View Poll Results: What would you like to see?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • The "loud" bill passed

    37 53.62%
  • The "loud" bill defeated

    11 15.94%
  • Network executives tied down and forced to repeatedly listen to Crazy Train

    17 24.64%
  • I clicked the link to get to this poll - LOL

    4 5.80%
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 161

Thread: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

  1. #71
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    For one thing, the ability to do what you said is a recent phenomenon that likely not everyone knows about. You do seem to realize, though, that without such a system, adjusting the volume and making sure kids aren't exposed to porn aren't the same things.
    Whether one thing is new or not is irrelevant. The question at hand is whether people should be expected the exercise the same responsibility when it comes to their television experience. My position is that yes they should. In both cases. Neither case is a matter where the government should be involved.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #72
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Whether one thing is new or not is irrelevant. The question at hand is whether people should be expected the exercise the same responsibility when it comes to their television experience. My position is that yes they should. In both cases. Neither case is a matter where the government should be involved.
    For one thing you seem to have ignored my point that the government still is involved to help you with your selective censoring, even if they were not to do any censoring themselves.

    And yes, that it is new does matter. If very few people even knew about the mute button/volume control, it would make sense to regulate how loud a program could be.

    I still maintain that the two cases are inherently different, since one involves protecting one's self and the other involves protecting one's children.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    For one thing you seem to have ignored my point that the government still is involved to help you with your selective censoring, even if they were not to do any censoring themselves.
    And they shouldn't be. Not for something as trivial as what you choose to watch on television. If you don't like people having sex on tv? Switch the channel. If you don't like a loud commercial? Press mute. Are you REALLY just arguing to argue now?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #74
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Are you REALLY just arguing to argue now?
    I would ask that of you, since everything you just said are things which I had just addressed, even though you ignored the part where I addressed them. And the part which you quoted, you seem to not have understood. I was referring to the first part of post #70. Go back and read it if that helps.

  5. #75
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Except the two situations are completely different.
    Except that they aren't.

    Censoring graphic sex is not because people do not like to see it, but because they do not want their children exposed to it.
    And people don't want their children exposed to exceedingly loud commercials?

    By your measure, we should ban offensive radio because people don't want their children exposed to it.

    The whole "children" argument is total crap as you can argue anything should be banned/regulated because "people" don't want their children exposed to it.

    Please stop trying to paint everyone with a position on anything as a hypocrite.
    Not my fault you're defending a hypocritical position.

    Your entire argument is a giant double standard. When it comes to loud commercials that anyone can simply mute or change the channel, Government shouldn't get involved. But when it comes to things on TV like extreme violence or sex, the government MUST get involved despite the same principle of being able to change the channel existing. Hatuey summed it up well about personal responsibility. There is principally no difference here.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 12-31-09 at 09:15 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #76
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    For one thing, the ability to do what you said is a recent phenomenon that likely not everyone knows about. You do seem to realize, though, that without such a system, adjusting the volume and making sure kids aren't exposed to porn aren't the same things.
    How is turning off the tv or switching channels any different for either?

    But anyways, what you said still involves government standards, in that programs have to rate themselves appropriately based on their content in order to be censored.
    It appears you want the government to regulate things you find questionable, but when it comes to things you don't find questionable despite the underlying ability of individuals to rectify the situation on their own being virtually the same, you do not support a single standard.

    If you actually believed in the notion of personal responsibility in hitting the mute button or changing the channel when a loud commercial came on, you'd have no problem doing the same for things you find offensive on broadcast. But here we are and you aren't presenting a single standard.

    And why not let the market decide what gets shown?

    I gotta wonder how some people can think they are consistent when they hold diametrically opposed notions.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #77
    Sage
    Crosscheck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,485

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Then press the goddamn mute button.
    How about make the volume the same for commercials and programs. Then if you want to have the commercial blasting through your home then you get the flipper box and press on the Volume Up button till the windows shake......................................

  8. #78
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Every one doesn't have a remote---makes for a lot of gettin up and down. --Why did this issue have to ever go to the Gubment? Shouldn't the providers address this problem? ---Mine did tell me, it was out of their control, but they often stretch things a tad. I think a phone call to the right guy would do the trick. If I knew who it was.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  9. #79
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Except that they aren't.
    Why do you always come across as so angry and tense?

    And people don't want their children exposed to exceedingly loud commercials?
    If you do not realize the difference, I don't know what to say. I had pegged you as smarter than that.

    By your measure, we should ban offensive radio because people don't want their children exposed to it.
    Not sure what you mean by "offensive", but isn't it mostly already banned?

    The whole "children" argument is total crap as you can argue anything should be banned/regulated because "people" don't want their children exposed to it.
    Except that some of those arguments might actually be valid.

    Not my fault you're defending a hypocritical position.
    To you, everything is a hypocritical position, so yes, it kind of is your fault.

    Your entire argument is a giant double standard. When it comes to loud commercials that anyone can simply mute or change the channel, Government shouldn't get involved. But when it comes to things on TV like extreme violence or sex, the government MUST get involved despite the same principle of being able to change the channel existing. Hatuey summed it up well about personal responsibility. There is principally no difference here.
    Except there is. As I have pointed out multiple times, one situation is about personal preference, while the other is about what one's child is able to see. But please ignore that essential difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    How is turning off the tv or switching channels any different for either?
    Because in one situation, since it's not about you, you're not always there to turn the TV off or switch channels, and a lot more damage can be done in the short amount of time before one does.

    It appears you want the government to regulate things you find questionable, but when it comes to things you don't find questionable despite the underlying ability of individuals to rectify the situation on their own being virtually the same, you do not support a single standard.

    If you actually believed in the notion of personal responsibility in hitting the mute button or changing the channel when a loud commercial came on, you'd have no problem doing the same for things you find offensive on broadcast. But here we are and you aren't presenting a single standard.
    Still ignoring many key differences here. Like I said earlier, saying that it's okay because you can just change the channel is like saying that underage smoking should be legal because all parents have to do is not buy cigarettes.

    And why not let the market decide what gets shown?
    "Why not let the free market decide who gets to smoke?"

    I gotta wonder how some people can think they are consistent when they hold diametrically opposed notions.
    I gotta wonder how you go through life seeing hypocrisy with every turn. It must be great, you seeing this vast, massive hypocrisy that nobody else has had the brains to realize. You must be the smartest person in the world or something.

  10. #80
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Why do you always come across as so angry and tense?
    Because you refuse to acknowledge your double standards.

    If you do not realize the difference, I don't know what to say. I had pegged you as smarter than that.
    Merely because you wish them to be different does not equate to them being different.

    Not sure what you mean by "offensive", but isn't it mostly already banned?
    There's the kicker. What is offensive? And to whom?

    Except that some of those arguments might actually be valid.
    Some? Who gets to define that? Furthermore, once we start, how do we stop? What is offensive to whom? Who decides?

    To you, everything is a hypocritical position, so yes, it kind of is your fault.
    Taking arguments from Mr. V is generally a bad idea considering his track record.

    Except there is. As I have pointed out multiple times, one situation is about personal preference, while the other is about what one's child is able to see. But please ignore that essential difference.
    Except that the child is also able to hear the loud commercial as well. Furthermore, it is your personal preference as to what you do not want your child to see and here. Thus, both are personal preferences. There is no essential difference other then your double standard.

    Because in one situation, since it's not about you, you're not always there to turn the TV off or switch channels, and a lot more damage can be done in the short amount of time before one does.
    Come again? How is that not applicable to both? And it is YOUR personal preference as to what you want your child exposed to.

    Still ignoring many key differences here.
    What key difference? It is YOUR personal preference for what you want your kids exposed to and YOUR personal preference as to the volume of the commercials.

    Like I said earlier, saying that it's okay because you can just change the channel is like saying that underage smoking should be legal because all parents have to do is not buy cigarettes.
    I'm not saying it's okay. What I'm saying is that the argument you present is very uneven. Complaining about government regulation on the basis that people are free to rectify the situation on their own when it comes to loud commercials but not applying the same thinking when it comes to things you may find offensive on broadcast is a hypocritical stance. Basically your argument is little more then "I don't like this, therefore regulate, but I don't mind that, therefore don't regulate" when both are nothing more then your own preferences.

    "Why not let the free market decide who gets to smoke?"
    Sure. As long as those who are smoking are informed of the risks.

    I gotta wonder how you go through life seeing hypocrisy with every turn.
    Everyone is a hypocrite. Some are just worse then others.

    It must be great, you seeing this vast, massive hypocrisy that nobody else has had the brains to realize. You must be the smartest person in the world or something.
    Again, Mr. V doesn't win any arguments with those lines, so copying them from him generally isn't suggested.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •