Woman sues over Janet's breast

[oi]

It matter here, because Aivansama was trying to show a comparrison between US and Finland regarding nudity on tv. But there are many variables that could explain all the differences between the 2 countries regarding:divorce rate, crime rates,... which Aivansama brought up.

Actually it was Vince who brought up the stuff about morals. So then it's actually he who, suprisingly, brought up something of total irrelevance in the form of a connection between morals and nudity. I mean since you just said that it's two different countries with different variables then of course Vince's statement holds no water at all.

 

[epicstruggle]

It matter here, because Aivansama was trying to show a comparrison between US and Finland regarding nudity on tv. But there are many variables that could explain all the differences between the 2 countries regarding:divorce rate, crime rates,... which Aivansama brought up.

Actually it was Vince who brought up the stuff about morals. So then it's actually he who, suprisingly, brought up something of total irrelevance in the form of a connection between morals and nudity. I mean since you just said that it's two different countries with different variables then of course Vince's statement holds no water at all.

It was Aivansama who brought up numbers/statistics to show a difference. And that is what I was trying to refute.

later,
epic

 

[oi]

Yes I can see that, in response to a statement whith an equal amout irrelevance. So I don't really see the problem. Vince brought up that countries which show nudity whenever on tv would be less moral than countries which don't. Aivansama showed that it isn't really the case. Can you see that neither Vince nor Aivansama really cared for the fact that both countries have a ton of different variables, but rather was talking about the specific point of nudity? Hence cultural differences doesn't really matter in the matter they're discussing, since the original argument obviously didn't.

 

[L233]

-I own part of that channel (along with millions of americans) so why should I have to change channels.

You don't own the channel, not even part of it. There is no private ownership for public property, even if you finance them with your tax money.

 

[Aivansama]

So my point was that it would have been more appropriate to choose 2 more similar countries with only the nudity as a factor. The US is a more populated country, with more ethnic/religious diversity which Finland cannot compare too. So the comparisson is really worthless.

later,
epic

The original post to which I (strongly, sorry) objected was Vince's which stated that breasts on TV lead to, and I quote
"open sexuality [that] breeds a culture which has a loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity and has gone too far into excesses."

IF nipples on TV DO lead to this, then surely it would show up in statistics.

BTW, explanation for how a more populated country with more ethnic/religious diversity suffers more from nudity than smaller countries would be most interesting. Could You explain it a little better? Is there a set limit on the number of ethnic groups after which the nipple is harmful when seen on TV? We only have three, maybe four distinct ethnic minorities (depending on whether the swedish apply... ), refugees notwithstanding. Should we worry?

Epicstruggle, You were trying to refute my numbers. Could You do it with You own numbers? Please pick two identical countries with the only difference being nudity and show us that yes indeed, it matters. It doesn't seem fair that one side has to prove a point with facts, while the other is implicitly assumed to be correct because, well, they just know this to be so.

Edit: Added the question to epicstruggle, didn't want to use more posts...

 

[Aivansama]

Yes I can see that, in response to a statement whith an equal amout irrelevance. So I don't really see the problem. Vince brought up that countries which show nudity whenever on tv would be less moral than countries which don't. Aivansama showed that it isn't really the case. Can you see that neither Vince nor Aivansama really cared for the fact that both countries have a ton of different variables, but rather was talking about the specific point of nudity? Hence cultural differences doesn't really matter in the matter they're discussing, since the original argument obviously didn't.

Be fair. Note my post noting why this comparison is utterly absurd. Any one of them...

 

[epicstruggle]

-I own part of that channel (along with millions of americans) so why should I have to change channels.

You don't own the channel, not even part of it. There is no private ownership for public property, even if you finance them with your tax money.

In 2 ways i own the channel. First I own stock in the company Viacom. Secondly the frequency used to brocast cbs is owned by the public. FCC chairman Powell was talking about this on one of the talk shows. Unless you think you have more info then the head of the FCC, i think ill go with him on this one.(Maybe own is the wrong word but i hope you get what i mean)

later,
epic

 

[oi]

Be fair

I'm trying really hard to keep any form of serious argumentation since we're discussing such a lethal matter as a saggy tit on tv. And no, it's not a matter of trust and intent as some might think, it's a matter of how accepted nude parts of a body is.

 

[epicstruggle]

I give up trying to explain why what happened is wrong, I guess there's something in the water in Finland where all this really doesnt matter. I keep reading posts that completly ignore why what janet jackson did was wrong, and so now i give up. For the record I would point to this post for an accurate account of why this is so upseting (one of a few):
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=219538#219538

later,
epic

 

[oi]

Yes, and we all understand that alot of people in the US finds it unacceptable because they want to be able to control what their kids see on TV. But fact still remains that what they're complaining about IS a tit. Hence the tit is the problem, not if they can control what their kids are watching or not. If they could accept that there is nothing wrong with tits (which is what they most likely believe in reality, but chose to hide in public because it's the 'right' thing to do), then the problem wouldn't be there. And that's why alot of people are mocking this whole matter, because quite frankly it's just dumb, imo.

edit: Regarding that article I find it quite entertaining on some points.

