Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2006, 05:59 PM   #46
Loki
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bagelred
We are not talking about NBC, we are talking about what people think, which is the original poll question.

Most people should be ok with seeing things on TV they might personally not like or care for, simply because you support freedom of expression. THAT's the question.

And I agree with you that people should have no problem with others expressing controversial or offensive viewpoints. However, I also agree with FPower that the options presented weren't mutually exclusive, and so the result is somewhat misleading; consequently, you shouldn't really read into it too much.

Quote:
From a business perspective, sure it might make sense for NBC to censor out the use of the cross...its still censoring....

See my previous post. It's "censorship" according to the dictionary, but not according to what people mean when they speak of "censorship" vis-a-vis society at large. Read my post and take note of the the sorts of things you'd have to concede to in order to remain consistent in calling this particular incident censorship. I doubt you're willing to go that far, and that should tell you something about the consistency of your position.

Last edited by Loki : 10-23-2006 at 06:04 PM.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:04 PM   #47
bagelred
Weird
 
bagelred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And I agree with you that people should have no problem with others expressing controversial or offensive viewpoints. However, I also agree with FPower that the options presented weren't mutually exclusive, and so the result is somewhat misleading; consequently, you shouldn't really read into it too much.



See my above post. It's "censorship" accoding to the dictionary, but not according to what people mean when they speak of "censorship" vis-a-vis society at large. Read my post and take note of the the sorts of things you'd have to concede in order to remain consistent in calling this particular incident censorship. I doubt you're willing to go that far, and that should tell you something about the consistency of your position.

I don't want to get into a semantic debate about the definition of censorship. Let's just say this...do you want network programming to keep taking things out of programming everytime someone's is offended? Or would you rather them err on the side of letting artists exercise their freedoms?

Should every MTV video be off the airwaves if someone is offended by halfnaked women? Should South Park be off the air?

People should support the idea that some things on TV MIGHT offend you. That's the way it is in a free society. But you always have the right simply NOT to watch it....

When NBC decides to take out the symbols of the cross, you shouldn't think "yippee", you should be thinking, "I wonder what networks will cut out next. Maybe the next time it'll be something I want to watch...."

Last edited by bagelred : 10-23-2006 at 06:10 PM.
bagelred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:15 PM   #48
Loki
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bagelred
I don't want to get into a semantic debate about the definition of censorship. Let's just say this...do you want network programming to keep taking things out of programming everytime someone's is offended? Or would you rather them err on the side of letting artists exercise their freedoms?

You're not understanding me. It's not about what I want. As I said, I don't care much what others say or do, and feel that free speech should be promoted. However, NBC is a publicly traded company that has its own needs and wants (viz., answering to shareholders). The nexus of the issue is the relationship between competing self-interested parties -- in this case the artist and the television station -- and how that relationship should play itself out when their interests conflict. You seem to be having trouble understanding this somewhat nuanced position.


And attendant to this are issues such as I outlined in my previous post -- issues you'd have to resolve if you are to remain logically consistent in your stance, but issues which raise questions which are, at base, fundamentally insoluble. Hence your stance cannot be maintained as is, and must be tempered somewhat by both reality and other philosophical considerations. Take the time to read and understand what I've said. You've never struck me as dumb, after all. Except perhaps when it comes to Kobe.


For easy reference, here's my previous post mentioned above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's censorship according to the dictionary, but it's not the censorship most people mean when they talk about "censorship." Sorry that you can't see the difference.

Personally, I support her right to do and say whatever she likes so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, as per the libertarian tradition; however, no one is under any obligation to provide her a venue to air her thoughts just because she feels she's special and deserves it. If they were under such an obligation, then they'd be obliged to accommodate everyone -- or are only the rich and famous afforded "free speech"? So unless you feel that privately owned companies like NBC (or the owners of stadiums/arenas etc.) should be compelled to allow people such as Madonna to perform/speak, and that that compulsion should also apply to each of the 300 million men, women, and children in America equally, then you must concede that this is not really a censorship issue per se.


She can get her thoughts out there -- there are no laws against it. She just needs to find a different avenue for the expression thereof, or create one herself. How is that any different from me wanting to get my thoughts heard by the largest number of people, yet being financially prohibited from doing so (because I can't rent out stadiums, take out full-page ads etc.)? No difference, hence no censorship -- unless everyone in America is being censored every day. Or unless rich people have special rights. Take your pick.

Last edited by Loki : 10-23-2006 at 06:33 PM.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:28 PM   #49
Jerm
I'm trying to improve myself. I'm the new, better Jerm
 
Jerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Okokomaiko
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwajo
maybe we do know what we're standing for, it just isn't religion.

If you don't stand for christianity then how can you say you're a christian?
Jerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:29 PM   #50
Darkess
High School Varsity 12th Man
 
Darkess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bagelred
I don't want to get into a semantic debate about the definition of censorship. Let's just say this...do you want network programming to keep taking things out of programming everytime someone's is offended? Or would you rather them err on the side of letting artists exercise their freedoms?

Should every MTV video be off the airwaves if someone is offended by halfnaked women? Should South Park be off the air?

People should support the idea that some things on TV MIGHT offend you. That's the way it is in a free society. But you always have the right simply NOT to watch it....

When NBC decides to take out the symbols of the cross, you shouldn't think "yippee", you should be thinking, "I wonder what networks will cut out next. Maybe the next time it'll be something I want to watch...."

To put it simply, if the majority of people are so much offended that a station is better off not showing it, then yes I'm fine with them pulling any of it off the air. In fact, it's their duty to pull it off the air.

