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 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 161

Thread: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

  1. #81
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    This is reminiscent of a science fiction book (I forget the name or the author) I read, back in the early '70's. in the book, an inventor became famous for inventing "Adnix", a device which, when attached to the TV set, muted all commercials. Advertisers were up in arms over it, but to no avail. But the inventor's downfall was when he invented another device called "Preachnix", which muted everything said by televangelists, and that just pissed off too many people. LOL.
    The Title of The Book was The Man Who Owned the Moon. Incidentally, the primary point of the book was that the regulations at the time of the writing were very restrictive with what can be viewed on TV ( I think it was written during the 50s). So the hero of the book ( the same person who managed to block all those adds) managed to get the right to set broad cast towers on the Moon that could broadcast without censorship in other words porn. ( observe the thread discussion from page 7 or so about this issue.)

    I didn't read all the way thru that book i don't know how it turned out. Anyone here read it thru?
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  2. #82
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    I agree that this is silly waste of lawmakers' time and yet another intrusion into areas they have no business involving themselves in.

    The best response for consumers, would be a national pledge, so easy in the Internet Age, to boycott any product or service so advertised. Advertisers would respond with the predictability of guppies rising in an aquarium for their food.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  3. #83
    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 Oftencold View Post
    I agree that this is silly waste of lawmakers' time and yet another intrusion into areas they have no business involving themselves in.
    Indeed. You either regulate it all, or none when it comes to stuff like this.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Here's a poll for you.


    Meanwhile, a bill has passed the House, making it illegal for stations and networks to "pump up the volume" on commercials. At first blush, this seems like a good law to pass, since is pisses me off to no end to get my ears literally blown off by loud commercials, when I am attempting to watch a TV show. However, don't you think there are more important things our Congresscritters could be doing in Washington? Namely, attempt to get spending under control?

    Discussion?

    Article is here.

    Poll is here.

    Did you click the link to get to the poll?
    It's good to see that Congress was able to set aside all this silly if not destructive talk of National Health Care and finally did something worth doing.

  5. #85
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy View Post
    Man, I'm all for that one. I keep the remote in my hand, just to turn down the volume on commercials.----Back in the stone age, when cable first came out, the selling point was "No commercials" Seems they forgot that part.
    Really, no commercials??
    Dreamland
    That must have lasted about three minutes!
    I keep the control tied with a HF mini-bungee to the Lazy Boy arm.
    Mute is hit 95% of the time when a commercial strikes. I'd love to see government control over these annoying ads - they are propaganda due to their nastiness and frequency.
    A compromise - let the viewer know to the second how long the ad will run.
    It should take Congress about two hours to do this; then they can return to the important things.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Remember when cable was supposed to have no commercials?

  7. #87
    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
    Merely because you wish them to be different does not equate to them being different.



    There's the kicker. What is offensive? And to whom?



    Some? Who gets to define that? Furthermore, once we start, how do we stop? What is offensive to whom? Who decides?
    1. They are different.
    2. Offensiveness in the form of opinions which offend people is protected by freedom of speech. Offensiveness in the form of indecency is not.

    Zyphlin explains it better than I ever could:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In general, the more balanced stance is that public decency laws are present to maintain a minimum amount of civility and decorum within public so that things that generally offend and shock the general majority of people are not forcefully presented anywhere they go. That while yes, nothing says you HAVE to take your child out into public EVER, it is rather unreasonable to expect such. And as such, it is reasonable of the government to mandate a certain level of decency, for example public displays of nudity, to allow for such reasonable levels of public activity to occur without chancing the violation of other peoples rights.

    For example, it could be thought of that taking a child to the doctor is a reasonable normal activity that I should feel "safe" doing. As such, your right to put up a billboard depicting graphic sex or run up to my car shaking your junk around at the windows is trumped by the rights of the child or even the person going about normal routine business.

    I agree, things do get very tricky when it comes down to deceny laws and censorship, but at its heart it generally comes down to a protection of rights issue more so than the government "forcing" morality through new laws. Its why a PRIVATE strip club is free to have naked women shaking their ass all they want, but don't put it out on the sidewalk where people have a reasonable expectation to not have their rights infringed upon by things the general population veiws as obscene and thus offensive.
    Taking arguments from Mr. V is generally a bad idea considering his track record.
    So it's a good thing I didn't do that, and used my own words. I don't even usually read Mr. Vs post.

    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.
    It is not a double standard. Loudness applies equally to children and adults. Obscenity applies only to children.

    Come again? How is that not applicable to both?
    Did you even read the thing you quoted wherein I explain that?

    And it is YOUR personal preference as to what you want your child exposed to.
    Not really; I'd like you to find a parent who has no problems with exposing their young child to hardcore porn.

    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.
    See above.

    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.
    You really didn't read my post did you?

    A child being briefly exposed to hardcore porn is different than a child being briefly exposed to loudness. In one case the damage is temporary; in another the damage is lasting.

    Sure. As long as those who are smoking are informed of the risks.
    You think an 8-year-old child can smoke if they know the risks?

    Everyone is a hypocrite. Some are just worse then others.
    You seem to think that everyone is much much worse than you are, though (especially if they are right-wing).

    Again, Mr. V doesn't win any arguments with those lines, so copying them from him generally isn't suggested.
    See above.

    Really OC, it must be horrible being the smartest person on Earth and thus being able to see everybody for the complete hypocrite that they don't realize they are. It's no wonder you seem so rabid and intense all the time; you have seen the light and yet nobody else will accept it. How sad.

  8. #88
    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
    Indeed. You either regulate it all, or none when it comes to stuff like this.
    Um, how do you figure?

  9. #89
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    There is always gonna be bigger things to be done but little things add up.

    Hope the bring in a similar law over here.
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  10. #90
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by mikhail View Post
    There is always gonna be bigger things to be done but little things add up.

    Hope the bring in a similar law over here.


    I like that first sentence! Sounds like a good approach to life
    Tiki Bar! Woot!
    Drinks are plenty, music is fine, and the company is first-rate

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •