Who is the FCC to decide what I can & can't listen to. This has nothing to do with Howard and everthing to do with all our rights. We need to wake up as this country has way to many rules that give away our rights as free people.
Don't like howard don't listen. Don't like howard don't advertise on his show. Make your own decision of what you want to do and go with it. Let everyone decide on there own.
My first thoughts were about how Stern's product would be unidentifiable with other product offerings in the titilation pimping market---were it not for the validation he gets from the FCC playing fining games with him. He gets the fines and throws them into his Average Total Costs---but basically gets a "rebel" seal of approval from the US Government.
Symbiosis. (period)
If Stern didn't have that constant validation, he wouldn't be able to market to those who constantly need that "rebel" designation. Which is why he needs the conflict---to keep his product differentiation, and with that his brand managment.
(and make lots of money in the process)
If Stern goes to Cable (doesn't E! still carry his show?), he will simply be a show flirting with full lesbian, girl-on-girl "fun"---you can't hold an audiance, P.T, Barumn-style, without the "Bad Cop" who is holding you from going all the way.
For the other sniping:
As for the less moral among you, you know who you are. (period)
And for the less moral among you, I'll give you an object lesson---for free.
I just drove back, some distance from the relatives---was on the road for three hours, when we had to stop at a federal park for a "potty" stop. My 7-year old daughter "had to go" (and so did I).
I went into the latrine first, and discovered the "free speech," Howard Stern style, on the walls. On one wall, there was "I want a teenage girl who wants anal sex and likes........" with the phone number of someone who is obviously going to have to change his phone number. On the other wall was a fairly accurate depiction, in magic marker, of someone performing oral sex on a "mammoth cock and balls"---replete with a description of "how they like it." My 7-year old is well into The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and can read quite ably. She didn't get to use the federally-funded latrine because of someone's "free speech"---she had wait quite some time for better conditions.
She is not safe to listen to the radio, read the internet, or walk the streets unattended, either.
And for the less moral among you, I'll give you an object lesson---for free.
And, like everything else in life, it was worth *exactly* what was paid for it.
Quote:
I just drove back, some distance from the relatives---was on the road for three hours, when we had to stop at a federal park for a "potty" stop. My 7-year old daughter "had to go" (and so did I).
I went into the latrine first, and discovered the "free speech," Howard Stern style, on the walls. On one wall, there was "I want a teenage girl who wants anal sex and likes........" with the phone number of someone who is obviously going to have to change his phone number. On the other wall was a fairly accurate depiction, in magic marker, of someone performing oral sex on a "mammoth cock and balls"---replete with a description of "how they like it." My 7-year old is well into The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and can read quite ably. She didn't get to use the federally-funded latrine because of someone's "free speech"---she had wait quite some time for better conditions.
She is not safe to listen to the radio, read the internet, or walk the streets unattended, either.
Wow, way to use fear to keep a lid on the kid.
Sorry, but I had parents like you. And you know what happened? Culture shock when I reached adulthood and suddenly had to deal with all the crap without any ready tools or methods to do so. You're doing your child a great disservice. Use it as an abject lesson in vandalism, and yes, even free speech issues.
But to make her hold her bladder 'for quite some time' for fear she might see some 'naughty bits'?
Sad, man. Really sad. Borderline abusive in my book.
And I seriously can't believe you equate graffiti with free speech.
But then again, you equate Stern with child pornography, so what the hell, right? Don't like it, and it's all lumped together.
All for the sake of the kids. You know, the ones with the cramping painful bladders.
1) I don't moderate this thread. I'm here as an individual, nothing more.
2) I *do* get emotional when I've presented with arrogance and hypocrisy, simple as that.
3) You're dodging any possibility of debate, which is precisely what I expected of you. So I'll take the cue that this is pointless and a completely waste of my time, and let you get back to your life. Just do me a favor and try not to control mine, or my children's, and everything will continue to be fine.
Try answering the points I made instead of accusing me of borderline child abuse for not going over the fine points of oral sex with a three foot magic marker mural as a guide to free speech. If you really think my seven year old daughter needs to know about fellatio, you have serous emotional issues to resolve.
Use that "hung like a horse" brain for something other than cagey rejoinders.
Sorry, other than a rather obvious and, one might say, pedantic comment about Stern and the FCC which I think most people would agree with, I don't see any points with content.
Quote:
instead of accusing me of borderline child abuse for not going over the fine points of oral sex with a three foot magic marker mural as a guide to free speech. If you really think my seven year old daughter needs to know about fellatio, you have serous emotional issues to resolve.
And if you think forcing a child to hold their bladder (after *you* were allowed to relieve yours, I might add) is better than simply warning them that there are some graphic crawls on the wall made by vandals (criminals - great place to start a discussion on society, free speech, its *LIMITS* and such) and that she should ignore them if possible, but that you'll be there if she has any questions, then there are plenty of serious emotional issues abounding.
And one more thing... you *SERIOUSLY* think that graffiti is free speech? You honestly can't tell the difference between vandalism and free speech issues? Or Howard Stern and child pornography? Well jesus, no *wonder* you're so scared of the world for yourself and your kids... you can't make heads or tails of it.
Free speech ends with criminal acts. Duh. Trying to mix the two is either the apex of ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to muddy the issue to make sure it is as opaque as possible and therefore polarized into a 'for the kids!' scenario. Funny how often that happens, eh? (BTW, it's a pathetic tactic, and an intellectual dodge of the lowest sort.)
Quote:
Use that "hung like a horse" brain for something other than cagey rejoinders.
*rimshot*
As I stated before, you stay in your world, and I'll stay in mine, and everyone will be happy. This is a waste of my time, of the highest order. Enjoy.
nd if you think forcing a child to hold their bladder
Again with the bladder reference. You have tried to (emotionally) infer the "painful" conditions. Stitled emotional framing of an imagined situation in order to cast dispersions on my parenting skills is a both a personal attack and an childish response to my object lesson.
There was no pain involved, the child was asked, and could have hiked it in the bushes if needed. This is not complicated.
Quote:
And one more thing... you *SERIOUSLY* think that graffiti is free speech? You honestly can't tell the difference between vandalism and free speech issues?
Stern's product is vandalizing public spaces---he is breaking the law with his product, creating public places that my children cannot go. This is precisly the point. You don't seem to be up to the challenge of dispensing with the personal attacks and approaching this logically.
A waste of time indeed---and coming from a moderator, too.
As for the less moral among you, you know who you are. (period)
And for the less moral among you, I'll give you an object lesson---for free.
Gee, I wonder in which case this child of yours is worse off?
a) seeing a little bit of illegal and adult oriented graffiti in a bathroom, or
b) being taught that you are on some sort of moral high ground and better than others because they disagree with your opinion on certain matters of free speech.
Instead of being a guide for your child, you are teaching your child that you can't just intelligently disagree with someone on complicated matters such as personal freedoms, rather that you should talk down to them with an overbearing and condescending "moral" diatribe.
Such is typical of debates about morality in this country, however. One side will always be telling you what morality is and how people should behave to be wholesome people. The other side will be encouraging you to learn and to decide for yourself as you mature what your personal boundaries are, respect the fact that others may have different personal boundaries, and understand that because one has different and maybe even completely opposite views than you, that they are no better or worse than you are. They are just different.
I leave it to you to decide which side does what...
Stern's product is vandalizing public spaces---he is breaking the law with his product, creating public places that my children cannot go. This is precisly the point.
How is he creating a place your child can not go? Perhaps he is creating a place you choose not to let your child go to, but that's different, now isn't it?
If you live in a country where nothing offends anybody, you are not living in a free country. It is your right to disagree with the content of Hoawrd Stern's show. It is my right to disagree with you. And it is Stern's right to speak freely, wether or not people disagree with the content. (period.)
a) seeing a little bit of illegal and adult oriented graffiti in a bathroom, or
b) being taught that you are on some sort of moral high ground and better than others because they disagree with your opinion on certain matters of free speech.
a) are really telling me to expose my child to pornography?
The extent of such regulation should end at a warning that the shows contain sexually explicit material or "foul" language. If you don't like it, don't listen. There are two knobs on your radio. Turn either one.
