Slashdot Mirror
FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for profanity or nudity shown on live television. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
Nobody wants to see a cock on their TV. But let me fucking blow up a baby. Americans fucking love that.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I still can't believe that you can show autopsies, murder, drug deals, and all the horrible things shown on the news...but if you show a titty, you face a big fine. ::head shake::
It's freakin' stupid.
Living With a Nerd
"The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
And this is bad how?
Whatever happened to parents being ultimately responsible for what their children are watching?
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
I think there do need to be standards for what's shown at least on broadcast TV but I think the pants-wetting hysteria from the Family Research Council and their ilk isn't the answer.
These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
When people say America is a "christian nation", I believe this is what they're referring to...
Living With a Nerd
I can understand people not liking hard core porn in between sesame street & pokemon while the toddlers are watching (and i'm sure the toddlers don't want to see that neighter), but come on, the image of a boob ain't gonna kill them or turn them into rapist zombie bastards from hell, as for profanity, saying shit is a lot less harmful then showing torture, murder & explosions, hell, even McGyver is more harmful (who hasn't recreated anything shown in that show?) then letting kids hear profanity.
their minds are scarred and they are ruined for life, they enter a death spiral of drug use and prostitution. all it takes is one glance of a boob, and the fate of your child's life will change on the spot to one of apathy, laziness, fatalism, and moribund lack of emotional affect
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
[sarcasm] that parents should take an interest in what their kids are watching because we all know that responsible parents are the last thing this world needs..... [/sarcasm]
"One nation under god, with all people born of immaculate conception and sex is a concept unheard of." :)
Well, if you remove the 'god' part it would also apply to Slashdot.
Frankly, given all the cool things that you can do with a chunk of spectrum, the "airwaves are for public use" argument is much better ammunition for the extirpation of broadcast TV and the creation of vast chunks of spectrum that are either unrestricted or "free for use by all devices conforming to $OPEN_INDUSTRY_STANDARD_WIRELESS_PROTOCOL" rather than the bowdlerization of daytime TV.
Good. The FCC has no business regulating the content of what gets broadcast, only the means of broadcasting it, ie: making sure everyone stays in their licensed frequencies and doesn't stomp on each others transmissions.
We're now living in a time where it's trivially easy to block potentially offensive channels, or restrict their use with a code to keep them out of children's reach if their parents don't want them watching. If you don't like that channel X broadcasts unedited showings of "Porkey's", don't watch channel X. You, as a viewer, have no right to expect a government agency to protect you from being offended, and the government has no right to prevent a broadcaster from showing what they choose, or me from watching it if I like.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
You've hit on one of the primary contradictions in thinking in the U.S. of today. Most people are for the free market making decisions... that is until it makes a decision they don't like for some reason. Then they go to the government to "protect their interests" or to protect themselves through legislation. So many of the stories on Slashdot, especially the governmental and corporate stories, come down to that... a corporation or other group of people who were so gung-ho about the free market when things were going THEIR way now want governmental protection now that the market has changed. See also: FCC. See also: RIAA. See also: MPAA.
Well, if people didn't have sex, we wouldn't have had the current crop of corrupt bankers and politicians, now, would we?
You gotta remember that the pilgrims didn't come to the US to "practice religious freedom". They got kicked out of Europe for being too puritanical. From the beginning the US has been at war with sex and "indecency".
It amazed me that you could show the most awful slasher flick and at most get an R rating but typically get a PG-13. But if you so much as showed a few seconds of a tit that was R for sure. And male frontal nudity was an X.
it would involve effort on the parent's part. FAIL.
As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities. Here in the UK we have the BBC and thus their two fantastic advert, nudity, profanity free childrens channels. And on the home computers I've stuck K9, which seems to do a pretty good job without spoiling their use of the computer. Recently they went to a relatives house and log onto their PC. The eldest searched for "horses", as this is something she is interested in, and got links to, amongst what you would expect, "horses mating with humans". There must be a balance, of course, but I do not feel that I can let broadcasters, in the loosest definition, decide what is and what is not suitable for my children. I do not want them to grow up thinking profanity, nudity, violence or whatever is normal behaviour. Similarly, I do not want them subject to some of the adverts that appear on some childrens channels (e.g. give money to help save some poor kid's life... I feel there're more appropriate ways of teaching kids about these issues). So we need something in place, whether that is common sense or an impartial body. Unfortunately I don't think common sense is an abundant commodity and so the US would probably benefit from keeping the FCC's indecency policy in place. There's no K9 for live TV, alas.
the idea of bringing a boob to an innocent baby's mouth is obviously a severe injection of immorality into the family structure by people who have no consideration for a child's decency and psychological health. some people are just perverts, but why they can't do their perversions amongst themselves, why they have to drag an innocent darling child into their sleazy use of the human body by making a helpless infant suck on a boob... it really makes my blood boil at these decadent slime
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It always surprises me how stupid American law has gotten.
Restaurants put "hot coffee" on cups for fear of being sued.
People get worse sentences for stealing a song then if they would steal a whole business' inventory + more..
God forbid a vagina or penis shows up on tv and it becomes a crazy national topic for a month.
The fcc would love that kind of attention and be there to feed the parents with "we're doing it for the children" and also burp them afterwards...
These kids will probably know more about sex then the collective minds of the fcc. The kids don't need censorship, the fcc needs censorship.
- Yours truly, guy who thinks fcc needs to censor their own penises first before moving onto bigger fish.
If people didn't have sex, methinks we wouldn't have the current crop of anyone :).
I don't get it. Even the word nudity looks sexy. Isn't sexy suppose to be the in thing?
...as in "this decision is bad how?"
Ahh... You begin to understand, grasshopper.
What's wrong with kids seeing the odd tit on TV? It's just a part of the human body, and let's not forget we all came out of a vagina. All this bitching probably comes from a bunch of super-religious nuts who are trying to make people feel bad about their bodies, so they can keep telling them god will save them.
get it into your sleazy perverted minds you immoral cretins: breasts were not made to be exposed to innocent babies!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening.
