Ah, the difference in cultures...

[HarryKeogh]

Why is "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" any different than "I saw an alien spaceship once"?

A great man once coined a phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

"I saw an alien spaceship once" is an extraordinary claim.

"I saw boobs on a TV show once"...not so much.

Surely you see a difference between the two, no?

They don't require the same levels of evidence. You've been given a list of TV shows. People aren't here to waste time providing evidence that will satisfy you when a reasonable skeptic's standard of proof has been satisfied.

C'mon, Claus. This is Skepticism 101 type stuff. Perhaps it's time you re-read Demon Haunted World?

edit...Roger beat me to it. grrrr!

 

[CFLarsen]

One is an extraordinary claim, one is not. Certainly until someone has provided concrete proof a claim is not proved, ordinary or extraordinary, but jesus, stop riding people. We live in the US. We tell you we occasionally (certainly it's not a daily occurance) see boobs on network TV.

Be a gentleman. Say, "I did not know that", or "that was not my experience when I was here". Converse. Don't hound. Please. Why is this very ordinary point, backed up my multiple witnesses, so important to you? I'll tell you, you give the impression of not being able to take it when someone posts something contrary to something you previously stated.

You've been provided names of shows, sources of where to get those shows, no reasonable person is going to go any further to prove such a mundane point. Please stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is somehow lax in providing evidence. This is a bulletin board, not a peer reviewed journal or a court hearing.

A great man once coined a phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

"I saw an alien spaceship once" is an extraordinary claim.

"I saw boobs on a TV show once"...not so much.

Surely you see a difference between the two, no?

They don't require the same levels of evidence. You've been given a list of TV shows. People aren't here to waste time providing evidence that will satisfy you when a reasonable skeptic's standard of proof has been satisfied.

C'mon, Claus. This is Skepticism 101 type stuff. Perhaps it's time you re-read Demon Haunted World?

edit...Roger beat me to it. grrrr!

Where did I say that "boobs on TV" never happened in the US? Nowhere.

There seems to be a misunderstanding wrt to the "extraordinary" part. When we have evidence of Nipplegate as well as evidence of the following tightening of FCC rules with heavy fines to subsequent shows, that evidence is a hell of a lot more convincing than "I saw boobs on TV once". And, since neither are extraordinary claims, those two are not of equal value.

It is when we have "I saw an alien space ship" against "I have never seen an alien space ship, and there is no evidence that they exist", then "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies. Claiming that there are alien spaceships is an extraordinary claim. It is not an extraordinary claim that there are no alien spaceships.

If you two think that "I saw boobs on TV once" is as strong evidence as "We have evidence of Nipplegate and subsequent tighter restrictions", then I suggest you go back to Skepticism 101.

As for people being "hounded" or "wasting time": I didn't direct the thread to a specific person. People are free to participate - or not.

 

[bob_kark]

I'm not old...

That's a matter of relativity. At least you're willing to accept the fact that you are dirty. I respect that.

 

[Number Six]

Where did I say that "boobs on TV" never happened in the US? Nowhere.

Where is the evidence that you've never said "'boobs on TV' never happened in the US?" You have none. Don't respond with "I mean on this thread." And don't complain I'm holding you to too high a standard because I'm only doing to you what you do to others. Admit it, you have no evidence on this point.

There seems to be a misunderstanding wrt to the "extraordinary" part. When we have evidence of Nipplegate as well as evidence of the following tightening of FCC rules with heavy fines to subsequent shows, that evidence is a hell of a lot more convincing than "I saw boobs on TV once". And, since neither are extraordinary claims, those two are not of equal value.[\QUOTE]

What evidence do you have of Nipplegate and the FCC changing rules? Some websites and some peoples' testimonies? UFO believers have that too. You have no evidence, according to the standards you're demanding of others at least.

If you two think that "I saw boobs on TV once" is as strong evidence as "We have evidence of Nipplegate and subsequent tighter restrictions", then I suggest you go back to Skepticism 101.[\QUOTE]
So someone saying "I saw it" on a message board isn't good enough for you but someone saying "I saw it" on a website of a news source is? Do you take into account at all the context of what is said and who is saying it or the nature of the claim?

