ParanoiA

You know, that's really a damn good point Cal. Anytime Christians bitch and whine about being offended they're told repeatedly to put-up or shut-up. Liberals come out of the woodwork to condemn the "church" and make fun of right wingers for getting pissed about it. We are told "you can change the channel" or similar.. And I agree, obviously. Now it's the other way around and they're going to hypocritically cry about it? Whatever happened to put-up or shut-up? Whatever happened to "you can change the channel"? Funny, how when it's a religious thing, these same groups like GLAAD and so forth are suddenly so libertarian...except when it's their turn to deal with it, then it's back to regulating behavior and taking themselves way too damn seriously.

Wow..you just did the same thing Mars did. I love football. You just called me a retard that throws peanuts all day. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Because you did it in a forum rather than a commercial makes it ok? You're stereotyping - reinforcing the idea that sports is brainless and that people who watch sports are brainless with no self control over peanut products. Yes...it just happened. You made sure of that. So how come you still haven't addressed my repeated point that white men are made fun of by 90% of the black comedians today - actually have been for well over a decade - and we account for about half of their material. Where's your stereotype argument there? Why aren't you condemning them for this? I'll tell you why. Because we don't see it as negative. We have a sense of humor and we don't give a shit what you say about us because it's funny. Why can't we expect the same from the rest of you? What's your problem? What makes you so special that you shouldn't be made fun of with stereotypical references like the rest of us? I really want an answer to that...

No, no, that's wrong. This commercial could have easily been aired in the 80's or any time before it. It did become added to the list of stuff we're going to drain the fun out of. It's fine to make fun of this person and that person, just not this person or that person. I'm just so dumbfounded about your take on this one, I just don't know where to begin. It's as if you don't read what you're really saying. Are you serious? You do realize you've basically analyzed this joke like a psych patient on the proverbial couch, right? You've added in all of this homo baggage to a joke we've basically been telling in hundreds of forms for...well hundreds of years. Yes, we have inaccurately stereotyped them (although I'll take issue with its inaccuracy some other time), white guys have been inaccurately stereotyped - that's what comedy is. A joke is basically a teaspoon of truth mixed with a gallon of exaggeration. There is a teaspoon of truth in the gay versus manly thing, and that's all there needs to be. I still believe it's their problem, not ours, nor Mars. Their conscience is telling them something. They're not ready to be openly gay. If they're not hiding themselves from it, they're defining themselves by it. Neither is particularly healthy, pick your category of human and take the shit that goes with it - nobody gets off the comedic hook on this globe.

Well, I simply cannot disagree more. The only thing good that happened out of this incident, is no one got the government involved. So, this certainly is not a rights issue. It was fought and won fairly. But I disagree with this notion that we should all be up on the latest and greatest list of offenses that people have chosen to be touchy about. I also disagree with having my comedy regulated. It does appear the typical straight, white male takes a joke better than any other class. We've been made fun of by just about every black comedian since 1985. All the stereotypes included. I haven't heard any of us bitching about it yet... I say quit 'yer whinin' sallies....

I'm sure this will go a long way to that end. I can't believe the head of Cartoon Network resigned over it. I guess I knew somebody had to take the knife, but I was really hoping they would fight the city of Boston to the bitter end.

And isn't it interesting that the same news agencies that fry GWB daily, and hung him out to dry over non-existant WMD's are the same news outlets that stirred the fury to begin with? You see how the business of media plays its role in these things? If you agree with nothing else I say, at least understand that they are a corporate business as at&t, halliburton, microsoft...and just like any business, they'll do just about anything to make money.

Well sure there was a ton of resistance in the media. That's what I remember. People at work, the news, the union - all seemed resistant or at least not participating in the chorus. But political leaders were all about taking care of Iraq. Iraq was a big issue far before Bush junior got elected. After I got back from lunch, I checked wikipedia to see what they had on it...here's an excerpt: I wonder how many people realize that 1) Regime change and 2) installation of a democratic government and 3) weapons of mass destruction, were all discussed and implemented as part of US policy before Bush even announced he would run for president - let alone be in office. There's more to that article, obviously, but I think people forget how much and how long Iraq was in our targets before 9/11. The resistance we're experiencing now, is resistance that found its courage only after military action was implemented and it was clear it wouldn't be a cakewalk. Like I said...there wasn't that much resistance, prior to invasion. Edit: Forgot to add the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Actually, there wasn't that much resistance. See, I forgot about alot of that as well. But, was listening to Rush's fill-in today at lunch and I'd forgotten how on-board the democrats were on the whole thing - just read some of Hillary's comments from around that time. The resistance grew as time went by and no WMD's were found. But anyway, what I keep hearing in the media is that folks want out of there, now. I keep hearing it's another vietnam. I keep hearing it's a failure. I keep hearing the Iraq government is a joke. I keep hearing everything the enemy wants us to hear... I'm wondering if their plan is working great.

All of the demonizing and resistance to the Iraq war seems to come from this supposed "failure" mentallity, which is being exploited by Iran and the Iraq insurgency. So, if this evidence exists and there's truth to this, then when we talk about troop withdrawels and so forth, aren't we allowing the enemy's plan to work? Aren't we falling for it? I mean, if you know their intent is to make you believe you're losing and destroy your morale, then why would you believe you're losing and destroy your morale? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17064803/

Yes, that always applies. Although, sometimes perspective doesn't change the validity of the position, but rather confirms the difficulty in following principles.

Well yes, but keep in mind that's actually an unhealthy dose of overprotection in the form of lame humor...

I have two sons. It's alot easier for me to advocate these things than if I had a daughter. I don't think I could handle a daughter. I wouldn't let her out of the house until she was like...30 or so.

It's not that I believe the entire spectrum is ok for a child to view...it's I believe the entire spectrum isn't any more ok for adults than children to view. They are not as fragile as we tend to believe. They are capable of complexity. I don't think anything should be filtered any more than you would filter for yourself. Seems to me we should just answer their questions and don't lead them in negative directions. Shielding does no service to this end. Dirty words and sex is usually what comes to mind when I debate this. Dirty words are only dirty because we say so. That annoys the hell out of me. Let's quit saying so, and then problem solved. Sex is only dirty because we live in a christian nation that has an unhealthy relationship with sexuality. I'm sorry the bible doesn't suggest sex is fun and healthy, but it is. There's nothing negative about it. Except, of course, when grown men cowardly rape their daughters and ruin them mentally...and similar abusive behavior. Edit: Besides Phi and I, who else in this debate has children?

I think you're making too big of a deal out of a mistake. And I disagree with your packaging conclusions. Would a terrorist put bright LED's on their bomb and place it in plain view? You bet. Would a bomb really be put in such a thin package? Hell yeah. Why not? Think back on 9/11... Would terrorists really hijack planes full of people with box knives? Every terrorist incident before then involved bombs and/or guns. Why would any sane person expect 5 dudes versus a plane full of passengers - depending on box knives? That wouldn't have passed the straight face test either. I think what really sucks here, is that terrorism does work. Well, it does exactly as you claimed. But that's all it does. I don't see the point in basically trivializing terrorism just because we don't want to give them the satisfaction. They are perfectly satisfied with you ignoring them and blowing you up over and over again. I think we should continue with these responses. And laugh it off when we make mistakes and pat them on the back when they're successful. Why is a restrained response necessary? One incident in 6 years and the country has come to an end? Please...we can afford to be foolish once every 6 years - makes for great humor.

Nope. Not at all.

