Skins: "The Most Dangerous Show on Television"

[random3434]

PS:

Have any of us commenting even watched the show? I haven't, as a matter of fact I'd never heard of it until now. We don't watch a lot of TV in our house, as a matter of fact, the TV in the living room where Mini-Echo hangs out is never on during the week unless we are watching something together. I don't think it's been on all weekend, but will be today for the football games.

Anyhoo............I feel like I need to see a bit of this to see what it's all about, then come back and comment further.

 

[Mini 14]

PS:

Have any of us commenting even watched the show? I haven't, as a matter of fact I'd never heard of it until now. We don't watch a lot of TV in our house, as a matter of fact, the TV in the living room where Mini-Echo hangs out is never on during the week unless we are watching something together. I don't think it's been on all weekend, but will be today for the football games.

Anyhoo............I feel like I need to see a bit of this to see what it's all about, then come back and comment further.

EZ....strollingbones provided a link in an earlier reply. I watched about 15 minutes, scanning through from beginning to end.

Even if the other 15 minutes were socially redeeming, I still find it offensive and irresponsible.

I hope (and trust) that my kids would react as yours.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No. This is not faux outrage bones. And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case. Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms. May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.

1.2 million teens watched that show the first night. It's bad.

Several sponsors pulled their ads and the PTC is demanding a federal investigation into kiddie porn charges. All of the actors are under 18.

Most cable outlets and satellite programs as well as Internet providers have parental controls that can be used to block certain shows and channels in your house.

Regarding the kiddie porn charges, unless the actors were truly engaging in sexual acts on the show this charge is nothing but crying wolf.

While I do agree with you that shows with gratuitous sex and drug use aimed at teenagers, like this one, are contributing to the moral decay of society, the way to stop that and protect your children from it is for you to be a better parent to you own kids and not expect the government to be one for you.

 

[elvis]

No. This is not faux outrage bones. And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case. Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms. May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.

1.2 million teens watched that show the first night. It's bad.

Several sponsors pulled their ads and the PTC is demanding a federal investigation into kiddie porn charges. All of the actors are under 18.

Most cable outlets and satellite programs as well as Internet providers have parental controls that can be used to block certain shows and channels in your house.

Regarding the kiddie porn charges, unless the actors were truly engaging in sexual acts on the show this charge is nothing but crying wolf.

While I do agree with you that shows with gratuitous sex and drug use aimed at teenagers, like this one, are contributing to the moral decay of society, the way to stop that and protect your children from it is for you to be a better parent to you own kids and not expect the government to be one for you.

I agree. Either use the parental controls or cancel the expanded cable.

 

[uscitizen]

MTV can fe blocked on cable and satellite. And who uses the V-chip option?
And yes you give them computers in their room instead of in a commons area.

But of course there is nothing a parent can do...

 

[geauxtohell]

You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.

Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.

After Arizona, some people wanted to ban clips that held more than 10 rounds. Would you support that?

Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?

No.

 

[elvis]

You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.

Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.

After Arizona, some people wanted to ban clips that held more than 10 rounds. Would you support that?

Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?

No.

should have banned the white album after the Tate and LaBianca murders.

 

[random3434]

OK, Mini-Echo is up. I asked her about this show, here she is to tell her opinion:


I personally think the show is a dumb show, I watched it- it's just some MTV ploy to get teenagers to watch their show by "connecting" with the equally dumb characters. It's just another "The Hills" or "Gossip Girl" type of crappy show, then again people who watch it most likely watch the Jersey Shore, which says a lot about the person. I will never watch it again, this show targets the dumb teenagers that can't think for themselves like the reality shows. Some kids (in my school) goal is to try out for reality shows, how lame is that?
Anyway, 'Skins' is a stupid show.


(she typed that but didn't read the thread, I just asked her about the show. I TRUST her and her judgement, enough said.)

 

[Mini 14]

You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.

Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.

After Arizona, some people wanted to ban clips that held more than 10 rounds. Would you support that?

Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?

No.

Clips holding more than 10 rounds are already banned in some areas. In general, no, I wouldn't support it, because it doesn't do anything. My sidearm holds 8 rounds in the magazine. I own 9 magazines. The time to reload is negligible to a well trained person, especially when no one else is firing back.

I disagree with you about art being dangerous if shown to the wrong person. So do those who are blaming Palin's crosshairs for Loughner's violence, as well as the Muslims who have threatened the cartoonist's life for his images of Mohammed.

 

[Mini 14]

OK, Mini-Echo is up. I asked her about this show, here she is to tell her opinion:


I personally think the show is a dumb show, I watched it- it's just some MTV ploy to get teenagers to watch their show by "connecting" with the equally dumb characters. It's just another "The Hills" or "Gossip Girl" type of crappy show, then again people who watch it most likely watch the Jersey Shore, which says a lot about the person. I will never watch it again, this show targets the dumb teenagers that can't think for themselves like the reality shows. Some kids (in my school) goal is to try out for reality shows, how lame is that?
Anyway, 'Skins' is a stupid show.


(she typed that but didn't read the thread, I just asked her about the show. I TRUST her and her judgement, enough said.)

You're obviously a great parent, EZ.

Job well done!

 

[geauxtohell]

How does the saying go "Its hard to define pornography, but I know it when I see it"?

Next week they will feature minors engaging in lesbian sex and in Week 3 - child nudity. Be sure to set your DVRs pervs.

Who is that directed at?

You are better than this.

 

[Mini 14]

How does the saying go "Its hard to define pornography, but I know it when I see it"?

Next week they will feature minors engaging in lesbian sex and in Week 3 - child nudity. Be sure to set your DVRs pervs.

Who is that directed at?

You are better than this.

Geauxto.....did you see my question about how many children you have?

Is that too personal of a question to ask?

 

[geauxtohell]

I never implied that.

Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.

Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box

Great. That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.

Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency? I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids. The content of the material isn't offensive to them. The concept of their kids looking at it is. That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.

I notice GT didn't answer.

How about you?

How many children do you have, Geauxto?

None.

Now tell me why that is germane.

 

[random3434]

OK, Mini-Echo is up. I asked her about this show, here she is to tell her opinion:


I personally think the show is a dumb show, I watched it- it's just some MTV ploy to get teenagers to watch their show by "connecting" with the equally dumb characters. It's just another "The Hills" or "Gossip Girl" type of crappy show, then again people who watch it most likely watch the Jersey Shore, which says a lot about the person. I will never watch it again, this show targets the dumb teenagers that can't think for themselves like the reality shows. Some kids (in my school) goal is to try out for reality shows, how lame is that?
Anyway, 'Skins' is a stupid show.


(she typed that but didn't read the thread, I just asked her about the show. I TRUST her and her judgement, enough said.)

You're obviously a great parent, EZ.

Job well done!

Thanks, she's a great kid, and like I said I trust her and her judgement. She asked me if she could type 'crappy' on here lol!

 

[geauxtohell]

I never implied that.

Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.

Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box

Great. That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.

Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency? I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids. The content of the material isn't offensive to them. The concept of their kids looking at it is. That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.

My kids aren't "adults."

You're defeating your own argument. I'm not saying that it is dangerous to adults at all, or that some adults might not find it entertaining and interesting.

But "kids" are not "adults."

There is a reason we don't let them vote, participate in pornography, or drink (among other things). It has to do with maturity, impressionability, and experience.

An "adult" has dealt with those.

A "kid" has not.

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So? Conservatives are putting boycotts and censorship back on the table? Well, that didn't last long...

Agreed. All sex acts should be shown on tv to include fellatio, lesbian and homosexual sex. Children as young as 8 should be watching too. In fact, the FCC should mandate that all TV shows should have at least one gratuitous sex act per 30 minutes of television as a condition of license.

How else can we push society forward against the oppressive religious right?

You free market guys are fabulous dancers.

 

[Mini 14]

Great. That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.

Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency? I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids. The content of the material isn't offensive to them. The concept of their kids looking at it is. That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.

I notice GT didn't answer.

How about you?

How many children do you have, Geauxto?

None.

Now tell me why that is germane.

That being the case, can you see where there may be a perspective here from which you cannot judge one of the arguments against the show? I'm generalizing greatly here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us arguing against the merit of this show all have children. HAVING children, and IMAGINING having children, are two entirely different things (I IMAGINED having children before I actually had them, and it is an entirely UNIMAGINABLE reality, until you're there).

Further generalization.......I'll bet those arguing that the show is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, and its your right (which it certainly is) DO NOT have children.

I don't think that correlation (if I'm correct) is coincidental.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not offended by the show at all.

I haven't watched MTV in over 20 years, at least.

That may change.

 

[geauxtohell]

Clips holding more than 10 rounds are already banned in some areas. In general, no, I wouldn't support it, because it doesn't do anything. My sidearm holds 8 rounds in the magazine. I own 9 magazines. The time to reload is negligible to a well trained person, especially when no one else is firing back.

I disagree with you about art being dangerous if shown to the wrong person. So do those who are blaming Palin's crosshairs for Loughner's violence, as well as the Muslims who have threatened the cartoonist's life for his images of Mohammed.

Would you support a law requiring child locks on all firearms in a house that had children in it?

It's irrelevant to me what knee jerk liberals/conservative or insane Muslims deem as dangerous art. You asked me the question, and my response was "no".

 

[Mini 14]

Would you support a law requiring child locks on all firearms in a house that had children in it?

It's irrelevant to me what knee jerk liberals/conservative or insane Muslims deem as dangerous art. You asked me the question, and my response was "no".

No, I would not support a law REQUIRING trigger locks on ALL firearms in a house with children.

Does your perception of "irrelevance" with regards to their reactions make the real threat any less dangerous? I mean, because you think it is irrelevant, should the cartoonist relax because the Muslims aren't going to do anything now that you've deemed it irrelevant?

Is it "irrelevant" merely because it doesn't affect you?