Wow, I sure hope so. If someone feels that their child's fragile little mind has been warped by something that appeared on television they are free to cripple the court system by suing for civil damages. Or perhaps they could behave like a parent, and exert some control what their children are watching. Pretty tired of parents who claim this is not possible. It's possible if you do your job.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Take there hands off of the non free channels I don't see why movies on TNT, USA, TBS, SCIFI, and others needs to have way less censorship. Don't even thing about trying to crack down even more on that.
It's a tit. Or a dick. Not that big a deal here folks. Kids are pretty robust, so if you don't panic they won't.
Not to mention most TVs come with parental controls and most stations have the ability to broadcast ratings...I fail to see what relevance the FCC has anymore. I can tell you, as a citizen of the US, I don't need or want them looking out for my child. I'm her parent, I get to decide what she sees and doesn't see.
( as far as profanity is concerned; it's just words. Pull the wad out of your ass and realize that children will learn these words anyway, no amount of filtering on TV will stop that. )
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
s/was/were
The problem isn't so much the FCC or what's on TV. It's the Parents Television Council. They've appointed themselves the judge and jury of all things TV and will get their members to complain en masse about shows that offend their delicate sensibilities (such as nudity, cursing, homosexuality, etc).... even if they've never seen the show in question. They've even complained about a Spongebob Squarepants episode for cursing when the "cursing" was a dolphin noise (unrecognizable as a real curse word) and the main characters in the end learned not to curse. But the lesson and lack of real cursing didn't matter. They heard "cursing" and "Spongebob" and so were off to complain!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Let's call a spade a spade here. The elite at the top of the pyramid don't give damn about "indecency". That's only a smokescreen for the real objective: money. Their visions are not of a perfect Mr. Rogers world, as they would like you to believe -- their visions are dollar signs and vast fortunes.
The more laws, the more money it costs to run them all. Conformity isn't the end goal here, but merely a means to more money. Power isn't the end goal either, but merely an asset that can be leveraged for more control over the cash flow.
At the top of the pyramid, the more money passing through your hands, the better positioned you are to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. That's what these "indecency" laws are really about, and for that matter, most everything government does.
I believe the key element to the argument here is "shown on live television." If broadcasters are showing images in real-time, there may well be events in front of the camera that are beyond the broadcasters' control. Is it fair to hold them responsible for someone else's actions who just happens to be passing by?
On they other hand they do have a measure of control at least over where they point their cameras, so they can take reasonable measures to avoid broadcasting scenes where they might expect objectionable material.
If TV broadcasts were pre-recorded, then there would be no excuse for violating FCC guidelines. But those aren't the broadcasts under discussion.
These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
And why do you get to decide which sets of syllables are ok, and which are forbidden? How about if you want to control the content YOU start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Best story on NPR in a while. "FUCK YOU" by Cee Lo Green. Man I wanted them to have played it without censorship. I don't login to youtube so I had to find it someplace else, found it here. Would liked to have linked to Youtube directly, but they want you to login to view it.
There is no country that is more simultaneously obsessed with and embarrassed by sex than the United States.
America seriously needs to grow the fuck up.
Technoli
that, on first meeting their innocent babies, some mothers actually bring their babies into close contact with their nasty sexual organs
what is wrong with these immoral perverts?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and I know a lot of social conservatives who aren't happy with nudity and profanity on TV and radio when kids are awake. In fact, based on the ones I know, I'd say they'd far rather their child see some boobies than another child or a family get blown up.
Of course, war is different for children, especially boys. There is a big difference between seeing soldiers fight one another and seeing senseless crime and atrocities. You can claim there isn't, but that doesn't make it so, and for millennia, civilizations have understood the difference between glorifying the warrior ethos and senseless violence. The former, is not inherently harmful to children, and is actually good for a society that wants its boys to grow up to be **men** and not overgrown boys who act like pansies in the face of a violent world. The US has lost sight of the value of that since unlike the rest of the modern world, no country has tried to invade us in almost 200 years come ~2013 (when the British invaded the US in the War of 1812).
I think it should be up to the people to decide whats indecent or not. If enough people complain the FCC should be called into action. Or we could simply use a 'vote with your feet' system, the result of this would be some TV channels with very strict guidelines appealing to the strict families with young children. And other TV channels with varying degrees of nudity and profanity. As our culture evolves our idea of whats indecent and what isn't changes so there shouldn't be a organisation deciding for everybody else what should and shouldn't be shown on TV.
who gave these walking incubators the right to vote!
{and here is where obvious parody dangerously approaches the reality of some people's thoughts, and so must be noted as parody}
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If people didn't have sex, methinks we wouldn't have the current crop of anyone :).
Reminds me of a good joke. "Sex is hereditary. If your parents didn't have it, chances are you won't either."
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Because I've seen movies lately where the only change to the nude scene is that the lady's nipples are blurred away. So you see the entire breast- just not the nipples. But you can see the guy's nipples.
It beats having dialogue cut away like the old days.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Reading these posts, has anyone asked what is too much. Is Janet Jackson's boob too much? Some will say yes, some no. What if she decided to give Justin a blowjob instead? Too much? Do you want you six year old daughter to see that? The issue is that there is no agreed upon definition of how much is too little or too much. It seems that in this case simply not allowing any would be most prudent. If you want to watch blowjobs, go to that channel. I can police what my children watch based on descriptions and ratings, it is the unknown that I can't. The "fleeting expletive" is another issue to me. In a live broadcast, participants sometimes do curse. That in my opinion is something out of the control of a broadcaster. When VP Biden mutters the f-bomb over an open mic, I don't think the broadcasters should be held accountable.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Shove that nanny attitude and show some teeth for network neutrality instead.
Your Rights Online: FCC Fights To Maintain Control over Culture
"The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for offending puritanical Christian moral majority groups such as Parents Television Council. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that deviate from 1950s morality during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
Just as a reminder, most of these "complaints" are coming from dittohead idiots following form letter emails from the PTC and other such "watchdog" groups. It's not real outrage, it's manufactured in order to push a political agenda -- namely, the repression of sexuality in the US. If you want to try and influence and repress culture, a really good place to start is sexuality, after all.
doesn't help your feeble argument. Anyone with an ounce of sense could stop reading at "atheism is just yet another form of religion." Sure, Skippy - the absence of something is another form of that thing. And black is just a darker shade of white. Moron.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
On the surface, it seems strange that nudity and sex are more taboo than violence and gore, despite the fact that we generally don't really mind if people are nude and having sex (in private), but we don't especially want people violently hurt anywhere (even in private). But I think this is the cause.
If a child sees nudity/sex on TV, it can bring up shameful mixed feelings for the parents, because we keep this side of ourselves hidden from children. Yep, mommy and daddy do that, but god forbid we talk about it. So we're all harboring this shameful secret. We're drawn to it, but we don't like the uncomfortable conversations it invites. "Yes, for God's sake we admit it, we're having sex.. but please don't tell our kids."
Violence, on the other hand, is something that most people have no trouble feeling unadulterated (hah!) condemnation for - so if our kids see it, we can point at it and go "That's bad!" without the confusing, mixed feelings.
Secondly, I think there are people frightened about losing the idea of a common definition of 'obscenity'. It takes courage to accept that someone's nasty fetish is actually perfectly harmless, and the revulsion has to do with your preferences. I mean, what's next? Are my kids going to start doing this? It'll be everywhere! Soon we'll be walking past rows of Poo Weekly in the 7/11. It's a lot easier to stand in a herd and point at the scapegoat. To those who are comfortable with their positions in the herd, this is an important tool. Witness how often politicians are discredited by sexual indiscretions.
While I don't dispute your point that live television presents responsibility problems for parents, let's face some facts here: During any Super Bowl, your kids are being bombarded by scantily clad women in commercials, endless beer ads, and a sport that does involve violent contact amongst the players on the field.
Which is to say, is a second and a half of displayed nipple really the most questionable thing your kids' impressionable young minds saw that night?
1) Atheism is not a Religion. It has no tenants, and the lack of belief in something cannot be considered a "tenant". It's a state of belief. Now "Secular Humanism" is a set of beliefs exposed by many (though by no means all) Atheists, and it could be a called a "Godless Religion". Not all Atheists are Secular Humanists though, and Atheism cannot, by any reasonable definition of the word, be called a religion. It's vaguely insulting to the term "religion" to imply that it can be. (No, I am not an Atheist)
2) The reason the term "Christian Nation" is so widely mocked outside of "Christian Nation" circles is not merely because the far right seems to love using it so much, but because it is factually inaccurate. (And as a point of fact here, something on the order of eight or nine percent of the population is neither Christian nor Atheist, it may not be a humongous number, but it's hardly "nobody" either. On top of this many believing Christians mock the "Christian Nation" concept. Putting the entire blame on "Atheists" probably ignores the majority of the people who actually mock this concept.) The Constitution, in the one place that it makes mention religion at all, does so to declaim that there is no official religion of this country, and all people shall have to right to practice their own religion. Something on the order of 20-30% (depending on the polls) of the population claims either a lack of religious affiliation, or a specifically non-Christian affiliation. So while it may be accurate to say that the US is a majority Christian nation, that's not what is meant by those who proclaim it a "Christian Nation". Those people are therefore wrong.
3) People who are offended by others mocking the "Christian Nation" concept are either: (a) In the first group you describe above, and therefore among those being mocked, or (b) not comprehending what is being mocked. Mocking the concept espoused by puffed up, self appointed guardians of morality is not the same as mocking the values of the religion being used. Jesus himself mocked these people, see Mathew 6:5 for details.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
The government has no business restricting speech, even if it weren't written into our consitution. To all those who cry "think of the children", let's just list a few glaring problems with that argument, any one of which would invalidate it:
I recently watched the "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" episode on sex/virginity and it's really obvious but needs to be restated: ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION DOESN'T FUCKING WORK. Get a clue and get a grip: sex is not bad, and people (including children) should not be punished for being curious or having sexual impulses. Factual, scientific, rational education is the answer.
Nathan's blog
>> You gotta remember that the pilgrims didn't come to the US to "practice religious freedom".
>> They got kicked out of Europe for being too puritanical.
Sorry, but every time I see this myth I feel as though I must refute it. The pilgrims were not kicked out of Europe. They spent nearly twelve years in Holland, where they were able to practice religious freedom or whatever peacefully with other religious "refugees" from England and Spain and other places until they drove themselves into the ground financially through lack of wisdom and useful skills. That is the real reason they came to America; there wouldn't be competition for jobs from more skilled groups of people if they were alone at Plymouth.
GFA/M/S d-- s: a--- C++++ UBL++$ P+ L+++ !E- W++ N+ !o K- w--- !O !M !V PS++ PE Y+ PGP+ t+++ 5- X+ R tv@ b++ DI++++ D+ G
show me an actuakl slasher thats pg 13? You have that backwards.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I remember as a Kid I was only allowed certain channels, so why not put this into a nation wide scale. First of all fine heavily if any thing that is deamed out of line happens on a kid channel. Second ignore any other channels. It should be the parents job to police what the kids watch not the FCC.
I had to 'lol' on this one... All those poor, indignant, Fox-bashing slashdotters must be gnashing teeth over this one:
The Commission ruled in 2006 that, under its new policy, both Billboard broadcasts were indecent. Fox, which broadcast the awards shows, responded by appealing that decision. In its appeal Fox was joined by other broadcasters who opposed the FCC's stricter enforcement policies.
So who does the seething liberal root for? The government and their 'think of the children' stance, or the devil incarnate, Fox?
I don't have a problem with nudity or profanity. I'd argue nudity and profanity is much less harmful than glorified violence. On the other hand, American culture suffers from this odd dichotomy of prudishness taking things way too far. A lot of people seem incapable of anything other than shocking and offensive entertainment. Americans seem to be the source of some of the most depraved content in the world when it comes to mainstream entertainment. It's like Americans have this desperate, immature need to prove they're "adults" by enjoying excessively violent, shocking and offensive and overly sexualized entertainment. It's like writers, directors and producers are comprised of wannabee iconoclasts. I'm not saying I can't enjoy this sort of thing, but simply that I don't need to be bombarded with it constantly. It's nice to experience entertainment with a bit more maturity.
For parents with children, like myself, the solution is simple: don't let them watch television or don't let them watch broadcast television. That way you're in total control of what they're watching. And better yet, they're not being bombarded with constant advertising, which I think is a far larger problem for society compared to any tv show which can easily be dismissed as fantasy. It's not like there's much of substance on television anyway. Kids should be occupying their time with other activities anyway. The last thing we need is to perpetuate this dependency on television for entertainment.
And because of that, we are just like Muslim countries in this regard: violence is good, sex is bad bad bad BAD yer goin' to HELL yew sinnah! *froth* *foam*
I'm sorry. Where was I?
Yeah, anyway, just look at the American public's response to the movie Kick Ass. No one batted an eye at the depiction of an 11 year old girl brutally slaughtering dozens of human beings, but the thought of a movie depicting an 11 year old girl using dirty words sent everyone into apoplectic seizures. We can tell little Johnny that's it is acceptable to use murder as a means of conflict resolution, but he must never come to think that it is acceptable to use a bad word or see a boobie.
Like I said: just like the Muslim countries.
I, too, am a parent and find it a very good and useful thing that my kid can watch television without me having to worry constantly about what they might be showing her that's not appropriate for her age group. BUT, that doesn't justify the "indecency laws" enforced by the FCC either.
For one thing, when these were first conceived, television was a far different animal than it is today. There were no such things as cable TV or satellite broadcasting, with people getting hundreds of channels at a time. You had a few locals and that was pretty much it. The idea was, the free television stations were there to perform a public service, and as such, should be catering to as many potential viewers as possible.
These days, you have stations segmented by their content. Even with nothing more than an antenna on my digital TV, I can pick up stations like "PBS Kids" or a station showing nothing but DYI/Home Improvement content. Another has nothing but weather info on it. If I'm willing to pay a little bit for satellite or cable, I've got all sorts of choices including stations that only show kid's cartoons all day long and channels made by Disney that don't show any "adult" content either.
The need just isn't there anymore to punish a station for its content choices. At most, legislation should be aimed towards "truth in labeling" so viewers are always made aware of the type of content the station intends to show. IMHO, your basic local stations aren't going to express much interest in deviating from the type of material that broadcast now - regardless of FCC regulations. If they start allowing too much cursing and nudity, they're going to lose too many viewers, in a market where consumers have more options than ever before and tend to time-shift record programming anyway (sometimes even stripping out the commercials).
The dictionary does not seem to me to be a product of divine revelation.
But suppose you get pissy about everything around you and go off and be a hermit. It seems obvious to me that you have chosen to define your existence in terms of whatever you are pissy about in your old environment. But yet all the pissy things are not around you any more.
As far as "christian nation" is concerned, there are lot of occasions where people like to think that if you name something, then the object is in fact what you have named it. Some sort of magic? I think the word "nominalism" applies. :-) This is hardly a particularly fundie problem, but perhaps there is an association with literalism. But I don't know anything.
http://www.dreadcentral.com/story/7-deadly-sinns-pg13-ification
there a list of a few.
It amazed me that you could show the most awful slasher flick and at most get an R rating but typically get a PG-13. But if you so much as showed a few seconds of a tit that was R for sure. And male frontal nudity was an X.
Come on now, let's not erode our valid argument with silly examples.
Good luck finding *any* real slasher film with a PG-13 rating. Neither Boogie Nights nor Watchmen had an R rating.
There is a war going on for your mind.
The FCC, a government bureaucracy that wants to tell us what we can watch and, to a certain extent, how we can live, or corporate America, that wants to dictate what we see/hear/taste/smell/feel based on how much money they can make off it. They can all go fuck themselves, so far as I'm concerned.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
or does ANYBODY else in the world really love their kids enough to WANT to spend more time with them?
instead of just leaving them behind and abandoning them to a TV, maybe somebody might want to take responsibility for their parenting and spend some time raising their kids?
Oh, right. I forgot. apparently people want to have kids, but want everyone else in the world to do all the work for them. it's funny how people have completely lost the motivation to be responsible for their actions anymore.
But the latest "quit smoking" PSAs they're airing in New York are absolutely disgusting. I don't have YouTube available to link to the actual video, but here's the gist of it:
The description doesn't really capture how vile the video is. It's enough to completely ruin your appetite for a while. This can pop up anytime you're watching TV, but it's most common between 5 & 8 PM.
It's apparently acceptable under the guise of "public health" but I doubt you'd get a pro-breastfeeding commercial approved that actually showed a woman nursing.
Fuck the FCC. Fuck them. It's a perfectly good word that millions of Americans use every day. Don't shy away from it, particularly when we are discussing censorship through decency laws. The Constitution didn't protect freedom of speech as long as no one can hear you.
While I agree with what you are saying, you're missing the point.
The network was not fined because a nipple was shown or because kids may have been harmed.
The network was fined because the FCC could fine them for and incident in-congruent with stated law.
Its equivalent to someone standing in front of you waving a $20 bill and saying "here take it"... what do you expect?
Law exists to:
(1) Grant or repeal power from an entity
(2) Displace monies from one entity to another
(3) Promote or suppress the political agenda of an entity
All the rest is just fluff...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Come on mods... +5 interesting?!?
The GP was not saying he chained his kids to the front of the TV/Computer 24/7 here..
Surely we are not saying there is no place for a kid on a computer or in front of a TV at all?!?
Stupid modding at it finest.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
We're splitting hairs here but the existence or lack thereof of a higher power does not define a religion. How people choose to live their lives based on their belief that the higher power does or does not exist defines a religion.
Sure purists will say that to be truly a religion then a higher power must be worshiped, but I prefer the "if it looks like a religion and acts like a religion then it therefore must be a religion" test. Atheists have been known to congregate, they mock other belief systems, they take any comments about their beliefs personally, and they like to preach their gospel (take the movie 'Invention of lying" for example or just google "magic man in the sky" ). Looks like a religion to me... hurts to find out that you're human and therefore like everybody else doesn't it?
Even though black is the absence of reflected or transmitted light it like While is still considered a color. By the same token, even though atheism is the belief that a higher power does not exist, it can still be considered a religion.
So I can count you as an angry atheist then?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The biggest obscenity is the FCC itself. The issues alone with Howard Stern show that the FCC has no business being in business at all. The first line of censorship is the individual. If you don't like what you see or hear, TURN IT OFF! That's how simple it is. Unfortunately, the sheep of this country need to be led by the wolves. You find more violence and aberrant behavior on the nightly news than any show on TV or the radio.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
q-bomb?
qunt?
A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Atheism proclaims that there is no god yet does not offer any proof. Sounds like a tenet.
One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Atheist appear to ascribe to the fact that there is no god with supreme importance.
Unfortunately, you can not tell a segment of the population to judge what is meant instead of what is being said. It doesn't help that some of those people take things literally (and I do mean literally).
You can't expect to accomplish your goal if you give potential supporters a reason to feel slighted, or worse give your opposition something to galvanize their political base against you.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
It is my opinion that the broadcast business model is dead and if not dead then it is sure getting smelly. The idea these people have dreamed up to broadcast inappropriate material and this includes porn in my humble opinion is a symptom of the problem. Somehow they think this will attract market share and perhaps even keep them in business.
Bell ExpressView tried this on me. On one of the movie channels I used to subscribe to, lo and behold "Cat House" showed up.
Even though I do not have any young children at home and no grandchildren, Bell ExpressView found that from this moment on their bills went directly from my mail box to the trash bag. I tried to phone them to cancel the service and when they didn't answer the phone then I hung up and gave up and I figured eventually they will find their source of revenue from me has dried up and maybe they will catch on. Sure enough - eventually they caught on.
My TV service has been canceled now for over two (2) years! I breath a sigh of relief that I no longer get the advertising and especially the Kotex Commercials!
About the only thing that happens is that once in a while I get a phone call from a collection agency but it is quite easy to hang up on them. Eventually they will catch on as well.
I will urge everyone who detests what they broadcast to simply cart the bill to the trash bin. Eventually they will catch on!
What I find is that here in Calgary we have a WONDERFUL library service. There are 1000's of DVDs on every subject imaginable except I have not seen any porn in the library.
A library card costs a lot less than the $60++ per month I use to pay for the satellite service. So in a way I'm glad they broadcast the porn because it prompted me to take action. Now I have commercial free programming and at a much lower cost. My service has improved.
Now the next issue is content offered via the net. What I want to see which is primarily business related is generally available on the net. The problem is the dummies have not woken up to the fact that I use Ogg Theora and that unless they make their programming available in a format which I can store on my hard drive so I can watch it when I want and where I want and this may well be while in a fishing camp far from the net - then I ain't gonna be their customer no more!
If they want to be in business they will catch on and if not - who cares!
Atheism is not a religion, but there are militantly dogmatic atheists that are just as annoying about shoving their belief about the existence of a deity in your face as any religious person. I always figure "atheism is a religion" to be a shorthand way of expressing this idea.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3196375205651632554#
As far as I can tell from the UK press, binge drinking is actually much more of a problem in the UK than in the US - over here it's most college students that do it, while in the UK it's common for actual grown-up adults to go get rat-arsed on a frequent basis.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Atheism proclaims that there is no god yet does not offer any proof. Sounds like a tenet.
One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Atheist appear to ascribe to the fact that there is no god with supreme importance.
Logic dictates that you can never prove a negative. It is therefore impossible to prove a lack of God; one could always argue an increasingly more subtle God that hides itself within its own omnipotent powers. It is therefore ALWAYS incumbent on those who believe something does exist to prove it. We cannot ask Atheists to produce proof in the lack of something, for they will never be able to do so. Personally I don't care enough about the matter to worry about it. I think that there are beings, akin to if not actually Gods, that have some influence over the world (perhaps the Universe, perhaps not), but I also think those beings are largely beyond caring whether we believe in them or worship them (though they may be willing to help us out if we ask nicely). So be whatever you want to be, as long as you aren't trying to enforce your beliefs as laws.
Unfortunately, you can not tell a segment of the population to judge what is meant instead of what is being said. It doesn't help that some of those people take things literally (and I do mean literally).
You can't expect to accomplish your goal if you give potential supporters a reason to feel slighted, or worse give your opposition something to galvanize their political base against you
No one is asking them to judge what is meant rather than what is said. What we're asking is for them to listen to what is said. If I say "America is not a "Christian Nation", but rather a nation of many people with many faiths (and sometimes none at all)" I am in no way saying anything bad about Christians. Not literally, not figuratively, not at all. Unless it is offensive to imply that not everyone agrees with them. If that's the case, I'm not sure where my ground for further argument lies, so I may as well just give up. If I "Make people feel slighted" simply by stating the bedrock argument upon which all of my other logic or rhetoric might be built, I'm never going to win anyway, so I need to be talking to other "people" with a more reasonable worldview.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
And male frontal nudity was an X
They did away with X shortly after Fritz the Cat (the only feature length animated film ever to get an X rating from the MPAA). It's NC-17 now.
But, The Life of Brian had full frontal nudity, both sexes, and it was rated R.
Free Martian Whores!
These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
Yeah, except the government has their grubby sensor fingers all up in that as well. Name a cable tv channel (fits your requirement) that drops f-bombs and shows sex and naked chicks, that isn't a premium channel like HBO or Showtime.
I want Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert to be able to say FUCK and show titties on their CABLE tv shows. I pay extra for those sort of features, but I don't get them.
For the atheists out there that are tempted to comment that religion doesn't play any role in their lives, I hate to be the one to break it to you but atheism is just yet another form of religion.
A statement this bizarre needs some explanation. First, I am an atheist, I am not religious by definition. Second, I never would claim religion doesn't play a role in my life. I was raised Catholic, and most of my family still is, this influenced my upbringing, and thus who I currently am. Also I live in a religious country, thus religious people constantly meddle in my affairs and tell me what I should think or do by their standards. Religion either plays a cultural role, or a regrettable tyrannical role in my life, and the life of everyone else in America, atheist or not.
to risk building strawmen, if your going to say atheists are religious because they have faith in science then you still are wrong. Since faith in science has nothing to do with atheism, some atheists are materialists, but not all. I could draw a Venn diagram. I, personally, am very skeptical of science as well as religion. I am not a practitioner of "scientism". I don't see the religious bit there.
