Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on April 22, 2004, 06:05:27 pm
-
No, I'm not having a party........yet.
I'm *****ing about human stupidity.
Once again there's been a ground-swell and it's pissing me off having all these retards swimming around my feet.
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/niptuck/main.asp
Nip/Tuck was one of only about 70 series I bothered watching. ****tards. Goddamn, no-life, self-righteous ****tards.
I'm hereby redesignating all of B-Group (short-range nukes), which I was going to launch at France, for deployment on American soil.
****tards.
I hate them sooooo much.
-
'Because our children are watching' :wtf:
Why aren't they watching their ****ing children?? Great, a website for irresponsible parents! :rolleyes:
-
****ing hell, if they're so concerned about what their kids are seeing on TV why don't they just get rid of the ****ing thing. But then I suppose that'd actually mean spending time with their kids, we can't have that now can we.
-
Yet another reason to wipe televisions from the face of the earth. :D
-
...
Yes, yes. Americans are stupid, obnoxious, opinionated morons who feel everyone should feel the same as them.
Why is this news?
-
Except for some cartoons, I don't miss not having a TV at all. I just read over the synopsis for the season finale or whatever on the concerned parents website. It reads like a soap opera, but then again so does most of the stuff on TV these days.
50 cop dramas, 30 law dramas, 50 reality shows, 20 dating shows, 40 sitcoms who apparently have the same writers as every single other sitcom ever in the history of the universe, the odd teen drama, comedy and miscellaneous drama. Whats with all the drama? Don't people have enough of that in their own lives? Oh thats right, people who tend to watch this stuff live boring, shallow, empty lives, in a world where their only role in life is to consume. Do like the Tee Vee says and laugh at their stupid jokes. Feel for the crappy characters.
Yes, real believable performances all round,...*clap clap*.
Oh no!, Sheryl didn't get that corner office she's been gunning for, and Mike's wife wants a divorce cause he aint rich enough. Oh look, some black guy said something funny. *cue canned laughter*. Is it too much to ask for TV shows to break new ground? Explore some moral dilemas? Have real, believable characters who you can actually feel for, instead of rich kids who are pissed off at the world for no apparent reason. Every show has to be set in America, has to have good looking, rich people. Has to have a battle between good and evil, no grey areas. The viewers don't want to be challenged, they want to be entertained, they want to see on TV people exactly like them, only more succesfull.
Dance monkies, dance. Laugh when they say so, cry when they say so. Its better than real life.
______
I never intended for this to turn into a rant, its just sort of did. Go figure.
-
*is once again grateful that he doesn't have TV and isn't bothered by this on a personal/household level*
-
Did you mess with my post? Either that, or I put that last sentence in the wrong place...
edit: Probably me, nevermind.
-
I don't mess with people's posts without stating so clearly using my trademark red text and signiature: // Sandwich
I do leave room for exceptions to that rule in the case of other admins though. :p
[color=66ff00]I just post in my well known Green... //Maeg :D
[/color]
-
I'm assuming the debauched obcenity that is Nip/Tuck is being cancelled. That stuff is fine on pay networks like HBO, but FX is a part of so many cable systems basic level that it makes good business sense to make as many people as happy as possible.
Before you flame, you should know that FX is 4 channels down from Cartoon Network on my cable, both at my place and at my parents that an audience of 50,000+ people that risk their children seeing the debauched shenanigans of those two freaks.
There is such a thing as obcenity and I will be damned if I let it be put on display in a public arena.
-
Actually, Lib, I think you and I agree on this one--to an extent. :lol:
Without commenting on the quality of the content of the show, its not the sort of thing that belongs on network (and/or basic cable) television, any more than the Sopranos, the various graphic medical/crime shows, Deadwood and the like.
I will say, however, that it doesn't really matter, in the end, WHAT gets shown on television. If you're a parent and you don't want your child watching what is shown on television, don't let them. That's your responsibility as a parent. When you try to dictate what OTHER people (or their children) get to watch, well then you step over the line.
-
You realise pretty much every single cable, satellite and TiVo system in existence has the capability to block channels, right?
Why should I have censorship forced on me? It's just another example of retarded facism.
-
Actually, An0n, it has nothing to do with fascism (An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state). It could be a building block for fascism though. ;)
-
Well, I always remember a scene from South Park where the Parents are trying to get a TV Show banned, and the kids are discussing how the parents see the TV as some kind of surrogate babysitter, and not being able to understand why Parents found it so easy to judge TV and so difficult to look after their kids themselves.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, I always remember a scene from South Park where the Parents are trying to get a TV Show banned, and the kids are discussing how the parents see the TV as some kind of surrogate babysitter, and not being able to understand why Parents found it so easy to judge TV and so difficult to look after their kids themselves.
:nod:
What it basically comes down to is parents are busy doing dishes or balancing the checkbook, or doing basic household stuff since they can't afford for one of them to stay home and do it during the day. And they want to be able to leave they're 8 year old with the remote and know that they aren't going to see something they shouldn't. It's as simple as that.
But all that aside, Nip/Tuck was probably cancelled because nobody was watching it. Despite "Critical Acclaim" it's still the story of two debauched plastic surgeons that commit even more debauched acts.
I'd rather watch Tripping the Rift, at least it's funny sometimes.
-
And exactly, aside from you being British and all... make that you being an0n and all, what have you got against the French?
Actually, forget I ever asked.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Why should I have censorship forced on me? It's just another example of retarded facism.
[color=66ff00]Indeed, does no one else find it preposterous that someone else can dictate what you can and cannot watch on TV or DVD/video? (well assuming that you're an adult)
[/color]
-
Originally posted by an0n
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/niptuck/main.asp
Thanks, an0n. Your link gave me the best laugh for a while :D
(http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/videogames/images/RATEDM.gif)
-
Wasn't Nip/Tuck on at about 10 at night?
These people really ought to watch the South Park episode with Death in it
-
I'd buy Evil Bikini Death Nazi's. Not all German women are heffers, after all.
-
The irony, I can't bear it....
Whats scarier, that they think there is a game about Evil Bikini Death Nazis? Or that there actually is?
(http://www.bloodrayne.com/loband/experience/downloads/bloodbigpapers/bloodrayne1.jpg)
:lol: :lol:
-
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/shows/main.asp?shwid=86
I found this the funniest :p
*Frequent offensive language includes “*****,” “ass,” and “piss,” as well as euphemisms for ‘f—k.’ *
PUSSIES!
:lol: :lol:
*falls of his chair laugthing*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
What it basically comes down to is parents are busy doing dishes or balancing the checkbook, or doing basic household stuff since they can't afford for one of them to stay home and do it during the day. And they want to be able to leave they're 8 year old with the remote and know that they aren't going to see something they shouldn't. It's as simple as that.
I don't have children. People with that particular STD don't have the right to dictate what I can watch. If they're terribly concerned about what little Johnny might do with the remote, TAKE THE DAMN REMOTE AWAY. Smack of totalitarianism? It worked for my parents.
On the other hand, if you want to let your parasites be raised and baby-sat by the idiot box, use your local, individual methods for controlling it. If FX is a problem, drop it from your cable line up--its not a broadcast channel. If you get standard cable without a box (IE, non digital, channel numbers less than 100), get a damn box. Yeah, that's right, I said pay extra to protect YOUR children. Surely <$50/mo isn't too much to protect the rotten fruit of your loins from the equally rotten fruits of other people's minds. After all, you're already paying at least $30 to have the sewage that is American cable television pumped into your house, right. If you do have a cable box, any standard digital cablebox (IE anything made after about 2001, and certainly anything installed by any cable system in the United States today) has channel blocking features. You can block on rating, time, or channel. Since FX does indeed publish the ratings of its shows, it is simplicity itself to block all the shows that exceed the limits of your morality. If your cable box is too old, most cable companies will cheerfully swap your box out for a modern one.
For ****'s sake, with the myriad possibilities for taking care of your own children in your own home without trampling on the rights OR sensibilities, you'd have to be the victim of a pre-natal lobotomy to try to force such censorship on the rest of the nation.
Call me crazy. I just don't like people who use their STDs as an excuse to force other people to change their habits or behavior.
-
*The orgy scene on "America's Next Top Model" will leave much more to the imagination than originally planned. In the aftermath of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident and congressional action on indecency fines, UPN has ordered executive producer and host Tyra Banks to cut out portions of next week's raunchy show. (March 11, 2004)*
THESE PEOPLE MUST BE STOPPED ! :p
-
Hmmm... every show that I'm ever been even slightly interested in is marked with bright red. Does that make me a total psycho ready for a killing spree? :D
-
I only watch TV these days for a couple of reasons:
1) Weather (most important)
2) News (too depressing, normally turn it off or watch local morning news which is slightly less depressing)
3) StarGate SG-1 (except that they don't show new ones so I'm watching the DVD set instead)
4) Enterprise (I'll keep watching and see where it goes :D)
5) Simpsons at dinner...the classics are funny and its great for dinner time TV when there is nothing else to do
While appearing to be an extensive list that is infact all that I use the TV for....oh and the occasional Classic Trek or Next Gen rerun on Space channel.
Most of the shows on are total garbage...its the same tried concept over and over and over again. The networks hate innovation and they shut down or fire whoever is involved with making new shows that may not initially take off but will later...
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't have children. People with that particular STD don't have the right to dictate what I can watch. If they're terribly concerned about what little Johnny might do with the remote, TAKE THE DAMN REMOTE AWAY. Smack of totalitarianism? It worked for my parents.
One of these day's, very soon, I will be laughing as mik tells us his GF/Spouse(make her an honest woman already mik) is pregnant.
-
Um. Lib, we've been married five years and together for twelve. I met my wife at approximately the same time you were learning what your dangly bits were for something other than making bubbles in the toilet.
If we do have children, they'll be our children. That won't change the fact that other people's children are an STD best removed from the face of the planet with deep, cruel prejudice.
Did I mention I hate other people's kids? If not: I hate other people's kids.
Oh, and for the record, she made me an honest man, not the other way around.
-
And I hate other kid's parents. If we team up, we can wipe the world clean of people. Won't that be fun?!
Seriously, as much as I don't believe in a magical dude in the sky, kids are not an STD. They are at worst a means of procreation, and at best a mix or humanity and nature. Works of creation and, not to sound cliched, miracles.
All that, and I don't even plan to have the bastards.
-
You'll have twins or triplets then.
-
Well I'm in agreement with mik, at least for his libertarian view on parental responsibility regarding TV, though I eschew his peculiar labelling all children as STDs.
-
Other people's children make me feel ill (to put it mildly). They ARE sexually transmitted. That makes them an STD, one you don't even have to catch for it to make you miserable. My child (one, not two or more) will be perfect, naturally.
I'm sure there's decent kids and decent parents out there. I just have met any. Well, ONE, and that's my cousin. She's an attitudinous little troll, but she's smart, knows when to quit being a pest, and plays a mean game of pinball. I guess she's the exception that proves the rule.
Regardless: when "protecting" YOUR children induces you to trample on MY rights, its time for you or your children to be removed from the equation, preferably both, because you've likely infected them with your screwy ideas.
And I'm serious about the one kid thing. I'm fully behind the ZPG project, and to a lesser extent the VHE project.
-
Once again I'm grateful to live in a country like Holland :D Nip/Tuck is still on over here and nobody even looks at it oddly. We can say ****, *****, ass, stupid nazi ****, etc etc etc on TV as many times as we want.
It's always funny to see American movie/music stars on tv here when they're interviewd by Dutch people :p They always go like
"I can say the f-word on TV here, right?"
"Yes, you can."
"Ok, then I ****ing hate that guy."
:D
-
I also detest kids. If I want something noisy, smelly, expensive and tiring to operate, I'll buy a dog.
-
Yeah, nudity too. Long live progressive Europe. Don't know why America is so uptight. I guess that what you get when you've got a country founded by Quakers...
**** the ****in' ****ers. :D:D
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I also detest kids. If I want something noisy, smelly, expensive and tiring to operate, I'll buy a dog.
Yes, but a dog can't spend insane amounts of your hard earned money, do badly in school, get addicted to crack, turn gay and end up generally being a huge disapointment, now can he?
-
double post, nevermind
-
I think that was the Edit button you wanted not the Quote ;)
Kids don't need deworming as often..... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yeah, nudity too. Long live progressive Europe. Don't know why America is so uptight. I guess that what you get when you've got a country founded by Quakers...
**** the ****in' ****ers. :D:D
Yes, but a dog can't spend insane amounts of your hard earned money, do badly in school, get addicted to crack, turn gay and end up generally being a huge disapointment, now can he?
It wasn't the Quakers, it was those Calvinist wackos that were and still are the problem. Let's go blow up Parliament, get outselves exiled to the colonies, let the merchants and intellectuals rebel and then say it was divinely inspired, and now Parliament is our *****!
THE TERRORISTS WON!!!111
-
Look at it this way, Guy Fawkes was the World's first officially recognised Terrorist, and yet every year we set of enough Gunpowder to reduce London to cinders in celebration of this man! The tradition of putting the Guy on the Fire and the actual story behind it all has been lost in the 'bigger better firework' race :(
And so Capitalism continue to gorge upon it's own limbs ;)
-
And of course you don't stand there every year going 'ooooh, aaaah!'
-
Nope, I don't they are boring, go on till 4am and they scare the crap out of the dog. :)
-
:nod:
You covered all the key plus points
-
How can anyone with half a brain cell confuse Quakers and Calvinist Protestants?
That's rather on par with confusing Cricket with Hockey.
-
I don't give a **** about any of the groups or sports you just mentioned, so it's all the same to me.
-
Its already been determined, an0n that you lack even half a brain cell.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Other people's children make me feel ill (to put it mildly). They ARE sexually transmitted. That makes them an STD, one you don't even have to catch for it to make you miserable. My child (one, not two or more) will be perfect, naturally.
Mik, you aren't Chinese by any chance, are you? ;)
-
Chairman Mik
:nervous:
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Mik, you aren't Chinese by any chance, are you? ;)
No, but I certainly favor limiting couples to one (1) child. This is a personal preference mind you, not a political preference. Though I believe this SHOULD be the way any sane, first world nation should work, I recognize that people, being fallible moronic copulating beasts, would think I was somehow trying to destroy their "happy" family units.
Politically, I believe you can have as many as you can afford--without leeching from my paycheck.
So, nope, I'm not Chinese, but if I were Tyrant of the World, you'd wish that's all I was.
-
Anyone remember The Fortress with Christopher Lambert? Good times.
Mik, you cherish your right to choose, from political parties to economic models to religion or lack thereof, but you do not value in some ways a far more basic right, to have kids. You're gonna tell the world what to do, but you'll be damned if you so much as hear a peep outta them, right? Not that you have or will llikely ever have the power to implement such a policy. Probably no one could, at least in the First World.
though there does seem to be a looming problem, overpopulation. though there has to be a better way than forefully limiting the number of children people are allowed to have. Some counties have naturally declining populations, this might offset it. Also, modernization and general prosperity have a lot to do with the number of kids a couple is likely to have.
-
Industrialization == both members of a couple working(eventually).
Physically tired couples == less sex
less sex == fewer children
So therefore:
Industrialization == few children and by proxy families with more than 2-3 children. The population will stabilize, the planet can probably support about 15 billion. It wouldn't be pretty and it wouldn't be comfortable. And most governments would take some kind of action to limit growth before it got that far, but unless you render a sizeable portion of the world population sterile, births will continue to out pace death. Especially given that Medicine and the associated methods of life extention are getting better every day.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
No, but I certainly favor limiting couples to one (1) child. This is a personal preference mind you, not a political preference. Though I believe this SHOULD be the way any sane, first world nation should work, I recognize that people, being fallible moronic copulating beasts, would think I was somehow trying to destroy their "happy" family units.
Politically, I believe you can have as many as you can afford--without leeching from my paycheck.
So, nope, I'm not Chinese, but if I were Tyrant of the World, you'd wish that's all I was.
Hmm, The World According to Chairman Mikhael. No more Uncles or Aunties, no cousins, nieces, nor nephews. Grandparents would have one grandchild, the population would dwindle by 50% or more every generation, and within 31 generations, there would be at best 3 people alive on the planet.
Now, who's for tea and crumpets? :p
-
I quite fancy a jam scone right now.
And Mik, dun be so bloody silly - it's a human right to have as many children as you want.
What would you do if a couple accidentally became pregnant after already having 1 child?
-
I ****ing hate kids, I'd limit it to none if I had my way.
-
Originally posted by vyper
And Mik, dun be so bloody silly - it's a human right to have as many children as you want.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed all human civilization.
People should be allowed 2 kids, then be chemically sterilized. If they prove they can afford more and have done a good job on the first 2, they're allowed another.
And all those African ****s should be sterilized, regardless of how many kids they've got. They fail to realise that the reason they're starving is because they get enough food to feed them and one kid, then they have twelve kids to make sure that when eleven of them strave there'll be at least one left to care for them in their old age.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And all those African ****s should be sterilized, regardless of how many kids they've got. They fail to realise that the reason they're starving is because they get enough food to feed them and one kid, then they have twelve kids to make sure that when eleven of them strave there'll be at least one left to care for them in their old age.
Welcome to Britain circa 1850. All "peasant" have alot of kids, until they get rich. Then, they start having 1-3 kids average, as can be seen in the First World. It ironic, yes, but thats the way societies usually evolve.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Mik, you cherish your right to choose, from political parties to economic models to religion or lack thereof, but you do not value in some ways a far more basic right, to have kids. You're gonna tell the world what to do, but you'll be damned if you so much as hear a peep outta them, right? Not that you have or will llikely ever have the power to implement such a policy.
Originally posted by mikhael
Politically, I believe you can have as many as you can afford--without leeching from my paycheck.
Maybe, Rictor, you could pay attention for once. Just once.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hmm, The World According to Chairman Mikhael. No more Uncles or Aunties, no cousins, nieces, nor nephews. Grandparents would have one grandchild, the population would dwindle by 50% or more every generation, and within 31 generations, there would be at best 3 people alive on the planet.
And this is a problem in what way exactly?
Seriously, I figure we could level off the population control once we're back down around 1billion people. I'm for zero population grown (with a little population shrinkage) first and foremost.
-
lol Yeah kids are gay lol