RightFaith Clouds military

Welcome To RightFaith
I Enjoyed Writing These
RightFaith BlogRoll

Monday, March 13, 2006

ABC Abandons Conscience for Dollars

"Mom, no offense, but I'd rather kill myself than be in a relationship where sex isn't the most important thing."

Who said it?
A 13 year old in a graphic television dialogue with her mother on ABC's Son's and Daughters. This twisted, harmful, and offensive view of sex is completely unacceptable for television, but is commonplace on this debase show.

One Million Dads describes these scenes:
"In one segment, the grandmother screams out to her husband in a bowling alley filled with children, "I've given you the best years of my life and lots of great sex."

"In another scene, ABC attacks people of faith. In the scene, a pre-school child condemns people of faith by stating, "I heard Aunt Rae tell grandmother we're going to hell...Hey grandma we're going to hell, 'cause we're Jews.
Attacking people of faith? Degrading family? Devaluing sex in marriage? Come on ABC!

Why is moral decency and values systematically being replaced by licentiousness? The conscience of television producers has been purchased by a few extra advertising dollars.

Hmmm.... Those who live by advertising dollars, die by advertising dollars in this great capitalistic system of ours. Thus, One Million Dads has created this link for those willing to contact advertisers. It's a piece of cake and takes two second.

Thoughtful Readers Speak:
Let's make a deal. I won't force you to watch Sex and the City, and you won't force me to watch The 700 Club.
You did realize that this was a comedy, did you not? One aspect of comedy is taking people's normal positions or philosophies and exagerating them to the point of absurdity. It's called a hyperbole. It's a literary technique that's been used for quite a long time. I don't think ABC (or the show for that matter) is being that extreme to further its "extreme" thoughts. It's being extreme to be absurd to be funny to make you laugh.
And to think that archie bunker first cultural hyperbole was flushing the toilet!!!

Listen, daniel, I know that you and I don't agree of many things. From my perspective, there is a reciprocal relationship between media and the culture: the culture shapes media, media shapes the culture. It's a give and take.

Now, this can be good or bad depending upon the direction in which the shaping occurs. I suggest that the view of sex, faith, and family are harmful to the culture. You know that I base that perspective on the Bible. So, I ask you. Do you think it is good or bad; and, upon what do you base your opinion?
erica, i laughed out loud when I read your comment. :) I don't like the 700 club either.
Perhaps I think humans are a bit more intelligent than they are, but I feel like the culture shapes the media more than the other way around. TV producers/executives are not going to put something on TV if they don't think it's going to make them money. It's not going to make them money if people don't want to watch it. There is an insane amount of money that goes into market research, focus groups, etc. to decide what to air on television. If their statistical analysis of the program told them that they would lose money on it, they wouldn't air it. I feel like you think that people are mindless and will watch whatever is on TV no matter what they think about issues. But, in a culture where people have an impressive amount of media choices, and within the small set that is TV, an impressive amount of channels, people aren't going to watch it unless they want to.

That being said, I think this is good. I want the media to reflect the mindset of those that are primary users. It's good for business and it's good for the primary user segment. You are probably not part of the primary user segment. I'm guessing that you watch less TV than most people. If you turn on the TV, you will see countless shows that disagree with your set of beliefs. The fact that they are there, the fact that the producers/execs thought it would be lucrative for them to air them is evidence that they have found a larger population of TV watchers that want those things on the air.

As far as moral issues, I don't have any. I am very open to a lot of views on sex, faith, and family. And I base that on a philosophy of nihilistic (life ultimately not being significant) phyisical determination (reality is atoms/information clashing in an open system).
"As far as moral issues, I don't have any. "

I don't believe you: If nothing is wrong with anything, then the only thing wrong is thinking there is something wrong with something. But, if something is wrong with something, then why are more things wrong with more things?

If nothing is wrong with nothing, then murder is not wrong? sexual abuse and rape is not wrong? pride, selfishness, torture, self-mutilation are not wrong?

I simply have a hard time believing that you live your life according to your philosophy. When you get angry, you do not murder--do you? When you lust, you do not rape. When you see pride in others, isn't it unappealing?
If nothing is wrong with anything, then the only thing wrong is thinking there is something wrong with something.

Not true. If nothing is wrong with anything, then nothing is wrong with anything, even thinking there is something wrong with something is not wrong, because nothing is wrong with anything. Nothing means nothing. (I find it rather difficult to speak in terms of nothing, because, logically, by even writing nothing, it contradicts itself).

I don't call these things (rape, murder, etc.) wrong. It depends upon the context, but if they are affecting me, I'll probably call them "not beneficial to me." I refuse to call something morally wrong or evil. I can't see any intrinsic morality involved in the rearrangement of atoms.

No, I have never murdered or raped anyone. But this is because I still have a system to decide what I will and won't do. I weigh out what is beneficial to me and what isn't. If I murder, there's a good chance I'll go to prison. If I don't murder, I'll be upset for a while. This decision is not moral; it's utilitarian.
To clarify my comments on nothing: What I mean is that it's impossible to logically say "Nothing is." "Is" implies being, and "nothing" doesn't have any. It's the basic law of non-contradiction: no thing can be and not be at the same time. The problem with the word "nothing" (and probably in a larger scale, our language) is that the concept of "nothing" cannot logically be contained in the syntax of our language or the word itself.

So, when i say nothing is wrong with anything, of course it's going to be messy in interpretation. I should probably just say "nothing." Ha.
"I don't believe you: If nothing is wrong with anything, then the only thing wrong is thinking there is something wrong with something. But, if something is wrong with something, then why are more things wrong with more things? "

I'm not really sure if this is what Dan was getting at, but this is how I see it. Things that hurt people are wrong. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. If nobody is being hurt, then it isn't wrong. And in essence he is correct about utilitarianism. The concept of morality is useful to society. I imagine if humans were not as social our ideas of morality would be greatly different.
Post a Comment

<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Social Conservative Action Centers

Web Blog Pinging Service

Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
GOP Bloggers