Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Another day, another debateFollow

#27 Feb 19 2009 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Even so - even with the ability to switch channels or switch it off, there's a valid question of taste, of ethics, of a healthy public discourse.


Is there? I tend to think not. I think it's a difficult piratical ethics sell that there's ever a time when speech that I have to choose to consume is so damaging to me that there is utility in preventing it from being consumed by anyone.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Feb 19 2009 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Came home all paranoid feeling like something was chasing me. Had to make sure I locked the door twice, had to check the house just to reassure myself nothing was in there.


You know, I watched a PBS documentary about the history of transorbital lobotomy the other day. I learned a lot. I learned that it was created and advocated by essentially one ambitious physician, this guy named Walter Freeman. He had good intentions, he was trying to make the severely mentally ill treatable in an affordable way in a time when there were really no effective drug therapies and people were just sort of locked up in sh*tty warehouses to suffer.

Like some sort of Greek tragedy, his story unfolded. He wanted to be famous, and courted the press, and got his wish. People lauded him as a genius who had cured mental illness. Eventually, when outcomes were examined more thoroughly, the consensus moved to what we now know is the case: shockingly, pushing icepicks through the bone under a person's eyelids and wiggling them back and forth to sever the link to the thalamus isn't a good idea, even for the severely mentally ill. There were many parts of it that were disturbing, of course, but nothing really got to me until near the end, when, late in his life Freeman moved to the west coast and set up a private practice.

It was then, after it was clear that this wasn't a helpful thing for the mentally ill, that Freeman, in service to his ego and unable to accept the fact that the procedure was a failure, started carrying it out on his non-severely mentally ill patients. Including a four year old. Hannah's going to be four in a few months. I could have gone my entire life without thinking the thoughts I thought that night, and been a happier man for it. Do you know what my reaction wasn't, though?

It wasn't "They shouldn't be allowed to show this on television".



Edited, Feb 19th 2009 6:40pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Feb 19 2009 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Even so - even with the ability to switch channels or switch it off, there's a valid question of taste, of ethics, of a healthy public discourse.


Is there? I tend to think not. I think it's a difficult piratical ethics sell that there's ever a time when speech that I have to choose to consume is so damaging to me that there is utility in preventing it from being consumed by anyone.



I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed. I do think that stations should monitor themselves and have some modicum of concern for the above mentioned taste, ethics, etc.

It's my inner stuffy old fart raving again, I guess.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#30 Feb 19 2009 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Even so - even with the ability to switch channels or switch it off, there's a valid question of taste, of ethics, of a healthy public discourse.


Is there? I tend to think not. I think it's a difficult piratical ethics sell that there's ever a time when speech that I have to choose to consume is so damaging to me that there is utility in preventing it from being consumed by anyone.



I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed. I do think that stations should monitor themselves and have some modicum of concern for the above mentioned taste, ethics, etc.


There is the issue of social expectations, as well. As Katie said in her post, "this show is usually quite tame". It's one thing for Howard Stern to play something like that, but for a radio show that generally attracts a morning audience (with possible kids in the car) and isn't known for such content, it becomes not a question of whether they have the right to play it, but whether they should exercise that right.

In this case, I'd fall under the "No" category.
#31 Feb 19 2009 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed. I do think that stations should monitor themselves and have some modicum of concern for the above mentioned taste, ethics, etc



Unless they care about the ratings.
#32 Feb 19 2009 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Samira wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Even so - even with the ability to switch channels or switch it off, there's a valid question of taste, of ethics, of a healthy public discourse.


Is there? I tend to think not. I think it's a difficult piratical ethics sell that there's ever a time when speech that I have to choose to consume is so damaging to me that there is utility in preventing it from being consumed by anyone.



I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed. I do think that stations should monitor themselves and have some modicum of concern for the above mentioned taste, ethics, etc.


There is the issue of social expectations, as well. As Katie said in her post, "this show is usually quite tame". It's one thing for Howard Stern to play something like that, but for a radio show that generally attracts a morning audience (with possible kids in the car) and isn't known for such content, it becomes not a question of whether they have the right to play it, but whether they should exercise that right.

In this case, I'd fall under the "No" category.


That's my feelings as well. I don't listen to shock jocks, I don't watch horror movies and suspense movies because I realize I cannot handle it. I listen to silly little shows that the heaviest stuff they cover is promoting charity programs for children battling diseases. It's usually all silliness and jokes. This was way out there and totally caught me off guard. Had they prefaced it with a warning of it's graphic nature I would have changed the channel before I heard it.

Also they advertise being a family friendly program. THAT was NOT family friendly.

