I guess turn-about is fair play

[juddling]

SALT LAKE CITY, UT - The national office of the Council on Decency in Broadcasting has issued a letter to NBC demanding that male contestants on the popular show 'The Biggest Loser' keep their shirts on during the show. Traditionally, male contestants will remove their shirts during the weigh-in portion of the program, attempting to save precious ounces on the scales. The Council contends that the practice violates regulations on nudity.

 

"These guys have breasts bigger than a lot of women." said Irene Gillman, Executive Director of the council. "I don't think NBC is sending the right message by exposing them on national television. It's not like that t-shirt is going to make much difference anyway - affecting the weigh-in, I mean."

 

Fans of the show interviewed by The Daily Redundancy had mixed feelings on the issue. "I think its disgusting." said Heather Bancroft, aerobics instructor and part-owner of the Tofu 4U Vegetarian Deli. "I know they're men, but they need to cover those things up. They look like a big candle melting in the sun."

 

"The reality is that a lot of people look like that." said Henry 'Bubba' Green, short order cook at Steakburger's on Melson street. "We're not all underwear models."

 

Officials at NBC could not be reached for comment.

 

 

 

[Kyyle23]

Why cover them all up to solve the problem? Why cant we go the other way and show them all off?

[MEANS]

i noticed this week that the men didn't take their shirts off for weigh in....i don't care either way, seems like some people need to turn the channel if it really upsets them.

[southsider2k5]

If they want to do something about decency on TV, they could cancel 90% of the crap that is on the air right now!

[retro1983hat]

If they want to do something about decency on TV, they could cancel 90% of the crap that is on the air right now!

 

 

Bitter much?

 

Anyways, I watched Tuesday's episode and one guy drank 2 gallons of water to put on weight to get someone else eliminated. I don't watch the show often so I didn't get the reasoning, but apparently just before the weigh in, he guzzled 2 gallons (18 lbs) of water in order to gain weight. Usually reality shows have hours of footage they edit down, so was probably holdiing that for a while. I'm sure he had to go REAL bad.

[YASNY]

Bitter much?

 

Anyways, I watched Tuesday's episode and one guy drank 2 gallons of water to put on weight to get someone else eliminated. I don't watch the show often so I didn't get the reasoning, but apparently just before the weigh in, he guzzled 2 gallons (18 lbs) of water in order to gain weight. Usually reality shows have hours of footage they edit down, so was probably holdiing that for a while. I'm sure he had to go REAL bad.

 

Seems like a stupid thing to risk your life for.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

SALT LAKE CITY, UT - The national office of the Council on Decency in Broadcasting has issued a letter to NBC demanding that male contestants on the popular show 'The Biggest Loser' keep their shirts on during the show. Traditionally, male contestants will remove their shirts during the weigh-in portion of the program, attempting to save precious ounces on the scales. The Council contends that the practice violates regulations on nudity.

 

"These guys have breasts bigger than a lot of women." said Irene Gillman, Executive Director of the council. "I don't think NBC is sending the right message by exposing them on national television. It's not like that t-shirt is going to make much difference anyway - affecting the weigh-in, I mean."

 

Fans of the show interviewed by The Daily Redundancy had mixed feelings on the issue. "I think its disgusting." said Heather Bancroft, aerobics instructor and part-owner of the Tofu 4U Vegetarian Deli. "I know they're men, but they need to cover those things up. They look like a big candle melting in the sun."

 

"The reality is that a lot of people look like that." said Henry 'Bubba' Green, short order cook at Steakburger's on Melson street. "We're not all underwear models."

 

Officials at NBC could not be reached for comment.

Man boobs can't be seen on television but damnit if it isn't seen as a good and patriotic mission by a man of God for the US to send in the military to fight and die in a grisly foreign war in far off lands in the Middle East. It always boggles my mind that many (not all but the vast majority) of the people who want decency in TV, movies, video games etc. somehow conveniently miss the fact that they also promote actual warfare compared to pixelated and controlled (i.e. wrestling) violence and indecency.

[Texsox]

If they want to do something about decency on TV, they could cancel 90% of the crap that is on the air right now!

 

[Texsox]

Man boobs can't be seen on television but damnit if it isn't seen as a good and patriotic mission by a man of God for the US to send in the military to fight and die in a grisly foreign war in far off lands in the Middle East. It always boggles my mind that many (not all but the vast majority) of the people who want decency in TV, movies, video games etc. somehow conveniently miss the fact that they also promote actual warfare compared to pixelated and controlled (i.e. wrestling) violence and indecency.

 

The level of necessity differentiates going to war and entertainment. It is a bad analogy, and I'm a little surprised you would have used it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The level of necessity differentiates going to war and entertainment. It is a bad analogy, and I'm a little surprised you would have used it.

My mentality is for a continuity of thought and consistency. If one thinks that pixelated and fantasy violence causes kids to be more violent then what would real examples of violence (i.e. war) in coverage and reporting cause kids to feel and be? If the moralists believe in the inherent dignity of all human life then why are these same people also very synonymous with cheerleaders supporting the war effort?

 

Men like Fr. Daniel Berrigan is a proponent of a consistent life ethic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan

[Texsox]

It appeared as if you compared the actual war with entertainment choices. It would be possible to compare the depiction of real war and TV content. The answer then would be to limit the war coverage and perhaps not allowing younger adults and kids to view the war coverage. That is different than editoralizing on sending people off to battle.

 

It would be very consistent to believe it is ok to send soldiers off to stop a genocide, and not allowing children to see the violence.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It appeared as if you compared the actual war with entertainment choices. It would be possible to compare the depiction of real war and TV content. The answer then would be to limit the war coverage and perhaps not allowing younger adults and kids to view the war coverage. That is different than editoralizing on sending people off to battle.

 

It would be very consistent to believe it is ok to send soldiers off to stop a genocide, and not allowing children to see the violence.

Tex, it isn't even just war coverage. It is the mentality in America that the soldier is the quintessential male, that bravery on the battlefield is the highest form of honor and respect a person can get, "He gave his life for his country", (and on that note "

I hate it when they say, ‘He gave his life for his country.’ They don’t die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them." ~Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque) etc. It stuns me that there are so many programs to stamp out violent movies, violent music and violent video games because these images and activities reinforce negative aspects of human culture that we do not want children to grow up affirming as a way to solve problems or act in their adult lives. If this is to be such the case, then why do these people fail to take their logic to its simple progression?

 

Violent activity and the urge to copulate have been around far longer than Playboy, Hustler, internet porn and video games. Pray tell, what video games did Stalin, Pol Pot, Kristic and Mao play to inspire them on their slaughters? It is more politically expedient and easier to score political points with the partisans to go after Hollywood and video game/music makers rather than serious question the fundamental workings and philosophies of the statist structure and their usages of the military complexes ingrained in the society. How insane is it to tell a child "I'm sorry, you can't see that film or play that video game because it depicts violence but here -- go shake the hand of this person who actually has killed people."? If there wasn't such a glorification of all murder -- be it in gangsta rap music all the way to the way that militaries are portrayed inside the US and throughout the world -- then perhaps we'd not have so many games like GTA becoming massive best sellers, especially in (as these moralists against nudies and violence would argue) a wholly Christian nation. If it were truly that Christian nation, then perhaps the value of loving our enemies would be one that we should embrace. It's a very deep hypocrisy to say from the highest halls of government (even if the statement is actually indeed factually inaccurate about the Christian roots of the US) that we're a proud Christian nation and then have a philosophy that flies in the face of basic Christian tenets.

[Texsox]

I must be missing your point, it appears you are are saying

 

If we are going to accept war, we have to accept depictions of violence in our entertainment. If we are going to accept that adults enjoy sex, that pornography is ok.

 

A pivotal factor here that needs to be discussed is this, is mankind becoming more or less violent? Once that is secured then we can look at the effects of violent books, songs, movies, games, etc.

 

Certainly we have developed horrific methods to kill many more people at a time. Where ancient man had to be satisfied with killing one enemy at a time, we now can wipe entire cities off the map. Where we once needed to travel thousands of miles and engage the enemy face to face, we can now press a button and kill someone thousands of miles away. But that does not answer the core question, are we more or less violent?

 

I believe we are more violent than at anytime in the history of civilization. Perhaps there is some primal energy that is not released when we pick up our steaks at Jewel. Is depictions of violence making that worse, much research seems to agree.

 

Before I drift to far away, I'm wondering if I am still missing you point.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Texsox
Spelling and grammer

[LosMediasBlancas]

"Fans of the show interviewed by The Daily Redundancy had mixed feelings on the issue. "I think its disgusting." said Heather Bancroft, aerobics instructor and part-owner of the Tofu 4U Vegetarian Deli. "I know they're men, but they need to cover those things up. They look like a big candle melting in the sun."

 

 

Boobs are boobs, they're just bags of fat, on men or women. I guess Heather hates her boobs too?

[T R U]

Bitter much?

 

Anyways, I watched Tuesday's episode and one guy drank 2 gallons of water to put on weight to get someone else eliminated. I don't watch the show often so I didn't get the reasoning, but apparently just before the weigh in, he guzzled 2 gallons (18 lbs) of water in order to gain weight. Usually reality shows have hours of footage they edit down, so was probably holdiing that for a while. I'm sure he had to go REAL bad.

 

I find that hard to believe.. I tried to chug a gallon of water once and only finished half of it before I felt like I was gonna explode..

 

Unless he drank 2 gallons over the course of the day, I don't believe that at all because its just not possible to do at one time

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I must be missing your point, it appears you are are saying

 

If we are going to accept war, we have to accept depictions of violence in our entertainment. If we are going to accept that adults enjoy sex, that pornography is ok.

 

A pivotal factor here that needs to be discussed is this, is mankind becoming more or less violent? Once that is secured then we can look at the effects of violent books, songs, movies, games, etc.

 

Certainly we have developed horrific methods to kill many more people at a time. Where ancient man had to be satisfied with killing one enemy at a time, we now can wipe entire cities off the map. Where we once needed to travel thousands of miles and engage the enemy face to face, we can now press a button and kill someone thousands of miles away. But that does not answer the core question, are we more or less violent?

 

I believe we are more violent than at anytime in the history of civilization. Perhaps there is some primal energy that is not released when we pick up our steaks at Jewel. Is depictions of violence making that worse, much research seems to agree.

 

Before I drift to far away, I'm wondering if I am still missing you point.

If a person accepts war as a feasible, sustainable reality and actively promotes such activities as a means to solve problems -- then why not accept violence in entertainment? If you don't want to see the show, movie or play the game -- don't play it yourself and don't let your kids play it. It is just an incongruent act in their belief structure. If pixelated, fantasy violence is the utmost threat to them, simply turning off the game system or the TV set to that channel ends the threat. Shouldn't they focus their efforts on people who are actually being put through the proverbial meat grinder in a brutal war? But, oddly (and to me not surprisingly) top Christians laud Bush's actions without even seeing this glaring insanity.

[Texsox]

Entertainment, a choice we make to accept and allow versus war.

 

Following your logic, and tapping into my love of hyperbole and sarcasm

 

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

 

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

 

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific . . .

 

. . . I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

 

Of course by making this declaration of war, and by following this path, we must now allow any forms of entertainment to be produced and shown, no matter how violent or perverse.

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt - December 8, 1941