Today there is violence in the media. Do you all think this is really making violent acts more or worse or no effect at all?
It seems like most movies and movies games i see or play have some sort of violence. Do you think there should be less or more or just the same amount?
This just seems like something that comes up a lot when discussing large media events.
I don't really think that it should be decreased. People are going to commit violent acts anyway, regardless. Over censoring can easily become a bad thing. If you want to see an example of the horrible side of filtering violence and 'bad' materials from video games, look at Australia. (Not trying to offend you guys, just saying the truth.)
Violence? That's fine. Nothing wrong with a few decapitated heads and whatnot. But by God, if my kid sees a nipple, all hell will break loose.
your kid can see a nipple so long as it has been separated from the body by a bomb or rusted knife just not attached to the body :)
I think there's a point where an individual is no longer influenced by the kinds of things they see in media. At least to the extent that watching violence will not cause that person to become violent. But, at a younger age this may not necessarily be true (where that age is would differ from individual to individual.) Does that mean we should remove or reduce violence in the media? No. This is why children grow up with parents. Parents should be teaching their children and taking the responsibility for what their child is exposed to (be that violence or any kind of graphic material). This does not mean sheltering the child completely. That would be almost as bad as over exposure. The key, I think, is teaching the child about what they are exposed to and showing it to them in such a way that the child understands that what they are seeing is fake. At the same time it is also the parents responsibility to know when the child is ready to be exposed to these things.
In other words, by forcibly removing violence (or graphic material) from the media we are saying that we are not responsible enough as adults to do this for our children. Some people probably aren't. And these people should not be raising children. But I don't feel everyone should be punished for certain people's failings.
Does anyone besides me (and Jake, as his post was trying to convey) find the HUGE irony in the fact that we have movies, games, and even television for all to see with massive amounts of blood, violence, and gore, but if you so much as have a woman's nipple, you're demonized. God forbid you show SEX.
Conclusion: Violence, murder, and other things that bring suffering and misery to those involved are completely okay to show. Sexual acts involving pleasure, love, and happiness are works OF TEH DEVIL!!!
!@#$ this country, and !@#$ the 'Puritans' who started it.
Quote from: Mystery on March 17, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
I don't really think that it should be decreased. People are going to commit violent acts anyway, regardless. Over censoring can easily become a bad thing. If you want to see an example of the horrible side of filtering violence and 'bad' materials from video games, look at Australia's censored games, eg Left 4 Dead 2. (Not trying to offend you guys, just saying the truth.)
Fixed it :D
I blame the parents, that's all I have to say.
Quote from: JoEL on March 18, 2010, 06:56:00 AM
I blame the parents, that's all I have to say.
I somewhat agree with this.
There are killing shows that can even be rated PG. The show Monk (great show but sadly had its last season) was PG and he was a homocide investigator. Parental guidence (PG) means they could be 5 and still watch the show.(Parents fault here)
Then there is a show, Criminal Minds, that is rated pg13. The other day an insane lady was kidnapping children; and then grew tired or angry at them. To dispose of them she burned them alive. She drugged them then took them to a funeral home place and burned them in a furnace. Later the insane husband placed the bones of the boy into a grinder and made the boy into ashes. Two hours earlier the boy was alive (not living well since he was kidnapped but alive still.) Yes this is a TV show and I may seem like I am overacting, but PG13 means you dont have to be 13 to see this. It is just suggested. My family doesn't ever let my 11 year old brother watch the show. What are the chances that a 5 year old kid watched this? Extrodinarly low.
So to prove my point, the rules of TV violence should be inforced more. We should stop children from watching this stuff. This would reduce crimerate overall (stop crime in TV for kids, kids dont get bad ideas, kids dont break law as adults.)
But everyone has faults too. My parents let me watch Kill Bill when I was like 12. Thats because I was a good kid (a trouble maker but never in fights, or anything worse then a few jokes.) I could handel that. I knew what death was and they let me watch it because it was a good movie. They weren't trying to brainwash me into killing people. BUT I am sure some parents let there 12 year old kid watch it when there kid was getting into fights, bullying, hurting animals etc. I feel it is ok if I was to watch the movie and it is't ok for them to watch it.
Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Does anyone besides me (and Jake, as his post was trying to convey) find the HUGE irony in the fact that we have movies, games, and even television for all to see with massive amounts of blood, violence, and gore, but if you so much as have a woman's nipple, you're demonized. God forbid you show SEX.
Conclusion: Violence, murder, and other things that bring suffering and misery to those involved are completely okay to show. Sexual acts involving pleasure, love, and happiness are works OF TEH DEVIL!!!
