Should glorifying evil things be illegal to say on the radio?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think that a few minutes of loud, inappropriate music is going to scar you children for life, and it certainly doesn’t make you a “victim”. I still maintain that it is not his job to raise your children, it’s yours. Frankly, they have probably already seen and heard far worse.
I didn’t say it would “scar them for life.”

Please explain how children being forced to listen to profanity is a good thing. Please explain why I should think it’s perfectly A-OK for them to be exposed to such a thing.
Besides, this is about the radio. If the profanity was that harsh he would have been listening to a CD, so broadcast restrictions wouldn’t apply.
Then he was the one who was broadcasting it.

Shouldn’t we live in a society of gentlemen and ladies? Isn’t that what our children should be exposed to as role models? Can either you or atheistgirl explain what is gentlemanly or lady-like about profanity?

Frankly, I’m surprised both of you are taking issue with me and not at all with the person blasting profanity–and in front of small children! Not once have either of you criticized him! What am I to make of two women who come after the person complaining of her children being exposed to foul language yet seem to want to give the guy doing it a free pass?

You two are ladies, right? Shouldn’t you be defending lady-like behavior?
 
Yes, I was. I was forced to listen to something offensive. I was forced to have my little children listen to something offensive. I ached at the attack on their innocence.
No you weren’t forced to listen to anything. You were not trapped in a tiny room. You were outside. You had options.
My children were subjected to foul language nobody should have to hear, and you call that an opportunity?
Yes.

One time I had to explain the use of a certain word one of my kids overheard being used. It wasn’t a very nice word. My kids don’t hear that kind of language and don’t use it.

It was a great opportunity to talk about how people communicate, using language with certain intent, how the language you use affects people’s perception of you, and how, as a general rule, if people have to resort to using nasty language they really need to up their communication skills.

We all agreed in the end there was never any reason to use such language, and never a time when it was funny, appropriate, or justified.

My kids were equipped to hear such language, understand why it was used, and place it in context.

This instilled a wonderful sense of self confidence in them when confronted with the use of such language, not a panic response, like the world was going to end or something.

They’re also sufficiently confident and self assured to talk to the person using such language, having risk assessed the situation and if appropriate, and ask them to tone it down.
Guess again.
Nah.

You failed to act to protect your children in that situation and you’re now trying to put the blame anywhere but where it belongs.

You were in a public space.

Other people playing music is that space don’t have to consider you, or your sensitivity to bad language.

You said the widows were down, you could have put them up.

You could have had a word with the guys and pointed out you had young children in the car and could they turn their music down just for a minute until you’ve pumped your gas.

You could have sat in the car, turned your radio up and distracted your kids.

You could have done any number of things, taking responsibility for your kids in the situation, but you didn’t.

What you’ve done is played a victim card, and want a broadcasting ban on certain music, so you and you’re children don’t have to deal with something you don’t like.
Now you’re trying to change the subject. I said nothing about differing points of view. I spoke about profanity only.
I’m not changing the subject.

You don’t seem to realize that to some ears, hearing homosexuality is an abomination, or people are going to burn in hell for their sins, is profanity.

And, by the same standard, if *you *are entitled not to have your ears accosted by such profanity, so are they.

But you didn’t answer the question.

Do you support the right of those who don’t share your Christian sensitivities to have street preachers shut down, because what they bellow and accost peoples ears with is just as profane to them, as bad language is to you?

Or is it one rule for you, a different rule for everyone else?

Sarah x 🙂
 
Can either you or atheistgirl explain what is gentlemanly or lady-like about profanity?
Nothing.

It’s offensive to some, but not to others.

But it’s the real world.

Your kids are going to be exposed to it, unless you live with just your family on an island.

They need to be equipped to deal with it, and not be affected by it.

That’s your job as their parent.
Not once have either of you criticized him!
He was playing the music he likes and listens to.

By playing it so loud he has no consideration for others around him, who might not share his taste in music, I don’t care if it was Bing Crosby he was blasting out.

But he wasn’t setting out to upset you or your kids. He probably didn’t notice or even care. 10 seconds before he pulled in, he didn’t know you existed. It’s nothing personal.

Sure it would be great if he looked around, saw your car with the kids, and turned the music down, but that’s not the real world, or, if it happens, it’s very rare.
What am I to make of two women who come after the person complaining of her children being exposed to foul language yet seem to want to give the guy doing it a free pass?
I’m not in favor of curtailing our freedom of speech just because some people use foul language.
You two are ladies, right? Shouldn’t you be defending lady-like behavior?
There’s nothing lady-like about demanding the world changes to suit you, or demanding free speech is curtailed to preserve your sensibilities.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Sarah x 🙂
 
40.png
atheistgirl:
You failed to act to protect your children in that situation and you’re now trying to put the blame anywhere but where it belongs.

You were in a public space.

Other people playing music is that space don’t have to consider you, or your sensitivity to bad language.

You said the widows were down, you could have put them up.
It was far too hot to put the windows up. And even if I had, the foul language being blasted was so loud, it wouldn’t have done any good. So much for your option #1.
You could have had a word with the guys and pointed out you had young children in the car and could they turn their music down just for a minute until you’ve pumped your gas.
If you lived in my neighborhood, you would realize doing such a thing is dangerous. So much for your option #2.
You could have sat in the car, turned your radio up and distracted your kids.
I would have had to turn up the radio so loud that it would have hurt our ears. So much for your option #3.
You could have done any number of things, taking responsibility for your kids in the situation, but you didn’t.
As I expalined, those options of yours would not have worked.
What you’ve done is played a victim card, and want a broadcasting ban on certain music, so you and you’re children don’t have to deal with something you don’t like.
I never said I wanted a broadcasting ban. Where did I say that? What I want is for people to act like ladies and gentlemen.
I’m not changing the subject.

You don’t seem to realize that to some ears, hearing homosexuality is an abomination, or people are going to burn in hell for their sins, is profanity.

And, by the same standard, if *you *are entitled not to have your ears accosted by such profanity, so are they.

But you didn’t answer the question.

Do you support the right of those who don’t share your Christian sensitivities to have street preachers shut down, because what they bellow and accost peoples ears with is just as profane to them, as bad language is to you?

Or is it one rule for you, a different rule for everyone else?

Sarah x 🙂
Yes, you are changing the subject. I was discussing profanity, not street preachers.

And I still can’t believe a lady would come down on the side of a person blasting profanity in the presence of children instead of someone who wants people to act as ladies and gentlemen. Good grief!
 
Nothing.

It’s offensive to some, but not to others.

But it’s the real world.

Your kids are going to be exposed to it, unless you live with just your family on an island.

They need to be equipped to deal with it, and not be affected by it.

That’s your job as their parent.
My job as a parent is to try to change the world for the better. Which do you think is better: a world in which profanity is blasted at kids or a world in which it isn’t?
He was playing the music he likes and listens to.

By playing it so loud he has no consideration for others around him, who might not share his taste in music, I don’t care if it was Bing Crosby he was blasting out.

But he wasn’t setting out to upset you or your kids. He probably didn’t notice or even care. 10 seconds before he pulled in, he didn’t know you existed. It’s nothing personal.

Sure it would be great if he looked around, saw your car with the kids, and turned the music down, but that’s not the real world, or, if it happens, it’s very rare.

I’m not in favor of curtailing our freedom of speech just because some people use foul language.
Nor did I say I was. You just assumed that. Again, what I want is for people to act as ladies and gentlemen. If everybody did, we wouldn’t have foul language at all, much less blasted at kids.
There’s nothing lady-like about demanding the world changes to suit you, or demanding free speech is curtailed to preserve your sensibilities.
Where did I make a demand? I said I wanted it. You want the world your way, don’t you? Is it okay for you to want the world a certain way but not me? You’re stating your opinion in your posts, aren’t you? Is it okay for you to do that and not me? Is it okay only for those who agree with you to express their opinions?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Sarah x 🙂
Methinks a lady who does not protest profanity in the presence of children does not protest enough. 🙂
 
Nothing.