Edited, Feb 19th 2009 6:04pm by Katielynn
#33 Feb 19 2009 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

There is the issue of social expectations, as well. As Katie said in her post, "this show is usually quite tame". It's one thing for Howard Stern to play something like that, but for a radio show that generally attracts a morning audience (with possible kids in the car) and isn't known for such content, it becomes not a question of whether they have the right to play it, but whether they should exercise that right.

In this case, I'd fall under the "No" category.


Yeah, that's a matter of taste though, not regulation. Notice the key point, here, however. Katie didn't change the channel. That's the whole point. If people stopped listening to the show when they pretended outrage to deal with their voyeuristic fascination with other people's pain, it wouldn't be an issue. If I leave CNN HN on for some reason and walk by to see Nancy Grace, I change the channel, I don't stop and watch to see which missing white person's family member she's judging for an hour then complain about it here.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Feb 19 2009 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

There is the issue of social expectations, as well. As Katie said in her post, "this show is usually quite tame". It's one thing for Howard Stern to play something like that, but for a radio show that generally attracts a morning audience (with possible kids in the car) and isn't known for such content, it becomes not a question of whether they have the right to play it, but whether they should exercise that right.

In this case, I'd fall under the "No" category.


Yeah, that's a matter of taste though, not regulation. Notice the key point, here, however. Katie didn't change the channel. That's the whole point. If people stopped listening to the show when they pretended outrage to deal with their voyeuristic fascination with other people's pain, it wouldn't be an issue. If I leave CNN HN on for some reason and walk by to see Nancy Grace, I change the channel, I don't stop and watch to see which missing white person's family member she's judging for an hour then complain about it here.



Panic attacks and PTSD. I'm sure you've taken an in depth look at them before. Mayhaps you should lurk more and see how this might effect someone who suffers from both.
#35 Feb 19 2009 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
I symapthise with you Katie, certain things freak me out too. Blood leaves me a wreck.

Its just a shame you have to remember its a public channel and although it offended and hurt you, it will not offend and hurt others.
#36 Feb 19 2009 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
GwynapNud the Eccentric wrote:
I symapthise with you Katie, certain things freak me out too. Blood leaves me a wreck.

Its just a shame you have to remember its a public channel and although it offended and hurt you, it will not offend and hurt others.


Very true. I was surprised I was the only one who posted on their message boards and complain. Then again, my reaction to that kind of thing is not normal.
#37 Feb 19 2009 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Panic attacks and PTSD. I'm sure you've taken an in depth look at them before. Mayhaps you should lurk more and see how this might effect someone who suffers from both.


I know a kid who is allergic to peanuts. Does it seam reasonable that peanuts should be banned because of this, or does it seem reasonable that his parents should have to expend effort to avoid peanuts, including not eating places where they know there are unlikely to be peanuts, but where there are not absolutely sure there won't be?

If your psyche is this fragile, why do you persist in posting about exactly the type of thing that would negatively effect you? You have to be seeking it out, I watch an enormous amount of news and I see 1/10th of the traumatic stories you do.

You're too old now for this self destruction thing to be appealing to anyone.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Feb 19 2009 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Peanuts are banned from most, if not all Canadian school. This includes peanut butter. Although, I'm not sure the behaviour of schools is necessarily anything to judge by nowadays.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#39 Feb 19 2009 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Peanuts are banned from most, if not all Canadian school. This includes peanut butter.


While I disagree with that policy, it's understandable. It'd be understandable for chimp eating reports to banned from places Katie *had* to go. The DMV, for instance. No chimp eating report policy there is fine with me.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Feb 19 2009 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

Panic attacks and PTSD. I'm sure you've taken an in depth look at them before. Mayhaps you should lurk more and see how this might effect someone who suffers from both.


I know a kid who is allergic to peanuts. Does it seam reasonable that peanuts should be banned because of this, or does it seem reasonable that his parents should have to expend effort to avoid peanuts, including not eating places where they know there are unlikely to be peanuts, but where there are not absolutely sure there won't be?

If your psyche is this fragile, why do you persist in posting about exactly the type of thing that would negatively effect you? You have to be seeking it out, I watch an enormous amount of news and I see 1/10th of the traumatic stories you do.

You're too old now for this self destruction thing to be appealing to anyone.


Actually, on the topic of peanuts, food places have to warn their guests about ingredients that trigger allergic reactions. If you'll look on your menu next time you'll see a little disclaimer about peanuts and nut allergies.
#41 Feb 19 2009 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Actually, on the topic of peanuts, food places have to warn their guests about ingredients that trigger allergic reactions. If you'll look on your menu next time you'll see a little disclaimer about peanuts and nut allergies.