3) Angry atheists (as opposed to 'social' atheists) who also use the term "christian nation" sarcastically but not for any real political motivation but rather for their obsession to rebel against people who have faith in a higher power. They consider themselves intellectually superior to everyone else and reduce everybody else's faith into "imaginary man in the sky" religion. Even though they refuse to admit it, they not only actually believe in a higher power but also angry with it. They actively attack other individual's faith believing that this will ultimately hurt the higher power that they are fighting against.
I am an angry atheist, I stubbed my toe this morning on my way to making coffee. You really don't understand atheists, do you? I am not intellectually superior to anyone by default. Yes, I think the religious are deluded, and hold erroneous beliefs (they think the same of me, and of any other religious dogma that is not their own), this says nothing about their intelligence. I know some VERY smart religious people, and some very dumb atheists. Your choice of world view has nothing to do with innate intelligence. I have something against having subjective principles enforced upon me, though. Ruling from religion is a bad thing. Governance should be non-theistic. Why shouldn't we have a government that enforces Muslim principles, or Buddhist, or Janist, or Hindu, or whatnot? Would this be tyranny to the non-Muslim/Buddhist/etc... citizens? Forcing a certain sect of Christian values on people against their will is tyranny to all who don't share the common beliefs and justifications with the ruling sect. A Christian government is tyrannical to more people than it could ever benefit, even other, more moderate Christian sects. People who buy whatever restrictive beliefs have the choice to individually avoid whatever disturbs them. (aside, a core tenet of Christian morality is free will. We choose to avoid evil, that is the definition of virtue. But for some reason certain sects want to remove the "choice" factor, and thus abolish free will. Making virtue an enforced matter, and not one of choice. This destroys the very concept of virtue, and is against their own stated theology)
This is why I am against the idea of a "Christian nation", not because I am "smarter" than them.
Of course I meant social as opposed to angry, and this type of atheist don't agree with the dogma promoted by organized religion and tend to believe in scientific facts. They are respectful of others, but don't mind sharing their beliefs when asked.
Wait, most atheists fall that first category. Your second catagory is silly. "Good" atheists keep their mouths shut unless spoken too (this sounds frighteningly familiar, I think you can replace "atheist" in that statement with various
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Atheists have been known to congregate, they mock other belief systems, they take any comments about their beliefs personally, and they like to preach their gospel (take the movie 'Invention of lying" for example or just google "magic man in the sky" ). Looks like a religion to me... hurts to find out that you're human and therefore like everybody else doesn't it?
Sports fans have been known to congregate, they mock other sports teams, they take comments about their sports team personally, the like to talk about the supremacy of their team to others. Looks like a religion to me.
Linux people have been known to congregate, they mock other operating systems, the take comments about Linux personally, they like to preach about OSS. Looks like a religion to me.
Members of a political party have been known to congregate, they mock other political parties, they take comments about their political party personally, they like to preach about their parties platform. Looks like a religion to me.
Should I go on?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Not even sure I disagree with you but, when you get right down to it, you said it in your first sentence. Public use. Why does the public who wants to show a nipple have to go elsewhere, whereas the public who wants to show an exploding nipple get to do whatever they want? Or a dancing purple dinosaur for that matter? "Public" doesn't just mean "the part of the public who's views coincide with mine," you know.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Parents could just set their TVs to not show anything above, say, TV-PG.
The problem with this idea is that I would classify shows differently to those responsible for producing such ratings. Ratings such as PG are applied to material with repugnant violence, while material with healthy nudity or sexual behavior is likely to be rated as R.
Just as others have mentioned, we have no objection to our kids seeing nudity in most contexts (they've been to nude beaches, FWIW), and sexual behavior in many contexts. However, we do not want them seeing some of the kinds of violence which are considered suitable for kids by the rating agencies. Accordingly, the movies they watch range from G to R, but require parental approval - we must be familiar with the material to assess its suitability. Luckily, for TV they are mostly interested in science and nature type shows.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Because you need to have a common base to start from. A dancing purple dinosaur (or a Presbyterian minister) can be shown to have educational value.
Nip-slip? It's hard to argue it has any kind of redeeming societal value. That's not to say that people need to be fired over it, but I think the 'public' can agree on some baseline of standards. ...and as I write this, I think of some of the dreck that's on broadcast TV now. Lowest common denominator indeed...*sigh*
A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. Atheism proclaims that there is no god yet does not offer any proof. Sounds like a tenet.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You say "A tenet is a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof." Let's just accept that as 100% true.
You also say "Atheism proclaims that there is no god yet does not offer any proof." Let's also accept that as 100% true.
But then you say "Sounds like a tenet." But wait. Where's the link? You defined tenet. But you never defined religion. You are begging the question. You assume atheism to be a religion, then use the definition of a part of religion to prove that it is a religion. Your argument can't work unless you also can assume the opposite and come to the same conclusion. If we define Atheism to not be a religion, then your first statement, while true, has no bearing on atheism. And your second statement, also true, wouldn't be a tenet, since by definition those only apply to religions.
So, since your argument has the hidden assumption/requirement that atheism be a religion in order to prove atheism is a religion, it begs the question and the circular logic doesn't actually prove anything. Let us know when you have a proof that can assume that atheism isn't a religion and still prove it is anyway. That's a real proof.
Learn to love Alaska
What college football isn't a religion? Tell that to the SEC fans. ;)
The only problem I see with your Sport, Linux, and Politics examples is that they aren't within the same domain as religion in the traditional sense.
The basis of Atheism is that there is no god, not the New Orleans Saints ability to have another successful season, Ubuntu's user friendliness, or Democrats idea of social engineering (thought give equal time to the other party).
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god.