It’s offensive to some, but not to others.

But it’s the real world.

Your kids are going to be exposed to it, unless you live with just your family on an island.

They need to be equipped to deal with it, and not be affected by it.

That’s your job as their parent.

He was playing the music he likes and listens to.

By playing it so loud he has no consideration for others around him, who might not share his taste in music, I don’t care if it was Bing Crosby he was blasting out.

But he wasn’t setting out to upset you or your kids. He probably didn’t notice or even care. 10 seconds before he pulled in, he didn’t know you existed. It’s nothing personal.

Sure it would be great if he looked around, saw your car with the kids, and turned the music down, but that’s not the real world, or, if it happens, it’s very rare.

I’m not in favor of curtailing our freedom of speech just because some people use foul language.

There’s nothing lady-like about demanding the world changes to suit you, or demanding free speech is curtailed to preserve your sensibilities.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Sarah x 🙂
Methinks there is a little drama queen action going on here. “My poor innocent children! Oh woe is me! The world is so corrupt and awful!”

If you aren’t adult enough to control the situation for your family-either by removing your children from the environment or politely asking the other person to turn down the music, that’s YOUR problem.

I was at a hockey game with my niece and the row of guys behind us were getting a little rough with the language. All I had to do was turn around and ask them to tone it down a little because I had a child there. No problem. If that hadn’t worked (which it did), I would have asked an usher to either move our seats. If I am the one upset, it is MY responsibility to deal with the situation.
 
So much for your option #1.

. So much for your option #2.

So much for your option #3.
Whatever 🤷

If I were in that situation, I’d have made it work for me and my kids. 👍
I never said I wanted a broadcasting ban. Where did I say that?
Post #9 here’s what you said: *Frankly, if it is something children shouldn’t hear, it shouldn’t be broadcast. *
Yes, you are changing the subject. I was discussing profanity, not street preachers.
Same thing - you want what you don’t want to hear, or your kids to hear, banned. Should I be able to have street preachers banned because I don’t want to hear them bellowing about homosexuals and burning in hell for eternity?

Same thing.

You’re talking about the suppression of free speech.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Nor did I say I was. You just assumed that.
No, I didn’t.

Post #9

You call for a broadcast ban.

On things you don’t want to hear, and what you don’t want your kids to hear.

I want to live in a world where there is freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

There’s a ton of stuff I don’t like but I won’t be calling for any broadcast ban just because I don’t like it.

And I can protect my kids and myself from anything I think is inappropriate without the need to resort to censorship and banning. 👍

Sarah x 🙂
 
If you aren’t adult enough to control the situation for your family-either by removing your children from the environment or politely asking the other person to turn down the music, that’s YOUR problem.
Right - not the world’s problem!
I was at a hockey game with my niece and the row of guys behind us were getting a little rough with the language. All I had to do was turn around and ask them to tone it down a little because I had a child there. No problem. If that hadn’t worked (which it did), I would have asked an usher to either move our seats. If I am the one upset, it is MY responsibility to deal with the situation.
Well done, well said, and well handled. 👍

Sarah x 🙂
 
My thought is this: If you can’t say the “F word” on the radio, why is it OK for people to glorify rape or murder? Should there be more stringent rules? A couple of examples are below.

DMX’s X is Coming
I’m comin in the house and I’m gunnin’ for your spouse
Tryin’ to send the ***** back to her maker
And if you got a daughter older then 15, I’ma rape her
Take her on the living room floor, right there in front of you
Then ask you seriously, whatchu wanna do?

Snoop Dogg’s 20 Dollars 2 my name
Nothing left to do, but buy some shells for my glock
Why? so I can rob every known dope spot
I got 19 dollars and 50 cents up in my pocket with what?
With this automatic rocket
Gotta have it to pop it, unlock it, and take me up a hostage
okey great.
 
Protecting your children from offensive content and explaining it when it does come up is your job, not mine, not the people at the gas station, and not the government’s. The world does not and should not conform to what is appropriate for small children.
Protecting targeted adults from offensive content and learning to accept insults when it does come up is the targeted adults’ job, not mine, not the people of the gas station, and not the government’s. The world does not and should not conform to what is appropriate for all people.
:confused: 🤷
 
So all media must now be designed not to offend the sensitivities of a six year old?
So all media must now be designed not to offend the sensitivities of adults based on race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.? :confused: 🤷
 
These arguments for or against censorship and banning suffer from conflation of terms when distinctions are required.

“Profanity” is a conflated term which is used to suggest all offensive content. There is no distinction between the primary sense of the word that suggest offensive content that desecrates deeply held belief systems, as opposed to sexually explicit obscenity or violence advocacy.

If one says, for instance, that marriage is exclusive to one man and one woman and, many will burn in hell for all eternity … if one does not believe, then it is a “whatever”. Parents who disagree can simply explain to kids in a calm manner that these ideas are not what they believe.

That is distinct from content that incites action to violence or obscene behavior. If one says, for instance, same-sex partners should be targeted for public humiliation and, maybe it would be good to enter their homes to send them to hell for all eternity … if one believes that the listener should be discerning and say “whatever”, then it is still a concern because the listener might be incited to do “whatever”.

There is a big difference. One is describing beliefs about good & evil, the other is promoting action that is generally conceded to be evil.
 
So all media must now be designed not to offend the sensitivities of adults based on race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.? :confused: 🤷
If you don’t like it, it is YOUR responsibility to deal with YOUR problem no matter who you are. I would not ban the rap, nor would I ban the Preacher who screams about people who aren’t like him who will burn in hell. I might find both offensive,but it is my responsibility to deal with it.
 
If you don’t like it, it is YOUR responsibility to deal with YOUR problem no matter who you are. I would not ban the rap, nor would I ban the Preacher who screams about people who aren’t like him who will burn in hell. I might find both offensive,but it is my responsibility to deal with it.
How does the personal responsibility argument square with your gun control views? Here we are talking about rap that only caters to an audience whose mental stability is in question. You have to agree that the OP’s example of rap music has got to be catering to demented appetites. What’s next? Glorifying mass murder? Glorifying school killings?
 
My thought is this: If you can’t say the “F word” on the radio, why is it OK for people to glorify rape or murder?
It’s a form of broadcasting contraception or abortion that makes all radio rape or murder on demand safe, legal, and freely accessible. 😃
 
How does the personal responsibility argument square with your gun control views? Here we are talking about rap that only caters to an audience whose mental stability is in question. You have to agree that the OP’s example of rap music has got to be catering to demented appetites. What’s next? Glorifying mass murder? Glorifying school killings?
No, I don’t have to agree that rap music has “got to be catering to demented appetites”. That would be the same as saying that Christian music has got to be catering to ignorant idiots.

You’re going to hurt yourself taking leaps of “logic” like that. Gotta do real training for that kind of thing.
 
Methinks the free speech & expression advocates doth protest too little!

How come I haven’t heard a real answer to the first post about censorship of the “F” word?
 
Really? Specifically, the examples cited in the first post?
It’s not my appetite, but that doesn’t mean that I consider it “demented” or aay that it should be banned. Same with the Preacher screaming about people burning in hell-not my appetite, but I’ll still defend his right to stand on that public street corner and say it.

There are people living in the world whose opinions and values differ from mine. The fact remains is they have the SAME rights I do. The fact that they have opinions and values that differ from mine does not in any way diminish mine.

I really don’t understand why people view difference as a threat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top