hokiesandwich

Sorry, I was a little ambiguous.
I meant to say that I'd rather have artists relegate painting,etc., to "side" activities in favor of a more generally accepted "constructive" job like nursing, teaching, or farming. We're not yet in any kind of a situation that would warrant that kind of change, but hypothetically...

Lebell

I just want to point out that most people do not normally think that the Olympics and Superbowl are going to have nudity. They are also typically broadcast before 9 pm.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mojo_PeiPei

I was watching PTI the other day, it was the tuesday after TO's skit with Nicolette Sheridan. Wilbon made a very good point. People get all up in arms about Jackson's boob or Sheridan's half breast, yet no one is really up in arms about the fact the superbowl is one gigantic commercial for erectial dysfunction.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

joeb1

No arguement there. I find the thought inducing comments made by ART on this board really do add an amazing view of the human psyche.

My previous post was in no way a swipe at him personally or artistically. Just trying to get him and others to see. That if we allow the FCC to control every aspect of censorship. All forms of media??? What is next?

Now granted the internet is different for now. So If we give them too much control. When will enough be enough? So at some time he will have to pull all display's of flesh the non pay part of his site.

Look at the religous zealots in my area. (Bob Jones) That have taken priceless works of art and painted their own fig leaves to cover the private parts of some amazing pieces of art. Disturbing, but a view of censorship at it's best.

I find nothing wrong with ARTelevision or his website.

But what happens when somebody's kid accidentally links to it. The child might see more than his parents want him or her to. Is this the kids fault? The parents? The FCC or governing body of the internet?

I don't find it offensive. But this is all in the eyes of the beholder. What might be consisdered "artistic" to me and you. Will be considered "pornographic" by others.

Janet Jackson did not bother me. I'm just glad it was Janet and not Michael. It's hard to tell the two apart lately. (this is a joke.. so please don't take it the wrong way!)

__________________
Disco Duck...

Mephisto2

I just want to point out that an international event, hosted, managed, filmed and produced in a country other than the US should not have to "water down" their ceremonies for the more sensitive US tastes.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with a stylized represenation of a pregnant women. To say otherwise is rediculous. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with a stylized representation of ancient Greek Kouros statues.

Should museums like the Getty be banned from allowing children to enter?


Mr Mephisto

KMA-628

Mr. M -

You're blowing my point(s) way out of proportion. You will notice, of course, that there are several different definitions for "fixate"--you chose the words you didn't like, I never tried to infer you were neurotic or the like. Also, I am in no way suggesting that you are not wanted here, nor do I want you to think I want you to go away. That was hardly the point of my post.

HOWEVER

Please do not try and pass yourself off as objective. You are as slanted as I am, just the opposite direction. You are usually pretty fair with your opinion, yes, I will wholeheartedly agree with that. And yes you are one of the first people to admit when you are wrong. But I have never, ever, ever seen you give "Bushco" a fair shake. I do, however, see you go out of your way to critique "Bushco" regardless of the facts or lack thereof. (keep in mind, I don't particularly like the guy either)

Case in point: The FCC

Why is it just Bush that catches the heat here? The most successful censorship campaign that I am aware of was launched by the wife of a leading Democrat: Tipper Gore. Another leading Democrat has launched many efforts to "censor" Hollywood as well: Joe Leiberman. This is hardly a conservative vs. liberal issue like some want it to be.

But, that's just not as fun as making us conservatives out to be evil and repressive.

Anyway, the best number I can get on US Foreign Aid is around .6% of GDP which puts the number around $10B. It seems that every source for porn revenue had a different number. Here is what I found on Forbes:
"[Pornography] is an industry where they exaggerate the size of everything."

Anyway, it is moot because we are consistently in the top four for dollar amount of foreign aid. I don't see much praise for the amount, rather I see constant criticism that we should be giving away more money. I give about as much credibility to complaints about America as you give to the complaints made by the PTC.

Lastly, so what if any part of America is adopting conservative core values? Why do you care? It is not like any of the people adopting this position are being forced to do so. There is no gun pointed at my head forcing me to believe in the core values I adhere to, I do it because I want to. But yet, you want to label us as "mad"? (c'mon, you can't possibly think that with your title and opening line that someone wasn't going to be bothered--regardless of the BAC).

That is what really bothers me here. I am very conservative, very pro-family and not even a teency bit religious. Yet, for what I believe, I get people telling me "WTF" and "you're mad".

And, to go back to a point I made previously, I cannot watch TV with my family in the evenings unless it is a DVD. Unlike when I was a kid, there is almost nothing on any network channel that I would consider o.k. for my kids to watch.

There is also a (so much for lastly) reason I chose to bring this up with you. Of the people that share your biases, you are the most likely to actually respond intelligently. There are many, many people here I would love to say similar things to, but that would be an utter waste of time. Usually, with you, I can bring this up and it is responded to appropriately. You must notice, also, that I am one of the few conservatives that has admitted errors. By my own nature I hate to admit, but I do nonetheless.

I will try another word, how is that? I am confused by your attentiveness to the failings, as you see them, of my country. I can see here or there comments, I am just trying to understand the continual comments.

O.k. - the "lastly" thing is officially out the window. I can never be accused of not talking enough.

I just read your last post.

To me, it is a non-issue unless the FCC actually finds in favor of the complaint. We could go nuts trying to debate every complaint made by someone here in the US. Complaints mean nothing. They can be lodged by anybody, regardless of their social/economic/political persuasion. I complain about stupid shit all the time, it doesn't mean my babbling needs to be taken seriously.

ARTelevision

I'm well aware that some of what we do on our own website can be considered pornographic.

I would never defend shoving it in anyone's face who didn't want it. We are highly conscious of age-appropriateness as regards content.

I also support the validity of those with opinions who oppose what I do.

As for commercial gain - the costs of the site far outweigh any small amount of "income" it has ever produced - this is publically documented. The site doesn't constitute commercial interest or mass media by any definition of the terms.

Personally, as an artist, I have made public statements - quoted in the Village Voice, for example - stating my total opposition to public funding for the arts. The simple fact is that my ideas are neither doctrinaire nor self-serving as is often assumed to be case - and is indeed often the case - with other artists. I do not take the positions commonly associated with my colleagues in the arts.

__________________
create evolution

sob

Agreed. I'd like to add that here, as well as in society at large, the people without children have all the answers in regard to raising them.

pan6467

I will only say this about those 2 particular events.

On JJ, I do not agree with what was done (and yes it was intentional), however, I watched the game and the halftime show and it happened so fast that I believe a vast majority would not have even thought about what happened had it not been for the outcry.

On the Olympics, upon which this thread is based, the opening games were done in a foreign country paying tribute to their heritage. I see nothing wrong if the television crew did not focus on the nudity in and of itself. If they did, then perhaps one of the cable sister stations were more appropriate, but that would not be because the opening was perverted but because the crew tended to focus on something they knew would offend people.

I also find it funny that this is some 3-4 months after and I am just now hearing about this issue. If it had been so big of an issue I would have thought people would have been making a big thing of it when it happened. But then again election year and all......

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Stompy

That's the thing, no one's shoving it in anyone's face. I'm not sure why people keep saying that, as if someone is forcing your eyes open making you watch it all. There are tons of shows that are TV-MA

Someone has to make a conscious choice to click on "titty board" or any of the other adult-oriented links. Someone doesn't click on "Titty Board" then sit back in awe, shocked and angered because pornographic images were shown.

If they were automatically presented with those images upon login, different story.

The same applies to TV. If you're watching something like "Temptation Island" and it just so happened to show nudity, no one is forcing anything upon anyone due to the very nature of the show. If the person would get offended at those images to begin with, they wouldn't be watching the show period. I'm sure my grandma gets offended at those types of images, but you'll never see her watching Temptation Island. She KNOWS what it is.

I'm not quite sure why people are so against the "if you don't like it, don't watch it" idea. Coupled with warnings like I've mentioned for the past few posts, there's simply no excuse for anyone to be caught off guard.

I'm sure you agree with the idea of "If you aren't aware a law exists and you break it, you should get punished regardless. Ignorance is not an excuse." The same should apply to tv. If you're not smart enough to at least briefly research or lookup the show you are watching, that's not an excuse and you need to deal with the consequences. It needs to go both ways.

[edit]
Also, I would blame the rating system we have. I've caught a glimpse at CSI here and there, and being rated TV-PG, it shows quite a bit that you wouldn't show in a PG movie... more like PG-13 borderline R. The system exists for a reason, they need to use it.

__________________
I love lamp.

Mephisto2

When did I ever try to do so.

Agreed. As is almost everyone here; even those who support the Libertarians.

Regardless of the facts or lack thereof? Well, that's a matter of opinion really, isn't it?

I don't really know what you mean by "giving him a fair go" in anycase. I disagree with most of what he does.

Do I praise him for the good things he does? Absolutely. The one that jumps out at me is the unprecendented amount of aid he has given (or released) to fight AIDS in Africa. In this respect he has put all of his predecessors (including Clinton who I greatly respect) to complete and utter shame.

I've also gone on record saying that I think he's a fundamentally good man doing what his conscience dictates and what he believes is right. I happen to disagree with most of what he does, but I do not think he's some evil conspirator trying to take over the world; that role is taken by Cheney... :-)

So, when I have a certain political position and I feel Bush embodies almost everything I loathe about capitalism and globalization run riot, then it's only to be expected that I criticise him. I'm more than willing to give him praise, when said praise is due. Give me some examples and I'll happily do so.

Therefore, the use of the phrase "never, ever ,ever" is a bit inappropriate. At least in my opinion.


Well, it was the Bush Administration that I was targetting. And they get the heat because they acted after pressure from the AG.

That's why.

And I would equally condemn these instances if I knew about them. But I react to news stories to which I'm exposed. And I've not seen any description of any of the above.

I respect conservatism. I disagree with it, but I respect it. Indeed, the older I get the more conservative I become myself. However, I'm at heart a liberal. I've gone on record as stating that I DON'T think conservatives are "evil and repressive". Why paint me with the same broad brush-strokes you rail against yourself?

Like I said, I'll post the references when I get home and can find them. I at least included a link to the book where I read the comment, and specifically didn't simply make a throwaway comment. Again I believe this is an example of trying to ensure I at least support my contentions with reasons.

Yes, but as a percentage of GDP, which is the most appropriate measure, you are far below what you should be. At number 21 globally, you lag behind much smaller countries like Ireland (13), Australia (15), Finland (9), France (7) etc. The full graph can be found at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_gdp

Having said that, the $6.9 billion you gave in 1997 comes only second to that of Japan (measured in 1999).

So, the fact that you pay less than other countries, as a percentage of GDP and therefore as a real measure of what you can afford, is not something to be really proud of.

What IS worth being proud of is your exemplary (and very recent) record on helping fight AIDS in Africa, as I have already mentioned.

You should be giving more money. If smaller countries can afford, then so can you. Plus the fact that the US committed to do so. Let me add that no one is perfect here. Nearly all UN countries are failing in their obligation to contribute 0.7% of their GDP.

Because American policy affects me. Like everyone else on this planet. That's why.

Plus, I'm interested. Sorry if that bugs you, but I am. I like a healthy debate. As I've said before, I'm more than happy to debate British politics, Australian politics, Kurdish and Iraqi politics, the future of the UN, the pros and cons of NASA funding and human expansion into the solar system, the likelihood of FTL travel and ET intelligence, the appropriateness of compensation for 9/11 families... the list goes on. And that's just on this Politics Board.

I still don't understand why you have a bee in your bonnet about my posts. But it's unfair to single me out and spend more time in this thread attacking my position and record than debating the facts. Such criticisms would be better suited targetted at some of the more extreme "left-wingers" here. And believe me, there's plenty of those.

Fair point and duly noted. I don't think you're mad. You're entitled to your opinion. Out of curiousity, do you believe a (clothed) pregnant women is obscene? Or a Korous statue?

That's unfortunate. Is it sexual content or violence that you object to? I tend to agree, by the way, that some content is inappropriate for young kids. That's why we have the so-called "watershed" here and in Ireland/UK.


