this snippet of another post by you in this thread then ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A parallel between child abuse and being exposed to harmful content I have never heard of.

Think out side of the box. If a child is being exposed to parents who do drugs, sex, alcohol in the home around the child, that child will be taken away by social workers. Now if the child is being exposed to the same things in the media, our right of "freedom of speech" keeps the child in an exposed environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You wanted to wake up one day on your 18th birthday and find out the world isn't the happy place your parents depicted it, good for you. Trust the other adults to have a different point of view and prepare their children a different way for the world out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's look at what would be considered detrimental to the child. You consider drugs/sex/alcohol exposure through media as bad. I don't happen to think so. I have a different point of view. Let's go hypothetical, shall we ? After all, the case you present of media exposure and psychological damage is hypothetical as well.

 

 

 

[hypothetical] What if I happen to think religion is actually the root of all evil: it has created bloody wars in the past. I see it as the instigator for a lot of sorrows to people on the world we live in today. It keeps humanity back as a whole through the morals it presents on medical research. I see it as a weapon for one religion to fight wars over the other for superiority. As a result, I may want to keep my child away from anything to do with religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want it exposed to what I consider, religious lies, hypocrisy and attrocities committed in the name of religion. I don't want it exposed to any form of religious depiction through the media. I do my best to keep my child out of churches, I take a detour when near a place of worship. I do my best to keep my child's exposure to a minimum. However, I can't watch my child all the time, so I would like to see all those sermons televised on Sunday be taken off the television: I consider them detrimental to my child after all. I want all the religious channels gone. I want everything on the internet containing a reference to an upper being *gone*. I want it to be able to open up a newspaper without it being exposed to highly religious obituaries.

 

 

 

I consider all media exposing my child to any religious content as 'bad'. It's out of control: everywhere I look I see some form of religious content. Government, please censor the media, so my child isn't exposed to it. I feel I have been needlessly exposed to religion in my childhood, as a result I would like my children not having to suffer from it through their childhood. [/end hypothetical case]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now please tell me why, what you percieve as bad should be censored and what I presented in my hypothetical case *shouldn't* be censored. What gives you the idea that anyones views on that team of psychologists are 'right' and my hypothetical ones aren't ? What gives you the idea that I as a parent would want someone else to decide what is good/bad content for my child ? You want a team of 'experts' decide on what's good and what's bad. The opinions of these experts will be biased by their own beliefs and heritage. Not only that, the appointment of these experts will become a political affair and thus subject to change (comparable to the appointment of high court judges).

 

 

 

There are already enough measures keeping exposure to 'smutt' within limits in my country, no extra censorship is needed.

 

BTW saying you have not clue what Mensa is only furthers my belief in you own ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, because said group isn't around where I live, that means I'm ignorant. Nice logic. How about this - I've heard of it, I know it's some group that makes smart little kids think they're geniuses when they're not, and that's about it. Other than that, I haven't a clue what their purpose is...Probably nothing more than that. Whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of your post can be summed up in one word...Stupid. Go tell your MENSA buddies how smart you are, because noone here cares about your silly little club. Some of us here are actually adults who don't need to join a club that tells us we're smart in order to not feel like a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you've pretty much stopped even reading my posts. Thats fine, but then you have no right to respond to them. And actually Mensa is a group that I can go to meetings and have intelligent conversations, unlike with you I have to use little words so I don't overload your speck of a brain. Furthermore, Mensa has chapters in every major city, so at worst you'd have to drive maybe and hour and a half to join and then you could go to events when they are closer to your place of residence like I do. Not that it really matters, because judging by your responses, you wouldn't have a shot anyway. Also, I knew I was smarter than most people long before I joined Mensa. Its the idiots like you that proved this fact to me.

Well, only religious people want the media to be censored, because someone could be making fun of their untouchable views, lol.

 

 

BTW saying you have not clue what Mensa is only furthers my belief in you own ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, because said group isn't around where I live, that means I'm ignorant. Nice logic. How about this - I've heard of it, I know it's some group that makes smart little kids think they're geniuses when they're not, and that's about it. Other than that, I haven't a clue what their purpose is...Probably nothing more than that. Whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of your post can be summed up in one word...Stupid. Go tell your MENSA buddies how smart you are, because noone here cares about your silly little club. Some of us here are actually adults who don't need to join a club that tells us we're smart in order to not feel like a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you've pretty much stopped even reading my posts. Thats fine, but then you have no right to respond to them. And actually Mensa is a group that I can go to meetings and have intelligent conversations, unlike with you I have to use little words so I don't overload your speck of a brain. Furthermore, Mensa has chapters in every major city, so at worst you'd have to drive maybe and hour and a half to join and then you could go to events when they are closer to your place of residence like I do. Not that it really matters, because judging by your responses, you wouldn't have a shot anyway. Also, I knew I was smarter than most people long before I joined Mensa. Its the idiots like you that proved this fact to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you've pretty much proved your a pompous, arrogant kid?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record anyone can simply say they are in MENSA on the internet or in any other kind of orginization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of you don't even realize that I haven't specifically mentioned anything that should be censored. And I don't want to. I feel that there should be a government agency that protects our society from bad media. All I have condoned is that the media is out of control and there needs to be action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what is 'bad media'? This is about as vauge as me saying don't order me any bad food, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bam perhaps you can actualy tell us what you want censored? Do try to use more than 'well, bad stuff!'.

 

 

BTW saying you have not clue what Mensa is only furthers my belief in you own ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, because said group isn't around where I live, that means I'm ignorant. Nice logic. How about this - I've heard of it, I know it's some group that makes smart little kids think they're geniuses when they're not, and that's about it. Other than that, I haven't a clue what their purpose is...Probably nothing more than that. Whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of your post can be summed up in one word...Stupid. Go tell your MENSA buddies how smart you are, because noone here cares about your silly little club. Some of us here are actually adults who don't need to join a club that tells us we're smart in order to not feel like a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you've pretty much stopped even reading my posts. Thats fine, but then you have no right to respond to them. And actually Mensa is a group that I can go to meetings and have intelligent conversations, unlike with you I have to use little words so I don't overload your speck of a brain. Furthermore, Mensa has chapters in every major city, so at worst you'd have to drive maybe and hour and a half to join and then you could go to events when they are closer to your place of residence like I do. Not that it really matters, because judging by your responses, you wouldn't have a shot anyway. Also, I knew I was smarter than most people long before I joined Mensa. Its the idiots like you that proved this fact to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations. You're the typical dude that thinks he's really smart, but fails to realize, in all his brightness, that he sounds like a complete douche bag bragging about how smart he is because he is in some club.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look...To be in MENSA, you have to pass an IQ test that says you're 135+. Anyone who can't get 135+ on an IQ test is a freakin' moron. I think the last one I took I got 147 or something. Come back and talk to me when you're in one of those groups where people have 195+ IQ's and are actually certified geniuses, not people who just THINK they are (you).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevermind the fact that an IQ test means pretty much nothing. Oooo, I can solve word problems that are worded cleverly as if to fool you! Amazing. Like I said, anyone who CAN'T get 135+ on an IQ test is just a 'tard anyways.

 

 

 

You wanted to wake up one day on your 18th birthday and find out the world isn't the happy place your parents depicted it, good for you.

That doesn't make any sense. My parents line of work, which is similar to social work, exposed me to the real world. My parents have counseled numerous cases of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, financial troubles, and all of the above. The media on the other hand exposed me to the real world, but not always truthfully or in good intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I woke up on my 18th birthday knowing how bad the world is and not knowing how bad media is. I woke up last week knowing how good the world can be and knowing how awful media can be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no professor in this country that would argue that extensive amounts of media exposure is good for you. And if there is a percent it is probably a very small minority of in-experienced minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer the question. Do you think that media should not have any restrictions?

