Slashdot Mirror

"Addiction is an ugly word, but it is a reality. And what are the results of TV addiction? Deterioration. Deterioration of family togetherness, closeness. Deterioration of mind and spirit. We've lost the art of family conversation. We don't read. Our children are not stimulated to read. They are missing the great treasures, the literature of the ages. But the worst result of the addiction is a lack of interest in God and the Scriptures. Divine love as well as human love is leaving the home of the family addicted to television."
-- Father Morton A. Hill, S.J., founder of Morality in Media
(Twin Circle, 1981)

So unless you're interested in God and the Scriptures they will probably be against whatever TV has to offer - regardless of the type of the show.

Quote can be found here: http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?mediaIssu es/supmktmags.htm/ - on a page that describes what to do on "Turn off TV day" (which they have set to be Valentines day), and one of the suggestions next to "take a stroll in the park" and "help out at a soupkitchen", is "And, most appropriately, take time to write to the broadcasters and advertisers to let them know how you feel about offensive programming."

Frightening on many levels, one being that the government gave them money for it.

Here's a link to some research and here's another. The evidence of the research is clear. There is a causal link between men using pornography and then commiting rape.

At the time, Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) was the Republican FCC chairman.
3 out of the 5 FCCS commisioners were Republican.

Michel Cooperman also has fought against media consolidation and big megacorp buyups of the airwaves.

Quote:

"What is this medium for? It's to entertain, and it's to inform and it's to help us sustain the great marketplace of ideas that's the foundation of American democracy. We need to be using it to appeal to the better angels of our nature. And we can still be well and amply entertained and much better informed if we can get back to that. But I'm just worried now that commercialization of it, it's become, 'how do you keep people tuned in so they can watch the advertisements?'"

Sounds like a real villain.

Sorry, but you're just going out of your way to bash Democrats. Either that or you're a rabid Howard Stern fan (poor guy, crying over all his millions).

>Since you've just explicitly admitted that your case is subjective (i.e. some people see it that way and other people don't) rather than objective (i.e. based on facts observable to all), I'll consider the argument over.
---

I did not say it was subjective. You interpreted what I said as saying that which I didn't.

Scientists have discovered many new things when they used more sensitive instruments. There are plenty of examples from past and current history. Those with more sensitive measuring instruments saw the things. Those without the sensitive instruments did not see it. Comparing the two groups as "subjective" is a twist of the word.

You can still choose to take the "red pill" and research it yourself. The choice is yours. Please consider opening up to the possibilities. That's all for now.

Roger Brown
Check out MIM

Also, my "Freedom is not the goal" statement was incomplete in my limited time to reply. I mean that it is not the ultimate goal. Freedom of course is a goal but the bigger goals are making the best choices with the freedom. Freedom is abused when it's used to hurt others.

> >That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution.

> Nonsense. The results of inhaling toxic chemicals are a matter of verifiable objective fact. The results of hearing and viewing unwanted messages are a subjective function of the recipient's predelections.

Actually, the results of obscenity pollution are also a matter of verifiable objective fact. The 'prima facie' evidence for it can be ascertained by the instruments of your brain and senses. However it depends on how sensitively they are tuned or if they have "reception" trouble in picking up the signals due to neglect or abuse.

You can become desensitized to obscenity pollution just like your pain nerves can be become desensitized through anesthesia.

If you expose yourself to porn you anesthesize some of these natural senses. Yes, it can seem like its enhancing another sense by giving you a high similar to a narcotic but then it leaves you feeling numb as an after-effect.

So the effects of obscenity pollution are definitely real and objectively verifiable. It just depends on whether you choose to be "awake" or not and treat your "conscience" sense in a healthy manner by feeding it good content and not a diet of obscenity.

However you can continue to keep those part of your senses asleep and then be like the people in The Matrix.

Or you can choose to wake up and look at all the facts. Don't be afraid. Which one will it be for you? The "blue pill" or the "red pill"?

The facts that pornography causes damage to the viewer -- are all in the real world. No amount of wishing or denial will make them go away.

If you want other facts from psychologists and social scientists and researchers in other disciplines then check out MoralityInMedia.org for starters.

I was numb too for a while but then chose to wake up, pull my head out of the darkness, and research all of the facts, and make the best choices. I sincerely invite you to research it for yourself. You can objectively test it also.

Peace out bros,

Roger Brown

P.S. Try porn-free.org for further facts.

Does this mean "freedom" to hurt your neighbor or hurt your neighborhood?

If your freedoms start to infringe on my freedom and my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" then you are abusing your freedoms.

For example, we have environmental pollution laws to prevent some from abusing their freedom to pollute the environment and cause sickness or death to others.

Someone already mentioned that obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court back in 1973(?). I think it was Miller v. California.

If you choose to abuse your freedoms by polluting the air we breathe, or if you choose to pollute our visual or aural or mental environment with obscene images or words then you're hurting others.

Wise uses of our freedoms do not infringe on other's freedoms.

I have asthma and it's important to me that the air I breathe is clean. Likewise I have good mental health and I don't want it to be limited or destroyed with obscene pollution. The pollution of obscenity is just as real as other types of pollution. Check out some studies, meta-studies, and other articles on the topic at MIM.org

You can do whatever you want in private and then think that it only hurts yourself. But if you exercise your freedoms in a way that then harms others then it ceases to be a freedom. It's an abuse.

Roger

P.S. Check out the Institute for Justice at IJ.org

• warez
• porn
• mp3s
• divx movies
• book-warez
• keeping up with my favorite cartoons.