Thank you for the compliment! It was a compliment, right?

I guess I just like a good debate. I honestly do not mean to insult you or your country.


Mr Mephisto

pan6467

I don't want to get into your debates because the 2 of you are making very good points.... somtimes off topic and sometimes trying to draw blood from the other but you BOTh are being pretty good and civil.

However I just want to say one thing in regard to other country's citizens following our politics, and in some cases moreso than a majority of our own citizenry.

THE US is the big kahuna. Before when we had the USSR we had to play nice and since they fell we have had leaders on both sides of the aisle very adamnant towards our interests and saying screw the world.

So, I can see why people in other countries would want to watch what we do and take a deep interest as our policies, whether we here in the States see it or not, affect the world and other countries.

It's the same as why some of us watch other countries governments, the interest in what they are doing and how it will affect us.

just my 2 cents.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

KMA-628

As much as I hate AOL-isms, I actually laughed out loud on this one. Yes, you are right.

No, not on either case. I honestly cannot think of an instance where I would see nudity as obscene. Now appropriate is a different topic altogether.

Sometimes sexual, although my kids are a little too young to even understand the concept. I am mostly concerned about violence/images(non-sexual)/language/actions. I put a lot of effort into raising my kids and helping them become future positive members of our community. I am very proud of the fact that one of the first words for each of my kids was "please" or "thank you". I don't want to have to compete with the television for placing and instilling morals and ethics in my kids. I am mostly concerned with how kids portrayed on TV treat their parents and one another. After a couple of mimicking events of behaviour unbecoming of anybody, several shows on Nickelodeon are not allowed in my house. There are several other "kids" shows that are not allowed as well (on different channels).

The fact that I have to monitor a kids network, concerns me greatly. I can only think of one channel that I have confidence in and that is PBS--the kids shows are excellent, educational, uplifting, etc.

In a nutshell, I don't want my kids to think that most of the behavior they see on TV is appropriate or acceptable (and, unfortunately, most of it is--however, I don't condone censoring it--that is my job, not the government's).

What is "watershed"?

Mephisto2

I guess that was my entire point. I suppose a more accurate post title would have been [Small but vocal minority interest group in America] gone mad

I can understand that. But, at the same time, you can't shield them from the world forever. Once they step outside that door and begin to go to school, then they will be exposed to lots of bad influences.

With regards to TV shows, it's funny you should say that. I was just talking to Mrs Mephisto last week about how "in my day", we watched TV shows like "Bill and Ben, the Flowerpot Men" (a very quirky, but entirely harmless British TV show with absoutely no violence) or "Andy Pandy" (ditto). Now it's all violence and Ninja Mutant Turtles and Transformers and other junk. SIGH I miss the innocent days of my youth, and I'm still only in my 30's!

But I have no problem with the non-sexual representation of nudity. Two things I don't like on TV during "children's viewing times" and that is cursing and pointless violence.

What about the show 7th Heaven? Isn't that geared specifically to conservative, Christian and/or family friendly parents? I have to admit Mrs Mephisto and I even watch it sometimes, even though it can be cringe-makingly corny. haha

The watershed basically stipulates that before a certain time (usually 9PM), TV shows must maintain a certain standard. After that time, it is considered adult viewing (not porn, but adult subject matter) and TV shows can include sex, violence cursing etc.

Here in Australia, they preface each show with a rating. PG, M, MA and explicitly state whether the show includes violence (V), sexual references (S), coarse language (L), nudity (N) etc. It's quite clear to the viewer.

In other words, no watershed in Australia, but simple ratings. In the UK and Ireland, no ratings but assumption that content after 9PM is unsuitable for young children.

Either system works. I prefer the watershed myself, as it's less likely kids will be at home alone and watcing M shows when you're out.


Mr Mephisto

KMA-628

I wouldn't argue with that at. Especially since my parents fall in this category. Sometimes these people are just nutty--and I grew up in that culture.

Well, they are young and I fall into the "overly protective" category. I look at it this way: now, and for the near future, is the time for me to protect/shape/etc. My hope is that when they leave the fold, they remember they way in which they were raised.

Kids are too young right now, they wouldn't get the show (and I have never watched it). Right now we are in the Blue's Clues, SpongeBob, Dora the Explorer genre. My oldest does like to watch reruns of the show with the Olson twins--the name escapes me right now.


As I said earlier in this thread, I don't give much credence to these types of complaints. I think it will end up backfiring on them like the whole Teletubbie thing backfired on Falwell (at least, I think it was Falwell). Most Americans (I hope) are smart enough to see that this is far from obscene.

macmanmike6100

Absolutely the parents' responsibility. If you can't parent your child during their "TV time," there shouldn't be a TV time. Indeed, you likely shouldn't be a parent.

(Some might read this and scorn my harsh tone, but I kid you not: bad parenting--not our lack of education, our graphic TV shows, our evil music, our violent games--is the fundamental reason why a huge and growing proportion of today's youth (even counting individuals at old as 30) are ignorant, lazy, short-sighted, and are host to a number of other emotional, social, and psychological ailments.)

Mephisto2

Sorry, I hope I didn't come across the wrong way here. I wouldn't expect you to be otherwise. It was just a kinda whistful comment on how innocence is always lost. I utterly respect your goal to raise your children the right way; something sadly lacking in a large minority of parents these days.

Indeed, as an expectant father myself, I suspect I would give you a good run for your money when it comes to "over protectiveness".

Just ask me in 6 months...


Mr Mephisto

ARTelevision

My two sons are grown - for whatever that experience was worth as far as helping to form this opinion. Instead, I think it comes from my study and research of the actual power of mass media upon our minds.

I do not think it is at all reasonable - given the multi-billion dollar motivation and behavior research, advertising, and media-influence budgets that are behind shaping the culture and therefore the consciousness of all of us, especially including the impressionable and peer-senstitive minds of children - to promulgate the idealistic myth that parents have some magical power to isolate their kids from the corrosive effects of mass-media culture by simply "being good parents" or by proactively attempting to work counter to the prevailing cultural and media influences. To think so is to my mind absolutely wishful thinking and an easy way to simply blame a couple of individuals at a time for the appallingly mindless, consumer-oriented, manipulated, and mind-numbed state of our citizens, society, culture, consciousness, and behavior.

__________________
create evolution

Aborted

Just to add to this slightly, in the UK we do have ratings but usually they aren't categorised. There is almost always a quick verbal warning from a narrator-type-person-thing just before any program that has content worth warning about, even after the watershed. It's a fairly good system, but I assumed all countries had their own equivalent. Is this not true of America?

KMA-628

Personally, I think the problem lies between what Art and macmanmike6100 said.

I see many, many cases where the fault clearly lies on the parent(s).

I also see many cases where the problem was unavoidable.

Here is one personal example:

Back when we just had our one daughter, both my wife and I worked. Because of that, my daughter had to go to day care. While I wasn't happy with the idea, I didn't feel we had the choice.

That is, until dinner time one night.

My 2 year-old pointed her finger at me and said, "BANG-BANG, you're dead!"

She didn't learn that from home.

The next day, we sold our second car, made plans to move to a smaller, less expensive place and we never had any of our kids in day care again (there were other problems with day care, this one just really stood out)--one parent was always home during the day.

Also, while it sort-of falls into the "parental" problem side: How do I watch over my kids when they are at someone else's house? Someone, let's say, who doesn't necessarily share my views on TV/Movie standards? Do I not allow my kids to play at their friend's houses? Nope, can't really do that, now can I?


And, to comment on a point made earlier in this thread: Yes, it is about the kids.

We are adults. We should be able to make our own decisions regarding what we see/saw/watch/etc. What we see/hear/read shouldn't have too much of an effect on us.

Kids are still having their minds formed. They are still learning about who they are and where they are going. They still need the guidance that we, the parents, are supposed to provide them.

They are the true innocents and must be protected (because they can't protect themselves--age related of course) or we risk even worse problems down the road in our society.

Stompy

I'm not sure if you were just talking about violence or violence/sexuality/swearing combined, but I'll go ahead with this.

Still, no one has answered this: how will seeing a representation of the statue of David, a breast, or hearing any type of swearing contribute to morphing your child into a demented freak of society? How will it remove their "innocence"?