And many millions of those responsible parents and their well-behaved children tuned into the superbowl on sunday expecting to see a football game, and what they got was a flailing titty.

This was the television equivalent of replacing a link to an article with a goatse link. People expect something decent and normal, and they get porn. It's like ordering a steak and getting a plate of shit. Is it going to turn me into a closet shit-eater? No...but I still have the right to be angry because what I wanted was a steak.

If they wanted to watch a football game, then why didn't they switch channels during the halftime entertainment? And equaling tits to not normal and shit? I wonder how sex is performed in the states. Trashcan covering the upper part of the body?

edit2: I'll just end my participation on this thread with a quote from a guy on another forum.

"Basically, most US citizens are lying, hallucinating hypocrites on the topic of sex."

 

[John Reynolds]

I - and damn near everyone objectivly looking at it* - knows George Bush had no premeditated lying under Oath. Nor was his incorrect statements premeditated lies. Hell, the fact that articles of impeachment were never even brought up on the hill, or Sen. Kennedy's daily attempt and subsequent crash & burn when trying to find lying demonstrated this very fact. The president's intent and actions were based on their knowledge at the time and was correct & sincere. Just as were the 77 Senators who voted for the war on the same intelligence. Again, their intentions weren't convoluted or biased as stated by people ranging from David Kay, to Bush's speech writers who took material right out of the Natl Defense Review, to Zell Miller and other such democrats like Ed Koch.

*It's not that I'm objective, no mystery there, I just happened to fall on the right side of this one.

LOL I remember a press conference Dubya held early last year, during which he was asked where the evidence of Saddam possessing WMDs was. His reply? "The American people know Saddam has WMD." Nice dodge, and that reply was very typical for this administration, which often uses words to mean their exact opposite meaning: clean environment = less restrictions on corporations, no child left behind = underfunded program in which children no longer learn but are merely prepped for passing tests, the warr on terror = going after a dictator after having your intelligence scrubbed by the OSP and yet having no strong evidence he was involved with terrorism or possessed WMD, naming a panel to investigate your intelligence failure = ordering said panel's findings not be published until after the elections even though they would be of paramount importance to the elections.

As for those who voted for the war, why did they also vote for the Patriot Act? Or is that a fine piece of legislature and leadership in your opinion too?

Dubya hasn't lied while in office? Utterly laughable. I'm not registered as a repub or dem, but the grandstanding and moralizing that the right wingers, particularly the self-righteous fundies, can engage in is always worth a chuckle or two. And of the two, how can any sane, reasonable person compare one person lying about sex and the other lying about war?

Personally I think that panel will find that Bush has no intelligence. And let's see in a year if they even mention the now disbanded OSP.

 

[kyleb]

good stuff John!

i apologize for any ranting i might have done towards you prewar defense of the administrations motives. it seems to me now that you were mealy giving trust were you though it was due. but you obviously possess the character to speak out when it is clear that your trust was violated. my hat goes off to you.

 

[John Reynolds]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/opinion/07KRIS.html

So to me, the administration's recent effort to blame the intelligence community for the Iraq mess is as misleading as the drive to war itself. Nothing the C.I.A. did was as harmful as the way administration officials systematically misled Americans about the incomplete and often contradictory mountain of intelligence.

For example, in September 2002 the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a still-classified report saying "there is no reliable information" on whether Iraq had chemical weapons. Yet in the same month Donald Rumsfeld was telling a House committee the opposite: "We do know that the Iraqi regime currently has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and we do know they are currently pursuing nuclear weapons."

I've been canvassing people in the intelligence community, and one person at D.I.A. tells me: "I never saw anything that justified the idea that Saddam was an immediate threat, or that we knew with certainty what he had. Everything I saw was laced with `possibles' and `probables'; in fact, what I saw about those aluminum tubes, for instance, seemed to me to leave the impression that they probably were not nuclear-related."

Lt. Col. Dale Davis, a former Marine counterintelligence officer now at the Virginia Military Institute, says he hears from his former intelligence colleagues that top officials "cherry-picked the intel for the most damning, and often least reliable, tidbits and produced alarming conclusions — the 45-minute chemical attack scenario, the African uranium and the Al Qaeda connection. The C.I.A. never supported these assertions."

