• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

What would you like to see?

  • The "loud" bill passed

    Votes: 31 51.7%
  • The "loud" bill defeated

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • Network executives tied down and forced to repeatedly listen to Crazy Train

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • I clicked the link to get to this poll - LOL

    Votes: 4 6.7%

  • Total voters
    60
People spend a lot of time watching TV in America. It will improve that mundane experience so they can relax and enjoy. It might also actually help the advertisers in the long run. People will be less likely to turn off the commercials I think.

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.
 
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.

Contact by Carl Sagan! That was my thought too.
 
I personally applaud this. Like apdst said, as long as Congress is worrying about this, BCS playoffs, MLB steroids, putting calorie counts on fast food menus, etc...then they can't screw up anything important.
 
There are four buttons on your remote to control volume:

1. Louder.
2. Less Loud.
3. Mute.
4. Off.

I think even a liberal has the mental capacity to apply pressure on the correct button to execute the desired result. Then again, maybe not.

The United States of Helpless Little Girls.

.

Wow, you must be a real macho man. You should share with us a picture of youself so we all can see a real man that is if you can get those massive biceps in one pic.........
We all await to see this.
 
This... isn't something the Government should have anything to do with. Good Lord we're turning into a pathetic bunch of morons.

By such measure, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything on the airwaves licenses its sells. Oh wait. That means that broadcasters could show anything they wanted. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!:2wave:
 
1. We have become a nation of little girls, and are deserving of the government we currently have.

2. Yes, we need the FCC... so the airwaves Gestapo can monitor the resurgence of The Fairness Doctrine.

3. This is The Dipsh*t Congress. Perfectly suited for governing dumb, helpless little girls.

.

So you'd be okay with barring the FCC from regulating anything on the airwaves then?

So you'd be okay with graphic sex shown on prime time? After all, "We have become a nation of little girls, and are deserving of the government we currently have."

No one says you have to watch it.

Let's see just how hypocritical you can get. I recently bought a new hypocritimeter. Let's see just how far up the measure you can go.
 
Moderator's Warning:
All of you need to stop the personal attacks and the baiting or there will be further consequences.
 
Apparently nobody in Congress has heard of the "Mute" button, or volume control.
 
Or that the broadcasters never heard of uniform volume control.---I have various channels that also have differing volumes. fix them both at once.
 
Apparently nobody in Congress has heard of the "Mute" button, or volume control.

But utilizing the same argument, no one forces anyone to watch graphic sex. Therefore, the FCC or Congress shouldn't make regulations against what broadcasters can broadcast. You can just as easily change the channel as hit the mute button. If you are against the government enacting laws to stop overbearing commercial loudness on the basis that people can hit the mute or change the channel, you should be against the government enacting any regulation on broadcast as people can hit the mute or change the channel. No one is making anyone watch or listen to anything.

But the Social Cons are going to go totally ape **** over that proposal. Hypocrites every last one of them.
 
But utilizing the same argument, no one forces anyone to watch graphic sex. Therefore, the FCC or Congress shouldn't make regulations against what broadcasters can broadcast. You can just as easily change the channel as hit the mute button. If you are against the government enacting laws to stop overbearing commercial loudness on the basis that people can hit the mute or change the channel, you should be against the government enacting any regulation on broadcast as people can hit the mute or change the channel. No one is making anyone watch or listen to anything.

But the Social Cons are going to go totally ape **** over that proposal. Hypocrites every last one of them.

Except the two situations are completely different. Censoring graphic sex is not because people do not like to see it, but because they do not want their children exposed to it. Please stop trying to paint everyone with a position on anything as a hypocrite.
 
Except the two situations are completely different. Censoring graphic sex is not because people do not like to see it, but because they do not want their children exposed to it. Please stop trying to paint everyone with a position on anything as a hypocrite.

I don't want to be exposed to loud commercials. It's bad for my hearing.
 
Change the channel if you don't want your kids exposed to sex.

"If you don't want your kids to smoke, don't buy cigarettes."

That is essentially your argument.
 
"If you don't want your kids to smoke, don't buy cigarettes."

That is essentially your argument.

Not really. You stated that if people don't want to be exposed to loud commercials they can hit the mute button. Then you stated that it's not the same to exercise the very same personal responsibility when it comes to the programming your kids watch. My box comes with a system where I can set the time my kid watches television and what kind of programming she can watch. I don't even have to change the channel. I don't have to call the FCC to tell them that my kid has been exposed to sex because I've realized it is my responsibility as a parent to ensure a 2 and a half year old doesn't accidentally start watching Playboy.
 
Not really. You stated that if people don't want to be exposed to loud commercials they can hit the mute button. Then you stated that it's not the same to exercise the very same personal responsibility when it comes to the programming your kids watch. My box comes with a system where I can set the time my kid watches television and what kind of programming she can watch. I don't even have to change the channel. I don't have to call the FCC to tell them that my kid has been exposed to sex because I've realized it is my responsibility as a parent to ensure a 2 and a half year old doesn't accidentally start watching Playboy.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom