The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

sozobe wrote:

Which ideology? That children shouldn't be so much as exposed to a child with two moms? Just the two moms in the background, being moms?

No

I gave the response to that a while back. There was a time when people would be saying these same things about a show that portrayed an interracial family. A black man, and a white woman, having sex!!! How can you avoid talking about sex, their mulatto kid right there in the forefront is proof.

I don't think anything would be accomplished by acceding to those people's demands that the interracial family be hidden from view. [/quote]
In other words; you're not satisfied with people being tolerant when they encounter homosexuality, naturally. You want to encourage acceptance of your ideal. That's reasonable. That doesn't mean the parents who, barring natural encounters, wish to raise their children in a way consistent with the bible's teachings are unreasonable. It is you who seeks to super impose your morality onto them.

0 Replies

Sure, I'll cop to that. I think that teaching children that there is something inherently wrong with black people and homosexuals, and that black people should only marry black people and homosexuals should get over it and marry someone of the opposite gender is wrong.

However, there are limits to what I will do to enforce that opinion.

Morality is imposed all the time. I presume you don't think grand theft auto is a good thing -- you're imposing your morality on that poor thief who just really really wanted that Porsche by upholding laws that call for him to be locked up. You just want to encourage acceptance of your ideal -- that people don't steal cars. You're imposing your morality on to that Porsche-lover. Tsk, tsk.

There are of course limits on each. You will uphold laws that punish thieves but presumably you won't barge into every neighbor's house to demand to see their registration for the car parked out front. I won't barge into every neighbor's house and quiz them in front of their children about whether they are teaching them correctly.

Nobody is forcing anyone to watch this show. The raison d'etre of "Postcards" is multiculturalism, embracing diversity. It is a parent's responsibility to know what their children are watching and whether it is OK. It's their choice whether to allow kids to watch it or not. (There is always a preview at the beginning of what the show will be about, plus summaries online, etc. Lots of ways to find out.)

MY choice to watch the show and provide education to the sozlet that I want to provide is however removed when PBS doesn't show it at all at Ms. Spelling's request. Who's being more imposed upon?

I do think there are some exceptions to the parental choice thing. I always watch shows for a while before I let sozlet watch by herself, take the pulse of it, see what it's like, what to expect. If she was watching "Little Bill" and there was a sudden episode of horrible throat-cutting violence, I would be very upset.

But this episode of Buster is entirely of a piece with the concept of the whole show.

0 Replies

Oh and what does "when they encounter homosexuality, naturally" mean? How is this unnatural? What makes it natural? Again, kids are exposed to heterosexual couples on TV all the time -- is that unnatural?

Kids learn a ton from TV, both that which is taught explicitly and that which is taught implicitly. If the TV landscape contains no gay and lesbian couples (but a zillion heterosexual couples), that is itself teaching something.

0 Replies

So, would anyone who might have objected to the Buster program let their kids watch PBS in any case?

In my circle of friends there are PBS families and non-PBS families. This program wouldn't be an issue in either group as one group never watches non-commercial programming, and the other group is, well, more open to variety - in terms of t.v. programming and life generally.

0 Replies

Soz, I have no problem with your morality or your reasoning for it. Nor do I have a problem with the bible-thumpers morality or their reasoning for it. It's bizarre to me that you would have trouble seeing the parallel here. It isn't enough for you that the cartoon doesn't express biblical interpretations of right and wrong; you want it to literally express counter-biblical philosophy in promotion of your own enlightened view while denying the believers the right to object. Sorry darlin, that's hypocrisy. Your argument is circular in that you assume there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and you deny the opposition's right to disagree. This is no different than the bible thumpers wanting to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong (or any other religious principle if that's easier to accept) . The compromise is for neither to superimpose their beliefs onto other people's children and for both sides to teach their own children their own way.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh and what does "when they encounter homosexuality, naturally" mean? How is this unnatural? What makes it natural? Again, kids are exposed to heterosexual couples on TV all the time -- is that unnatural?

Kids learn a ton from TV, both that which is taught explicitly and that which is taught implicitly. If the TV landscape contains no gay and lesbian couples (but a zillion heterosexual couples), that is itself teaching something.

Come on Soz, now you're not trying. A person walking on his feet is a non-issue. If he walks on his hands it's more likely to warrant discussion. (An unwanted discussion with a 4 year old to those who don't share your agenda)

0 Replies

Eh?

I have a problem with the bible-thumper's morality (if we are talking about black people = bad, homosexuals=bad, which is in fact what I have been talking about). I don't object to the believers' right to object, in terms of expressing their opinions -- I object to the believers' taking it right off the air.

I already said that I watched with sozlet, and appreciated, an episode about Orthodox Jews. I am not religious, but I had no problem with her being exposed to the concept. The fact that I'm not religious didn't mean that I think PBS should've refrained from showing that episode.

If people don't want to show their kids the Buster episode, I think they're wrong and will argue with them as to their reasoning (or lack thereof), but I won't strap them down to a chair, tape their eyelids open, and force them to watch it. It's their choice.

All we are left with is that I think teaching people that homosexuality (or blackness) is bad is wrong. Um, yeah. Check. And?

0 Replies

Bible thumpers believe black people = bad?!?!

0 Replies

If there are in fact a whole lot of hand-walkers out there, I'd expect TV to show it occasionally.

Since there's nothing wrong with hand-walking.

0 Replies

I don't think so, McGentrix. (Maybe some?) I was dealing with the fact that my statements about people who thought black people and homosexuals were bad was transmogrified by Bill to "bible-thumpers" -- which is not what I had been saying.

0 Replies

Quote:

In other words; you're not satisfied with people being tolerant when they encounter homosexuality, naturally. You want to encourage acceptance of your ideal. That's reasonable. That doesn't mean the parents who, barring natural encounters, wish to raise their children in a way consistent with the bible's teachings are unreasonable. It is you who seeks to super impose your morality onto them.

bill

You're a bright guy. I'd like to try and get you to look at an important differentiation that really ought to be made here on your phrase 'imposition of morality'. I'll try an analogy first, using a scriptural reference.

Exodus 35:2 tells us that someone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death... "ix days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. "

Let's say that some portion of your community took their cue for moral judgements from scripture, and thought this one important. Let's further say that they organized and set to insisting that the rest of the community put rules in place that would forward this moral value.

If you were to speak against such rules, and say that in a free land, folks ought to be able to work on sunday if they wish to, and at the same time, you make no move to force that portion of the community to work on sunday, would you be 'seeking to impose your morality' on the folks who held to that scriptural doctrine? You make no demands upon them. They do not have to change their behavior in any manner whatsoever, or even change their value.

How is this an incursion on them and their liberty? It seems as if the only incursion you make is to inhibit the enforcement of their code upon all others.

0 Replies

I've really liking that hand-walker analogy, actually.

So we have this society where somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the population walks on their hands. It's been seen for generations as weird, yucky, aberrational. Hand-walkers encounter fear, loathing, and discrimination. Some hand-walkers manage to walk upright, but awkwardly and constantly fighting the urge to just walk on their hands already.

Gradually, life for hand-walkers improves -- people become more understanding. Laws against discrimination are made. Lots of people have a residual yuck-factor, though. There are a few jolly unintimidating hand-walkers on adult TV, but none on kids' TV. It's just vaguely disturbing for kids. Might give them ideas. Some kids go without having seen a hand-walker until they grow up and move to a big city, and then are shocked. Hand-walkers! How weird!

Then, over time, even TV gradually starts showing hand-walkers as part of life -- parents, pedestrians on the street, teachers, all the kinds of things hand-walkers really do. Not a focus on them even, just there, as they are in real life.

You think that might do anything to help kids grow up without an irrrational dislike of hand-walkers? Might make future generations of hand-walkers' lives easier? Might do a lot of good things?

0 Replies

Blatham, you and Soz both now have made examples where the theist is forcing opinions onto others. This isn't so. One such person complained that she felt like values that conflicted with her own were being pushed on her child via a public TV station. She probably felt this way because values that conflicted with her own were being pushed on her child via a public TV station. The parallel would be to have that station suggest that homosexuality was wrong (in which case you guys would be losing your minds at the injustice.)

Sozobe's insistence on lopping homosexuality with "blacks" is testament to how circular her argument is. The jury is in on racism. Obviously, it is still deliberating on homosexuality or this wouldn't be a topic at all. This enlightened insistence that the two are one in the same (bigotry), however compelling it may be, is still trampling on the LEGAL beliefs of bible thumpers. Save your "bible's wrong" examples for someone who believes in God and the bible. I have no use for a bible myself and consider much of it to be imaginative fiction and foolish superstition. That gives me NO RIGHT whatsoever to deny others their right to believe what they will and raise their children accordingly.

Now, without burden shifting, tell me why the woman who complained to the station didn't have every right to do so?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

You think that might do anything to help kids grow up without an irrrational dislike of hand-walkers? Might make future generations of hand-walkers' lives easier? Might do a lot of good things?

Of course it would Soz. That is precisely why the opposition is the opposition. Idea

They don't consider their ideology to be irrational like you do.

0 Replies

Oh complaining, sure. Every right. She wasn't just some woman though. She's someone with a great deal of power and a message, and PBS got the message.

I certainly would have preferred that PBS had ignored her complaint, and am annoyed with them as well.

If values conflicted with her own -- don't watch it. She has that right. I addressed that already in terms of evaluating a show ahead of time, and the fact that this episode is very much in keeping with the whole entire multicultural diversity-embracing theme of "Postcards from Buster."

What is the jury deliberating regarding homosexuality?

That is actually precisely my point. The jury is in regarding racism so we can now look at my analogy of an interracial family a few decades ago and say "oh, that's not right." We haven't come that far regarding homophobia (or whatever the racism-equivalent word is) -- but shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we, if so?

Should the TV station have removed that interracial family from the air when the jury was still out on racism? It was trampling on the legal beliefs of racists, after all.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

sozobe wrote:
You think that might do anything to help kids grow up without an irrrational dislike of hand-walkers? Might make future generations of hand-walkers' lives easier? Might do a lot of good things?
Of course it would Soz. That is precisely why the opposition is the opposition. They don't consider their ideology to be irrational like you do.

So, why is dislike of homosexuals rational, Bill m'dear?

0 Replies

I don't think the "bible-thumpers", or the people who don't want this show aired, are concerned that their children might watch it and ask questions. As sozobe said, they don't have to let their kids watch it. I think their problem is that something they consider to be immoral is being portrayed positively (or at least not negatively) and it is being paid for with public funds.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

What is the jury deliberating regarding homosexuality?

That is actually precisely my point. The jury is in regarding racism so we can now look at my analogy of an interracial family a few decades ago and say "oh, that's not right." We haven't come that far regarding homophobia (or whatever the racism-equivalent word is) -- but shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we, if so?

Should the TV station have removed that interracial family from the air when the jury was still out on racism? It was trampling on the legal beliefs of racists, after all.

Again with your circular argument, Soz. You clearly refuse to recognize a religion's right to believe homosexuality is wrong. Rather noble of you I'd say. I feel the same way about arranged marriages in some other cultures. I couldn't care less what their ideology tells them... wrong is wrong, right?

I also thought of a another analogy. What percentage of cartoon characters should smoke? Clearly, smoking is legal and a sizable percentage of the public smokes... and what percentage of cartoon characters should smoke pot? I'll bet there are more pot smokers than pole smokers in this country, and most enlightened people seem to think the prohibition on it is outdated and wrong. So how much recognition should these real groups get?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

So, why is dislike of homosexuals rational, Bill m'dear?

You're asking the wrong guy, darlin. I don't get the hang up about sex out of wedlock either, but that's not my ideology.

0 Replies

I don't oppose their right to believe it. I can't possibly oppose anyone's right to think things.

I argue with whether I think they're correct -- I don't -- and I especially argue with their right to take things off the airwaves entirely.

Smoking is harmful to the smoker and to anyone in the vicinity of second-hand smoke. Is homosexuality?

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know