Well yes, and you should explain it to them. I was just making the point that just because a child doesn't know what's going on (like in a sex scene), doesn't mean they'll grow up with a perverted view on sex. They'll ask out of curiosity, and you should answer. Answer like it's no big deal...because it isn't. Agreed. What makes you think this is inexplicable? I'm not sure I get your point here. Yes, the dildo curtain fetish leaves some explaining to do...."Son, when you get older your hormones will kick in and you will understand sexual urge. Sexual desires can be strange sometimes. This is a good example. Don't think it's bad or violent, you can see they are enjoying themselves. Most people don't do that though, so it's by no means, average." Sorry..that just wasn't that difficult. You really think a child can't understand that? If so, you're underestimating them... Well they would probably be over 5 before they ask since nothing will seem out of place until around then. Although I'm sure they would have grabbed the carrot several times throughout their infanthood - that would be creepy. When they asked, I would tell them what the purpose of the carrot is...(whatever it is...it's your plot, not mine) And I would remind them that their friend's dads don't run around like that because they simply aren't into it. Just like your friend's dad drives a Chevy pickup and I drive a Ford ranger. Different strokes for different folks. Why does that seem so daunting? Just talk to your damn kids..they're people man. You don't have to cover everything with sugar and gum drops. . No it's not, because complexity is not beyond their ability. Manipulation is complex, and they do a terrific job at it. Just explain it to them. They will soak up what they can and repeated exposure will solidify these things throughout their life. We already learn that way. We talk about drugs to our kids - at least I do. They didn't understand what all of these drugs are or why people would do them, even after my lecture on it. But the subject comes up from time to time, and I go back through it. They ask new questions, getting deeper and deeper into the subject matter. They learn a little at a time. That doesn't mean they need to be sheltered or shielded away from anything that goes beyond their current understanding. When they see drug use on TV, they ask about it - that is, if they care. Usually they don't. I was sticking with sex crimes, because that's unacceptable sexual deviance. Weird sex is not. Weird is subjective. Holland also enjoys a lower sex crime rate, arguably as a result of legalized prostitution and an extremely liberal outlook on sexuality. If you quit making it a big deal...it won't be a big deal.

Like passing laws that make it illegal to cross the street talking on your cell phone? Or outlawing transfats from privately owned restaraunts? Or forcing businesses to ban smoking on their private property? yeah I know what you mean..can't get these people out of our private lives at all...

The problem with this is that gun incidents are numerous - people are dying one and two at a time, per incident. Whereas a terrorist act kills a mass quantity of people at once. This is similar to the "Flying is the safest way to travel" logic. It is true, no doubt. But that doesn't make fear of flying any more illogical than a fear of driving. When there's an airline crash - usually there are nothing but dead people. Car crashes are fatally variable, cumulative dead. I love this whole perspective you're posting, I just don't think that means it's a good idea not to fear something at all because something else is more likely to get you. That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm more likely to be killed by a non-drunk driver, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be weary of a drunk driver. A better conclusion, in my opinion anyway, would be to say that there are hundreds of ways to die, some more popular than others, but to spend your life scared shitless of everything means you'll never really live. Rather than just pick on people for letting terrorism run their lives, how about pick on them about letting any kind of fear run their lives?

One incident in 6 years and people are acting like irrational paranoid idiots? Do you always leave zero room for mistakes when doing something brand new? There is such a thing as a learning curve, and we've managed to only have one incident (that I know of anyway...please memory don't fail me now) and terrorism is pretty new for us. It's always been "over there", on TV. And again, how is Bush fanning the flames? He doesn't even talk about this stuff except for maybe twice a damn year. I think you're confusing media as the administration. They're far more guilty of fear mongering than anything I've seen come out of the white house.

