Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on February 06, 2004, 07:51:16 AM
-
Culture poll. What do you think about the old "Andy Griffith Show" sitcom?
Is it true that the blatant load of stinking insidious left-liberal non-american corrupting Hollywood propaganda was one of the most loved shows supposed to protray real american values?
Liberals are not asked to reply here. I am sure you will find that piece of communist trash not destructive enough of the traditional american values. And you may be right.
But if you want to contribute to civil discussion, you are welcome.
miko
-
miko2d wrote:
But if you want to contribute to civil discussion, you are welcome.
Maybe if you started a civil discussion maybe someone could.
-
Are you saying Barney was gay?
Or Andy was a commie?
What subversive lessons did Opie learn?
I guess I missed those episodes.
-
You must be talking about a different Andy Griffith Show than the one that I saw as a kid...
-
I knew it. Aunt Bea was a Commie stooge!
-
Swims up.....
Looks at horrible looking object on hook....
Sniff.... YUCK, stinky nasty bait....
Swims away.....
-
Well, if us Liberals aren't invited, I'll just stay out then.
-
I'm not sure or too much troubled about what my 'classification' is. I'm certain someone will explain my classification very soon. But I always liked the andy griffth show.. Good stanch values and presented honest times as they once existed..
-
CAN I LOAD MY GUN!?!?!
Sounds like a conservative show to me.
-
Mighty1: Maybe if you started a civil discussion maybe someone could.
I do not know what you mean by "civil" but in my definition it is a discussion that does not devolve to accusations about the personal flaws of the participants and concentrates on the virtues of the argument.
Since I was the only participant when I posted my thread, I cannot see how I could have made disparaging remarks about anyone's character.
Or do you mean "uncivil" is everything that you do not agree with?
Holden McGroin: Or Andy was a commie?
Isn't it obvious? :)
Eagler: You must be talking about a different Andy Griffith Show than the one that I saw as a kid...
When you were a kid, you had no mental facilities in place to discern what you are seing. But now that you are an adult and a conservative, what do you think of it?
Bodhi: Swims away.....
Sure, do that - that way you will preserve the pristine ignorance of you mind.
Toad: Well, if us Liberals aren't invited, I'll just stay out then.
You are invited to observe. I also value your opinion. But I would not be surprised if you like that show, that's why I do not ask you.
I am trying to figure out why the conservatives do not hate it.
kappa: Good stanch values and presented honest times as they once existed..
If you think that show presented "Good stanch values", you must be eithe totally confused or a left liberal. And the values that show pushed dod not exist once - they spread and developed into the mess we have now.
Saurdaukar: CAN I LOAD MY GUN!?!?! Sounds like a conservative show to me.
OK, a first constructive comment. Great. Now please tell us, who says that line on the show?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
OK, a first constructive comment. Great. Now please tell us, who says that line on the show?
miko
The evil Communist bastard Barney. I suspected him from childhood... his sharp slavic facial features, his high pitched voice, and the hammer and cycle tatooed on his left buttock.
His uniform was also red, but you couldnt tell with the black and white film.
-
Clearly I do not understand and have never attempted to apply thought to this childhood show. I did not see the characters as metaphors.
Are we saying that Andy (da'sheriff) was the dictator/Czar?
Barney was the lunitic warlord? One bullet/one nuke? etc..??
-
miko what is it that you find about the show which makes you think conservatives should hate it?
I liked the show as a kid and as an adult. It's just a good show.
-
Yes! Yes thats it!
Griffith is HITLER! DETH TO MAYBERRY!
-
I've never seen this show. Now I wish I had. Miko makes it sound a LOT more interesting than it looked.
-Sik
-
Miko, you having a bad day?
For the Record, I think Andy Griffith and his show were a wonderful idea, adn I wish more people had values like that today.
Now Miko, go back to the village and bury your head in some pansy rag.
-
seriously.... would you want any of the women in that show voting and decideing what you could and, more importantly, couldn't do?
lazs
-
Miko, this is about the lowest anti-American, scumsucking, numbskull thread you've ever posted.
Andy is the personification of the ideal American small town of the early 60's. What could you possibly find fault with?
-
Saurdaukar: The evil Communist bastard Barney.
I see you are honestly trying, Saur - along with Kappa. Never fear, I will soon help you sort that crap out and rid your minds from the insidious leftist propaganda - unless you want it there.
For now, consider the art/science of reading a text of listening to a speech. There are three distinct aspects:
1. What the author is saying about the subject;
2. What you learn about the subject;
3. What the author is doing - or attempting to do - by his work;
kappa: Clearly I do not understand and have never attempted to apply thought to this childhood show. I did not see the characters as metaphors.
Sure you dind't. I did say that piece of propaganda was insidious. I should have added that it was masterfull.
Bodhi: For the Record, I think Andy Griffith and his show were a wonderful idea.
Yes. It seems to have programmed you thoughroughly.
You do not wish to know anything you do not understand and would offend a person for no reason at all, except to justify your desire not ho hear - because I am not forcing you to read my stuff and you do not have to offend me to make me shut up. You can just skip my posts. But you don't. You and Dago should form a "miko makes me feel bad and I am obsessed" support group.
NUKE: miko what is it that you find about the show which makes you think conservatives should hate it?
Not as much hate as recognise it's corrupting influence on the minds of young people. The show is certainly a quality work and mature mind may admire it as we admire well-crafted soviet movies or medieval instruments of torture.
I will of course explain why I hold such an opinion of the show but I still hope to see some more responces about your opinions.
midnight Target: Andy is the personification of the ideal American small town of the early 60's. What could you possibly find fault with?
Absolutely. Ideal (but not realistic) according to a leftist liberal views. I agreed on that in the very beginning. That's why I asked for conservatives' opinions.
As for "anti-American thread", there are two distinct major visions of America - leftist and conservative, leaving aside minor constitutionalists and libertarians, etc. Which one do you think I am offending here?
miko
-
The obvious is that all the white males were simply not as bright as the women and needed to be "guided" or they would hurt themselves.
lazs
-
Frankly, I can't say I recall the show in enough detail to recall what you may be refering to. I'm sure we'll all have a good laugh though.
-
LOL - Miko - did you just call me a Liberal AND stupid in the same post?
I take GREAT offense to the Liberal comment.
-
Aunt Bee talks to Lazs: (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/andy/blabber.wav)
And Miko asks Andy a question, Andy responds to Miko (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/andy/gossip.wav)
-
I took the bait and Googled "andy griffith leftist" and came up with commie rat (http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds66.html)
Not very convincing. Some people try too hard to be controversial.
ra
-
miko2d, I'm not sure I've seen anyone on this bbs spout forth more off the wall drivel. (well maybe weazel) I'm amazed that someone who appears so outwardly intelligent (as you do), is afflicted with such a thought process.
You need to search out that portal you arrived through, and get back to your bizarro homeland, where perhaps you would be better understood:p
Having stated the preceeding, I think the Andy Griffith show was about as entertaining as some of the other TV programs of it's period. Dobie Gillis, Make Room for Daddy, and the Dick VanDyke show come to mind. Certainly much better than that liberal propaganda tool, attempting to undermine our moral values; MTV.
Rip, when you post a link try and use ones that us guys here at Boeing can access on a company pc. We can't look at half the links here because of security settings. I really hate Win 2000.:eek:
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
Rip, when you post a link try and use ones that us guys here at Boeing can access on a company pc. We can't look at half the links here because of security settings. I really hate Win 2000.:eek:
Weav, the links will work on the Boeing PC's, your Windows media player just needs to be upgraded to V 9.0 .
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/player.aspx
-
Lol, Miko couldn't just do a "Stupid "Hat poll" Part 2?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The obvious is that all the white males were simply not as bright as the women and needed to be "guided" or they would hurt themselves.
lazs
Think you may have it mixed up with The Simpsons. (love that show too btw)
-
Saurdaukar: LOL - Miko - did you just call me a Liberal AND stupid in the same post?
Absolutely not. What gave you that idea?
I implied that you may have been somewhat affected by some smart and insidious propaganda but that is totally not the same as calling you those names.
miko
-
Jesus hes RIGHT!!
Photos emerge of secret COMMUNIST meeting!
(http://www.famousfoto.com/tin-signs/814.jpg)
Marx, Lenin, Stalin... FIFE!
-
ra: I took the bait and Googled "andy griffith leftist" and came up withcommie rat (http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds66.html) Not very convincing.
Exactly. I saw that piece a few years ago but it never registered, since I have not watched the show. Recently I had a chance to and that surfaced in my mind..
It seems convincing to me. What would one expect? A singing of "International" and showing boobs at the sports game? Not really.
I see several shows occasionally and always think "what are the producers thinking". I am sure than many who create conservative shows now would not have done the "Andy Griffith Show" the way it is done.
AKWeav: miko2d, I'm not sure I've seen anyone on this bbs spout forth more off the wall drivel.
Not what you are used to hear, right.
I think the Andy Griffith show was about as entertaining as some of the other TV programs of it's period.
Never said it was not entertaining or bad quality.
Rip, when you post a link try and use ones that us guys here..
I'll quote the article for you.
miko
-
Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry: Commie Rat
by Brad Edmonds
The old Andy Griffith Show, one of the most-watched, best-loved sitcoms ever, is lauded as a slice of small-town, apple-pie Americana, hearkening back to a simpler, better time when men were men, women were virtuous, and children occasionally were well-behaved. At the same time, one might ask: When a television program from any era is praised by the mainstream media, could there be some underlying leftist message? The answer is yes.
The first and most obvious commie message is Andy’s refusal to carry a gun. Heroically, he captures evildoers every time without a pistol. Notice also that Barney, the one who wants to carry a gun, is a buffoon, and whenever he touches his gun it goes off at random. There is no question what sentiment the producers were expressing. Further, on those rare occasions when there’s a truly violent criminal to pursue, Andy reaches into the rifle rack. And you thought Rosie O’Donnell was the first gun-control hypocrite.
Another modern, leftist, anti-everything-traditional message is the complete absence of a nuclear family on the Griffith show. Barney is single and desperate; Andy is widowed and moderately content; Gomer and Goober were single and whatever; Thelma Lou and Helen were single; Bea was a spinster…I can’t remember whether anybody on the show was married with children. The nuclear family was passé even for Mayberry residents of the early 1960’s. Other anti-family messages: A rare married couple portrayed on the show wasn’t happy unless they were having violent domestic disputes; another couple, with the husband played by Jack Nicholson, abandoned their baby at the beginning of an episode.
There are other implausible tweaks. On some old episodes, you’ll see Andy, Barney, Thelma Lou, and Helen having dinner at the local greasy spoon after 10 P.M. This almost never happened in real towns like Mayberry, and in fact is not very popular today in the south outside cities the size of Atlanta. You’ll also see occasional mention of cocktails before dinner – a decidedly citified custom that would have been extraordinary in a small southern town in the 1960’s.
And there are anti-gender role stereotype messages. Whenever a man from the country walks into town to find a wife, he is a buffoon. Earnest T. Bass and a two-episode character played by Alan Hale represented this anachronism. (Alan Hale played the Skipper on Gilligan’s Island; in Mayberry, he came complete with overalls.) Both considered it the man’s job to pursue the woman and to provide for the family later on. No wonder they were portrayed as buffoons. And for their parts, Andy and Barney endured all sorts of abuse at the hands of Helen and Thelma Lou. On many an occasion, Andy and Barn would (completely innocently) step into a pile of the women’s wrath, and spend most of an episode trying to apologize, explain, and beg their way out of it. Of course, the tables were seldom, perhaps never, turned.
There are other messages. The old man who owned the department store was a miser who hated people and cheated his employees. No one ever made a strong moral statement about Otis, the town drunk who had a wife at home but seemed to spend most nights in jail. Helen, the public schoolteacher, knew what was good for children better than their parents did.
There are plenty of superficial old-fashioned small-town quirks in the shows, such as the town band and the townspeople’s exaggerated ignorance of anything cosmopolitan. Occasionally the point was made that children need to learn discipline. But these features always floated on the surface. The underlying messages were that the nuclear family is uncommon and perhaps unnecessary; gender-role stereotypical living is mostly without merit; guns are bad; capitalists are evil; teachers are better than parents; and according to one ridiculous episode, killing a bird (by accident, no less) is about the greatest crime imaginable.
Maybe you thought the old Andy Griffith shows were wholesome and nourishing. Remind yourself that they came from Hollywood, and watch the next rerun a little more critically (if you must watch at all).
August 8, 2001
It sounds quite true to what I saw in a few episodes. The show is great of course, in all other respects. It's a typical Holywood production from times when it was already afflicted by liberals but not yet lost its standards of quality.
miko
-
He has some reasonable points regarding the show. However, anyone that models their lifestyle on a sitcom has more problems than what the show may lead them to believe.
The Simpsons is about as anti male as you can get. Still, it's funny, and if you can't laugh at yourself then you just can't enjoy laughing at all.
-
AKIron: He has some reasonable points regarding the show. However, anyone that models their lifestyle on a sitcom has more problems than what the show may lead them to believe.
Absolutely right. But some things happen without our notice that change our views or at least perceptions.
In Soviet Union we - the children - were not told directly to watch our parents and go report to police if they do or say something suspicious.
We were just shown the great hero Pavlik Morosov who was murdered by his grandfather for revealing his father's deeds to authorities.
The capitalists were not as much protrayed bad as stupid and after a while we had a stereotype than just made it hard to take them seriously. And what you do not take seriously, you do not consider. They made us not to think about stuff at all rather than understand why it was good or bad.
In some cultures it was a shame for a man not to be married and not have children - such were not considered complete. Pride in one's children was one of the main features in aman's life.
A child who's been raised on seeing nice likable characters totally outside those conventions - and associating with them - will never understand such values or convictions.
A (counter-)question "Why should I bother to have and raise kids - there are so many other things to live for?" At some time it was unthinkable from a normal person in a judeo-christian or muslim- or derived culture. Now it's common.
The person I know recently had a conversation with his friend in New York diner about the local police - specifically the police violating regulations for no good reason - like double-parking or blocking fire-hydrants.
A woman at the next table overheard them and joined in in to defend the police. At some point he said that the police are just their employees. She was appaled and said "How degrading, that you consider them your employees!"
A modern educated woman is shocked and outraged by the very idea that the government employees work for the people!
Did anyone ever explicitely tell her that it is not so? Never. But the constant and subtle protrayal of the government as our bosses rather than our employees made its work.
How far from that to a facist state readily accepted by such people? May be still far but not as far as it used to be....
Simpson is my favorite. Makes me feel good about not being like that likable looser. It's an show for adults. I would be very carefull showing it to my child and would offer a lot of explanations.
I have enough work explaining that a wolf chasing the rabbit in a cartoon is not evil but just hungry. Or that Bambie is what we make soup of.
miko
-
me thinks ur thinking alittle to deep for the show - things were not that complicated then
-
mikod2, you might have posted that first, and asked what we thought of it. It would have been slightly less inflamitory don'cha think. But then you always seem to enjoy the radical approch.;) Course had you done so, I would have most likely ignored the whole thing.