Perhaps the fault is with American Media companies, I don't think we have the same kinds of problems as you seem to be experiencing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your stupid question "Answer the question. Do you think that media should not have any restrictions?" you cant answer simply as a yes or no. Nothing is black and white these days and to pose such a question with loaded language and saying that saying the media shouldn't be censored equates to child abuse just makes you look like an idiot.

Answer the question. Do you think that media should not have any restrictions?

Answer provided in my last post. Now answer mine.

Perhaps the fault is with American Media companies, I don't think we have the same kinds of problems as you seem to be experiencing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your stupid question "Answer the question. Do you think that media should not have any restrictions?" you cant answer simply as a yes or no.

Yes you can. Do you think it was appropriate of the government to stop allowing cigarette companies to target children? Do you think it is appropriate of the government to not allow cigarette adds on television? If you think the government is out of place then you would answer yes, there should be no restrictions on the media. If you agree with what they did is right then you would answer no, media should have some restrictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe it is difficult for you to answer this simple question but I'm sure others are capable. I can't help noticing alot of things are difficult for you, like for example, spelling merciful correctly.

XplsvBam, you're not going to be the only parent that doesn't want children to see certain things. That's normal, some things are not meant to be seen at such young ages. However, you don't need a government agency to stop such programming - you can just use your TV's channel blocker, which nowadays you can program to allow certain shows only, not just channels even. This is a win-win situation for everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your children will be safe from bad programming, and other people still get to see what they like. I don't see how there is a problem with this solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, don't start flaming a person (by talking about their spelling, wether intentional or not), it certainly doesn't help your argument anymore.

XplsvBam, you're not going to be the only parent that doesn't want children to see certain things. That's normal, some things are not meant to be seen at such young ages. However, you don't need a government agency to stop such programming - you can just use your TV's channel blocker, which nowadays you can program to allow certain shows only, not just channels even. This is a win-win situation for everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your children will be safe from bad programming, and other people still get to see what they like. I don't see how there is a problem with this solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, don't start flaming a person (by talking about their spelling, wether intentional or not), it certainly doesn't help your argument anymore.

I was using is spelling as an example of his lack of ability to do simple tasks. That is why answering the question would be difficult for him. :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not worried about my children, or other people's children. I am worried about society as a whole, young and old. Everyone is being exposed to way to much bad media, how is this good? That is all I want to know. How is extensive amounts of bad media good for anyone? Young or old.

I was using is spelling as an example of his lack of ability to do simple tasks. That is why answering the question would be difficult for him. :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you're just picking for flames. It's not too hard to figure out that there is a possibility that certain things are spelled on purpose in different ways (why, you'll have to PM Mercifull to find out). Saying that someone's spelling (wether it was incorrect on purpose or not, we don't know) represent's a person's intelligence is not a valid argument; therefore, just flames. If you want to discuss this more, PM me, but don't drag it here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not worried about my children, or other people's children. I am worried about society as a whole, young and old. Everyone is being exposed to way to much bad media, how is this good? That is all I want to know. How is extensive amounts of bad media good for anyone? Young or old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know that everyone is exposed to too much bad media? And if too much bad media causes serious problems, what are these problems?

How do you know that everyone is exposed to too much bad media? And if too much bad media causes serious problems, what are these problems?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer my problems bam, what do you think should be banned? Be specific please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

personaly I think that unless it is blatently illegal (child pr0n for example) it should be allowed to be shown. Again it is up to the parrents to parrent their child, and there simply isn't an excuse anymore considering all the tools parrents have to block their kids from playing stuff they don't want them too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell, even in vista you can make it so it doesn't allow the child to play games above a certain rating or with certain themes. The tools are there for a parrent to censor their child as they wish, the only argument now against heavy censoring is the own parrents lazyness.

You bring up the reason for the spelling of Mercifull (two l's) in virtually every thread I respond to in an attempt to discredit my posts and yet you conveniently seem to ignore the fact I have explained the reason publicly on these boards many times before on several occasions. Your arguments are baseless and you have to resort to pettiness to fight back a legitimate argument. Sad.