BTW, I don't mean to offend anybody just having a discussion.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Good one. Except a more appropriate analogy would be:
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god. (yes I'm recycling what I said in another comment)
Well that was a copy and paste definition from a Google lookup. Another handy one from the Apple dictionary is "a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism"
First of all I mean no offense to any atheist except maybe the angry ones I described in my OP. Just kidding...
Anyway, you'll find that within pretty much any religion. I consider myself a christian yet I'm not a "practicing" one. I don't attend church, I don't do mission work, and I most definitely don't preach the gospel. Yet I do believe in a higher being. So I must admit that like you my faith is simply an attribute just like my hair color.
I agree. However unlike Linux, atheism is in the domain of the traditional definition of religion since it deals directly with the belief that there is no god (as opposed to GPL versus BSD).
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
But you're looking for logic where none exists! ;)
Unfortunately people who argue either outcome to "is there a god?" base their decision on faith. I could substitute "gut feeling" for faith to make it more palatable to the atheists. Both sides assume they are right, and that is all they have. There is no absolute proof.
Despite the inability to prove a negative, atheist still assume there is no god. They do this without proof.
I can look inside my thermos and know there is no soup. You can't do the same with religion.
Again I fall back to the "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck" argument for atheism as a religion. Even if it is not technically correct to state that atheism is a religion, it is practically close enough for all intents and purpose to qualify as one.
You are absolutely correct, and we aren't talking about the same thing. The confusion is my fault.
When you say "The US is not a Christian Nation" you are absolutely correct and I don't think many people will be upset with your assertion except for maybe the right-wingers (hence my point #1). They try to promote the falsehood of a christian nation to cajole fellow christians to their cause.
What I meant by point #2 is when people use the term "christian nation" sarcastically. They also create the falsehood of a "christian nation" to use as an effigy to burn in order to make a point (I know it sounds corny - but I'm tired). Some would point to "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. It's just an example that I Googled, and I have no opinion about the book because I haven't read it and I would not want to slight Sam Harris without giving his book a fair reading. I do know it caused quite a stir and here is an excerpt from good ol' wikipedia:
Writing in an editorial in The Seattle Times, David Klinghoffer said that Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion were the top two bestselling religious books. However, he went on to say that ". . . Dawkins and Harris seem unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."[8]
Writing in The Observer, Stephanie Merritt described Harris as providing "concise anti-religious apologetics," but said that "[h]e does not seem to comprehend the mindset of those he addresses."
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
what about the following that is quoted from the same comment you pulled tenet.
I think I posted enough to the two other replies to address the rest of your comment.
I mean no disrespect.. just tired.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Religion is politics, a means of controlling the distribution of wealth and authority within a population.
Allow me to propose that you're almost right here. I used to think this.
I now think the better explanation is that Religion, Government, and Markets are all approaches that can accomplish these goals. We see the Barbaric, the Platonic, and the Stoic approaches there.
Really, nothing has changed since Xeno.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What is the FCC's excuse for censorship now that they have killed
off analog TV and thus all TVs have the V-chip?
Even medical education shows have everything blurred out.
Violence is offensive.
American football is violent and therefore offensive.
Janet Jackson is offensive with or without a "costume malfunction".
Nearly everything coming out of a politicion's mouth is offensive,
but they are constantly on the news.
Beam me up, Scotty, the USA has "jumped the shark".
This is a fairly common sentiment, often apposed by those without children, which misses the point.
Yes, parents want to be able to make sure their kids don't watch things they don't want them to see. They want to pay attention to what their kids are watching. The problem comes when there is no guaranty that any given show won't contain 'bad' things, thus they cannot make as intelligent a choice* unless they watch every single show all the way through before they show it to their children. And parents who care still don't have infinite time on their hands.
*Yes some shows can be ruled out immediately, but others could have things you wouldn't think they would.
One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". Atheist appear to ascribe to the fact that there is no god with supreme importance.
That's not the spiritual definition. "Baseball is a religion" is something I've heard long before Slashdot was around. It fits that definition. Most parents of only children would have their child be their religion. That definition is so broad that most everything is a religion. The Lost TV show, Star Wars, Star Trek, even Slashdot to some are religions. With a definition that broad, it is almost meaningless. WoW is a religion, I even know some people for whom sudoku or Scrabble would be religions, even when they know for a fact that's there's no god of sudoku or Scrabble. So yeah, I understand that definition, but it is unrelated to the spiritual definition of religion.
And you are asserting what an atheist ascibes to and asserting that your generalization applies to all such members of that group. What about the class of apathetic atheists? Most I know have the stance of "If you can't know, then the default position is disbelief." Much like their stance on the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, so is their stance with God. And unless you are asserting that there is a religion consisting of those who don't believe in unicorns, dragons, elves, the Easter Bunny, Luke Skywalker or such, then there can't be a religion of those who don't believe in God.
And no, that isn't agnosticism. There are no agnostics. Everyone I know who claims to be agnostic is atheist but not willing to take on the social stigma. Either you believe there is a God or you do not. Believing you can't know is unrelated to which of the two previous cases you fall under. I can't know for sure whether my car will or won't start tomorrow. However, I currently believe that it will start tomorrow. If my car develops a problem and becomes very unreliable, then I'll likely believe it won't start, but that won't affect my independent belief that I will never be able to know for sure whether it will or won't start tomorrow. The closes to agnostic I see bantered around now is something like the deists where the deity is the laws of nature. But then, that's just a definition of "god" that makes god something other than an entity that falls under the normal definitions of god, and the uncertainty isn't in their beliefs, but in what you label their beliefs.
Learn to love Alaska
And no, that isn't agnosticism. There are no agnostics. Everyone I know who claims to be agnostic is atheist but not willing to take on the social stigma. Either you believe there is a God or you do not.
Well, I'm a genuine agnostic. Glad to meet you. As I see it, holding any supernatural belief which is inherently unknowable is in error. But it gets worse, the statements are ill-defined and hence need not follow normal rules of logic. Keep in mind that the assumption you make here is that the statement, "I believe there is a god" (where "god" refers to some sort of supreme, perfect being, characteristics which can be established later) can have a definite truth value. As I see it, no one would understand the nature of a being with attributes commonly associated to "God" or existence at that level, no one would be able to distinguish between God and a sufficiently sophisticated fake, and no one can explain why a belief in God has any meaningful relevance to existence as we know it. So to sum up, it's not even clear to me that humans (or any imperfect being for that matter) are capable of believing in the existence of God.