A similar analysis can be made of any show, book, or movie. It's only if anyone actually buys into it, that it takes on any merit. (oh wait, I get it now... everything in this life has a liberal/conservitive/communist/socialist/ agenda)
The Andy Grifith show was like any other show of it's era. An attempt to profit (monetarily) from a new medium. Nothing dark or sinister about that.
Now, some of those radio shows of the 40s and 50s. You wanna talk about propaganda!:D
Sorry Rip, can't update anything. System says no to all attempts. Guess I'll look at it when I get home.
-
No argument from me that Hollywood hasn't/isn't trying to alter or shape American lifestyles. The question should be why and into what.
-
Ernest T was a liberal if I ever saw one....
-
AKWeav: mikod2, you might have posted that first, and asked what we thought of it. It would have been slightly less inflamitory don'cha think.
Guilty of that. But I had my reasons. I am as much disinlined to believe the libertarian writers as any others unless I establish their credibility with me.
So I wanted to get a few "untainted" opinions first - in order to learn. It doesn't usually work but I keep trying. :)
A similar analysis can be made of any show, book, or movie.
Not "can be", "must be". I am observing my young son grow. He started walking when he was 10 1/2 months old. I discovered that despite being able to walk and choose the goal to arrive to, for a while he did not have any control over what he was walking into or over. He would set a direction and walk over objects and fall a lot.
So the skill of discering what one is walking through is clearly aquired with training. I believe so is the skill of discering what one is reading/watching through - being critical of everything.
Some people I know - especially religious people - are very good at seing dangerous influences in common (for our times) occurences. Of course what's bad for them is often good for me.
It's only if anyone actually buys into it, that it takes on any merit. (oh wait, I get it now... everything in this life has a liberal/conservitive/communist/socialist/ agenda)
Maybe not as sinister as a direct intent to subvert the culture. Maybe just a person with a liberal set of values doing things naturally and expressing his perceptions. But the effect is the same.
The Andy Grifith show was like any other show of it's era. An attempt to profit (monetarily) from a new medium. Nothing dark or sinister about that.
There is MTV and there is "The 11th Heaven" or "Saved by an Angel" or something and few others with clearly chrisian agenda. There are animal shows that may turn an impressionable child vegetarian. All make money but also influence our minds.
I believe it is the parent's job to do that, so I am probably going to rip off the antenna from my TV and store up some good DVDs that reflect my values.
AKIron: ...that Hollywood hasn't/isn't trying to alter or shape American lifestyles. The question should be why and into what.
Whether they are trying to or it is just an unintentional side-effect, the commercial mass culture can only shift the perceptions in one direction - lowest denominator and mediocrity.
For an uplifting influence one should seek not mass but elitist culture - but that would not be PC...
miko
-
For an uplifting influence one should seek not mass but elitist culture - but that would not be PC...
Like Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky?
-
Obviously that cut and paste article was by someone who NEVER or almost NEVER watched the show. Andy carries a gun when he feels it is needed. Sometimes in the conduct of his duties and sometimes for fun. There was even a show where he takes his new girlfriend crow shooting.
-
I agree with MT about something!
(http://users.adelphia.net/~randrew/It%20Has%20Finally.jpg)
My impression is that the guy who wrote this wants to discredit anyone who says TV shows can have a hidden politcal agenda by making a completely ludicrous example of Andy Griffith.
ra
-
Andy carries a gun when he feels it is needed. Sometimes in the conduct of his duties and sometimes for fun. There was even a show where he takes his new girlfriend crow shooting.
Good point. They must have had several writers for that show and some of them were less liberal than others. In those times one could even find a lot of conservatives in academia! Hollywood must have had some as well.
ra: Like Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky?
I was thinking more along the lines of classical music vs. rap.
But if you need literary examples of elitist culture, that would be reading greeks and romans in original languages as well as classical western philosophers and authors and poets.
ra: My impression is that the guy who wrote this wants to discredit anyone who says TV shows can have a hidden politcal agenda by making a completely ludicrous example of Andy Griffith.
He does not claim that the show has a hidden politcal agenda. He says that the show has subtle political influence.
You do appreciate the difference between the meanings of the words "intent" and "effect", right? It's the same with "agenda" and "influence".
miko
-
My impression is that the guy who wrote this wants to discredit anyone who says TV shows can have a hidden politcal agenda by making a completely ludicrous example of Andy Griffith.
Aw come on, it wasn't written that poorly. I would like to hear his thoughts on "Green Acres". A show with obvious anarchristic leanings.:D
-
He does not claim that the show has a hidden politcal agenda. He says that the show has subtle political influence.
Read your own cut n paste: "The first and most obvious commie message is Andy’s refusal to carry a gun."
If his point had been to say that this or any other show has subtle influences, then he would have been saying nothing at all. Unless he could prove Andy Griffith had an effect on society, subtle or otherwise, then he is just engaging broad speculation.