!@#$ this country, and !@#$ the 'Puritans' who started it.
I think the real question is not about violence... But it's why are there always titties shown in movies, always always, but never a penor?
Think about that one.
Sexist bastards
Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Does anyone besides me (and Jake, as his post was trying to convey) find the HUGE irony in the fact that we have movies, games, and even television for all to see with massive amounts of blood, violence, and gore, but if you so much as have a woman's nipple, you're demonized. God forbid you show SEX.
Conclusion: Violence, murder, and other things that bring suffering and misery to those involved are completely okay to show. Sexual acts involving pleasure, love, and happiness are works OF TEH DEVIL!!!
!@#$ this country, and !@#$ the 'Puritans' who started it.
I agree. I added in my post along with violence, graphic material. By that I mean anything explicit in nature. Nudity/sexual content would be included in that. It's not okay for kids of a certain age to watch that. But yes I agree that violence is worse than sex... clearly.
Quote from: DarkTrinity on March 18, 2010, 12:12:40 PM
Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Does anyone besides me (and Jake, as his post was trying to convey) find the HUGE irony in the fact that we have movies, games, and even television for all to see with massive amounts of blood, violence, and gore, but if you so much as have a woman's nipple, you're demonized. God forbid you show SEX.
Conclusion: Violence, murder, and other things that bring suffering and misery to those involved are completely okay to show. Sexual acts involving pleasure, love, and happiness are works OF TEH DEVIL!!!
!@#$ this country, and !@#$ the 'Puritans' who started it.
I think the real question is not about violence... But it's why are there always titties shown in movies, always always, but never a penor?
Think about that one.
Sexist bastards
Both guys and girls have nipples, just girls have breasts; thus it's not a big a deal to show breasts (My opinion).
I think that there should be a new level of rating- bring the X back. All those horror movies and even some good but correct stuff like Brave Heart should be X. The disturbing pg13 should be the new R, and so on. So people can be a bit more precise on what to show to whom.
At the beginning of South Park shows they have: 'the contents of this video should not be viewed by anyone' or something like that. This is true, but some (most) people enjoy South Park. Many movies should not be viewed by anyone, but that doesn't make them a crime to watch.
Hard to convey my point, but I tried...
~Aqua
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:24:18 PM
Nudity/sexual content would be included in that. It's not okay for kids of a certain age to watch that.
Why's that?
I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I'm not encouraging ANY form of censorship. Frankly, when I have children, I'm not going to 'protect' them from seeing nudity, sex, violence, etc. Instead, I'm going to actually do my JOB as a parent and explain these things in a mature, scientific way. In my opinion, hiding knowledge from others is one of the worst things you can do. Mind you, I'm not going to go out of my way to show these things to my children, but when they do come across them, I will explain in full.
Quote from: Chaos on March 18, 2010, 03:42:51 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:24:18 PM
Nudity/sexual content would be included in that. It's not okay for kids of a certain age to watch that.
Why's that?
I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I'm not encouraging ANY form of censorship. Frankly, when I have children, I'm not going to 'protect' them from seeing nudity, sex, violence, etc. Instead, I'm going to actually do my JOB as a parent and explain these things in a mature, scientific way. In my opinion, hiding knowledge from others is one of the worst things you can do. Mind you, I'm not going to go out of my way to show these things to my children, but when they do come across them, I will explain in full.
And suggest the best sites!
Seeing violence really doesn't have such an effect on people as conservatives try to get across. You don't play a violent game and than feel an urge to go people. You know that it's just a game, and you know it's morally wrong to kill. Those that are going to kill or steal will anyways, without the help of games/media. Those who wont, wont. It's always bugged me when someone does some sort of crime, and than the media points at the fact that they play WoW/Halo or w/e excessively and that it must be the cause. More than likely, the real issue is said kid is already really crazy and just has an obsession.
Quote from: Chaos on March 18, 2010, 03:42:51 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:24:18 PM
Nudity/sexual content would be included in that. It's not okay for kids of a certain age to watch that.
Why's that?
I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I'm not encouraging ANY form of censorship. Frankly, when I have children, I'm not going to 'protect' them from seeing nudity, sex, violence, etc. Instead, I'm going to actually do my JOB as a parent and explain these things in a mature, scientific way. In my opinion, hiding knowledge from others is one of the worst things you can do. Mind you, I'm not going to go out of my way to show these things to my children, but when they do come across them, I will explain in full.
So you would show a 2 year old kid a porn video, or a video of people being mutilated? I'm just saying there's limits. I would make sure that as the child grows that they are only exposed to things I feel they are able to process. You can't show a 2 year old kid a video of people having anal sex and then explain it to them and then they're okay with it. No amount of explanation will work on a 2 year old. They see what they see and they process it how they process it.
By the way I speak from experience here. I was about 18 when my younger brother was 2. I went through the experience of trying to reason with a 2 year old (I wasn't explaining porn to him... but any kind of reasoning or logic is what I'm referring to). It just doesn't work. Their thought process is different at that stage.
Anyways, Chaos, I kind of agree with you, but only to a certain level. I would have to judge if the child was ready to even experience the given content before showing it to them, or allowing them to see it. At which point, yes, I would try my best to make sure they understand what they are seeing and that they can adjust to this new experience. I know well enough that teenagers are going to want to watch porn and/or violent movies. I'm not going to stop them at that age.
Quote from: Chaos on March 18, 2010, 03:42:51 PM
In my opinion, hiding knowledge from others is one of the worst things you can do.
I bet you're gonna tell them Santa Claus isn't real, aren't you?... Asshole!
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: Chaos on March 18, 2010, 03:42:51 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:24:18 PM
Nudity/sexual content would be included in that. It's not okay for kids of a certain age to watch that.
Why's that?
I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I'm not encouraging ANY form of censorship. Frankly, when I have children, I'm not going to 'protect' them from seeing nudity, sex, violence, etc. Instead, I'm going to actually do my JOB as a parent and explain these things in a mature, scientific way. In my opinion, hiding knowledge from others is one of the worst things you can do. Mind you, I'm not going to go out of my way to show these things to my children, but when they do come across them, I will explain in full.
So you would show a 2 year old kid a porn video, or a video of people being mutilated? I'm just saying there's limits. I would make sure that as the child grows that they are only exposed to things I feel they are able to process. You can't show a 2 year old kid a video of people having anal sex and then explain it to them and then they're okay with it. No amount of explanation will work on a 2 year old. They see what they see and they process it how they process it.
By the way I speak from experience here. I was about 18 when my younger brother was 2. I went through the experience of trying to reason with a 2 year old (I wasn't explaining porn to him... but any kind of reasoning or logic is what I'm referring to). It just doesn't work. Their thought process is different at that stage.
Anyways, Chaos, I kind of agree with you, but only to a certain level. I would have to judge if the child was ready to even experience the given content before showing it to them, or allowing them to see it. At which point, yes, I would try my best to make sure they understand what they are seeing and that they can adjust to this new experience. I know well enough that teenagers are going to want to watch porn and/or violent movies. I'm not going to stop them at that age.
Reread my post. Specifically, the last sentence.
In what situation, precisely, are you proposing that a 2 year old is going to stumble upon a porn video, or a video of a kid being mutilated?
Quote from: Seifer on March 18, 2010, 04:13:47 PM
Seeing violence really doesn't have such an effect on people as conservatives try to get across. You don't play a violent game and than feel an urge to go people. You know that it's just a game, and you know it's morally wrong to kill. Those that are going to kill or steal will anyways, without the help of games/media. Those who wont, wont. It's always bugged me when someone does some sort of crime, and than the media points at the fact that they play WoW/Halo or w/e excessively and that it must be the cause. More than likely, the real issue is said kid is already really crazy and just has an obsession.
Pfft, I don't know about you, but hours of grand theft auto has certainly changed what I think about when we're driving down the street and I see pedestrians crossing. I would agree that when crimes are committed, violence in media shouldn't be tied directly, but you can't say it isn't tied at all. After a while of constantly seeing violence, you get used to it, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to you, and when you're suddenly given a choice to commit such violence, your chances of doing so are definitely increased. Say your friend hands you a gun and says we're going to rob a gas station. Right then and there, with all those choices and consequences running through your head, the fact that violence doesn't bother you Could change your decision. It doesn't mean it will, and it doesn't mean playing violent video games makes you a violent person, but you can't cancel it out as a factor.
Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Does anyone besides me (and Jake, as his post was trying to convey) find the HUGE irony in the fact that we have movies, games, and even television for all to see with massive amounts of blood, violence, and gore, but if you so much as have a woman's nipple, you're demonized. God forbid you show SEX.
That sort of relates to my theory, there is death and killing going on around the world. Hell, as you read that sentence, someone just died by unnatural causes, likely caused by someone else, and there was plenty of exposure. Hell, there are men and women fight across these seas for your F'N FREEDOM and you CAN'T WHIP OUT A TIT!?! I've earned my right to demand that of any woman I happen to walk by!
Quote from: Lucifer on March 18, 2010, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: Seifer on March 18, 2010, 04:13:47 PM
Seeing violence really doesn't have such an effect on people as conservatives try to get across. You don't play a violent game and than feel an urge to go people. You know that it's just a game, and you know it's morally wrong to kill. Those that are going to kill or steal will anyways, without the help of games/media. Those who wont, wont. It's always bugged me when someone does some sort of crime, and than the media points at the fact that they play WoW/Halo or w/e excessively and that it must be the cause. More than likely, the real issue is said kid is already really crazy and just has an obsession.
Pfft, I don't know about you, but hours of grand theft auto has certainly changed what I think about when we're driving down the street and I see pedestrians crossing. I would agree that when crimes are committed, violence in media shouldn't be tied directly, but you can't say it isn't tied at all. After a while of constantly seeing violence, you get used to it, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to you, and when you're suddenly given a choice to commit such violence, your chances of doing so are definitely increased. Say your friend hands you a gun and says we're going to rob a gas station. Right then and there, with all those choices and consequences running through your head, the fact that violence doesn't bother you Could change your decision. It doesn't mean it will, and it doesn't mean playing violent video games makes you a violent person, but you can't cancel it out as a factor.
You think about it, but you don't act on it. Thats the differance. Right and wrong. You can discern that it would be wrong to act on your thoughts. The violence in media isn't going to change someones way of thinking.
Quote from: Seifer on March 18, 2010, 04:56:30 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on March 18, 2010, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: Seifer on March 18, 2010, 04:13:47 PM
Seeing violence really doesn't have such an effect on people as conservatives try to get across. You don't play a violent game and than feel an urge to go people. You know that it's just a game, and you know it's morally wrong to kill. Those that are going to kill or steal will anyways, without the help of games/media. Those who wont, wont. It's always bugged me when someone does some sort of crime, and than the media points at the fact that they play WoW/Halo or w/e excessively and that it must be the cause. More than likely, the real issue is said kid is already really crazy and just has an obsession.
Pfft, I don't know about you, but hours of grand theft auto has certainly changed what I think about when we're driving down the street and I see pedestrians crossing. I would agree that when crimes are committed, violence in media shouldn't be tied directly, but you can't say it isn't tied at all. After a while of constantly seeing violence, you get used to it, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to you, and when you're suddenly given a choice to commit such violence, your chances of doing so are definitely increased. Say your friend hands you a gun and says we're going to rob a gas station. Right then and there, with all those choices and consequences running through your head, the fact that violence doesn't bother you Could change your decision. It doesn't mean it will, and it doesn't mean playing violent video games makes you a violent person, but you can't cancel it out as a factor.
You think about it, but you don't act on it. Thats the differance. Right and wrong. You can discern that it would be wrong to act on your thoughts. The violence in media isn't going to change someones way of thinking.
Somewhat like how I sit in boring and un-productive meetings though out the day, wondering to myself, if I had a M240G machine gun, how many of these wastes of orgasms would die before I ultimately got taken out...
The media may give us ideas of how to EXECUTE these violent acts, but the will to actually do violent acts I don't think is effected by the media. Either you will or you won't, its your own nature and morals.
Ps, Scotty. Your Avatar makes my day. I could watch that all day.
Quote from: Lucifer on March 18, 2010, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: Seifer on March 18, 2010, 04:13:47 PM
Seeing violence really doesn't have such an effect on people as conservatives try to get across. You don't play a violent game and than feel an urge to go people. You know that it's just a game, and you know it's morally wrong to kill. Those that are going to kill or steal will anyways, without the help of games/media. Those who wont, wont. It's always bugged me when someone does some sort of crime, and than the media points at the fact that they play WoW/Halo or w/e excessively and that it must be the cause. More than likely, the real issue is said kid is already really crazy and just has an obsession.
Pfft, I don't know about you, but hours of grand theft auto has certainly changed what I think about when we're driving down the street and I see pedestrians crossing. I would agree that when crimes are committed, violence in media shouldn't be tied directly, but you can't say it isn't tied at all. After a while of constantly seeing violence, you get used to it, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to you, and when you're suddenly given a choice to commit such violence, your chances of doing so are definitely increased. Say your friend hands you a gun and says we're going to rob a gas station. Right then and there, with all those choices and consequences running through your head, the fact that violence doesn't bother you Could change your decision. It doesn't mean it will, and it doesn't mean playing violent video games makes you a violent person, but you can't cancel it out as a factor.