I find religion to be highly offensive, especially christianity. Many of its stories are brutal and barbaric. If you want to ban Howard from the public airwaves you have to ban ignorant hate-filled sermons as well.
a) are really telling me to expose my child to pornography?
The solution seems to be easy. Lock her in the basement, and let her out when she turns 18. Make sure you've removed your stash of old magazines first!
At 7 years old, though, I can believe that she hasn't had much exposure to these things you are trying to protect her from. Frankly, you're not going to be able to control what she sees, hears, and experiences while at school or playing with friends. She will run into this no matter how many public washrooms you inspect.
I was going to attach a couple of pictures I took while in Italy recently, but I'm not sure if naked statues cross the 'pornography' line. Be sure to explain to her, when and *if* she ever sees a picture of David, "Don't worry pumpkin, not all penises are that small. You'll find out on your wedding night."
I edited out, before posting, a paragraph from my previous response. In the deleted paragraph, I called your effort noble but ultimately futile. I felt my response conveyed that without an implicit reference but I don't think you 'got it'.
In not letting her into the bathroom you exercised the same level of control that you have over her radio, television, website, book, magazine, and movie exposure. That's your prerogative as a parent, and that is the extent to which you can dictate what she is exposed to.
No, it's not. A child in the 1st and 2nd deserves protection from pornography. If you can't be bothered to control what your kids are exposed to, you have no business being a parent.
You guys need to step back and look at what you are advocating here. Assuming a first grader is aware of fellatio is not sane.
Extrapolating the control you have over a 7-year-old to the control you have over and 18-year old is shallow reasoning.
Comments
Don't like howard don't listen. Don't like howard don't advertise on his show. Make your own decision of what you want to do and go with it. Let everyone decide on there own.
My first thoughts were about how Stern's product would be unidentifiable with other product offerings in the titilation pimping market---were it not for the validation he gets from the FCC playing fining games with him. He gets the fines and throws them into his Average Total Costs---but basically gets a "rebel" seal of approval from the US Government.
Symbiosis. (period)
If Stern didn't have that constant validation, he wouldn't be able to market to those who constantly need that "rebel" designation. Which is why he needs the conflict---to keep his product differentiation, and with that his brand managment.
(and make lots of money in the process)
If Stern goes to Cable (doesn't E! still carry his show?), he will simply be a show flirting with full lesbian, girl-on-girl "fun"---you can't hold an audiance, P.T, Barumn-style, without the "Bad Cop" who is holding you from going all the way.
For the other sniping:
As for the less moral among you, you know who you are. (period)
And for the less moral among you, I'll give you an object lesson---for free.
I just drove back, some distance from the relatives---was on the road for three hours, when we had to stop at a federal park for a "potty" stop. My 7-year old daughter "had to go" (and so did I).
I went into the latrine first, and discovered the "free speech," Howard Stern style, on the walls. On one wall, there was "I want a teenage girl who wants anal sex and likes........" with the phone number of someone who is obviously going to have to change his phone number. On the other wall was a fairly accurate depiction, in magic marker, of someone performing oral sex on a "mammoth cock and balls"---replete with a description of "how they like it." My 7-year old is well into The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and can read quite ably. She didn't get to use the federally-funded latrine because of someone's "free speech"---she had wait quite some time for better conditions.
She is not safe to listen to the radio, read the internet, or walk the streets unattended, either.
Originally posted by dmz
And for the less moral among you, I'll give you an object lesson---for free.
And, like everything else in life, it was worth *exactly* what was paid for it.
I just drove back, some distance from the relatives---was on the road for three hours, when we had to stop at a federal park for a "potty" stop. My 7-year old daughter "had to go" (and so did I).
I went into the latrine first, and discovered the "free speech," Howard Stern style, on the walls. On one wall, there was "I want a teenage girl who wants anal sex and likes........" with the phone number of someone who is obviously going to have to change his phone number. On the other wall was a fairly accurate depiction, in magic marker, of someone performing oral sex on a "mammoth cock and balls"---replete with a description of "how they like it." My 7-year old is well into The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and can read quite ably. She didn't get to use the federally-funded latrine because of someone's "free speech"---she had wait quite some time for better conditions.
She is not safe to listen to the radio, read the internet, or walk the streets unattended, either.
Wow, way to use fear to keep a lid on the kid.
Sorry, but I had parents like you. And you know what happened? Culture shock when I reached adulthood and suddenly had to deal with all the crap without any ready tools or methods to do so. You're doing your child a great disservice. Use it as an abject lesson in vandalism, and yes, even free speech issues.
But to make her hold her bladder 'for quite some time' for fear she might see some 'naughty bits'?
Sad, man. Really sad. Borderline abusive in my book.
And I seriously can't believe you equate graffiti with free speech.
But then again, you equate Stern with child pornography, so what the hell, right? Don't like it, and it's all lumped together.
All for the sake of the kids. You know, the ones with the cramping painful bladders.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sorry, but I had parents like you
You are a child until you have children.
---Garrison Keillor
Originally posted by dmz
You are a child until you have children.
---Garrison Keillor
How... quaint.
Simplistic, ignorant, one-sided, arrogant, condescending, and utterly false, but... quaint.
Almost cute, even.
But utterly failing as a rebuttal and lacking in thought or content.
D+
2) I *do* get emotional when I've presented with arrogance and hypocrisy, simple as that.
3) You're dodging any possibility of debate, which is precisely what I expected of you. So I'll take the cue that this is pointless and a completely waste of my time, and let you get back to your life. Just do me a favor and try not to control mine, or my children's, and everything will continue to be fine.
Oh wait, but you'd rather have that control.
Ah well, a waste this continues to be.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I *do* get emotional
Try answering the points I made instead of accusing me of borderline child abuse for not going over the fine points of oral sex with a three foot magic marker mural as a guide to free speech. If you really think my seven year old daughter needs to know about fellatio, you have serous emotional issues to resolve.
Use that "hung like a horse" brain for something other than cagey rejoinders.
Originally posted by dmz
Try answering the points I made
You made a point? Seriously?
<checks back>
Sorry, other than a rather obvious and, one might say, pedantic comment about Stern and the FCC which I think most people would agree with, I don't see any points with content.
instead of accusing me of borderline child abuse for not going over the fine points of oral sex with a three foot magic marker mural as a guide to free speech. If you really think my seven year old daughter needs to know about fellatio, you have serous emotional issues to resolve.
And if you think forcing a child to hold their bladder (after *you* were allowed to relieve yours, I might add) is better than simply warning them that there are some graphic crawls on the wall made by vandals (criminals - great place to start a discussion on society, free speech, its *LIMITS* and such) and that she should ignore them if possible, but that you'll be there if she has any questions, then there are plenty of serious emotional issues abounding.
And one more thing... you *SERIOUSLY* think that graffiti is free speech? You honestly can't tell the difference between vandalism and free speech issues? Or Howard Stern and child pornography? Well jesus, no *wonder* you're so scared of the world for yourself and your kids... you can't make heads or tails of it.
Free speech ends with criminal acts. Duh. Trying to mix the two is either the apex of ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to muddy the issue to make sure it is as opaque as possible and therefore polarized into a 'for the kids!' scenario. Funny how often that happens, eh? (BTW, it's a pathetic tactic, and an intellectual dodge of the lowest sort.)
Use that "hung like a horse" brain for something other than cagey rejoinders.
*rimshot*
As I stated before, you stay in your world, and I'll stay in mine, and everyone will be happy. This is a waste of my time, of the highest order. Enjoy.
Originally posted by Kickaha
nd if you think forcing a child to hold their bladder
Again with the bladder reference. You have tried to (emotionally) infer the "painful" conditions. Stitled emotional framing of an imagined situation in order to cast dispersions on my parenting skills is a both a personal attack and an childish response to my object lesson.
There was no pain involved, the child was asked, and could have hiked it in the bushes if needed. This is not complicated.
And one more thing... you *SERIOUSLY* think that graffiti is free speech? You honestly can't tell the difference between vandalism and free speech issues?
Stern's product is vandalizing public spaces---he is breaking the law with his product, creating public places that my children cannot go. This is precisly the point. You don't seem to be up to the challenge of dispensing with the personal attacks and approaching this logically.
A waste of time indeed---and coming from a moderator, too.