But if you need literary examples of elitist culture, that would be reading greeks and romans in original languages as well as classical western philosophers and authors and poets.
There's nothing elitist about those, but using the logic of this author, all of those sources of classical western elitism could be said to have spawned communism and fascism, amongst other isms.
Here's some Latin: Post hoc ergo promter hoc.
ra
-
ra; Read your own cut n paste: "The first and most obvious commie message is Andy’s refusal to carry a gun."
The content can carry what we refer to as "message" without the autor having intent or "agenda".
Many people claim that the violent games or movies carry a message that violence is OK, but the authors vehemently deny putting any message there.
Unless he could prove Andy Griffith had an effect on society, subtle or otherwise, then he is just engaging broad speculation.
That is true.
There's nothing elitist about those,
A culture - or any human endeavor - is considered elitist if a considerable effort is required to learn to appreciate and understand the subtleties of the issue. It takes a lot of effort and upbringing/education before one can understand/enjoy Bach or Homer.
On the other hand the mass culture comes prepared for immediate consumption - "ready to eat".
but using the logic of this author, all of those sources of classical western elitism could be said to have spawned communism and fascism, amongst other isms.
Some members of the western elite certainly contributed to origination of communism and fascism. So what?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Culture poll. What do you think about the old "Andy Griffith Show" sitcom?
Is it true that the blatant load of stinking insidious left-liberal non-american corrupting Hollywood propaganda was one of the most loved shows supposed to protray real american values?
Liberals are not asked to reply here. I am sure you will find that piece of communist trash not destructive enough of the traditional american values. And you may be right.
But if you want to contribute to civil discussion, you are welcome.
miko
Miko....
When will you learn that the reality in which you were raised does not define ours...your opinions are interesting from time to time, however, they are not classified as the ultimate and single truth.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
There is MTV and there is "The 11th Heaven" or "Saved by an Angel" or something and few others with clearly chrisian agenda. There are animal shows that may turn an impressionable child vegetarian. All make money but also influence our minds.
I believe it is the parent's job to do that, so I am probably going to rip off the antenna from my TV and store up some good DVDs that reflect my values.
miko
When you force your values onto your child, do you do so with a wide variety of programming stimulating not only your values into him, but others as well? Or do you simply show him what you want him to learn, and give him your opinion and not allow him to form his own?
By allowing unrestricted access to the television (within reason), you would allow him a wide variety of view points from which to make his decision. My personal belief's are mine, and mine alone. Infact my grandparents (who raised me) have a completely different set of ideals than myself. They are very conservative/authoritarian/religious in beliefs. I'm a liberal/libertarian/athiest in beliefs.
They tried to impress upon me in my youth their values, but having them force fed to me left me wanting to taste the other side, which I found I liked better anyways.
edit: formatting changes
-
On a side note, Barney Fife is the funniest character in sitcom history.. IMHO.
-
Well, a lot of those influences drive plot and lead to character development. Now, take away these elements and you have a rather boring form of non entertainment. Perhaps another "Leave it to Beaver" or "Father Knows Best" but at a time when television was looking to branch out a bit from the perfect family sitcoms of the 1950s. The elements may not be much of an edge, but they added some edge by comparison.The other part is a primary focus of the show -- the kind simplicity of small town life.
- Since Andy could never cheat on a spouse, having him a widower allows for the introduction of romantic tension. Adding romantic tension leads to the typical male female stereotypes (unreasonable, hysterical women/poor suffering clueless men) that is the opposite of stereotypical PC leftist ideology. It also allows for romantic comedy with Barney. Add wives and you lose 30 percent of the entertainment value and story ideas.
- Andy's "as needed" gun policy just pointed out how little a gun was actually needed. And, as i recall, when it was needed it was because of some city slicker bandit. [edit: and Andy actually was ready and willing to use deadly force if required, and showed a level of respect and gun safety that would be at home in an NRA handbook]
- The anti-gender stuff (male buffoons from the sticks) cited is more of a reflection of the class structure that exists and existed in small towns where those from the other side of the tracks, or, in this case, living in shacks in the woods are regarded as backwards even by small town standards. Indeed its a reflection that the conservative but civilized townspeople (who might be made fun of by a NY elite) can themselves poke fun at their less affluent neighbors. I even seem to recall episodes where a female "hick" was hot for andy and played the buffoon. It may have been a class message, but a fairly conservative one where you can poke innocent fun at others you regard [gently in this case] as beneath you. I mean, none of the good townspeople were ever actually interested in crossing those class lines and returning the affections -- just wasn't done.
- Town drunk? Alcoholics (at least "good drunks") were generally seen as "funny" at the time and remained so into the 1970s. Ever watch a Dean Martin Roast? In fact, alcohol is the conservative's drug of choice. A liberal message would have likely shown the dark side of alcoholism.
- Town Miser? Another stock character that is timeless.
- Dinner timing (diner meals at 10:00 pm) and cocktails? Probably just a disconnect between east coast/west coast writers and the specific environment they were portraying. Inaccurate, but I don't see the solical message. Diners did exist and small town people did drink, though not typically at a cocktail hour.
- Domestic disputes and child abandonment? Also a part of life, small town or not, and I don't recall them being either glorified or allowed to pass without a morally acceptable conclusion. There were no unhappy endings in Mayberry.
- "killing a bird (by accident, no less) is about the greatest crime imaginable." Actually a lesson in the fact that actions have consquences, and you have to take responsibility for your actions. Also, that you must let go of those you love when it's time for them to go out and grow on their own.
Pretty weak and poorly developed arguments, really. Factually inaccurate in many areas as well. Now, if you want to talk communism, talk Gilligan's Island :)
Charon
-
miko2d wrote:
I do not know what you mean by "civil" but in my definition it is a discussion that does not devolve to accusations about the personal flaws of the participants and concentrates on the virtues of the argument.
Since I was the only participant when I posted my thread, I cannot see how I could have made disparaging remarks about anyone's character.
Or do you mean "uncivil" is everything that you do not agree with?
What I mean is that you ask a question in a way that slams a TV show and then associate it with liberals. You then tell them the only way they can participate is if they are "civil".
You make it sound like they have a problem being "civil".
You were Pointing out a percieved "personal flaw" and by your own definition made the discussion "uncivil" before anyone replied.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Bodhi: For the Record, I think Andy Griffith and his show were a wonderful idea.
Yes. It seems to have programmed you thoughroughly.
You do not wish to know anything you do not understand and would offend a person for no reason at all, except to justify your desire not ho hear - because I am not forcing you to read my stuff and you do not have to offend me to make me shut up. You can just skip my posts. But you don't. You and Dago should form a "miko makes me feel bad and I am obsessed" support group.
miko
Miko,
You are the epithany of a typical liberal New York know-it-all. What gives you the feeling that just because you read some slanted west village idiot's depiction of the Andy Griffith Show and then spout it out as your own concoction that you are correct. Sadly, you might be trying this as an attempt at humor, which is failing miserably, other than that people are laughing at you. Furthermore, I notice that there is not anyone else who posts here that finds that you post anything of substance or value. I suggest you go stand on a soap box and spout out in town, ratehr than taking up band width with your inane gibberish.
:rolleyes:
-
When you were a kid, you had no mental facilities in place to discern what you are seing.
:rofl King Miko, gotta love him.
-
Who's Andy Griffith?:confused:
-
seriously.... would any of you (except maybe kappa) want the women in that show decieding what you could and couldn't do?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
seriously.... would any of you (except maybe kappa) want the women in that show decieding what you could and couldn't do?
lazs
no.
But I wouldn't want Floyd, Barney, Goober, Oppie, Ottis or Earnest Bass deciding either :)
It's just a show.
-
nuke... those guys wouldn't vote. If they did they would most likely cancel each other out in their confussion.... But the women... they are dillegent in taking away your toys.
lazs
-
Rude: When will you learn that the reality in which you were raised does not define ours...your opinions are interesting from time to time, however, they are not classified as the ultimate and single truth.
Absolutly. What I say is my opinion only - though I voice opinions that I think I can justify and explain. Of course my justifications and explanations may not be satisfactory to everyone.
I know that some americans and other westerners share pretty much every one of my views - and many of those I've aquired while here, so the origin may not be the ultimately defining issue here.
Munkii: When you force your values onto your child, do you do so with a wide variety of programming stimulating not only your values into him, but others as well? Or do you simply show him what you want him to learn, and give him your opinion and not allow him to form his own?
You use terms in very contradictory meanings, but I will try to answer.
Values are preferences for goals. While selection of means is subject to logical argument, the goals are pretty much a matter of revealed/random origin. We may discuss what's the best means to liberate or enslave people but if someone wants to be a slave, there is nothing logical I can say to have him select loving freedom. All arguments are about te better way to reach a goal and if he is trying to reach a different goal, there is nothing to say.
Mind can be affected when it is still able to receive "programming" - as a child, or preferences may be affected trough feelings - "I like the taste of meat so much I decided to stop being vegetarian", or when a mind is receptive to certain influence but not by logic.
With this in mind, I will absolutely try to raise my child with my goals/values. If I thought them deficient, I would not subscribe to them. If I think them good, why would I give my child something I think bad or allow them to be set randomly?
That's as far as values/goals are concerned.
Then I will teach my child skills - which are the tools that can be used to reach various goals. The most important skill is the ability to think skeptically, logically, creatively and in structured manner.
I will certainly restrict my child from being contaminated by views contrary to me - while his mind is working in "trust what you hear" mode. That does not mean I will keep him totally in the dark but I will give him carefully measured and encapsulated pieces that he can grasp and provide explanations. Like giving someone a vaccine.
By allowing unrestricted access to the television (within reason), you would allow him a wide variety of view points from which to make his decision.
That is all fine when a person is old enough to examine information critically. A young child does not posess an ability to critically process information.
The information does not get processed by his mind but forms it. It would be incredibly stupid of me to let my child's mind be formed by a random process.
The term "force" does not apply here because there is no mind yet to force anything into it. You do not "force" a structure into a building. You build a structure where none existed and house appeares. Only then the house can exist so it can be "forced". So is the mind.
Mighty1: What I mean is that you ask a question in a way that slams a TV show and then associate it with liberals. You then tell them the only way they can participate is if they are "civil".
I did not think that "slamming" the old show would be so personally offensive to anyone. If it was, I appologise - it was my miscalculation.
Some people take offence at being called "liberal" but most of them would admit to enjoying "liberal" shows.
Bodhi: You are the epithany of a typical liberal New York know-it-all.
Whatever the rest of your words mean, why do you use "liberal" here? The word "liberal" has a very specific meaning and denotes political affiliation and certain philisophical views - like preeminence of social rights over personal rights and approval of social engineering.
It seems to me that you are the one posting gibberish - throwing words in regardless of their meaning.
Unless you really think that my views and those expressed in the article are liberal instead of anti-liberal - in which case you are... err.. have to be civil here... cognitively challenged.
What gives you the feeling that just because you read some slanted west village idiot's depiction of the Andy Griffith Show... that you are correct.
What gives anyone the feeling that he is correct? Experience and logic, both of which may or may not be deficient.
I saw the show recently and formed an opinion based on my experience - and recalled an article I've read a few years ago. I though it would be interesting to people here and wanted to see the reaction for my own knowlege.
Disclosing one's opinion to others is way to get some feedback, hear opposite views and have a chance to re-evaluate that opinion.
You seem to oppose my opinion and you are concerned enough to post a few messages. Yet you provide no explanations or arguments - which makes me conclude you are not able to.
and then spout it out as your own concoction
You mean I plagiatrised? I am sure I included the autor's name in the quote of the article.
Furthermore, I notice that there is not anyone else who posts here that finds that you post anything of substance or value.
That just shows how much you notice and what kind of mental capacity you have if you reach such conclusions.
Anyway, why are you here? Put me on ignore. I will certainly not pay much attention to your statements, as they seem to have zero content.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Bodhi: You are the epithany of a typical liberal New York know-it-all.
Whatever the rest of your words mean, why do you use "liberal" here? The word "liberal" has a very specific meaning and denotes political affiliation and certain philisophical views - like preeminence of social rights over personal rights and approval of social engineering.
It seems to me that you are the one posting gibberish - throwing words in regardless of their meaning.
Unless you really think that my views and those expressed in the article are liberal instead of anti-liberal - in which case you are... err.. have to be civil here... cognitively challenged.
miko
Miko, what flipping dictionary are you getting your meanings from? Maybe you should be the one to look that word up, specific meaning my arse... FYI sir-know-it-all Miko, there are 9 seperate definitions to the word liberal with 4 subsets. Seems to me, that you, with your all superior attitude have gone and decided how yet something else should be viewed. As for your views, I think they are poor, misguided, and the end result of a piss-poor upbringing with a degree in basket weaving (from Bennington College) thrown in for good measure.
Ohh, and, telling me that I have poor perception, or judgement after you accuse the Andy Griffith Show of being communist, is icing on the cake.... It seems to me that you are either delusional, or a flat out moron, take your pick.
One last thing, why don't ya head out to Siler City, North Carolina, and voice your opinions on the show being communist propoganda, I dare ya.
-
Ah ... so Andy is a Commie, Barney is gay, Aunt Bea is a bigot and Uncle Charlie is a lesbian. No ... wait ... The Skipper is an anal retentive Nazi, Gilligan is a bi-polar closet hyper-consumptionist, Mary Ann has a drug addiction and Jeanie is a pedophile. Err ... nono ... wait ....
"Somehow I don't think you've solved my problem."
-Eli Wallach as Calvera in the Movie The Magnificent Seven (1960) {A bourgeois Imperialistic docu-drama with heavy amounts of violence supporting an undertone of American involvement in foreign affairs as being the only reasonable option available.}
-
Bodhi: Miko, what flipping dictionary are you getting your meanings from? Maybe you should be the one to look that word up, specific meaning my arse... FYI sir-know-it-all Miko, there are 9 seperate definitions to the word liberal with 4 subsets.
OK, you tell me in what meaning you have used the term liberal when you called me that.
Was that Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry?
Or open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded?
Or maybe Tending to give freely; generous?
Or (archaic) appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman?
Somehow your statement did not sound like a complement, so I believed it was used with the meaning Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism....
Was I wrong?
Seems to me, that you, with your all superior attitude..
In all my "superior attiture" I take care to explain myself and address any questions. You, on the other hand, in your arrogant and suprerior attitude, throw around unsubstantiated opinions as it it's a revealed truth of God.
If I think the show has liberal undertones inserted in it, I presented some justification.
Charon presented some well-founded points to justify the contrary opinion. You, so far, is just a windbag talking nonsense.
...have gone and decided how yet something else should be viewed.
All I have "gone and decided" is what I should type on this forum about what I've seen in that show. I am not a US Supreme Court justice or a President and cannot possibly decide how anyone should do anything. I could not even decide that you should read this thread - your own obsession brought you here. You are an idiot if you do not perceive a distinction.
As for your hyppocricy - compaining of forcing my views on you and then telling me what to do and where to go, I doubt you even know that word, so I would not bother.
Arlo: Ah ... so Andy is a Commie, Barney is gay, Aunt Bea is a bigot and Uncle Charlie is a lesbian.
What do you think a corrupting show would look like in 1960s? Have all good guys sing "International"? :)
Today we have the shows wery similar to what you described - and it did not happen all of a sudden. Somewhere there had to be a first step from american values to Sodom and Gomorrah.
miko
-
Is "International" metal?
-
^
http://img.km.ru/sovmusic/mp3/intern.mp3 :)
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
^
http://img.km.ru/sovmusic/mp3/intern.mp3 :)
miko
Do I really hafta? Is it at least accompanied by cut sceens from the Andy Griffith Show? :)
-
Hmmmm........
Movies, television hmmmm...
Thoughts on "Dirty Dancing"
At least 2 felonies were commited and the girl was basically rewarded for lies she told.............
Felony 1 an over 18 male having sex with underage female.
Felony 2 an abortion (was illegal at the time the movie took place and a felony)
and mothers who love the film, and watch it with their daughters, seem totally amazed by their daughters later behaviour?
What's the message here?
Hmmmm....
"Jungle to Jungle"
At the very end of the version I saw the father is proud of his son because his son is now a man, seems his son slept with a village/tribal female. AND of course that's about the time when the parents of the girl show up with the girl in tow and tell the father of the boy how they brought the girl to be with the boy?
How old were these kids? 12, 13, 14?
What's the message here?
"Everyone Loves Raymond"
Ugh come on... kinda tired of comedies that use the dufus male image with an intellegent good wife.
Bash the male, bash the nuclear family, bash people defending themselves bash bash bash ugh tired of watchin this drivel.
NO I Don't have cable.... was at a friends home and they were watchin MTV awards and the 2 girl group sing how males can't have/ain't gettin any of this and at the end a large number of females dancers decked out in what looked like catholic school girl outfits tear off most of their cloths and swap spite with each other big time.... they then cut to popular young male actors who tell everyone just how HOT that was...............
What's the message here???????
I think I find myself tending to agree with Miko on this stuff.
-
In the spirit of bipartisan camaraderie all liberals and conservative bulletin boarders with common sense and a modicum of brains are herby invited to laugh at Miko!
On the count of three...
One...
Two...
Three...
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
You should all feel better now!
Regards, Shuckins
-
women are plenty bright... they just shouldn't be allowed to vote is all..
lazs
-
lazs2: women are plenty bright... they just shouldn't be allowed to vote is all..
"Plenty bright" covers a lot of ground and is applicable to many creatures from nobel laureats to turtles.
Compared to men, women are not bright. There are certainly some bright women but there are much fewer of them than there are men who are as bright.
The average intelligence of women is about the same as men but the distribution for men and women around the average is different - women's is narrower than men's. Which means the further you go away from average, the fewer smart (of dumb) women you encounter relative to men.
So while average intelligence of men and women is about 100 IQ points, there are much fewer women than men above 120 and even fewer above 130. And much fewer women below 80 of course.
That is why the average SAT scores of women are about the same as scores of men but as you go high enough, you get 6-8 men per every woman beating certain treshhold score.
miko
-
Could those test inherit some sort of bias as probably most of them are written by men? If women reason differently than men, couldnt it be said they will test differently?
-
Right, wrong... whatever... the perspective is as fascinating as the reactions to it.
Thanx Miko. :)
-
kappa: Could those test inherit some sort of bias as probably most of them are written by men? If women reason differently than men, couldnt it be said they will test differently?
A test showing different score for women than men would only be biased if women though the same as men despite disparity in results. More generally, a test biased against women would underpredict women's real-life performance.
The intelligence tests are scientifically created and calibrated to test for abilities that are fundamental for success in many areas of human endeavor (business, science, technolgy) - math, logic, association and classification, spacio-visual manipulations, etc.
There is no question that women think "differently" than men in many areas and in those those areas they are inferior.
In fact there was found a strong corellation between estrogen/testosteron balance and math/spacio-visual abilities in both men and women. There are plenty of other biological differences documented between brains of men and women that could explain the difference in thinking.
There are no plausible biases that can be offered to explain the difference as an artificial fluke. Women share the same language and culture as men. Women study the same exact subjects. Women in fact have greater motivation and concentration and do better in math and physics and everything else untill subjects get really complex.
One thing to remember though is that not absolute but relative intelligence that is inherited. A normal woman 2 standard deviations from average would have children with average intelligence also 2 standard deviations from average (setting aside regression to the mean) - same as a man.
It's just that in men 2 standard deviations correspond to an IQ of 130 while in women it may be only 125.
So for a man above average marrying a woman as smart as he is means "marrying up" in genetic sense. Especially if she is very feminine (high estrogen/testosteron ratio) - that means her intelligence is more fundamentally genetic rather than a fluke.
Sandman_SBM: Right, wrong... whatever... the perspective is as fascinating as the reactions to it.
And that's all that matters here. :)
miko