Given the unresolvable problems with even defining the statement, how can one have or not have that belief?
The only problem I see with your Sport, Linux, and Politics examples is that they aren't within the same domain as religion in the traditional sense.
But you used these criteria to define atheism as a religion. I, in the silliest possible manner, showed that these criteria are a bit silly.
Black is a color despite the lack of light, Zero is a number despite the null quantity, and Atheism is a religion despite no faith in a god.
I don't see this. You run into the whole "not collecting stamps isn't a hobby" problem. You would be correct if I defined my world view by its contrast to religion. I don't. My day to day existence as an atheist doesn't ever refer to my own opposition to religion. It isn't a counter. It just is. I might not be expressing myself well here, but I hope you get the gist. My atheism is completely unconnected to religion.
Your, I think, defining atheism by its opposition to religion. My living atheism is completely apathetic towards religion. They are separate and unconnected classes. Its like saying Zero is a Color.
Here is a question; is it possible to NOT be religious? How would one be completely devoid of religion? If not holding a religion is a religion in-itself, then how can one ever not be religious?
Perhaps you are over generalizing. Not all atheists are connected to each other, there is no single group of atheists. Its like lumping all non-Republicans (or Democrats, or whatnot) into a single unified class. Yes, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and Greens all share a trait (not being Republican), but this trait alone is not enough to classify them into a unitary entity.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Well, I'm a genuine agnostic. Glad to meet you. As I see it, holding any supernatural belief which is inherently unknowable is in error.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, how can you know? And if you hold no belief in god, that means you are atheist. I just did a search on the definition and one of the top results was "Atheism: Belief in no God, or no belief in God." I like that one. Why? Because it agrees with me, so it must be right. You state holding an unknowable belief is in error. As such, belief in god is unknowable, and thus in error. Assuming you don't purposefully choose error, that means you don't believe in god. "No belief in god" is atheism.
Given the unresolvable problems with even defining the statement, how can one have or not have that belief?
I believe you are in error. You assume people won't deliberately choose "error" knowing it's an error and lashing out violently against those who call it an error. Many religions over time have worked like that. One reason why religious discussions are verboten is because they are rational discussions about the irrational, and thus we might as well be arguing the color of "seven" or the height of "quickly." People will knowingly pick a wrong answer and stick with it because it's more convenient than the truth (not just religion, but for many other things as well). You may think it illogical, but it happens, and based on your assessment of religion, happens quite often and with a much larger percentage of the population than who don't exhibit that behavior.
Learn to love Alaska
"No belief in god" is atheism.
That's not a commonly accepted definition of atheism. Sure in philosophy, they consider agnosticism as part of atheism, but that seems to me a semantic sleigh of hand and not useful.
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
He didn't give me gifts or coal last Christmas so no I don't. That's a supernatural claim with an observable outcome.
I believe you are in error. You assume people won't deliberately choose "error" knowing it's an error and lashing out violently against those who call it an error.
You have evidence that I've made this assumption? Looking at my words, I didn't make any assumption about people not deliberately choosing error.
That's not a commonly accepted definition of atheism.
"I do not believe in god" seems to be a clear statement of atheism. What definitions do you use?
Learn to love Alaska
But that's not agnostism. Agnostism is neither believing in god nor not believing in god.
does anyone else find it strange that this case is coming down to an appeal of a ruling initiated by fox, the same company whose news network purports itself to be the voice of decency and wholesomeness in an otherwise dirty world.
Agnostism is neither believing in god nor not believing in god.
I assert that's impossible. People can't do that. Explain Schrodinger's cat to someone on the street. They will think you nuts when you say the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. The mind has great trouble holding paradoxes. So people will pick one. They might pick neither. They'll almost never pick both.
Lets just take your statement and eliminate one negative. Then you are left with "Agnosticism is not believing in god and believing in god." That's a correct linguistic parsing of your sentence, even if you don't accept it to be a correct rhetorical one. I assert that there are few, if any, who believe that statement. As such, I'd assert the logical equivalent, what you stated, is similarly rare. It just sounds more plausible because the extra negative makes it just confusing enough that people agreeing with it don't understand what they are agreeing to.
The lack of an opinion on the matter is, by definition, atheist. Holding no belief at all with regards as to whether there is or is not a god is to not belief in god. God requires an affirmative belief. The lack of that affirmative belief is atheism. You are apparently asserting that the default condition is agnostic as they do not yet believe in no god. That is a lack of belief in god. No matter how you try to soften the statement, there is no belief at all in god.
Learn to love Alaska
I assert that's impossible.
And I already explained why it is possible. Ill-defined statements often don't have a defined truth value.
The lack of an opinion on the matter is, by definition, atheist.
Not by the dictionary. Atheism is a denial of the existence of gods. Agnosticism is merely a position of not knowing whether gods exist or not.
Not by the dictionary.
I posted one link from a dictionary that disagrees with you. You've never posted anything that agrees with you.
Atheism is a denial of the existence of gods.
Atheism is not believing in gods.
Agnosticism is merely a position of not knowing whether gods exist or not.
Agnosticism is, based on your previous statements, the religion of believing that god doesn't exist and does exist at the same time. I'll call agnosticism "Schrodinger's Religion."
Learn to love Alaska
"And I already explained why it is possible. Ill-defined statements often don't have a defined truth value."
That's not a counter-argument: he already knows that ill-defined statements often don't have a defined truth value. What he holds is that no matter what, your mind tubes are forced to choose one anyway.
For really ill-defined statements, like "number seven is either green or red" you will choose the question to be false because you declare the attribute to be unholdable for the subject. With regards of existance (or more strictly, being) there's no way to get off the question: things either are or are not. Since it's a proper question the one about "do god exists or it doesn't?" there's no way for a human mind to not answer to itself either "yes, it does exist" or "no, it doesn't exist", even if the question really wouldn't hold a defined value of truth.