I agree 101%.
~Aqua
Quote from: Chaos on March 18, 2010, 04:30:21 PMReread my post. Specifically, the last sentence.
In what situation, precisely, are you proposing that a 2 year old is going to stumble upon a porn video, or a video of a kid being mutilated?
Point taken.
I misread your post (or that last sentence I guess) and assumed you would show the child these things... or at least not actively censor them. I think that's what I'm getting at. You have to take an active role in censoring what the child sees. I understand they may not stumble upon a porn, but certain channels do show some explicit material. And just reviewing movies or games before allowing the child to see/play it. That kind of thing.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm not going to ban porn from a teenager just because they aren't 18. I think at that age they are curious and they're going to have access to it anyways. So I'm not talking about crazy censorship on that level.
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 09:20:44 PM
Quote from: Chaos on March 18, 2010, 04:30:21 PMReread my post. Specifically, the last sentence.
In what situation, precisely, are you proposing that a 2 year old is going to stumble upon a porn video, or a video of a kid being mutilated?
Point taken.
I misread your post (or that last sentence I guess) and assumed you would show the child these things... or at least not actively censor them. I think that's what I'm getting at. You have to take an active role in censoring what the child sees. I understand they may not stumble upon a porn, but certain channels do show some explicit material. And just reviewing movies or games before allowing the child to see/play it. That kind of thing.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm not going to ban porn from a teenager just because they aren't 18. I think at that age they are curious and they're going to have access to it anyways. So I'm not talking about crazy censorship on that level.
My kid is gonna pick up chicks when he is 4, that's my goal!
Quote from: DarkTrinity on March 18, 2010, 12:12:40 PM
Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Does anyone besides me (and Jake, as his post was trying to convey) find the HUGE irony in the fact that we have movies, games, and even television for all to see with massive amounts of blood, violence, and gore, but if you so much as have a woman's nipple, you're demonized. God forbid you show SEX.
Conclusion: Violence, murder, and other things that bring suffering and misery to those involved are completely okay to show. Sexual acts involving pleasure, love, and happiness are works OF TEH DEVIL!!!
!@#$ this country, and !@#$ the 'Puritans' who started it.
I think the real question is not about violence... But it's why are there always titties shown in movies, always always, but never a penor?
Think about that one.
Sexist bastards
That's cause nobody wants to see a dick. They aren't fun to look at it like tits and guchie guchie. The female body is just much better for advertising and loving. Think of it this way, teen girls will go "ohhh i love you emily lol!" now, take that same scenario with 2 dudes: "ohhh dude bill I love you!". See? Ones normal and ones gay, and that's just the way it is.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on March 21, 2010, 11:07:17 PMThink of it this way, teen girls will go "ohhh i love you emily lol!" now, take that same scenario with 2 dudes: "ohhh dude bill I love you!". See? Ones normal and ones gay, and that's just the way it is.
Have you seen "I Love You Man"?
Quote from: Lingus on March 22, 2010, 12:27:55 AM
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on March 21, 2010, 11:07:17 PMThink of it this way, teen girls will go "ohhh i love you emily lol!" now, take that same scenario with 2 dudes: "ohhh dude bill I love you!". See? Ones normal and ones gay, and that's just the way it is.
Have you seen "I Love You Man"?
Nope but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between comedies from Hollywood and reality.
Wait... aren't we talking about media? As in, "Hollywood" movies?
Actually, the same actor who was in that movie, Jason Segel, was in another movie, I believe "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", wherein he appeared fully nude from the front... Yes, "penor" and all. So DTs whole rant is invalid. They do show it sometimes. Just not as often. And I think the only reason they showed it was for humour and/or shock value. Not because women would think it's sexy.
So unless you are Jake or DT, there is no need for penor in today's media, hence the rarity of it. Now if Jake or DT wanted to show us their bewbs, I'd be all for it!
Quote from: Scotty on March 23, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
So unless you are Jake or DT, there is no need for penor in today's media, hence the rarity of it. Now if Jake or DT wanted to show us their bewbs, I'd be all for it!
O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o
Quote from: Lingus on March 23, 2010, 04:49:42 PM
Quote from: Scotty on March 23, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
So unless you are Jake or DT, there is no need for penor in today's media, hence the rarity of it. Now if Jake or DT wanted to show us their bewbs, I'd be all for it!
O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o O_o
He claims he isn't gay, so he must be a girl... (http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=832.0)