OT (sort of): CBS revisited

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:10:21 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Note the use of the future perfect tense, to indicate a hypothetical
situation postulated by the following clause beginning with "if".

Was that in the subjunctive mood? :-)

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
You replied that your son doesn't watch that crap. But
somehow he saw the breast in question. Which means he must have been
watching that crap.

Yeah, I didn't think you got it the first and second time. I ain't
explaining it again, Pete. You'll just have to skip that question on the
test.

the exposed
breast was that least of the entire "attack" you've perceived. If the
exposed breast was an attack, then the entire halftime show is an all-out
war.

By golly, I think you might just be getting the point! I sure hope that it
is the beginning of a war. You may not give a damn about the kind of lessons
being taught to your kid but I damn sure do.

Note the use of the future perfect tense, to indicate a hypothetical
situation postulated by the following clause beginning with "if". You are
claiming kids will always react in this way, regardless of upbringing,
while
my comment was respect to how they would behave given a different
upbringing.

shwew Damn! I read that twice and it still went right over my
close-minded little head, Pete! Do you write for the FAA on the side?

And yet, you left it on, and allowed the children to remain in the room
and
watch. But you don't get indignant until the breast comes out? Absurd.

Naw, I'd call it normal. I'm fairly slow to anger and quick with
retribution. By the time Justin violently ripped Janet's clothes off, it
was too late.

In any case, I'm not talking about how you all reacted to this isolated
incident.

You aren't? Okay, no fair. You can't switch gears without telling me.
Hate it when that happens.

If your morality and virtue changed when you had a child, then YOU are the
exception.

Hmm. You have a point. My point, however, was that before I had a kid, the
spectacle of Janet being forcefully declothed on stage would have been
laughed at, applauded and even celebrated or simply dismissed ("It's just a
nip, man!) - much as you are doing now. Having a kid changed (focused?)
that view along with many others.

Something you obviously wouldn't understand.

Well, that explains a lot. Your belief that children simply inherently
act
one way or the other, for example, and that how they are raised cannot
affect that.

What?? Where the hell did that come from! You've lost it, buddy.

So how would you have felt if ol' Justin and Janet stripped naked and
"went
at it" in front of your kid right there on television, Pete? Just
curious.

Aren't you listening? We don't watch that crap.

I see. Avoidance, eh? That's a handy tool in the pattern. Makes you a
coward in a debate, though.

Answer the question.

--
Jim Fisher

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
He would probably just laugh at your stupidity, as would I.

Naw, I suspect (even without knowing whether he drives a low wing or high)
that Andrew actually has balls and would kick my ass.

The world awaits his response, though.

--
Jim Fisher

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message ...
"StellaStar" wrote in message
...
Sydney observes...
It's OK to have a halftime show featuring some dude
wrapped in an American flag and singing all kinds of "nasty" but
a little tit has everyone in a tither?

Yup. What a humorous way to yank the news channels away from politics for
a
day. Ya hire MTV to stage a spectacle and they put in rude behavior, bad
language, and scantily clad chickies? Well, knock me over with a feather!
Next
year they'll retain Victoria's Secret to do the show, and never suspect
there
may be underwear involved.

Already been done. They called it the Lingerie Bowl.

If you're talking about some other show where lingerie-clad models
paraded about, I take that to be Stella's point. Most people have
had sufficient exposure to MTV to know what it's about: rude
behavior, bad language, scantily clad chickies, push the limits,
defy rules and authority, and on from there. Most people have had
sufficient exposure to Victoria's Secret to know what it's about:
women's underwear.

So just what did the CBS and the Superbowl organizers *think* they
were going to get, when they put MTV in charge? Stella's right,
the flap about it is just as silly as if they'd hired Victoria's
Secret and then were shocked, shocked, to find out that the halftime
show involved models strutting about in underwear.

I was putting my daughter to bed and didn't see the halftime show,
but "produced by MTV" was all I needed to know to learn that if
she'd still been around, I'd hit the "off" switch.

OTOH, I can quite clearly recall one time when I was nursing my
daughter in a Red Lobster restaurant and she grabbed my clothes
in both tiny fists and gave the tables across from me a good
momentary view of a female breast. If there were any parents
there who were shocked and offended on behalf of their young children,
I'm afraid I think it's their priorities which "need further
review".

Cheers,
Sydney

"John Harlow" wrote in message
news
|
| Anyway, I suppose that now we will see it on TV more and more until it
| becomes accepted.
|
| Every TV I've ever seen has a power switch.
|

Yes, it does. I don't have to watch shows that are offensive. However, one
does not expect things like the Superbowl to offensive. Programs that are
billed as suitable for families should be just that -- suitable for
families.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
|
| But that's not really the argument. The argument is that naked bodies
| (human, cat, etc.) aren't really something about which sane people should
| be uptight. Consensual sex between adults isn't something about which
sane
| people should be uptight.
|
| After all, we hope our children grow up to have bodies and be sexual
beings
| (ever wonder from where Grandkids come? {8^).
|
| However, I at least hope that violence doesn't play a significant role in
my
| child's life. Thus, exposure to violence - esp. the nonsensical
variations
| so popular in the media today - is not welcome.
|
| It's really two separate issues.
|
| From where do you get the idea that the human body is something of which
we
| should be ashamed?

Who said anything about shame? We are rapidly reaching the point where the
majority of children are being raised in fatherless households. This incurs
a tremendous social and economic cost. Drive through any apartment complex
and look at the two year olds wandering around unattended in soiled diapers,
rummaging through dumpsters. Their mothers cannot work and take care of them
at the same time. They cannot afford daycare. Sure, some of these mothers
are fined and imprisoned -- that really helps their kids, you know.

Or the women who are vulnerable to armed thugs who threaten their children
and force them to deal drugs and work as prostitutes.

Or the teenage son who takes advantage of his single mom's absence to pimp
for his younger sister.

Or the drug dealers who prey on these people.

Or the kids who are unable to identify with their families and so they join
gangs.

Or the young girls, some not yet even in their teens, who are so starved for
affection that they go out and get pregnant so that they will have someone
who loves them.

Or the crime that these kids grow up to commit.

I know these people. I deal with them every single day of every single year.
I know the cost of irresponsibility. We can try to build a social safety net
for them, but the fact is that the more of these people there are, the fewer
productive people we have to pay for that safety net. And we are well beyond
the limits of what any government can provide now by several orders of
magnitude. Well, we could send them all to prison -- we pretty much do that
now.

Many years ago black families in the United States were strong and had
strong religious ties. A black person could expect to grow to adulthood
without being murdered or sent to prison. Then people such as yourself
thought that these traditional families and religious ties were oppressive,
and social engineers sought to restructure black families. Welfare programs
made it impossible for fathers to be present in their homes, so most
children were raised without fathers. The illegitimate birth rate soared.
Once it reached 35%, the crime rate soared also. Social breakdown ensued and
now the United States has a higher percentage of its population in prison
than any other country. All because people like you thought that sexual
repression was a bad thing.

Now we see the same thing happening among all the other social groups in
this country. Just how much are you willing to spend to feed and clothe and
house and educate and imprison all these parentless children? Maybe it is
you that needs to start counting the social cost of social licentiousness.

My wife and I spend an average of 60 hours a week between us just working
with people who have destroyed their lives because they thought that
anything consenting adults do is harmless. The number 1 cause of poverty in
this country is divorce, as any of us "bean counters" can tell you. When you
have spent a few years dealing with the abject poverty, the disease, the
suicides, the abuse, the crime, the addictions, and everything else that
goes with social licentiousness, then you can come back and lecture me about
what consenting adults should be allowed to do. Until then, you can take
your idiotic social theories and *()@#$. And the horse you rode in on, too.

Still think it is not something that sane people should get uptight about?
Open your eyes. Sanity is a rare commodity in these days. A sane person
knows that there are consequences to what you do. A sane person knows that
whatever people do affects everybody else.

But, what the heck -- it is harmless, right? And who am I to judge what goes
on between consenting adults, no matter what it costs you, me, and everybody
else?

"C J Campbell" wrote

But, what the heck -- it is harmless, right? And who am I to judge what
goes
on between consenting adults, no matter what it costs you, me, and
everybody
else?

Tell us what you REALLY thimk!
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/30/04

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
| The blue noses here in the USA would really choke if they walked past any
| newstand in europe, or watched the tele after the childrens bedtime...
| denny

You must have missed some of earlier posts expressing my opinion of
Europeans....

The fact that the Europeans tolerate this stuff is all the more reason for
my opposing it.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
news |
| Perhaps if children were raised where the body weren't so taboo, people
| wouldn't be so jazzed by it. Look at the tribes in Africa, do the kids
| giggle and the oldsters scowl when a woman walks by in her natural state?

Have you ever considered that maybe there is a reason that those groups that
run around naked have remained primitive tribes despite thousands of years
of progress by all their neighbors? Um, yeah. The kids giggle. There aren't
any oldsters.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
news |
| Children run around blissfully naked until they are taught it is "wrong".
|

They also play in the freeway, touch hot stoves, and eat poisonous
substances until they are taught those things are "wrong," too.