I've said before that they can easily look between their legs and see what they have and question it. Should we put metal chastity belts on them to prevent this?

I understand what you're saying, but really only towards the violence on TV as opposed to the sexuality/swearing. If I had a child, I'd be more concerned about them learning what "BANG BANG you're dead" is as opposed to a man/woman kissing or having sex seeing as how the latter is pretty natural to human interaction, which they will learn about anyway a few years down the road.

__________________
I love lamp.

KMA-628

Well, I answered this question earlier on, but I am also not indicative of the kind of people lodging these complaints, so my answer only explains my actions, it does nothing to explain why people complained about this event.

I used the brackets to say that sometimes these things concern me together and sometimes they concern me apart, each case is different. Simple nudity doesn't bother me and I have no desire to shield my children from it. They understand what "naked" is and I have no desire to make them think that there is anything wrong with nudity. There is a time and place for it, however, in my opinion. But, I do not want, in any way, their minds clouded by the "puritanical" belief that nudity is wrong or bad.

Also there is a big difference between sexual content and nudity. Sexual content, at times, I do have a problem with, especially in a role as a parent.

As far as nudity in art, I think the "Church" holds a lot of the blame there. Without getting into a tirade of the sexual history of Christianity, I think many of the problems can be traced back to there.

Does that answer your question, at least from my side?

Stompy

Indeed it does, thanks!

__________________
I love lamp.

Locobot

The U.S. does have a ratings system that appears at the beginning of every show, but it's not required that it be spoken, only shown. In this case the show was probably rated "G." The only real debate here is whether or not ancient Grecian art and pregnant women with glowing stomachs fit that rating or not. For some people in the U.S. it does not, I'd assume this is a fairly small percent but I could be wrong. In any case the people doing the complaining happen to have disproportionate sway with the federal government. The president and others will do anything to please their theo-con base even if it may upset the more libertarian Republicans.

ARTelevision

As I indicated in my initial post in this thread, the problem I see is not with the incident in question but how the precedent of allowing "nudity suits" in general-audience, prime-time broadcasts is one that will undoubtedly be exploited to the maximum effect by unscrupulous interests. It is fitting to take a hard look at that and the FCC is the agency to do it. Now.

__________________
create evolution

Mephisto2

You think it is undoubtedly the case that "nudity suits" will be exploited because of the Olympic Games opening ceremony?

Goodness.

And by unscrupulous interests no less.


Mr Mephisto

roachboy

this kind of censorship does not start: art's arguments would be fine if all that was at issue really was nudity in prime-time broadcast television, i guess (i am not in agreement, but i can respect the position)--but it is not.
witness this latest idiocy.
i pasted it from an email list i am on: it came without a source link beyond being from AP.

edit (was interrupted):
i do not really accept efforts to seperate various types of censorship.
not in this particular climate, which is in general characterized by the protestant fundamentalist right flexing its political muscle after delivering votes for cowboy george in the last debacle of an election.
nor can i tell from the above who would qualify as the "unscrupulous interest"...while i might be generally inclined to see that interest in capital, here i looks a whole lot more like it is whomever is behind this lawsuit.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ilow

ART, although I'm digressing by addressing your digression, I feel that it is my duty to provide the TFP with the other half of this National IQ silliness. First, there are only a handful of true IQ tests, The Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler (adult, children's abridged etc.) and the Woodcock-Johnson (my alltime favorite test name) are among the commonly used ones. If you haven't taken one of these tests, then you have not taken a true IQ test. These are not the online, answer 20 "if a plane crashes where do you bury the survivors" questions. Each test takes a couple hours to administer and contains many different subtests, testing various parts of intelligence. Anyway, the real point here is that the tests are only available in a few languages so it would be impossible to administer the tests to the bulk of the nations listed. Furthermore, using SAT scores to exrapolate theoretical IQ scores is absurd. I've taken the SAT's and given hundreds of IQ tests and there is a huge difference. Regardless of the fact that the scores don't translate, you also have to consider who is taking the SAT's. It's mostly people who want to go on to higher education etc., it's certainly not a random sample of the regular population. I'm sure that the same percentage of the population in NY and Miss. are not taking the SAT. With the other countries, each has a different portion of the population taking its version of different standardized tests so there is no way to accurately compare. And don't even get me started on the theories of multiple intelligence. Again, sorry for the digression, but I wanted to let people know that there appears to be substantial evidence that the Wealth of Nations is complete bosh.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

KMA-628

I actually believed your custom title.