If it offends a large amount of people, why should it be supported with lots of $?
Darkess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:31 PM   #51
Jerm
I'm trying to improve myself. I'm the new, better Jerm
 
Jerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Okokomaiko
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bagelred
A man molesting a young kid is universally offensive. Anything that is universally offensive should not be shown on the airwaves.

Madonna using a cross in her performance is not universally offensive. To many of us, it matters neither one way or the other....

How can you say it's universally offensive? The man doing the molesting doesn't think it's offensive, you make the rules now? What process led you to the conclusion that showing that is offensive?...Now apply the same reasoning to making fun of religious figures and you get the same result. Doing things which offend others shouldn't be encouraged, end of story!
Jerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:35 PM   #52
bagelred
Weird
 
bagelred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,328
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're not understanding me. It's not about what I want. As I said, I don't care much what others say or do, and feel that free speech should be promoted. However, NBC is a publicly traded company that has its own needs and wants (viz., answering to shareholders). The nexus of the issue is the relationship between competing self-interested parties -- in this case the artist and the television station -- and how that relationship should play itself out when their interests conflict. You seem to be having trouble understanding this somewhat nuanced position.


We keep going back and forth.

Forget NBC. I'm not talking about NBC. I'm talking about the PEOPLE polled.

Let's say it's not Christianity. Let's say its issue "X"...


They ask 1000 people. Network 123 decided not to show issue "X" because some people were offended. What's your thought on this?

You would hope MOST people would say, "Well, I really don't care about "X" or I too am offended by X, but I support the networks' right to show it?"

That should be the answer I would hope for by AMERICANS.

Yes, NBC can do ANYTHING they want. I get it. It's not about them. It's about how Americans should react to their decision.....

I find Kobe offensive. He shouldn't be shown on TV anymore.

Last edited by bagelred : 10-23-2006 at 06:44 PM.
bagelred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:36 PM   #53
bagelred
Weird
 
bagelred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerm
How can you say it's universally offensive? The man doing the molesting doesn't think it's offensive, you make the rules now? What process led you to the conclusion that showing that is offensive?...Now apply the same reasoning to making fun of religious figures and you get the same result. Doing things which offend others shouldn't be encouraged, end of story!

Jerm, look up the term "slippery slope" and get back to us.....
bagelred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:36 PM   #54
Jerm
I'm trying to improve myself. I'm the new, better Jerm
 
Jerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Okokomaiko
Posts: 965
Default

I'm out of this thread but my point is:

Stopping someone from offending others isn't a violation of the individual's freedom of expression. You can't expect to live in peace when you keep offending others. Thank you!...Americans are smart enough to recognize that offending others shouldn't be tied to freedom of expression, I wonder where your brains are bagelred.
Jerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:38 PM   #55
kwajo
Missing Since 2009
 
kwajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the water
Posts: 5,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerm
If you don't stand for christianity then how can you say you're a christian?
well I have Christian heritage, so to the majority of people in the world, I am Christian because of my cultural heritage and the rites that my family observes. But you mentioned a new generation of christians, and that's what I am, a new generation, one that doesn't believe in living and dying because of religion, because I hold many things more dear to me than God. If someone threatened my Maritime way of life, you'd be damn sure I'd be on the frontline with my rifle to defend what I believe in. But just because I don't care if someone makes some statement about God or Jesus, doesn't mean I doesn't mean I have nothing to believe in.

I know this is pointless to write since if you disagree, you'll reply in opposition no matter what I say, and I'm not even trying to sway your opinion, I'm just stating what I believe for the interest of those who will read it.

As a sign of good will, here is a photo of a flower I took just for you, whose common floral name I hope you don't read too much into.
kwajo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:38 PM   #56
bagelred
Weird
 
bagelred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkess
To put it simply, if the majority of people are so much offended that a station is better off not showing it, then yes I'm fine with them pulling any of it off the air. In fact, it's their duty to pull it off the air.

If it offends a large amount of people, why should it be supported with lots of $?

That is decision NBC has to make...true....
bagelred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:39 PM   #57
Jerm
I'm trying to improve myself. I'm the new, better Jerm
 
Jerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Okokomaiko
Posts: 965
Default

Kwajo, do I need to tell you that chrisianity doesn't run in the blood?...
Jerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:40 PM   #58
Loki
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerm
Doing things which offend others shouldn't be encouraged, end of story!

I actually agree with you on this, though the question of how to promote a culture of fairmindedness and respect is ultimately digressive.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:41 PM   #59
kwajo
Missing Since 2009
 
kwajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the water
Posts: 5,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerm
Kwajo, do I need to tell you that chrisianity doesn't run in the blood?...
I know it doesn't, but I celebrate Christmas and St. Cecelia day, so I wouldn't put it past myself to be considered Christian.

Plus, if I am Jesus, wouldn't I have blood relation to Christianity? So maybe it does run in blood...
kwajo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2006, 06:42 PM   #60
bagelred
Weird
 
bagelred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerm
I'm out of this thread but my point is:

Stopping someone from offending others isn't a violation of the individual's freedom of expression. You can't expect to live in peace when you keep offending others. Thank you!...Americans are smart enough to recognize that offending others shouldn't be tied to freedom of expression, I wonder where your brains are bagelred.

Freedom of expression is just that. Freedom. I can say whatever I like even if it offends you. That's what America is all about.

The KKK is allowed to exist although it is the most offending organization in the country. I detest what they stand for, but I defend their right to exist.

So no one can express themselves if it "offends" someone Jerm? Think it thru....
bagelred is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy