Why Is The AFA On The Side Of The Terrorists?

[Steve_MB]

@BobLibDem

I’m as anti-censorship as anyone, but I don’t see how suppressing cursing helps the terrorists any more than not censoring it would hurt them.

That was a sardonic comment on the use of the “so-and-so is on the side of the terrorists” “argument” by the right wing.

[BobLibDem]

@Steve MB

That was a sardonic comment on the use of the “so-and-so is on the side of the terrorists” “argument” by the right wing.

I thought as much.

[saoirse]

@Steve MB

The stars and the planets do affect your future. (If this were not true, clients would not pay for horoscopes.)

The “Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet” does cure arthritis and repetitive motion injury (If this were not true, people would not buy them and the company would not have enough money to buy all those commercials to imply this without quite saying it.)

The Bush administration did conspire to commit the 9/11 Massacre. (If this were not true, authors would not be able to sell books explaining how they did it.)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This is why I hate reasoning by analogy when combined with the rolleyes smiley.

You understand that people who buy magnetic bracelets are fools, right? Are you saying that the people who run every single automobile company in the world are also fools?

The AFA is right on this issue: The networks cannot say that what you see on TV has no effect on you to one group and that it has an enormous effect to another group. If the bracelet makers were saying to some people that the bracelets had no effect, but worked like magic when they were talking to others, then the two would be analogous.

[Tuckerfan]

@Eonwe

Well, my google-fu is weak, but assuming that CBS is suing the FCC (evidence of which I couldn’t actually find), then certainly the consequences would reach beyond this one documentary, and certainly a documentary about 9/11 carries more ‘legitimacy’ these days than most anything else.

I’m not even saying this is an awful thing, but it just seems that choosing a 9/11 documentary as the vehicle for a lawsuit about broadcasting rights is, well, a bit manipulative and uses the current cultural bias towards 9/11 to achieve their own ends. Which, really, is how people work all the time. Using feelings to achieve things is something everyone does. Sometimes it is just a bit more transparent than others though.

Here’s a link to info on the lawsuit. And I think that CBS using the 9/11 documentary is a less shameful use of that dark day than most agenda pushers have. It is what happened, what people said and did. To hear someone say, “Those <bleeeep>ing <bleep>!” yanks you out of the moment and reminds you you are watching a TV program, and reduces it down to the level of an R-rated film cleaned up for broadcast. Leaving it uncensored shows you exactly what people were thinking on that day, and reminds you what you are seeing is real and not the latest Hollywood disaster flick.

[Steve_MB]

@saoirse

You understand that people who buy magnetic bracelets are fools, right? Are you saying that the people who run every single automobile company in the world are also fools?

Dunno; I haven’t met them.

However, my examples suffice to demonstrate the vacuousness of the AFA argument “People wouldn’t spend money on it if it didn’t work”.

The AFA is right on this issue: The networks cannot say that what you see on TV has no effect on you to one group and that it has an enormous effect to another group.

Whether or not what you see on TV affects you depends on you – you can be a credulous bozo who accepts any old thing that reaches your eyes and ears, a bull-headed cynic who couldn’t care less about anything, or anywhere in between.