Not sure if I'm reading that correctly, but that's my point - I don't know that it would cause problems so why would I possibly address it? I see no lack of morality in consensual sex. You are correct in that sexuality is far more complex - finally a good answer. But, how much do children understand about what's on the TV screen? When a 6 year old is watching TV, he probably doesn't understand at least half of what's going on, socially. So what if it's a sex scene or a documentary on planet formation - he's not going to understand it either way. I doubt that means he's going to grow up wanting to abuse planetary scientists or abuse his future lover. Complexity does not equal impossible. It means continued learning. Did you learn 100% of everything there is to know about sex at one sitting? Was all of that explained to you with perfectly clear understanding of all of the subject material before you ever saw a single sex scene in a movie? Or even a raunchy sex scene in a porn? Why is it that a child is thought to be so fragile that they'll explode with mental trauma if they were witness these things? Early humans didn't even know to hide these things, as far as we can tell. Are all of our ancestors buried in mental disorder from generations and generations of exposure to reality without shielding and proper measured exposure? No, I meant that kids can adapt to just about anything. There's no real way to associate right or wrong, inherently, without being taught, conditioned, raised - however you want to put that. If I walked around my house naked, my kids would freak and I hope would eventually call the police because daddy's gone nuts. Because they've been raised in an environment where they recognize that as abnormal and wrong. But if I walked around my house naked from the time they were born, they would think nothing of it. Their friends would freak and call the police instead. I'm just saying that sex, rage, violence, hate, love, friendship, loss, death, life - all of these things are a part of life - some are complex, but I don't see the point in measured exposure, shielding them from these things. If they are exposed to them all throughout their life, I simply believe they will be more level headed and tolerant, healthy. Ok, but tell me how it's bad. I'm still waiting for a good answer. "It's complex" is not a good answer. Violence can be complex too. Sometimes it's in self defense, sometimes it's vengence, passion, evil - plenty of complexity, although not as much so as sexuality. It would be more persuasive if you'd provide an argument. BS? Tell me why. We know that more sexually liberal cultures enjoy lower rates in sex crimes - I just don't know by how much.

Well said. I'm sure not going to experiment on my kids... ..but I'm going to keep this debate for parties...since politics and religion are always out...

I don't know. I think it's clear the intent was to advertise, trying to do something different and wity. We do encourage that sort of thing here, as consumers. At the same time though, I'm not sure it's smart to allow everybody and their brother to do this kind of thing. Later it would become a terrorist tool. So, maybe we call it littering and make them pay the fine? I certainly see no reason to put anyone in jail or continue making asses of themselves...

None of this is a win for terrorists. We may have lost something as well, but they don't "gain" from domestic spying. They don't gain from eroding civil liberties that sleeper cells rely on either. And some would certainly take issue with your list. Many like legislated domestic spying. Many like secret spying (like myself). Many enjoy giving up their civil liberties. Not a lot of people like capitalism and freedom. They say they do. But then we have law books with millions of pages of "exceptions" and a tax code that punishes success. Have you been living under a rock the past 30 years? It's actually quite logical. What isn't logical is pretending like it's not logical. I actually agree with your personal attitude and approach to this as it pertains to your life, but to think terrorism is an illogical fear is ridiculous. But blaming Bush for it is even more ridiculous. This president has done no such thing. Conservative talk show guys, Fox News, Orielly - the conservative media has done that. Bush doesn't actually answer or debate much on the subject. We get sound bites out of him every 6 months that sound pretty much the same as the previous sound bites. Yes we've been at war in Iraq for longer than wwII...and we've lost about 1/146th of the soldiers. We lost 292,000 in WWII. Sounds like we're doing pretty good to me. Maybe length is the answer huh? Looks like we've traded casualties for duration - that's a good trade, I'd say. But Bush can't take the credit anymore than he should take the blame - this is a military thing. Bush didn't do this either. The media did. All of them - conservative and liberal, local and national. The news is a business. The more dramatic, the more ratings - the more you use them and need them. They've been doing this for decades. Ever wonder why they almost seem to enjoy catastrophe's? They saw money bags when the trade centers went down, and they're still making money off of terrorism. Now, here I agree with you for the most part. I wouldn't think that one incident in Boston out of 6 years of post 9/11 atmosphere should constitute rampant fears and panic, but there's no question Bush used terrorism to go forward in Iraq. The question is...did he believe in what he was doing or did he just herd the american sheeple. Personally, I believe he thinks what he is doing is right. If we put even a fraction amout of the energy into fighting violent crime as we do demonizing the adminstration, we wouldn't have US cities with more homocides in a month than the entire country of Iraq. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, Radio Commentators.... Or were you really going to suggest that Bush wants to make Haliburton rich?

