Should these TV programmes be allowed?

[Sasq]

I have to agree with Tony here, I was/am an only child. if I hadn't gone to kindy, after school stuff, school holiday programs, my social skills would be more stunted then they are now.

Yes there is problems with that system. But there are more problems with socially inept people who never learnt to interact as kids.

It's very noble to say 'one of us stays home and looks after our child' but is it really in the childs best interest?

[Greebe]

It's very noble to say 'one of us stays home and looks after our child' but is it really in the childs best interest?

I think a solid resounding YES to that

Reason is while a child needs social interaction with his peers, uncontrolled, unsupervised and more to the point undisiplined interaction is one of the worst things we can allow our children todo. This will typically allow the child to run like wild animals misbehaving and acting out against others without learning to be respectful of others and or the consequences to their actions.

I grew up with one at home watching over our activities, it wasn't so much that we didn't do many of the things todays kids do, but did with much less frequency. It wasn't that we hadn't the neccessary respect for authority, but that disicpline WAS administered by those in charge (be it school, guardian etc) but that we all knew all to well when our parents found out there would be hell to pay. That we feared the most and was a good thing because from that we learned early on there would be repercussions for our misbehaviour.

[TransformX]

There's a different between being an only child and having brothers and sisters. To develop correct social skills, you need to interact with equals and not only in a hierachical system.

[Greebe]

But lets not raise our children like 'Mother' like in who is Floyd and why is his 'Wall' Pink?

[az]

FT - I didn't mean to say Kindegartens etc. are a bad thing per se, maybe I didn't make that clear. Of course children can benefit greatly from the socialization etc. a good such institution provides. What I despise is that parents seem to see those institutions more and more as an excuse to not have to educate their children themselves. The way you do it is very good, IMHO.

Oh, and I don't think this is a whole different argument

AZ

[Brian Ellis]

To get back to the topic again, I am not voting
a) because there is a red button on my zapper to switch the TV off if that is the only kind of thing being shown (or soaps)
b) all reality shows, quizzes, anything where the public participates for so-called entertainment relies on humiliation. What's the difference between that and the walk of shame in the Weakest Link? Or the candidates in Fame Academy being given their marching orders? Yet the latter two examples are one of the most popular phenomena, world-wide, in many languages in recent TV.

If anyone does not wish to be humiliated, who forces them to participate? If anyone does not wish to watch others being humiliated, then there is the red button. The same goes for so-called sports emissions. The greatest joy comes when there is a punch-up on the football field or ice rink, or when an F1 car is forced into the landscape by another F1 car.

Humiliation, in whatever form, can be entertaining (candid camera) for those who wish to watch it. It's a choice. Any restriction of that choice is a step towards censorship - and where will that end? Just because you or I do not like watching it (which I haven't) is no reason why you should deprive others from watching it. Otherwise, I would insist that the BBC drops all the programmes I do not watch and put on only those that I want to see.

Free speech!

[Fat Tone]

Again, someone missing the point.

In programme 1) The blokes just think it is a dating game, not The Crying Game
In programme 2) The relatives are not aware of a cruel hoax.

In your examples, the participants are well aware of the odds of them doing 'the walk of shame'.


Free speech! (as long as I agree )

[Brian Ellis]

FT

Sorry, it is not I who is missing the point.

1) Whether the target is male or female is not material: anyone who competes for some ass can expect to be humiliated, no matter what. The winner merits what he gets. Even if Muriel were female, so what? She mightn't be interested in the winner and tell him to f**k off. Same end result, no ass!

And you say it's a series: surely this would work only once??????

2) Even if the relatives are not aware, so what? Is it the programme that is being cruel towards them or the stupid participant?

Well, Ground Force and Changing Rooms sometimes make the victims cry (perhaps with joy, perhaps otherwise); should they be banned as well?

You have a red button: use it!!!

[GT98]

Aren't Sky TV and Fox in the States both owned by the same guy?...that would explain alot....

[Sasq]

Yes, but us Australians don't talk about him.

[Fat Tone]

1) Sigh. And its a series in as much as they spread the story out over several weeks. And "Muriel" was leading them on as far as I could tell from the trailers.

2) I think the answer is both are cruel- and that is questionable (and utterly crap) programming.

3) As long as Charile's Dimmocks put in an appearance, that's fine by me.

4) The 'Red Button' here means accessing the interactive content, and on NTL at least, that is so poor it makes the above programmes seem a viable alternative!

And now I shall make use of my Start, Shut Down button, and go do something less boring instead. Why don't you...


(TV reference btw )

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
FT

Sorry, it is not I who is missing the point.
...
You have a red button: use it!!!

You most certainly ARE missing the point. We are not talking about a whether a grown, mature man who was raised properly enough to judge this stuff for the trash it is can turn it off if he so chooses. We are talking about young, immature people, who will watch whatever is put in front of them if it interests them, and many of those CAN do this without supervision. Why? Because parents are both working, or there is only one parent and she MUST work, and often she is so worn out by the end of the day that proper attention can not be paid to raising the child. Then there are teenagers and just dumb people in their 20s who are being made dumber because they choose to watch such stuff.

This situation has come about for several reasons, all of them misguided. Women's rights? The right to go be exploited to an equal degree in the workplace as her husband? Why is this so wonderful? The right to divorce so that the above scenario becomes inevitable? Your so-called right of free speech, which was not created and given for the purpose of allowing megacorps to prey on the basest instincts of mankind, but to allow political dissent (which the megacorps have also rendered moot by buying up both parties). You defend principles that you define too broadly for the common good.

[Greebe]

or there is only one parent and she MUST work, and often she is so worn out by the end of the day that proper attention can not be paid to raising the child.

Lets forget the stereotypical "female" single parent... two of our active members , Dilitante and Kruzin are single parents.
I know Al is one straight up dude, but sometimes not quite sure about Ken

[Fat Tone]

And the latest offering from Sky:

"How gay are you?"

I'm not sure if I think or

[VJ]

Well, I do feel some people need to be protected from themselves...
But it amazes me how stupid some people (knowingly!) do just to be on TV for a couple of seconds...

Combining these two makes it very hard to draw a line inbetween...

Jörg