Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The FCC is looking for comments on whether it should loosen its restrictions on non sexual nudity and certain instances of profanity on TV.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/04/09/do-you-want-swearing-
and-nudity-on-american-network-television-one-million-moms-s how-you-how/

Apparently they want to loosen them because they're getting so much spam complaints from busybodies that they have a massive backlog and want to loosen restrictions so that they can dismiss most of them.

Now obviously said busybodies are busy spamming them saying no, and it's hard to tell if they're using a bot or gaming the system.

In either case, the FCC should really remove all profanity restrictions on TV IMO.

They're not going to.

Take away the citizens' right to vote and they'll be pissed.

I'm surprised this thread is still going.

Anyway I have something to add. It's not a political argument though but it's way up there in terms of dumb arguments.

Someone was accusing Cee-Lo Green of being a pig because of his song Fuck You.

Specifically the person was talking about the lines "I really hate your ass right now" and "being in love with your ass ain't cheap" as proof Cee-Lo Green only cared about the girl's body.

There is not a facepalm strong enough. I don't know if they just live under a rock or are just incredibly damn slow. It never occurred to me that someone would be ignorant (or dumb) enough to take those lines literally.

At 8/9/11 05:06 AM, DrunkenMonkey123 wrote:

Besides, why would anyone lie about getting raped?

To get an advantage if they're in the middle of a divorce.
Revenge.

Not all women are mentally sound and some of them don't need good reasons to do things (this isn't a crack at women, there are mentally unsound men as well).

At 8/10/11 04:23 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 8/4/11 11:49 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote:

At 8/4/11 06:29 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think getting screwed over can work for both sexes. I always tell people, don't believe a woman when she says she's on the Pill, and don't believe a man when he says he has a condom or is firing blanks. Both sexes can lie.

Here is the difference the cops are much more likely to back up a woman's lies than any of your lies.

Oh bullshit.

AFAIK Khan hasn't been convicted yet and the cops called out Casey Anthony as being a liar during the trial. She did get convicted of lying to the police.

Also if the police bought her lies they wouldn't have put her on trial. It was a jury who found her innocent of murder, not the police, or a judge.

At 8/4/11 11:49 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote:

At 8/4/11 06:29 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think getting screwed over can work for both sexes. I always tell people, don't believe a woman when she says she's on the Pill, and don't believe a man when he says he has a condom or is firing blanks. Both sexes can lie.

Here is the difference the cops are much more likely to back up a woman's lies than any of your lies.

Oh bullshit.

AFAIK Khan hasn't been convicted yet and the cops called out Casey Anthony as being a liar during the trial. She did get convicted of lying to the police.

At 7/2/11 03:00 AM, Darkgon01 wrote: O GOD
who doesnt hate those piss-ass hippies that belive too strongly in that bible crap

I thought Hippies believed in Free Love.

If someone hasn't spoiled it for you than Bioshock (and even if they have there are mind blowing things outside the story).

Also the god of war games on the consoles.

The boss fights and music are epic.

At 6/22/11 12:36 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/20/11 09:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If it's the second, you're against us when we actually want the same thing.

You want the same thing as I want? Really? Because reading through this topic again, you're for non-specific "comprehensive sex ed" and use of "scare tactics," and pox is... well, pox.

At 6/21/11 05:14 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Not true. Transmission by needles can and does happen.

And you're point would be...?

I mean, seriously, you're right, but where does this fit into the discussion? Are you gonna have a section in the "comprehensive" sex ed class where you tell kids to shoot up drugs only using clean needles? Because we all KNOW that telling kids to just say "no" isn't going to work, so we might as well tell them how to do it right and protect themselves as best they can.

Unless they enter the medical profession this is the only education about STDs they're going to get.

I mean we are talking about teaching them how to avoid a disease that will kill them. Why is that objectionable?

Oh and it's not just drugs but tattoos and medical procedures using unsterilized needles.

At 6/17/11 05:52 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/17/11 04:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Abstinence doesn't protect you during sex, it makes you avoid sex.

The only way to avoid sexually transmitted disease is to avoid having sex, pox.

Not true. Transmission by needles can and does happen.