Phi, you ought to know me by now, I question everything. Especially time honored traditions and conditioned behaviors - things we all do without even thinking about them - like "shielding" our children from reality. I love to question that stuff. This is not unhealthy. We put poisons where toddlers can't reach them because they'll hurt themselves. We cover their eyes during sex scenes because we associate sex as a dirty thing while violence is perfectly fine. You had no issues explaining violence while your child watched, but this never occured to you about sexuality? Why would porn be so bad? Other than I can't think of a good reason why a kid should see it..I really don't see a bad one either. It feels wrong, because I and you and probably everyone in the country has been taught the same backwards thinking about how sex is dirty and bad and violence is kick ass. If my child can take the media scaring the hell out of him with terrorism, he can handle porn. If my child can watch grown men kill each other on TV then he can handle porn. You think that you don't lack the complexity of knowledge and experience to handle *every* aspect of the raw, unfiltered world? Kids are more resilient than adults, if anything your child could handle it better than you. Children have a level of adaptability that adults don't have. It seems to me, if children grew up in an atmosphere where we're not "shielding" them from everything, then they won't be so curious and stupid about it when they get older. Instead of learning about sex when their 14, eager to do it by 15, pregnant by 16 - they could have learned about sex when they were 8, weren't eager to do it since they didn't have the hormones and physiological make-up to be eager about it, not such a big deal at 15, pregnant when they're ready. I'm totally out on a limb here, no doubt. But consider how other cultures don't shield so much in sexuality and language. Look at the UK. I don't have the numbers myself, but I believe they enjoy a lower sex crime rate and lack of idiots that are "offended" by such things - and they are far more liberal about sexuality. It's just not as big of a deal to their youth. They're exposed to this sort of thing regularly on TV. I have to wonder if part of that is because their society, their parents, didn't make a big deal out of it. Kids are curious, they want to learn. They're especially curious about what you hide from them, or shield from them. A natural rebel of sorts. We always joke about how kids want to do what you won't let them. Maybe we should stop hiding or shielding, and get started "teaching". Show them the world, rather than spotting up the picture with blackout. Well yeah. What did you think I meant? I'm just saying, why do I cover up my 10 year old son's eyes when there's a nude scene? Why do I insist on plugging his ears during the moaning and porn style music? What on earth am I afraid of? I'm basically passing on my insecurites and conditioned behavior onto him. For what? Because I'm afraid a 10 year old would know what sex looks like? But it's no problem for him to see what a severed head looks like? Come on...none of this really means anything. How is any of that going to hurt him. How does it "jade" his behavior? Now, how do you get that? How do you connect the dots here? If he watches a sex scene at 10, he might abuse his lover when he grows up? If a child is not shielded, rather exposed to everything, then he will likely have seen hundreds of sex scenes by the time he's old enough to have a lover. I doubt every single one of them is going to be a rape scene. That's the only thing I can think of that would make that connection. Again, I'm just going to close in saying that everything is relative. If you present sexuality as a natural, good, healthy, fun thing from day one, then there's no reason for them to feel bad or associate anything negative with it. This is why it's so easy to watch violence - for all of us. We've been doing it since the day we were born. We are completely desensitized to it. We can watch all kinds of blood and gore, with our kids right there next to us, and most of us don't give it a second thought. I wonder if all reality should be exposed for what it is from day one. Giving children a chance to "get over" the real world, rather than be so easily shocked and awed about things that really aren't very shocking or awesome.

Not sure about the strawman, because I'm not arguing with anybody. That was just my opener. Wasn't directed at any particular post. Just wanted to ponder the thought that perhaps our obsession with shelter and gradual introduction is actually silly and misguided. Why? Why is shielding necessary? Other than your conditioned mindset, what is actually a good reason to shield a child from these things? Parental guidance and teaching is necessary, so why limit reality? None of this makes any sense. You want to shield them so you can talk to them about sex first? Did you talk to your child about violence before they watched bugs bunny smash elmer fudd with a frying pan? I'm not sure why it matters which is first, as long as you get the talk taken care of before they are of age to experiment. Why does it matter if a 10 year old watches a sex scene? And I didn't say be irresponsible and let google raise your kid. I said why shelter or shield from reality? Why not let them be exposed to everything in life, as it happens. Well sure, the worst ones aren't. But that's damage isn't it? Not sure why this is a reply to my post. I guess it sounded like I meant physical damage - I mean both.