I don't recall Skepticism 101 teaching us to have different standards of evidence depending on what suits our desires at the time or being an ass towards people. Maybe the school where you took Skepticism 101 wasn't accredited.

Again I ask you to tell us what evidence someone could give that would prove to you that nipples were shown on those TV shows in the US. Even if someone finds it on YouTube you could say that it wasn't actually shown on US TV. Even if someone also provided an old TV Guide with the listing you could say that that particular part was cut out on the free TV broadcast. What evidence would satisfy you? The true answer to that question is "None." You're in an argument and you come to a place where you want to win a point and so you simply ratchet up your standard of evidence up to a point where it's not possible for the other person to provide proof that satisfies you, all so you can say "A-ha, you can't prove it" and feel like you've won something. Of course, you never hold yourself to that same standard, but that doesn't matter because you don't examine yourself enough to notice.

 

[Thanz]

Far be it for me to distract from the bickering, but what I find the most interesting about the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing is the lack of consquence for Justin Timberlake. Since the incident, Jackson's career has not been great. Timberlake, however, could not be doing any better. He is one of the "hottest" entertainers around right now.

So, if you are a woman and someone rips off your top and shows your boob, you need some moral training and should be punished.

If, however, you are a man and you rip off a woman's top, well hey - you are just bringing sexy back. Woo-hoo!

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Far be it for me to distract from the bickering, but what I find the most interesting about the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing is the lack of consquence for Justin Timberlake. Since the incident, Jackson's career has not been great. Timberlake, however, could not be doing any better. He is one of the "hottest" entertainers around right now.

So, if you are a woman and someone rips off your top and shows your boob, you need some moral training and should be punished.

If, however, you are a man and you rip off a woman's top, well hey - you are just bringing sexy back. Woo-hoo!

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

Not really. Timberlake came from one of the biggest boy bands ever, made a smooth transition to solo artist and he's, most importanty in pop music, young. He's peaking right now (IMO).

Janet is yesterday's news. Her career peaked quite a while ago.

Look at Paris Hilton...she's giving BJs on video and that hasn't hurt her career. Many people credit the sex video for her popularity.

 

[Number Six]

Far be it for me to distract from the bickering, but what I find the most interesting about the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing is the lack of consquence for Justin Timberlake. Since the incident, Jackson's career has not been great. Timberlake, however, could not be doing any better. He is one of the "hottest" entertainers around right now.

So, if you are a woman and someone rips off your top and shows your boob, you need some moral training and should be punished.

If, however, you are a man and you rip off a woman's top, well hey - you are just bringing sexy back. Woo-hoo!

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

No, I'm not disturbed by it because I don't think there is any differential effect at all. I'm surprised Janet Jackson was even considered a big enough star to get onto halftime of the Super Bowl in the first place.

If there is a differential on this issue re. men and women then I think it's women that benefit more in resulting popularity. People are more interested in sexy women stuff than sexy man stuff, thus it's easier to be popular solely for being a bimbo (Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith) than solely for being a mimbo.

 

[Skeptic]

Why is "I saw a TV show once with naked boobs" any different than "I saw an alien spaceship once"?

Well, Claus, for you, it's probably true that seeing boobs and seeing alien spaceships have about the same probability.

 

[CFLarsen]

Where is the evidence that you've never said "'boobs on TV' never happened in the US?" You have none. Don't respond with "I mean on this thread." And don't complain I'm holding you to too high a standard because I'm only doing to you what you do to others. Admit it, you have no evidence on this point.

There's nothing to "admit" because I have never claimed that I did.

What evidence do you have of Nipplegate and the FCC changing rules? Some websites and some peoples' testimonies? UFO believers have that too. You have no evidence, according to the standards you're demanding of others at least.

Rubbish. Here's evidence of Nipplegate (presumably NSFW), and the following restrictions. More here.

Deny that, and you're comparable to Loose Change.

So someone saying "I saw it" on a message board isn't good enough for you but someone saying "I saw it" on a website of a news source is? Do you take into account at all the context of what is said and who is saying it or the nature of the claim?