Here's abstinence education is completely stupid.

What's easier, trying to convince horny teenagers to never have sex until marriage

or

Teaching them how to use condoms and birth control.

And some of it's kind of immoral.

I mean we have this deadly disease floating around and instead of teaching kids about something they can use to prevent it, they either deliberately ignore it or in some cases lie about it's effectiveness.

At 6/14/11 01:04 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/14/11 12:52 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:

Where the blue hell did you come from?

But why lie to them and why keep these scare tactics.

Because it's a cheaper way to discourage them from having kids than forcing them to work at Toys R Us during the summer for minimum wage.

There's nothing stopping you from discouraging them from having kids and telling them about birth control.

Something the OP might like

http://www.trilulilu.ro/00070707000/6a09 1d8aaf5557

At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/13/11 09:58 PM, qwertyfreak wrote: Again, I'm not against teaching the dangers of sex (STIs, pregnancy, etc), and that abstinence is the only 100% protection, (condoms rate 98% with perfect use, the pill at 99.7%). I'm just against teaching that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself from those dangers.

Name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.

Masturbation, handjobs (assuming you don't have cuts on your hands).

But why lie to them and why keep these scare tactics.

About those psychotics who can be triggered by attire, yeah I don't think they're as many of them as you think.

There are psychos out there that can be triggered by all sorts of things.

For example a woman was triggered by a spider into drowning her kids (she thought it was a sign from God).

At 5/17/11 10:39 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 5/17/11 06:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/17/11 06:25 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

Part of lampooning is taking things a step further than those who actually believe them. Perhaps it would have worked better if you had proposed a national moment of silence for Osama's death.

Good idea, but I also included things like burying Osama with his friends, family, and co-workers and returning his body to his family. I also compared the peaceful celebrations of his death to the violent protests of the Koran being burned.

But I see your point.

You ever hear of Poe's Law?

Anyway I've seen people make really stupid comparisons with those celebrations, so I couldn't tell you were joking.

At 5/5/11 07:16 PM, EpicFail wrote: There is hypocrisy in everything, but I agree with some of your points, and disagree with more.

The hypocrisy about it all is the only thing that bothers me, Americans were offended and pissed off when Islam's were celebrating 9/11 when it occurred, they were cheering it on and supporting everything that the Al-Qaeda did that day... So, Americans are pissed off because people celebrated the death of roughly 3,000 of their people.

Nearly ten years later and the mastermind of the World Trade Center attack is finally murdered, after all of the anger Americans showed when Islam's celebrated the WTC attack, they are doing the same thing outside the white house when the news is broadcasted in the television.

Celebrating the deaths of innocent civilians is the same as celebrating the death of A man who slaughtered innocents and continued killing innocents? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I am sure Americans got out of bed and drove down to the white house to celebrate, and that is the only part I disagree with... They did what they complained about, and they are no better than those Islam's who were celebrating the death of 3,000 innocent Americans.

Now at the same time I can see it from those American's points of view, think of it. One life is nothing compared to the 3,000 lost on 9.11.01. But at the same time I don't believe they were thinking about the hundreds, or thousands of lives the American Army took while they were and still are in Afghanistan. They are doing what the Islam's did and celebrating more deaths in the end, but using one man's death as a cover up.. That's what it is really...

Again that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Innocent civilians minding their own business is not the same as a murderer who has declared war on you.

At 5/5/11 05:31 PM, Ranger2 wrote: After Osama bin Laden died there were celebrations in the street. I think that is sick. Osama bin Laden is a human being too and should be mourned like one.

He was an asshole and a threat that tried to kill us.

People seem to forget that bin Laden was a human being. He had a family, kids, hopes, dreams, and fears like the rest of us.

I never forgot that. I just celebrated anyway.

He had a loving family who was by his side at his untimely demise. People seem to forget that even though he killed over 3000 people on 9/11, bombed US embassies, and killed thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, we must not forget that he was not much different than us.

There were things he did and continued doing until he died that made him a monster whereas we weren't.

We must prove that we are better than he is. Celebrating the death of a man who declared war against the West does not make us better than him. After all, he killed thousands of people, yet we celebrate in the streets one man's death. Are we really any better than he is?

I also disagree with what the Obama Administration has done with his body. We did not even consider giving bin Laden's body the treatement he deserved, like a full Wahabi service with a wake and proper burial in his homeland, surrounded by his family, friends, and co-workers. Instead we dumped his body into the sea, without any regard for his family. And I think the argument that bin Laden's body was buried at sea to avoid it becoming a shrine is silly. Except for Mecca, Medina, and the Dome of the Rock, the Wahabi faith rejects the concept of a shrine.

And we all know that these terrorists never twist their religion to justify their actions </sarcasm>

I think it's hypocritical for us to celebrate the death of a mass murderer and say that we are better than him. Obviously, between the peaceful celebrations in New York (comparable to the deadly riots in Afghanistan after the burning of the Koran in Florida) and rejoicing over bin Laden's death, we are no better than he is.

BULLSHIT! That guy celebrated the deaths of thousands of innocents we're celebrating the death of someone who's constantly been trying to kill us.

I think this idea would violate the 14th's equal protection clause.

Probably been brought up but it's genital mutilation plain and simple. We ban genital mutilation of girls even if it's done for religious reasons (and yes freedom of religion doesn't give you license to do anything your religion asks you to do).

So yeah...

Where did they say they wanted to ban the word? It looks like they're only encouraging people to stop using it.

At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: What's your opinion on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal? Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Not everyone should be free to serve the military, there should be fitness requirements and maybe age limits etc. But since being gay doesn't make you a worse soldier then they shouldn't be throwing out gays.

At 11/16/10 01:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You DO know that the mere act of flying is highly radioactive, right? There is a reason that pilots have a limited number of flights allotted in their career.

Source.

The kid wore a T-Shirt saying gays should be killed why should it matter whether he got it from the Bible or Mein Kempf, or just made it up himself, it's still the same damn message?

At 11/18/10 09:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Minorities have the right (apparently) to promote themselves. The majority do not. A straight, white male isn't allowed to promote himself, yet a gay Mexican male can. You can make a movie about black people, for black people, and even call it "For Colored Girls", but don't ever try that with white folk, that would be inciting hatred.

Personally I feel that if you need to where a Gay Pride (Latino Pride etc.) t-shirt you should work on your own self confidence in a different way.

Read the fucking article before you spew shit.\

They have no problem with shirts that say Straight Pride. It's shirts that call for the death of homosexuals that they do have a problem with.

So the Bible verse called for the death of homosexuals

and

"Blaney added that shirts that simply read "Straight Pride" without the Bible verse on the back did not constitute a problem."

Ok great, so what's the issue?

At 11/15/10 06:36 PM, Ranger2 wrote:
What do you think?

What you said, a shirt saying "everyone in [Group X] is evil/should be hurt" is inappropriate for school.

The Straight Pride part seems like no big deal.\

At 11/16/10 01:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

What does harassing them accomplish?

If the TSA is truly there to stiffen security to a very high level, letting ANYBODY behind security without being checked is a major breach. A very motivated terrorist could easily do what is needed to look like a pilot, and thus under your system bypass security. I am no conspiracy theorist, but if the goal is security, let's do it right.

Ok then devise a way to make sure the person in the pilot's uniform is THE actual pilot and not an imposter (this would seem like an obvious thing to do even if there weren't terrorists).

A pat down and screening will not help determine that. So explain why it's necessary to scan pilots?

At 11/16/10 02:40 AM, frigi wrote: Have fun with the lung cancer you will get from weed you stoners!

Oh and I have proof! Its called common sense! I mean its illegal for a reason!

Intuition does not equal scientific proof. And yes things get banned for reasons, that doesn't make them good reasons.

Oh and unless you're trying to ban tobacco you don't get to complain about lung cancer.

Ok so there's a news story. Guy gets molested by a priest as a kid. 30 years later he beats the shit out of the priest (who is now an old man). One guy was trying to argue that this would qualify as a hate crime and thus we should get rid of hate crimes.

How was it a hate crime? According to him the man beat the shit out of him because he was a pedophile thus attacking him for his sexual orientation.