Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 217 of 310 (397393)
04-25-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by riVeRraT
04-25-2007 8:56 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
Tell me, would you do antything if you found out your neighbor was showing adult films to his 6 year old?
No.
If I found out he was letting the 6 year old watch Top Gun, though, I think I'd take him aside and confront him about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by riVeRraT, posted 04-25-2007 8:56 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 310 (397530)
04-26-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 9:32 AM


Re: No to Censorship
The first link you mention is just a catalogue of the violence in children's television. It mentions nothing at all about the effects of the violence. It simply assumes that it's harmful but doesn't support that assumption.
Your second link was a mixed bag, with no clear link either way.
Some excerpts from your link:
One study last year found a 25 percent decrease in violence in a San Jose, Calif., grade school where kids received classroom lessons in media awareness and were asked to watch only seven hours of TV a week for several months.
Media awareness, rat. You know, that "supervision" and "guidence" that we've been talking about in this thread.
To my thinking, parents should be doing that.
You seem to want the government to do it for you.
Adolescents who watched more than one hour a day of television - regardless of content - were roughly four times more likely to commit aggressive acts toward other people later in their lives than those who watched less than one hour. Of those who watched more than three hours, 28.8 percent were later involved in assaults, robberies, fights, and other aggressive behavior.
So, regardless of what the kids watched, they were more aggressive if they watched more TV.
quote:
Yes, I am concerned for all our youth. And if my neighbor was showing porn to a 6 year old, you bet I would call social services in about a half a heartbeat.
If one of your 6 year olds ever walked in on you and your wife in an intimate moment, should we call social services on you?
If your neighbor took their 6 year old to a museum that had nude art, would you call social services on them?
If your neighbor had their 6 year old watch a sex education program that included nudity and depictions of the sex act, would you call social services on them?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 9:32 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 11:16 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 310 (397615)
04-26-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rahvin
04-26-2007 2:59 PM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
Show me a single, conclusive study done by an unbiased (ie, a major state university) source...
What, private schools are biased nowadays?
We'll have to throw out the Harvard and Yale source material then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 2:59 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 10:01 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 244 of 310 (397685)
04-27-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 7:59 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
"A national opinion poll shows that 80% of Americans believe television violence is harmful to society."
57% of Americans believe in the existence of ESP.
A really good article about scientific illiteracy in the US and Europe. It isn't good news
Does that mean that ESP really exists, or does it only mean that people believe it does?
At one time, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, but that didn't make it true, now did it?
Reality is not determined by majority belief.
quote:
We don't need a survey to tell us that we as a nation feel violence is harmful to society.
Hold on, now.
Violence is indeed harmful to society. Real violence.
But what we have been talking about is violence in children's programming on TV, and if it has a harmful effect upon children, not all violence in society.
Please do not move the goalposts.
quote:
So it only stands to reason, that an increase in violence on TV, is not a good thing, and the airwaves need to be more censored.
You have not demonstrated that children seeing violence on TV results in more violent behavior, or damages children in any way. I am not saying that it doesn't harm them, by the way. I am open to the idea that it isn't good. You have simply not supported your claim, that's all.
Until you do, anything you say is not based upon fact but upon nothing more than your biases and prejudices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 7:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:18 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 310 (397690)
04-27-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 8:15 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
My original complaint was that a bunch of 3-7 year olds witnessed a person getting his head blown off in full detail during a basketball game on a Sunday afternoon.
We have proceeded with this discussion assuming your memory of this incident is accurate, but I am not so sure.
What can you remember about it, and can you find any reference to it on the internet?
Surely, if this really happened on a sunday afternoon, many, many people would have contacted the network to complain and it would have been reported.
I think it is likely that you are misremembering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 8:15 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 256 of 310 (397826)
04-27-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by riVeRraT
04-27-2007 5:18 PM


Re: No to Censorship
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.
I think it is likely that you are misremembering.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 5:18 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by riVeRraT, posted 05-01-2007 5:00 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 272 of 310 (399116)
05-03-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by riVeRraT
05-02-2007 9:33 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
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.
Presumably, you have read one or more of these studies.
Exactly what are the effects of this violence, both long and short term, according to the studies?
Please list them.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 9:33 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:35 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 273 of 310 (399121)
05-03-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 9:00 AM


