Skins: "The Most Dangerous Show on Television"

[geauxtohell]

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.

Excellent, this is exactly where I wanted this argument to go.

Now reconcile your above statement with your statement in this post #31 and then answer my original question from post #31.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241274-post31.html

 

[Mini 14]

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.

Excellent, this is exactly where I wanted this argument to go.

Now reconcile your above statement with your statement in this post #31 and then answer my original question from post #31.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241274-post31.html

Simple enough!

I never said the show should be censored (though I would take it off the air in a heartbeat if it were my decision, and not give a rip what anyone thought), only that it was dangerous and irresponsible. It is up to each individual parent/person whether or not they watch the show or not. Watch it all you want, it doesn't make it any less dangerous to the right audience, IMO.

Again, you need a different box. I don't fit in the one you're currently wanting to use.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

This is my point exactly: "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder. You don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children to legally require protections on those weapons to prevent children from shooting themselves. Even though you can't argue miss-use of a gun is not as dangerous as miss-use of a television. Yet, you do deem a television show to be dangerous.

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?

It's irrelevant to my position in this argument. I don't have to account for the actions of the fringe when it comes to my own beliefs and opinions.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Excellent, this is exactly where I wanted this argument to go.

Now reconcile your above statement with your statement in this post #31 and then answer my original question from post #31.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241274-post31.html

Simple enough!

I never said the show should be censored (though I would take it off the air in a heartbeat if it were my decision, and not give a rip what anyone thought), only that it was dangerous and irresponsible. It is up to each individual parent/person whether or not they watch the show or not. Watch it all you want, it doesn't make it any less dangerous to the right audience, IMO.

Again, you need a different box. I don't fit in the one you're currently wanting to use.

Then, again, why is it even germane if we have kids? I don't need kids to find things offensive and not watch them.

It's absurd that some people feel as if they've reached a higher state of conscious/morality simply because they have children.

 

[chanel]

Parents and teachers worry more about the dangers and complexities of adolescence geautohell. This is just another nail in the coffin of innocence. Yes. Some of them still aren't having sex or doing drugs. In this show, kids just doing kid stuff are portrayed as total losers.

 

[Mini 14]

This is my point exactly: "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder. You don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children to legally require protections on those weapons to prevent children from shooting themselves. Even though you can't argue miss-use of a gun is not as dangerous as miss-use of a television. Yet, you do deem a television show to be dangerous.



It's irrelevant to my position in this argument. I don't have to account for the actions of the fringe when it comes to my own beliefs and opinions.

I never said that I don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children. When did I say that?

Still haven't found the right box, have you?

I know children who I would rather see holding a firearm than some adults I know. In general, kids and guns don't mix, but it has to do with experience, maturity, and impressionability.

Which is my exact argument with this show.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

And THAT is the parent's fault. Period.

We have parental locks on the tvs and use them. MTV is blocked, shows are blocked based on the content ratings we choose, channels we deem unsuitable are blocked. No tv, computers in the bedrooms. My kids won't see this show unless they see it at another kids house.

As to the show . . . the bar has been lowered that anything goes. I call bullshit on the 'just turn it off' too. The solution is that the bar needs to be raised again and kept there. (Oh but the left will cry 'censorship'. )

 

[chanel]

Well zoom I applaud your diligence. I can't say I've done the same, but I have never allowed my kids TVs in their rooms.

But I still find it a bit disingenuous when people who believe that its the govts job to feed the children and for the school's job to raise the kids, suddenly find that v-chips are the parents' responsibility. Weird, huh?

 

[strollingbones]

i just finished watching the 1st show....i have to wonder what sheltered life one must lead to think this is the most dangerous show on television?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Well zoom I applaud your diligence. I can't say I've done the same, but I have never allowed my kids TVs in their rooms.

But I still find it a bit disingenuous when people who believe that its the govts job to feed the children and for the school's job to raise the kids, suddenly find that v-chips are the parents' responsibility. Weird, huh?

I should have edited my post to include that they won't see this show unless they see it at another kids house or on the internet. THAT is proving to be much more difficult to control content-wise than tv. The computer the kids use is in the living room but it's still in the next room. I'm looking into parental controls for that. Too much available crap and not nearly enough blocking controls for it.

Didn't you hear? We need to be more like Europe in our attitudes. Morality is soooo yesterday.

 

[geauxtohell]

Parents and teachers worry more about the dangers and complexities of adolescence geautohell. This is just another nail in the coffin of innocence. Yes. Some of them still aren't having sex or doing drugs. In this show, kids just doing kid stuff are portrayed as total losers.

