Some months back a few coworkers and I began debating whether or not nudity should be allowed on network television. I argued that I wouldn't want my child to be able to see it. One of them used an argument that went something like this:
"So just because you don't want your child to see a naked woman another person is kept from being able to do so? Should we close down liquor stores because you don't want your child drinking beer?"
Since I'm not quick on my feet, I wrote my response instead. Here it goes:
The fact that someone must BUY alcohol restricts a child's ability to get to the forbidden substance anyway, but network television is in no way regulated. Children can get to it very easily.
We're not talking about banning pornography or nudity; we're talking about limiting it for the sake of children who don't know enough about controlling their own desires and emotions.
When adults can't sacrifice $5.00 a pop to fulfil their desire there is a problem. When a country cares more about the pleasures of its adult population than the needs of its children, it is only a few steps away from justifying the use of those children to fulfil the lusts of the adult.
The claim was also made that people who want to see nudity on TV, but cannot, are being persecuted. Is this the case?
Here I must ask the question: What in your eyes is persecution? The person who wants to see nudity can see plenty of it if they will pay for it; or they can they go to the internet and find much more there to occupy them for free. Persecution usually involves some kind of suffering on the part of the one being persecuted. I'm afraid that the inability to get something for free cannot adequately be termed as "suffering." Does that mean people who drink beer are persecuted because they must pay to get it? If people can get water for free then I suppose those who desire beer over water should be able to get beer for free. Maybe we should launch a campaign: "Freedom of drinking privileges." Since water is offered publicly, perhaps those who prefer beer should be able to turn on their faucet and get beer. Otherwise, they are being persecuted if they don't get to take a shower in beer.
Vilifying the "prudes" who want to keep nudity off the networks is yet another odd approach. What about those parents who don't want their children to see it? "Do a better job parenting" is the reply. In other words, those hundreds of thousands of kids who have lousy parents should care for themselves because our need to see nudity free of charge is more important than those children being protected from something that they aren't capable of understanding.
Let's apply the same logic used in this rebuttal to another issue. Why should the person who wants to buy a gun be forced to provide paperwork to buy it? Isn't that persecuting him? It sure is an inconvenience. Perhaps we should sell them without a question asked. Let the parents keep their kids from buying guns; that's the logic, right?
Utter anarchy is a step away.
ngram Shenanigans
6 years ago