Yes, I do. You see, someone saying on a message board "I saw it" has absolutly no evidence to back it. But a news source better have evidence, or the ***** hits the fan. Nipplegate and the repercussions had plenty of independent news sources.

I don't recall Skepticism 101 teaching us to have different standards of evidence depending on what suits our desires at the time or being an ass towards people. Maybe the school where you took Skepticism 101 wasn't accredited.

Let me ask you directly:

Did the US House of Representatives pass a bill right after the Super Bowl to raise the maximum FCC fine penalty to $500,000 per violation?

Did the US Senate later voted to increase it to $275,000 per incident, with a cap of $3 million per day?

Did Viacom pay out $3.5 million in November 2004 to settle outstanding indecency complaints?

Just yes or no, please.

Again I ask you to tell us what evidence someone could give that would prove to you that nipples were shown on those TV shows in the US. Even if someone finds it on YouTube you could say that it wasn't actually shown on US TV.

Even if someone also provided an old TV Guide with the listing you could say that that particular part was cut out on the free TV broadcast.

Why would that be unreasonable? When I saw "Braveheart" on US TV, there was no mentioning in the TV Guide that they would pixel out the naked butts of the Scots mooning the English before the great battle.

What evidence would satisfy you? The true answer to that question is "None." You're in an argument and you come to a place where you want to win a point and so you simply ratchet up your standard of evidence up to a point where it's not possible for the other person to provide proof that satisfies you, all so you can say "A-ha, you can't prove it" and feel like you've won something. Of course, you never hold yourself to that same standard, but that doesn't matter because you don't examine yourself enough to notice.

I'm sorry, but I have provided evidence that a nipple was (half)shown on US TV.

Do you reject that evidence? The incident is not backed with evidence?

Just yes or no, please.

Far be it for me to distract from the bickering, but what I find the most interesting about the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing is the lack of consquence for Justin Timberlake. Since the incident, Jackson's career has not been great. Timberlake, however, could not be doing any better. He is one of the "hottest" entertainers around right now.

So, if you are a woman and someone rips off your top and shows your boob, you need some moral training and should be punished.

If, however, you are a man and you rip off a woman's top, well hey - you are just bringing sexy back. Woo-hoo!

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

I don't know about whether Jackson's career hasn't been "great" since then. Her two albums Damita Jo (2004) and 20 Y.O. (2006) both earned Grammy nominations.

In 2004, Janet Jackson ranked as the ninth most successful artist in the history of rock and roll according to Billboard. Jackson also holds the record for the most Billboard Music Awards won by a single artist, a record 33 [4]. In 2006, it was announced that Jackson was the "Most Searched on the Internet," and the "Most Searched for News Item," in the Guinness Book of World Records[1]. In 2007, Janet was ranked the 7th richest woman in the entertainment business by Forbes Magazine, amassing a fortune of over $150 Million. [5]
Source

I want a career like that!

 

[Number Six]

There's nothing to "admit" because I have never claimed that I did.



Rubbish. Here's evidence of Nipplegate (presumably NSFW), and the following restrictions. More here.

Deny that, and you're comparable to Loose Change.



Yes, I do. You see, someone saying on a message board "I saw it" has absolutly no evidence to back it. But a news source better have evidence, or the ***** hits the fan. Nipplegate and the repercussions had plenty of independent news sources.



Let me ask you directly:

Did the US House of Representatives pass a bill right after the Super Bowl to raise the maximum FCC fine penalty to $500,000 per violation?

Did the US Senate later voted to increase it to $275,000 per incident, with a cap of $3 million per day?

Did Viacom pay out $3.5 million in November 2004 to settle outstanding indecency complaints?

Just yes or no, please.



Why would that be unreasonable? When I saw "Braveheart" on US TV, there was no mentioning in the TV Guide that they would pixel out the naked butts of the Scots mooning the English before the great battle.



I'm sorry, but I have provided evidence that a nipple was (half)shown on US TV.

Do you reject that evidence? The incident is not backed with evidence?

Just yes or no, please.

Do you still beat your wife, Claus? Just yes or no please. Don't say anything else, just yes or no.