Doom and gloom! Doom and gloom! We've been nailing this "adolescent coffin" shut for as long as I can remember.

It's only a "nail in the coffin of innocence" if parents aren't doing their job. If that's the case, I would venture to guess they weren't doing their job a long time before this show was broadcast.

Sex sells. It's no secret. It's just strange that you guys still act like this is anything knew.

I'd also argue that the kids who are ambitious probably aren't going to let their plans be stymied by the shit that comes across MTV. It's not like someone is going to say: "I'd have gone to Harvard if it weren't for that damn "Skins" show that led me into a life of sex and drugs!"

 

[strollingbones]

o and i watched it on the computer

 

[geauxtohell]

I never said that I don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children. When did I say that?

You didn't. However, you don't deem the dangerous enough to support trigger locks. It's not an esoteric point, as every year children are killed by miss-handling their parent's weapons. To date, no child had been killed by miss-handling a television.

Again, my point is this: "dangerous" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Still haven't found the right box, have you?

I know children who I would rather see holding a firearm than some adults I know. In general, kids and guns don't mix, but it has to do with experience, maturity, and impressionability.

Which is my exact argument with this show.

So some children should be able to watch the show, but not others?

 

[strollingbones]

Uproar over 'Skins' is a blessing for the show - Entertainment - Television - TODAYshow.com

 

[geauxtohell]

Well zoom I applaud your diligence. I can't say I've done the same, but I have never allowed my kids TVs in their rooms.

But I still find it a bit disingenuous when people who believe that its the govts job to feed the children and for the school's job to raise the kids, suddenly find that v-chips are the parents' responsibility. Weird, huh?

Yes. The television being under the roof of the parents should be the responsibility of the parents to regulate.

What is your solution? Allowing the government to regulate your TV (aside from the fact that they already do that with the FCC).

 

[chanel]

I've already stated what I'd like to see: sponsors boycotting the show.

Yes sex sells. But selling kiddie sex is still against the law. For now...

 

[chanel]

Oh and I believe cable shows are exempt from FCC rules. Maybe that should be changed.

 

[G.T.]

I'll venture to guess that the kids will run into trouble with the law, (down the road in the season), the one girl almost DIED, already, one ritzy girl had a party and her consequence was that her parent's house was destroyed and her Dad's SUV was stoled and driven into a river....

Glorifying it/that life? It didn't look like that, to me. It looked like quite a good repellant, to me.

 

[Mini 14]

I never said that I don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children. When did I say that?

You didn't. However, you don't deem the dangerous enough to support trigger locks. It's not an esoteric point, as every year children are killed by miss-handling their parent's weapons. To date, no child had been killed by miss-handling a television.

Again, my point is this: "dangerous" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Still haven't found the right box, have you?

I know children who I would rather see holding a firearm than some adults I know. In general, kids and guns don't mix, but it has to do with experience, maturity, and impressionability.

Which is my exact argument with this show.

So some children should be able to watch the show, but not others?

You just hear what you want to hear, don't you?

I never said I don't support trigger locks. Never. (In fact, if you've read my posts in other threads, you would know that parents leave my stores with MULTIPLE, FREE trigger locks, not just the one required by law). I said I wouldn't support a law REQUIRING trigger locks on ALL guns in homes where children are present. Big difference in what I said, and what you wish I had said.

Yes, I think there are some children who are better suited to view the show than others.

You're just all about absolutes, aren't you?

There is no grey area with you....it either fits in the box, or you cram it in the box whether it fits or not.

I realize now what a futile endeavor this was to think we could have a constructive discussion about it. No matter what I say, you hear whatever it is that you want to hear that will support your preconceived debate, and you think that because you haven't experienced something, its irrelevant, it doesn't matter, its bullshit.

I'm a gun dealer....... so I must hate kids, trigger locks, and think all guns should come equipped with high-cap mags.

I'm a parent....... so I must think I'm better than you, must think I'm more in-touch with kids, better suited to judge what is "good" and what is "bad" simply because I have procreated.

Here's a little lagniappe for you, brother:

I'm not a coonass, but I know lot of them. That doesn't make me an expert on all things cajun.

Right over your head, I'm sure.......

 

[G.T.]

Further, even if it did glorify it, I still think it's essentially the parent's responsibility to engage in moral and value teaching to their kids..................if they're letting their TVs do it then they're not doing that great of a job as parents.

When I have a kid (no I don't have any), he's not going to be censored from much. He's going to be taught the value of right vs. wrong by me and my wife, not by his television or MTV.

When I was a teen, I watched Beavis and Butthead. To date, I didn't live in a slum shack spending every day trying to break the law and acting like a retard.