Those are state laws, actually, but they do indeed require this in the 'Chussetts. The end result being, all establishments that serve food have the same sign "Any and all of our products may contain peanuts".

Take a label maker, and stick this to your radio: "Any and all of these stations may contain audio that will bother you".

Problem solved.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Feb 19 2009 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm advocating smearing our nation's children with peanut butter each morning before the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sick of hearing about fucking peanut allergies and feel the quicker we remove this from the gene pool, the quicker my kid can bring a peanut butter cup to school without them declaring a roaming gunman-style lockdown.

Edited, Feb 19th 2009 6:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Feb 19 2009 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'm sick of hearing about ******* peanut allergies


I actually had this argument with Nexa once and she was *THIS CLOSE* to punching me in the face. My feeling that the number of children with shock inducing, epi-pen requiring peanut allergies is around 1/1000th of the number of paranoid wacko parents of children with minor peanut allergies didn't go over well.

I'm allergic to walnuts, incidentally, not terribly but it's annoying for a few hours after I eat them. My throat swells and itches and I occasionally break out in hives. The idea that I'd expect giant warnings on everything containing walnuts or for them to be outlawed is absurd beyond belief.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Feb 19 2009 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I just had an epiphany a moment ago. God damn peanut allergies are 100% to blame for the fact that I can't find a grocery store that still sells bulk peanuts in a bin and instead need to pay $5.00 for a one pound bag of nuts when I want to feed the squirrels.

Fucking pussy kids.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Feb 19 2009 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Meh, a little violence is good for people. What if a madman came through your door, totally covered in guts and gore? If you were desensitised to violence, you'd have a better chance of escaping or fighting them off, as you'd be less likely to freeze and be carved up like a pumpkin.

You just need to think these things through.
#46 Feb 19 2009 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
I have to add that I hate nut allergies as well. At my work, we have a pesto chicken pasta, and in the description it says "topped with pine nuts". Well, most ************* are picky, and probably about 40% of people request it "without nuts." Now, my liability-worried *** refuses to walk away before confirming that they are indeed just picky and not allergic, because pesto itself contains pine nuts. Most people look at my like I'm retarded, and I have to let them know that I just don't want them to die. Smiley: disappointed
#47 Feb 19 2009 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
**
505 posts
The problem with the "you can always just turn it" argument is that you can only do that after the fact. If I'm watching SpongeBob with my 5 year old, I can reasonably assume we won't be accosted with images of five horny midgets gang-banging a dead goat. Sure, I can "just turn it" but the damage is done.


There is societal responsibility. Some love to claim that if you ban one thing you have to ban everything. That's an overly simplistic load of crap. I'm against censorship, but only for things you have to actively pursue. Freedom doesn't give you the right to blindside folks with filth.

Edited, Feb 20th 2009 12:07am by CoalHeart
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#48 Feb 19 2009 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CoalHeart wrote:
The problem with the "you can always just turn it" argument is that you can only do that after the fact. If I'm watching SpongeBob with my 5 year old, I can reasonably assume we won't be accosted with images of five horny midgets gang-banging a dead goat. Sure, I can "just turn it" but the damage is done.
Right. It makes more sense to spend the next five minutes crying "Oh, if only I could stop watching this midget-dead goat gang bang! But the damage is already done! I'm helpless to stop watching it!"

Which is essentially what folks were accusing Katie of.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Feb 19 2009 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
Freedom doesn't give you the right to blindside folks with filth.

Sure it does. Some people think "filth" is harmful though, and those people tend to get their way. Oh well, it is gradually relaxing over time at least.



#50 Feb 20 2009 at 4:59 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I want to feed the squirrels.

Trying to lure them under the blades of your lawn mower?

I vote for free speech.

Katie I would recommend disconnecting your car radio. And for cripes sake avoid witnessing any roadway accidents!

I posted a link some time back about story I'd heard on the radio. UCLA researchers were able to record the sounds yeast cells were making when stressed. They screamed when dying. I found it disturbing. It haunts me whenever I make bread. Dam NPR.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Feb 20 2009 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm advocating smearing our nation's children with peanut butter each morning before the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sick of hearing about fucking peanut allergies and feel the quicker we remove this from the gene pool, the quicker my kid can bring a peanut butter cup to school without them declaring a roaming gunman-style lockdown.

Edited, Feb 19th 2009 6:31pm by Jophiel


If that were the case I would be more inclined to include peanut butter cups in my son's lunch on a daily basis.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 720 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (720)