I wasn't seriously asserting that Nipplegate didn't happen, rather I was illustrating the absurdity that "Evidence?" can be taken to. Using the ridiculous standards you hold others to you can't prove your own claims. I don't care if you come up with 100 websites or 100 independent sources, in the end it is still just a compiliation of "I saw its." Of course, a reasonable person realizes this and they have discussions accordingly. An unreasonable person ignores it when it suits then and then invokes it when it doesn't.

For the third time, Claus, what possible evidence could someone give you regarding nipples on those TV shows that would satisfy you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you still beat your wife, Claus? Just yes or no please. Don't say anything else, just yes or no.

I'm not married.

I wasn't seriously asserting that Nipplegate didn't happen, rather I was illustrating the absurdity that "Evidence?" can be taken to. Using the ridiculous standards you hold others to you can't prove your own claims. I don't care if you come up with 100 websites or 100 independent sources, in the end it is still just a compiliation of "I saw its." Of course, a reasonable person realizes this and they have discussions accordingly. An unreasonable person ignores it when it suits then and then invokes it when it doesn't.

Let me get this absolutely clear. You are saying that:

"I saw a nipple on TV"

is exactly as based on evidence as:

"Here is a nipple on TV" (clip shown)

?

For the third time, Claus, what possible evidence could someone give you regarding nipples on those TV shows that would satisfy you?

The same kind of evidence that I gave for Nipplegate.

 

[Skeptic]

So, if you are a woman and someone rips off your top and shows your boob, you need some moral training and should be punished.

I'm not disturbed by this because this only applies if you are a woman who also happens to be a celebrity which is doing the half-time superbowl show. It hardly applies, needless to say, to a victim of an attempted rape.

The difference between the two situations is obvious: people suspect that Jackson, unlike a rape victim, orchestrated he whole thing for PR purposes.

 

[fuelair]

I may have missed it, but I haven't noticed a Claus response to my statements: I mentioned (in less detail than this but....) I have S8 or photos off screen of nudity on Channel 5 (CBS I think, Nashville )of Benny Hill show breast exposure in mid-80s and video of same from later 80s from a Tampa station (one of the nets but don't remember which). Tape from 96 or 97 of full frontal female 15 min presentation (artsy dance thing) from Tampa PBS, stills from 2nd run of Elizabeth R, Nashville PBS (they cut it in first run) nude scene (Ep. 5, shipboard of her rep returning from Spain or France IIRC), Steambath on S8 from PBS Nashville, M. de Maupin (I believe )on PBS, Nashville. That is running off the top of my head - and there is more. Can't prove the Donahue one (no warning and it wasn't repeated but I'll take a hunt for at least a record of it - it was a fan favorite) as I only saw it but had no chance to S8 or photo it because it was too short for me to get to equipment. As stated earlier, this is a big field of interest for me - and the US is far too prudish for my taste on the networks, but that is not at all the same as never showing it through slipups or intent.

 

[slingblade]

There's the time the contestant on The Price is Right got all happy and bouncy running down to the stage, and her tube-top slipped. And she just kept bouncing when she reached the podium, blissfully unaware for at least a few seconds.

I remember a lot of laughter, during and in the days and years afterwards, but no public outcry or anguish.

Embarassment....oh yeah.

 

[burnvictim77]

Far be it for me to distract from the bickering, but what I find the most interesting about the whole Janet Jackson nipple thing is the lack of consquence for Justin Timberlake. Since the incident, Jackson's career has not been great. Timberlake, however, could not be doing any better. He is one of the "hottest" entertainers around right now.

So, if you are a woman and someone rips off your top and shows your boob, you need some moral training and should be punished.

If, however, you are a man and you rip off a woman's top, well hey - you are just bringing sexy back. Woo-hoo!

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

I think the Janet fading has much more to with her being an aging pop star who is past her prime and not as readily able to market her sex appeal, and also having an absolute loony of a brother who tends to hog the tabloid spotlight.

Timberlake, on the otherhand, is still a rising star. But sooner or later, he too will be old, out of touch, and maybe being embarrassed by a relative.