Woman sues over Janet's breast

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Udderly ridiculous.

(Couldn't resist. Sorry.)

 

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

He wouldn't be the only one.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

LMAO!

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