Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT, xongsmith (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 50/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 226 of 310 (397557)
04-26-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 9:32 AM


Re: No to Censorship
Ah but you are so wrong.

Here is one study done a year ago.
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/release/2006/0302.asp

Are you dense? That "study" simply discusses the amount of violence present in childrens programming and has nothing whatsoever to say about the actual effects of violent programming on children, which is the only thing relevant to this discussion.

Not to mention, I wouldn't trust a study from the Parent's Television Council even if it DID relate to the effects. Show me a single, conclusive study done by an unbiased (ie, a major state university) source that says "violent programming has this specific detrimental effect when shown to young children," and I'll concede the point.

Until then, your red herrings are a waste of my time.

A Christian view on it, that claims to base this article on a scientific study, from journel Science?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0329/p01s05-ussc.html

Again, not an unbiased source, and on top of that it speaks to the effect of watching TV at all, regardless of content! The study found that watching more TV makes kids more likely to be "violent," but it doesn't matter if they watch Blade or the freaking Telletubbies. Come on, Rat. Actually reading and thinking about your sources might help your argument.

As a matter of fact, right this very morning a 3 year study was released By some group for the FCC (I think I got that right was half asleep when they annouced it)that violence on TV does affect the people who watch it. It was announced on CNN, and the FCC will be using that to further censore the airwaves. The trick is doing that without enfringing the first ammendment.

Then link it. Judging by the quality (or lack thereof) of your other responses, I seriously doubt it actually says what you think it says. Until you provide a link to the actual study, I call bullshit.

And ANY restriction of media based on content is a violation of the First Amendment, unless the speech directly causes harm (like yelling "Fire!" in a theater to cause a stampede). That's why the rest of us don't think you or the FCC or anyone else should be able to censor content.

but I really don't see what this has to do with your issue--unless you want to control what other parent's kids watch.

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.

I didn't say that, so I'd appreciate if you got your quotes straight. Regardless, I'll thank you to get your nose the hell out of other people's business with raising THEIR kids until you can prove, conclusively, that the parents are doing harm.


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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 04-26-2007 9:30 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 234 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 11:24 PM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 227 of 310 (397558)
04-26-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Doddy
04-26-2007 1:34 AM


Re: No to Censorship
Last week's New Scientist had a big feature on this. Lots of studies, with fMRIs and everything, were mentioned. I don't have a copy though.

And what did the study actually say? I've seen many studies regarding television and video game violence and their effects on youth, and every single one I've seen has been inconclusive. Provide a link to an actual peer-reviewed study performed by an unbiased source that claims to conclusively show that violent media causes measurable harm to children, and I'll concede the point.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Doddy, posted 04-26-2007 1:34 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Doddy, posted 04-26-2007 11:45 PM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 228 of 310 (397561)
04-26-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
04-25-2007 9:04 PM


Re: Let them eat "boobies"
Oh Yeah?

lol

I wonder if Rat, or anyone else, can point to the age where exactly breasts become "dangerous." I mean, since we censor them and the other sexual organs as if they would surely burn our retinas and turn our children into rampaging monsters, there must be a point where the child no longer says "mmm, lunch!"

People so easily fail to realize that our social taboos with regards to sex are based on the discomfort of the adults when discussing sex, and have nothing to do with certain "damage" to the children if they should learn adults' horrible, dirty, shameful secret. There are other cultures, some even within the US, where nudity and human sexuality carry no social taboos, and these societies are hardly "evil."


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 04-25-2007 9:04 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 11:26 PM Rahvin has responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 229 of 310 (397611)
04-26-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 9:32 AM


Lock Me Up!
riVeRat writes:

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.

I showed what was once an X-rated movie to my daughter when she was 6.

She has been a Kubrick fan ever since. :laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 9:32 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 454 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 responded

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

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 231 of 310 (397619)
04-26-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by nator
04-26-2007 9:30 PM


Re: No to Censorship
What, private schools are biased nowadays?