Re: No to Censorship
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.
quote:
If 100% of the people do not want Hillary in office, then guess what.
So by your logic, if 100% of the people believe the Earth is flat, it really is flat.
All we have to do, then, is get 100% of the people to believe that we never invaded Iraq, and then those thousands of people will have never died.
Rat, can you please learn to correct yourself?
Every thread descends into you wasting everyone's time stubbornly defending your asinine mistakes as others are forced to explain (over and over) how you were in error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 9:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:25 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 277 of 310 (399149)
05-04-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:04 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
quote:
The study shows that. Maybe you only read the first few pages, and selectively chose to quote what suits you, but the study sites many other studys.
Plus, I do not need a study to know this. As a matter of fact, I am the one who hates studys. I only posted it for the benefit of those that live their lives by the study.
Oh, so you like and accept studies that you think support your personal opinions, but reject and hate those studies that don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:37 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 280 of 310 (399152)
05-04-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:25 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
My comparison was not made, so that what people think, can actually change what is. The comparison was made to show what people want.
No Rat, this is what happened.
You said, "TV violence is bad for kids."
We said, "Prove it. Show us the statistics or the studies."
You then provided a link to a survey of American people's opinions and beliefs about the harm TV violence does to children.
That's not actual evidence, rat, that's just people's beliefs.
YOU posted it when we asked for evidence to support your claim that TV violence caused harm to children.
Why did YOU post it if YOU didn't think that people's opinions constituted evidence of the sort we were requesting?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:48 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 281 of 310 (399154)
05-04-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:37 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
I did, and I come to the same conclusion.
You said that you "hate" and distrust studies in general.
So, I am confused.
Are you posting the study because you believe it supports your argument, so therefore you think it is valid?
Or do you think it is just as invalid as all of the other hated studies, but since your opponents value studies, you thought you'd see if we accept it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:37 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 10:15 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 282 of 310 (399156)
05-04-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:35 AM


also from your source
In other words, the evidence does not prove causation, but it does demonstrate a strong correlation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 284 of 310 (399158)
05-04-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 9:48 AM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
The topic is, should the airwaves be more censored. I posted it to show that I an 80% of the American public think that there is too much violence on TV.
Actually, you posted it in response to our repeated requests for evidence that TV violence causes harm to children.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that source doesn't do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 9:48 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 286 of 310 (399181)
05-04-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Offended beyond words
quote:
Yes, I think it is stupid, because I think that violence on TV watched by children actually causes them to be more violent, and it is more than just a correlation.
We know you think that, rat.
But you haven't demostrated that what you personally believe reflects reality.
Lots of people believe astrology works, that there are canals on Mars, and that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the WTC attacks, but just becasue people believe it doesn't mean it is true.
And I do hope you stop going to conventional doctors, since their knowledge and ability to cure cancer and other diseases is based upon all of those hated studies that you reject. Good luck with the psychic surgeon and the faith healers.
quote:
In the words of my friend who took statistics in college, you can make the study. or the numbers say whatever you want them to say, with enough tweaking.
Of course. However, when others attempt to replicate your study, they will see how much you "tweaked" your numbers and if you "tweaked" them too much, your study's claims will be considered invalidated and it will fade away, never to be cited or built upon by any other researcher.
quote:
I believe they did the best they could, but fall short of actually saying that watching violence on TV actually can be a cause.
Yes. That is because the evidence does not justify that conclusion.
quote:
If the rest of you can't realize that it is a real problem, facing real Americans, and something needs to be done about it, then you guys are hypocrites.
Everyone has the power to do something about it.
You turn the TV off, or you don't have it in your house in the first place, or use the VChip. Or, you make sure you are with your kids when they are watching so you can discuss what they see.
You know...make parenting choices that put your kids first and your own desire to have TV in your home second.
quote:
Causation, correlation? What's the difference?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Causation means that one event is a direct cause of another event.
Correlation means that one event is associated with the incidence of another event but that the second is not directly caused by the first.
For example, one of the studies posted in this thread showed that kids who watch a lot of TV, no matter what the content, were more likely to be violent. Now, is that because they were not expending enough energy, or they were not learning social skills, or were extremely sensitive to any violence in ALL programming, or what?
Don't know.
quote:
Isn't a strong correlation alarming enough?
If it is discovered to be true that ANY TV watching increases violent behavior in kids, will you get rid of your TV?
quote:
Plus the survey doesn't prove that it is not the causation.
No, but it doesn't show that it is. You seem to want to maintain your bias regardless of little evidence to support your beliefs.
quote:
You don't need a study to show that, when a group of kids get done watching a karate movie, then proceed to go into the living room and start kicking each other, until a real fight breaks out, to know just what caused it.
Sure, especially when the parents don't notice that the kids are watching a martial arts film, and don't talk to the kids about what they are seeing in the highly-choreographed stunt scenes, about the physical and mental discipline and control that martial artists must study for years to attain, about how it is all pretend and that the camera angles look like they are hitting each other but they are really missing, etc.
When parents don't parent, bad things can happen from many different sources.
Why do you blame it on Hollywood when nobody forced you to invite Hollywood into your home? Nobody forced you to plop your kids, unguided, in front of the TV to watch a martial arts film.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 10:15 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2007 11:47 AM nator has replied
 Message 292 by NosyNed, posted 05-04-2007 1:15 PM nator has not replied
 Message 295 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 2:18 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 288 of 310 (399192)
05-04-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by New Cat's Eye
05-04-2007 11:47 AM


Re: quick question
quote:
If there are parents out there that don't parent and want to plop their kids in front of the TV, then shouldn't they have regulated airwaves available if they want them?
They can already do that by blocking channels.
TV exists for everybody and did so before parents started using it as a babysitter.
It would be like not allowing the violence, sex, and swearing in R-rated movies because some parents drop their kids off at the theater and don't care what movies they see.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2007 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-04-2007 11:59 AM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024