Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

quote:

---

The networks make money off of showing you and your children this violence.

---

No, actually, they don't.that's because I don't frigging have TV in my house.They are making money off of YOU, riverrat, because you do.

quote:

---

Hell no. And it was many years ago. You don't forget something like that.

---

I am not suggesting that you forgot.I am suggesting that you are misremembering. Like you said, it was many years ago. It is very easy to embellish such a memory and to get details wrong, such as time of day. I have done it myself, many times, for events much more recent than "many years" in the past. Everyone does it, because that's the way memory works.You could easily be constructing a false memory and have conflated two or more incidents into one, for example.That's why I asked you to report what you remember about it. For example, what year was it? What teams were playing? What time of year was it? What was the nature of the "head blowing off" broadcast; news story or ad for a program? If it was a program, which one was it? If it was a news story, was it local or national?Why are you so sure your memory is accurate?

I guess violence hasn't affected you.It says: A national opinion poll shows that 80% of Americans believe television violence is harmful to society.I may be guessing this, but I feel this way also, and they probably feel that way because they can see the affects of watching violence in thier own lives, and do not need a stupid study to confirm this.The fact sheet also continues to say:
The National Television Violence Study identifies three primary effects TV violence has on children: 1) learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors; 2) becoming desensitized to real world violence; and 3) developing a fear of being victimized by violence.This was a 3 year study, and the study confirms this.So not only does the majority of the American public feel this way, the study proves this. Why are you still arguing the opposite?It seems what I have been saying all along is correct, and I am not the fool that people have tried to make me out to be. Proving ESP exists, and knowing if watching violence is harmful are two different things, with different circumstances, another failed comparison. Yes, they have:
Young children, especially under age seven, often cannot distinguish reality from fantasy on television. However, they are capable of imitating and learning from violence in cartoons.In a University of Illinois study, people who had watched the most violent TV between birth and age eight committed the most serious crimes by age 30.Also, everyone's suggestion about v-chips to me, can be thrown out the window. As I stated, v-chips are not effective, and the current ratings systems are voluntary.

quote:

---

The FCC also concluded that existing technology meant to block unwanted programming, such as the V-chip found in many TV sets, is often ineffective. It also criticized the voluntary TV ratings system that warns of violent content.

---

From here: http://www.thestate.com/426/story/49024.htmlApperently the report was released, but I do not know where to find it. These articles only give excerpts from it.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/180152Wait, I found it.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/...blic/attachmatch/FCC-07-50A1.docI havne't had a chance to read it, I will tomorrow.

I agree with all that, but this was so outstanding in my memory, and I talked about it frequently over the years, so I would not have forgotten it. Not sure the year, but I have trouble remembering years, it was about 5-7 years ago, as I remeber my nieces being about 4 years old, and they are 9-10 now.
Knicks were playing, on NBC, and the nature of it was a commercial for a movie.I mean all of this is irrelevent anyway, according to the FCC fact sheet:
American television is the most violent in the world. About 60% of TV programs contain violence. An hour of prime-time television includes about five violent acts.1 An hour of children's Saturday morning programming includes 20 to 26 violent acts.The average American child will witness 12,000 violent acts on television each year, amounting to about 200,000 violent acts by the time he turns 18 years old.200,000 violent acts? And this has no affect on the children?Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I'm assuming you mean aside from all the laughter whenever one of Wil E. Coyote's plans backfire?Can't say what effect it had on me aside from that. As in, what effect? Have I become more violent? I try to not fight. don't like to. warped my "fragile" mind?I mean come on, what level of violence are we talking here? Someone getting hit by running into a tree? Or someone getting their guts ripped out by Hannibal? Most of those kiddie shows have minor violent acts. Never mind, this is all pointless anyhow. go and censure the living hell out of your kids. Just don't mess with my tv.

That makes it sound like even more BS, the MPAA (the agency that gives out the movie ratings) has final approval over all forms of a film's advertising, they would never let that kind of content air in a TV spot at any time of day.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I was wondering that very thing this morning.
As a Christian, I believe it is in our heart to know God, and to be peaceful and loving. Even if your not a Christian, there must some kind of interneal battle that goes on, when all around you are acts of violence, and yet we desire to be loved, and to love.But you ask yourself a good question, just how does it affect you? I am glad you are asking. So then ask yourself (or just read the study, and the several other study's that it quotes done over the last 30 years) just what does it do to our kids. Maybe you'll change your mind about it.If anything, at least I made you aware.

Listen, you don't have to believe me, but then again, you do not have to watch TV long at all to see what I am talking about.BTW, ratings are voluntary.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I've been watching TV for almost 30 years now and I have never seen a person getting their head blown off in "full detail" in a commercial at any time of day. Yes submitting your film to the MPAA is voluntary, but there are few theater chains that are going to show an unrated movie.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

100% of people used to believe the Earth is flat. They were wrong. A survey showing how many people, even if it's the majority of people, feel or believe a certain way is evidence only of how they feel. It has no relationship whatsoever to reality. No, you're still wrong. Here's what your study, quoted directly, says:

quote:

---

6.research provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in children, at least in the short term.

---

quote:

---

There has been some dispute regarding the amount of research in the field of television violence and aggression.

---

Emphasis mine.Some of the thousands of studies that have done show a possible correlation with increased aggressive behavior, increased antisocial behavior, and fear of being victimized by violence after viewing violence in the media.Some.There are a large number of studies whose results do not reflect these results, and the fact is, I wouldn't even categorize these results as "harm." A short-term behavioral change?Here's the most telling quote:

quote:

---

Regarding causation, however, the studies appear to be less conclusive. Most researchers and investigators agree that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or even necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Although a consensus among researchers exists regarding the empirical relationships, significant differences remain over the interpretation of these associations and their implications for public policy.

---

A correllation, not causation. In other words, the behavioral changes cannot be directly attributed to viewing violent media. Their home environment, parents, and a whole host of other factors contribute to make a child "more or less likely" to engage in violent behavior.You're acting like this study proves that violence on TV makes kids go outside and fight, torture puppies, and pull the legs off of spiders. That's not the case. It shows a correlation. Perhaps the children who watch violent media simply have parents who don't pay any attention to their kids - not only what they watch, but also in providing them the basic set of rules like "don't kick Jimmy, even if you see it on TV." The harm, there, is in the parents who don't help their kids learn. And that can be done without censorship. As I recall, you're the one who used that analogy. I was simply refuting you. Which is a correlation, not causation. That study does not prove that violent TV causes violent behavior, only that they are correlated. Knives are correllated with stabbings. Do knives cause stabbings? Or is the presence of a knife simply an enabling factor for an unrelated cause? Voluntary doesn't mean ineffective, and whether v-chips work effectively or not does not eliminate the fact that it is YOUR choice to have a TV in the house, and YOUR responsibility to control what your children watch, if you wish to do so. It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether violent imagery causes harm.You finally attempted to provide actual evidence other than an opinion survey, Rat, and that's a good change. But really - read your sources before you post them, and think about what they really mean. Your study is not the "hands-down, violent media harms kids, WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!" proof you think it is.Aren't you a conservative, Rat? Aren't you supposed to be all about "personal resposibility?" Whose responsibility is it to raise YOUR kids? I don't think it's Uncle Sam's. I think parents should take responsibility for raising their own children, and not try to force their views and shift the blame onto everybody else.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Couldn't have said it better myself.Government can't do a better job of raising my daughter than I can because they simply don't and can't care as much. To impose by force such government interference not only takes away our rights but also our greater love and resultant capabilities.For example, right now I am trying to get my daughter into college because her own teachers admit her capabilities are beyond their ability to properly teach her. Yet who is (temporarily) standing in the way, the administrators. Why?, because they want her high scores in their reports to the state.Who is looking out for her interests and who is only concerned with their own interests, the parent or the bureaucrats?If there is no cooperation, she will be homeschooled from here on.Remember, my daughter has been a fan of those violent and sexually explicit Kubrick movies since seeing the formerly X-rated Clockwork Orange at age six. So I guess Riverrat had better call the authorities on me for my 'child abuse' as he said he would do in a previous post.Besides the police here haven't had a good laugh since my inlaws called them on us for 'abusing' my mother-in-law for taking care of her instead of abandoning her, as they did.

I have only seen it once in 35+ years, so it is not the norm. However, this conversation is not limited to this one isolated inccident, but several that happen by the hour, as the report concludes.

If 100% of the people do not want Hillary in office, then guess what. You have unfairly quoted the survey, and took things out of context.
There are studys that show it happens for the long run too, and they are included in the report.
There have been close to 200-250 studys done on violence on TV, and it's affects on children.Your taking those quotes out of context is so bad, it is just about lying. There has not been thousands of studys, on this particular subject.What's even more funny, is that I think a few people claimed in this thread, that there never has been a study that reveals what I am talking about, yet there has been hundreds. Those are the same kids, that will be hanging out with your kids. No I wasn't. I try to stay away from comparisons, unless they are relative. I think you need a wake-up call. The FCC confirms that v-chips are not completely effective. I never said it does. No, I am not.
I believe in Jesus and God, that does not make me a conservative, or a fundie, I wish people here would stop that shit. It is very simple, I don't want my kids catching all these violent acts on television, or the kids my kids hang otu with. It is like an infectious desease, and there is no way it can be good for the youth of our nation. There is absoloutly no call for all this violence.And the same right that I have to take TV out of my house, gives me the right to voice my opinion. TV is public, so the public should have something to say about it. If you don't agree, then you are un-American.

If you die tomorrow, and there was no-one else to take care of your kid, then you bet the government would be over-seeing the raising of your kid.If it is proven that kids watching too much violence is not good for them, then why support it? It is not a black and white issue. It is subjective to each individual.While you showed that to your child at age 6, I would not have. I also don't want x-rated commercials popping up during a kids show, just because we live in a free society. If I want to show my kids something that is beyond what is recommended, I can go rent the movie and show it to them.Saying that your kid is such a good kid, and so good in school, does not prove that the movie had an affect on her or not.

And you have never shown that x-rated commercials pop up during a kids show.Strawman and palm the pea time?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

lol, rat. So now I'm not an american if I disagree with you? Lol.For your information, Tv shows are controlled by private companies, and those shows are broadcasted by private companies. Last I checked, Nickelodeon nor Disney nor DirecTv were public. Our schools are (well, the vast majority of the them).And here's a hint--the "public" at EvC is saying something about this, we just don't agree with your stance that the FCC should be able to strictly censure what is broadcasted.too funny rat, too funny. We disagree so now we're un-"american". Last I checked, my US passport is still valid. Guess that means I'm still an "american".