Another person with long experience in military intelligence put it this way: "Everyone knew from the start that there was no smoking gun and the assessment was based on speculation, anecdote and outdated information, not current evidence. We didn't have the `humint' [human intelligence] capability to confirm anything one way or the other.

 

[Florin]

I guess there's something in the water in Finland where all this really doesnt matter.

I'm guessing it must be the water in just about the rest of the western industralised world then, where hardly anyone would blink at an exposed nipple, much less file a lawsuit about it.

 

[kyleb]

no kidding, i would start siding with the conspiracy theorists at this point and assume that it was the American government doing strange things to the water supply if it wasn't for the fact that i drink it too.

 

[Aivansama]

I guess there's something in the water in Finland where all this really doesnt matter.

I'm guessing it must be the water in just about the rest of the western industralised world then, where hardly anyone would blink at an exposed nipple, much less file a lawsuit about it.

Udderly ridiculous.

(Couldn't resist. Sorry.)

 

[Vince]

LOL

Don't worry bud, I laughed when I posted my first responce to. Untill I remembered your a parent. Which is scary when you realize how your not looking at the dynamics of these issues, but rather just this simplistic view. And even worse when your position is sheer inconsistent as in the case of the Janet Jackson and Bush issues. But hey, keep thinking it's just about a "nipple" while attacking the administration for their not upholding the citizen's trust.

I remember a press conference Dubya held early last year, during which he was asked where the evidence of Saddam possessing WMDs was. His reply? "The American people know Saddam has WMD."

And how was this a case of "premeditated lying" again? The statements are all based in facts of the time and the view of the intelligence community of a whole. Did you even hear what David Kay and George Tenet just said? I feel like I'm talking to a college kid working in the Dean campaign.

clean environment = less restrictions on corporations, no child left behind = underfunded program in which children no longer learn but are merely prepped for passing tests, the warr on terror = going after a dictator after having your intelligence scrubbed by the OSP and yet having no strong evidence he was involved with terrorism or possessed WMD, naming a panel to investigate your intelligence failure = ordering said panel's findings not be published until after the elections even though they would be of paramount importance to the elections.

Yeah, I was right about who I'm talking to. I just love the Liberal talking point regurgitation. Although, I particularly like how you "prep" kids for tests, but don't actually teach them. Gotta love that ability to pass tests without knowing how to do the problems, I suppose the Bush Administrations proposal had a section where they finance the teaching of cheat/crib-sheet production and probabilistic answer selection. LMAO! What a f-ing joke.

As for those who voted for the war, why did they also vote for the Patriot Act? Or is that a fine piece of legislature and leadership in your opinion too?

Wow! Never heard this one before. What's even funnier is I bet you never even read the actual Act; here's a hint for ya bud... that's a good starting point. Not that such ignorance surprises me, I usually figure the discussion's downhill when someone brings up the Patriot Act (Unless your Natoma of course ). Although, I bet you also never heard comments from liberal democrats such as:

[Sen. Feinstein] thinks there is ''substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it has been employed.'' She added, ''I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and they had none'

Or even more to the point, as Sen. Biden (D-Del) who is no stranger to ripping conservatives apart at every possible oppertunity has stated:

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DEL) has put it well: “The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists.â€￾

But, the scary Patriot Act will take away all our Civil Liberties because some wacko conspiracy-theorists and extreme left/right wing asses said so... right.

And of the two, how can any sane, reasonable person compare one person lying about sex and the other lying about war?

I already layed out the rational and a parallel. You have yet to respond with an actual responce not filled with this bullshit rhetoric. I don't expect much.

Personally I think that panel will find that Bush has no intelligence.

He wouldn't be the only one.

 

[StefanS]

This whole issue reminds me of Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972), where a giant tit is threatening the whole mankind. Who would've know back then that it's Janet's tit.

 

[pascal]

Sorry Vince, but I am really tired of all this BS talk about Iraq´s WMD

 

[Vince]

Actually it was Vince who brought up the stuff about morals. So then it's actually he who, suprisingly, brought up something of total irrelevance in the form of a connection between morals and nudity. I mean since you just said that it's two different countries with different variables then of course Vince's statement holds no water at all.

Actually, I stated that someone could make the case that.... I never actually did. Was kinda a lead-in for the Animal Sex link. Although, I do believe there is a level of sexual tolerance in such societies which I don't find correct, nor do I approve. For eample the level of openness in, say, the Japanese culture or many European ones concerning sex with teenagers and it's acceptance.

So, I didn't intend to follow up the argument as I was clearly going in a different direction, but these things have a mind of their own

This whole issue reminds me of Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972), where a giant tit is threatening the whole mankind.

LMAO!

Sorry Vince, but I am really tired of all this BS talk about Iraq´s WMD

Don't be sorry, thats your opinion. But, I'd then suggest that you don't read the thread.