Originally posted by dmz
As for the less moral among you, you know who you are. (period)
And for the less moral among you, I'll give you an object lesson---for free.
Gee, I wonder in which case this child of yours is worse off?
a) seeing a little bit of illegal and adult oriented graffiti in a bathroom, or
b) being taught that you are on some sort of moral high ground and better than others because they disagree with your opinion on certain matters of free speech.
Instead of being a guide for your child, you are teaching your child that you can't just intelligently disagree with someone on complicated matters such as personal freedoms, rather that you should talk down to them with an overbearing and condescending "moral" diatribe.
Such is typical of debates about morality in this country, however. One side will always be telling you what morality is and how people should behave to be wholesome people. The other side will be encouraging you to learn and to decide for yourself as you mature what your personal boundaries are, respect the fact that others may have different personal boundaries, and understand that because one has different and maybe even completely opposite views than you, that they are no better or worse than you are. They are just different.
I leave it to you to decide which side does what...
Originally posted by dmz
Stern's product is vandalizing public spaces---he is breaking the law with his product, creating public places that my children cannot go. This is precisly the point.
How is he creating a place your child can not go? Perhaps he is creating a place you choose not to let your child go to, but that's different, now isn't it?
If you live in a country where nothing offends anybody, you are not living in a free country. It is your right to disagree with the content of Hoawrd Stern's show. It is my right to disagree with you. And it is Stern's right to speak freely, wether or not people disagree with the content. (period.)
Originally posted by rageous
a) seeing a little bit of illegal and adult oriented graffiti in a bathroom, or
b) being taught that you are on some sort of moral high ground and better than others because they disagree with your opinion on certain matters of free speech.
a) are really telling me to expose my child to pornography?
b) check your own condecension.
Originally posted by rageous
And it is Stern's right to speak freely.....
Incorrect. The public airways are regulated.
You don't seem to be up to the challenge of dispensing with the personal attacks and approaching this logically, either.
Originally posted by dmz
Incorrect. The public airways are regulated.
The extent of such regulation should end at a warning that the shows contain sexually explicit material or "foul" language. If you don't like it, don't listen. There are two knobs on your radio. Turn either one.
I find religion to be highly offensive, especially christianity. Many of its stories are brutal and barbaric. If you want to ban Howard from the public airwaves you have to ban ignorant hate-filled sermons as well.
Originally posted by BR
T........ban ignorant hate-filled sermons as well.
not the hate-filled sermons!
I hate when I go to church and hear the hate-filled sermon.
Where the hell did that come from?
Originally posted by dmz
a) are really telling me to expose my child to pornography?
The solution seems to be easy. Lock her in the basement, and let her out when she turns 18. Make sure you've removed your stash of old magazines first!
At 7 years old, though, I can believe that she hasn't had much exposure to these things you are trying to protect her from. Frankly, you're not going to be able to control what she sees, hears, and experiences while at school or playing with friends. She will run into this no matter how many public washrooms you inspect.
I was going to attach a couple of pictures I took while in Italy recently, but I'm not sure if naked statues cross the 'pornography' line. Be sure to explain to her, when and *if* she ever sees a picture of David, "Don't worry pumpkin, not all penises are that small. You'll find out on your wedding night."
Originally posted by audiopollution
At 7 years old, though, I can believe that she hasn't had much exposure to these things you are trying to protect her from.
It's known as parenting.
Originally posted by dmz
It's known as parenting.
It's known as your way of parenting.
I edited out, before posting, a paragraph from my previous response. In the deleted paragraph, I called your effort noble but ultimately futile. I felt my response conveyed that without an implicit reference but I don't think you 'got it'.
In not letting her into the bathroom you exercised the same level of control that you have over her radio, television, website, book, magazine, and movie exposure. That's your prerogative as a parent, and that is the extent to which you can dictate what she is exposed to.
Originally posted by audiopollution
It's known as your way of parenting.
No, it's not. A child in the 1st and 2nd deserves protection from pornography. If you can't be bothered to control what your kids are exposed to, you have no business being a parent.
You guys need to step back and look at what you are advocating here. Assuming a first grader is aware of fellatio is not sane.
Extrapolating the control you have over a 7-year-old to the control you have over and 18-year old is shallow reasoning.