We'll have to throw out the Harvard and Yale source material then.

hehe, point taken. But if it comes from a fundie school (and I think everybody knows the type I mean), I'd be more than a little skeptical of the study. And if it comes from an already anti-violence/sex group like Focus on the Family, I'd trust the study even less.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 04-26-2007 9:30 PM nator has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 232 of 310 (397630)
04-26-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by nator
04-26-2007 11:27 AM


Re: No to Censorship
You seem to want the government to do it for you.

Yep, sure, just like they watch out for us in so many other arenas.
To me, if left alone, this population would be out of control, and freedom would be non-existent.

It's a catch 22.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18279671/

This is on the heels of a 3 year study that shows that kids watching violence on Tv, become more violent.

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?

Do I need to explain the difference between an accident, and intentional to you?

If your neighbor took their 6 year old to a museum that had nude art, would you call social services on them?

Should I explain the difference between art, and porno?

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?

and finally, do I need to explain the difference between education, and fetish?

ABE
Here ya go too
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Factsheets/factvchip.html

Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 04-26-2007 11:27 AM nator has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 233 of 310 (397632)
04-26-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ReverendDG
04-26-2007 2:20 PM


Re: No to Censorship
see this is what i'm talking about, cheers to you! you make it sound like you are a martyr for being a parent.
sorry but this is what you get for having kids, if you don't like the tv get rid of it, or accept it.

Bullshit, it's America, I can voice my opinion, and try and do something about it, if it does prove to be valid, and with the release of several studies done lately, it seems I do havbe a valid point. Funny thing is, I did not need a study to realize what I am talking about.

"you can only understand when you are a parent!"

It's true.
Maybe you should respect that, seems like enough people have told you already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ReverendDG, posted 04-26-2007 2:20 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 234 of 310 (397633)
04-26-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rahvin
04-26-2007 2:59 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Are you dense? That "study" simply discusses the amount of violence present in childrens programming

Shouldn't your brain take over from there?

Show me a single, conclusive study done by an unbiased (ie, a major state university) source that says "violent programming has this specific detrimental effect when shown to young children," and I'll concede the point.

It's coming, it was released today, waiting for it to surface on the net.

I didn't say that, so I'd appreciate if you got your quotes straight.

Of course you didn't say that, do you need to point that out?
I try to condense my posts on occasion.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by kuresu, posted 04-26-2007 11:28 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 11:34 PM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 235 of 310 (397634)
04-26-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rahvin
04-26-2007 3:07 PM


Re: Let them eat "boobies"
I wonder if Rat, or anyone else, can point to the age where exactly breasts become "dangerous." I mean, since we censor them and the other sexual organs as if they would surely burn our retinas and turn our children into rampaging monsters, there must be a point where the child no longer says "mmm, lunch!"

Why does this need to be explained to you?
Isn't it obvious, that breasts alone are not offensive, but the context in which they are presented?

A girl in a bikini, could be twice as harmful to a child based on the context, compared to a naked/statue/breast feeding picture
(omg that was so funny)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 3:07 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 11:42 PM riVeRraT has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 797 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 236 of 310 (397635)
04-26-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 11:24 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Of course you didn't say that, do you need to point that out?
I try to condense my posts on occasion.

then clarify the condensed parts. you know, like say:

kuresu wrote "X"

don't leave people in the dark thinking you're an idiot.

hint--i wrote that last quoted bit that rahvin is complaining about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 11:24 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 237 of 310 (397637)
04-26-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 11:24 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Shouldn't your brain take over from there?

So, you ARE dense. Let me spell it out: showing that the level of violence present in childrens programming is increasing has absoluitely nothing whatsoever to do with showing that the violence is damaging or harming the children.

It's coming, it was released today, waiting for it to surface on the net.

By all means, post it when it's available. In my experience, the media (and Congress, unfortunately) tends to jump the gun with such subjects and write articles insinuating that violent media causes future real-world violence, when the studies they quote say no such thing. It's the result of the all-too-common brainbug you've demonstrated. Saying "isn't it obvious" when the evidence has not shown something to be true is an argument from incredulity.

Of course you didn't say that, do you need to point that out?
I try to condense my posts on occasion.

I'd ask that you specify to whom you are replying, then, just to make it easier to respond for the rest of us.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 11:24 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 7:59 AM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 238 of 310 (397640)
04-26-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 11:26 PM


Re: Let them eat "boobies"
Why does this need to be explained to you?
Isn't it obvious, that breasts alone are not offensive, but the context in which they are presented?

A girl in a bikini, could be twice as harmful to a child based on the context, compared to a naked/statue/breast feeding picture

HOW does it harm children? HOW are "boobies" somehow dangerous? HOW do sexual organs being visible, or honest discussions about sex harm children? When that baby in the amusing picture Jar postes saw a pair of tits, he wanted a snack. At what age do breasts suddenly HARM him, instead? Regardless of context. And HOW, exactly, does the harm manifest?

Can you point to any actual real-world harm caused by nudity or consensual sex being shown, other than your discomfort and personal gut reaction?

I saw nudity when I was a kid. I even saw some porn. It made me giggle and laugh. It did not harm me.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 11:26 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 8:07 AM Rahvin has responded

Doddy
Member (Idle past 4193 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 239 of 310 (397645)
04-26-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rahvin
04-26-2007 2:59 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). "Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532-539.

Mathews, V. P., Kronenberger, W. G., Wang, Y., Lurito, J. T., Lowe, M. J., & Dunn, D. W. (2005). "Media violence exposure and frontal lobe activation measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in aggressive and nonaggressive adolescents." Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 29 (3), 287–292.

Those should get you started. Look through the papers cited in those or the papers citing those to get more. It's pretty non-controversial in neuroscience.

The question is whether being more violent is actually 'harm', or whether it is acceptable. But certainly, exposure to violence causes susceptibility to violent behaviour.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2007 2:59 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Rahvin, posted 04-27-2007 12:02 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 240 of 310 (397651)
04-27-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Doddy
04-26-2007 11:45 PM


Re: No to Censorship
Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). "Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532-539.

Mathews, V. P., Kronenberger, W. G., Wang, Y., Lurito, J. T., Lowe, M. J., & Dunn, D. W. (2005). "Media violence exposure and frontal lobe activation measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in aggressive and nonaggressive adolescents." Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 29 (3), 287–292.

Those should get you started. Look through the papers cited in those or the papers citing those to get more. It's pretty non-controversial in neuroscience.

The question is whether being more violent is actually 'harm', or whether it is acceptable. But certainly, exposure to violence causes susceptibility to violent behaviour.

Thank you for not simply talking out of your ass like Rat. A quick Google of those articles didn't show me much, so I'll need to dig a little deeper to read the full text.

But "Media violence exposure and frontal lobe activation measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in aggressive and nonaggressive adolescents" simply means brain activity was measured, and does NOT mean that violent actions were caused. And, as you yourself pointed out, violent thoughts are not necessarily harm.

Realistically, only a child's parents can possibly tell whether a child is being adversely affected by anything as nebulous as media exposure, violent or otherwise, as no study (so far as I am aware) has shown that violent entertainment casues violent behavior.

I think even Rat will agree that two children from two different families can have compeltely different reactions to identical exposure to media based on other factors including their culture's societal norms and taboos, and their relationships with their parents.

Until it can be demonstrated that violent or sexual content truly does harm children (and not just "some" children, or casue an "increased predisposition"), censorship should NOT be forced on the population uniformly by the government. I see no evidence so far to warrant bending the rights given in the Constitution to accommodate gut reactions and brain activity suggestive of violent thought patterns.

I should be able to let my kid watch whatever I choose to let him/her watch, so long as I take into consideration the child's mental and emotional state.

Rat is complaining that an ad for Desperate Housewives was shown on television while his kids were watching. While I can understand his desire to make the choice for his own kids, he should not be able to restrict such content from reaching anyone else when no objective harm can be demonstrated against his child.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Doddy, posted 04-26-2007 11:45 PM Doddy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 04-27-2007 8:15 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019