[SpamCop-Social] Re: Bill Cosby has a point..

[Heidi]

David Dean wrote:
> In article <ctmibk$bcf$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
>  "Frog Prince" <devnull at spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>>How do you propose to accomplish that task?  I grew up in a much gentler
>>time (they did not show a married couple in the same bed on TV) and despite
>>the eagle eyes of a constantly in attendance grand mother I managed to get
>>into a lot of 'stuff' that was outside the realm of what was age appropart
>>for me.
> 
> 
>    Are you worse off for the 'stuff' they missed? It is about managing 
> risk. You're not going to catch everything, but you can likely keep the 
> worst away, and manage what does get through.
> 
> 
>>As to controlling the access I can control access to cable TV and I can
>>control access to the SatRadio system but I cannot control what is broadcast
>>(and the key word is broadcast) on standard TV and radio.
> 
> 
>    Radio and /old/ TVs have no parental control features, and I don't 
> trust the internet ones. In these instances we have to expend the effort 
> of being there ourselves until we can trust the kids.
> 
> 
>>By your presumption it should be ok to have graphic examples of the
>>application of hemorrhoid cream and tampons on live TV.
> 
> 
>    This is called misleading vividness:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness>
>    It is a logical fallacy. Things like this are not likely, but 
> possible. If you rule thins out because of exceptional conditions, then 
> you wouldn't let your kids ride in the car with you, lest they see a 
> bumper sticker with profanity on it.
>