I was thinking, one minute he's here and the next he's gone, I wonder what he did, he was being a lot more jovial than normal.

well, now we know what happens if you put that in your custom title...

alansmithee

I fail to see the idiocy of a parent who is monitoring what their child is listening being angered when they find obcenity on a CD they purchase, which was not marked as such. Even if it's just one word on one song many parents don't want their child to be exposed to such, or they don't want to be the agent of exposure (by purchasing said material).

Personally I'm growing increasingly more in favor of such actions as the lawsuit and FCC investigation. To me at least, it seems that generally America could use some decency and morals. The enveloping climate of permissiveness has seem to give no real benefit to society so far, and should be halted.

ARTelevision

Ilow, thanks, yes.

Basically, my response was intended to squelch a loaded rhetorical question. The simple answer would have been that the average intelligence in America is by definition "average" just as with the rest of humanity - allowing for cultural, health, and economic norms/situations and errors, problems, biases in the testing...

__________________
create evolution

Ilow

ART, I understand about trying to squelch that type of reasoning, sorry if I came off too harsh. To be honest, while I pretty much agree with you that America is basically average or on par with many other countries, I wish we could check other statistical data. We've been sort of talking about the statistical average or mean, but in some ways, I wonder if there is a difference in the distribution between countries etc. For instance, is the mode (the most commonly occurring score) or the median (the exact middle score) different? It seems that when you consider countries overall, they actually may be judged more by the extremes than the middle. I would imagine in more homogenious cultures there is less variation than in the US. I don't know it was just something I was thinking about. (What was this thread about again?)

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Fourtyrulz

Jeeze, this thread took me over an hour to read entirely.

How is the basic naked human form sexual? From birth (as someone duly noted) we have genitals that we can touch and look at, and it's even documented that infant boys will play with their penises (I'm sure the same goes for girls). How is the naked body unhealthy? Do you take showers naked?

Nothing is sexual until someone puts a sexual connotation to it. Just as Nietzsche said, ... The resolve of radical groups in this country to see the naked human form as sexual and wrong has made the naked human form sexual and wrong.

Also, earlier in the thread someone made an excellent point using people from France and Europe as an example. Furthering that, a woman is raped in America every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. I wonder if cases of sexual abuse are lower in Europe as well. Could our (Americas) view of sex and nudity factor into cases of violent sexual crime as well? I was unable to pin down any European statistics, but if someone has a good source I think it would be interesting to see.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

frogza

I personaly don't find anything offensive in the games opening ceremony. That said, I have an easier time respecting the people who complained than many of the "outraged" people who complain about the conservative slant in the media. The way I see it, it's extremely hypocritical to gripe and complain but never do anything to make the changes you say you want. At least these people are supporting their views with action and not just whining about it.

Manx

The FCC received 9 (NINE!) complaints out of 50+ million American viewers concerning the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

The foundation of this entire 114 post discussion is an absolute mockery of intelligence.

Fourtyrulz

I wouldn't say so. Although this incident might not live up to all the hype, it's the idea that America is becoming some kind of puritanical machine that systematically analyzes any media for "obscene" material that is morally "unfit" for consumption...that seems to be the true problem.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

sprocket

Too me it just seems like anything thats sexually questionable on tv is going to receive all kinds of attention from other media sources sensationalizing it, in order to boost their ratings. A partially naked woman (or statue) on primetime tv and a few complaints to the fcc gives talk show hosts and journalists enough material to carry their programs/publications for a week without having to do any realy journalistic work. Easy money.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Coppertop

http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3

Worth a listen. If you don't have virgin ears, that is.

Ilow

ROMFL. But I guess that's mostly because I don't particularly care for the current administration.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris