[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Saquist

No man is an island we are all effected by stimuli.
It nothing more than...hubris to think otherwise.

Yes, but to what affect? Are you saying if you watch a movie with lots of violence you will go out and beat up a person? If you watch a movie with lots of bad language you will start to cuss uncontrollably? I think not. Now a young, immature person may pick up some of these things and it could actually alter his/her behavior. Horatio was spot on with his comment.

Saq, do you really think people that watch gory films like "Saw" are really desensitized to violence? I don't think so. People still freak out when they see blood and guts in real life no matter how many movies they have seen

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by That Metal Beastie

By some reckonings, "the universe unfolding as it should"

That's what Canadians are feeling tonight.

Originally Posted by That Metal Beastie

by others, one definition of hell.

I'm sure Russians are feeling that tonight.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Yes, but to what affect? Are you saying if you watch a movie with lots of violence you will go out and beat up a person? If you watch a movie with lots of bad language you will start to cuss uncontrollably? I think not. Now a young, immature person may pick up some of these things and it could actually alter his/her behavior. Horatio was spot on with his comment.

Saq, do you really think people that watch gory films like "Saw" are really desensitized to violence? I don't think so. People still freak out when they see blood and guts in real life no matter how many movies they have seen

What a person will and will not do is variable. We all act differently to stimuli...but it's a fact...that we all are effected by external stimuli.

The most common reaction of violent stimulus is increased aggression. Aggression covers everything from belligerence, irritable to repetition of the acts viewed. But there is a reaction...

Behavioral studies show clear reactions but the studies are often dismissed scientifically because the true cause cannot be isolated from the baseline.

But almost all of them are saying the same thing with a loud voice.
I think it's time to start paying attention to it.

[martok2112]

The big problem is that too many parents use TV's and videogames as babysitting tools and pacifiers, and they (many times) are not aware of what their child (or the children they've been given charge of) is watching....their bottom line is "as long as the child is not being noisy or an annoyance, it's ok in my book."

I would not let my kids (had I any) watch South Park, Family Guy, or even the recently completed Battlestar Galactica. Too much content in there that just is not suited for children.

When it comes to video games, it's a different story.


Let's look at some M (Mature) rated titles.

Some parents think that Halo is alright (because it's not uber-bloody, but it is very violent, and it doesn't have a lot of coarse language....it also does not have sex). Yet it is rated M for a reason.

Conversely, you have Grand Theft Auto which is loaded with gratuitous violence and language, has some sex in it, deals with drugs and alcohol, and deals with the in-game character getting involved in criminal activity. No child should play this game at all.

Then again, I really don't like going online to a match of Halo, and hearing 10 year olds talking smack (often with expletives). They have no business playing an M rated title. My roomie and his gf feel the same way.

[TheTrekkie]

Originally Posted by Saquist

No man is an island we are all effected by stimuli.
It nothing more than...hubris to think otherwise.

That is right.

But censorship is no solution, because afterwards you are limited to only one single stimulus and thus you are easily to manipulate by whoever creates this one "clean" stilumlus.

The solution is to look at as many perspectives as possible. Read statements of every possible side. And in the end there are so many mutually contradictory opinions and stimuli that you either have no clue of anything anymore or are finally able to build up your own opinion, your own point of view (if parents created a solid fundation of values and principles in your childhood).

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by martok2112

The big problem is that too many parents use TV's and videogames as babysitting tools and pacifiers, and they (many times) are not aware of what their child (or the children they've been given charge of) is watching....their bottom line is "as long as the child is not being noisy or an annoyance, it's ok in my book."

I would not let my kids (had I any) watch South Park, Family Guy, or even the recently completed Battlestar Galactica. Too much content in there that just is not suited for children.

When it comes to video games, it's a different story.


Let's look at some M (Mature) rated titles.

Some parents think that Halo is alright (because it's not uber-bloody, but it is very violent, and it doesn't have a lot of coarse language....it also does not have sex). Yet it is rated M for a reason.

Conversely, you have Grand Theft Auto which is loaded with gratuitous violence and language, has some sex in it, deals with drugs and alcohol, and deals with the in-game character getting involved in criminal activity. No child should play this game at all.

Then again, I really don't like going online to a match of Halo, and hearing 10 year olds talking smack (often with expletives). They have no business playing an M rated title. My roomie and his gf feel the same way.

I completely concur.
That's why EA won't rate online interactions.
It's the downside of interactive and live play.
Yet anytime you go on-line it's a choice. On-line isn't a truely public area. It's still a bit exclusive so it's a concerted choice to interact and thus parents know the harm.

TV however is very public and take for granted by just about everyone.

Originally Posted by TheTrekkie

That is right.

But censorship is no solution, because afterwards you are limited to only one single stimulus and thus you are easily to manipulate by whoever creates this one "clean" stilumlus.

The solution is to look at as many perspectives as possible. Read statements of every possible side. And in the end there are so many mutually contradictory opinions and stimuli that you either have no clue of anything anymore or are finally able to build up your own opinion, your own point of view (if parents created a solid fundation of values and principles in your childhood).

I agree but we have the tech to do censorship and free speech. Not everyone has to be exposed. The government could create a V-chip like device that removes certain scenes from viewing on just a transmission signal. It's that easy especially now that everything is digital.

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I completely concur.
That's why EA won't rate online interactions.
It's the downside of interactive and live play.
Yet anytime you go on-line it's a choice. On-line isn't a truely public area. It's still a bit exclusive so it's a concerted choice to interact and thus parents know the harm.

TV however is very public and take for granted by just about everyone.

In order to watch TV you need to buy a television and you need to either subscribe to a service provider or buy a digital antenna. The sames goes for the internet you need to subscribe to a service provide and have a device that you can go online with. These are choices.

Originally Posted by Saquist

I agree but we have the tech to do censorship and free speech. Not everyone has to be exposed. The government could create a V-chip like device that removes certain scenes from viewing on just a transmission signal. It's that easy especially now that everything is digital.

So who decides what scenes get removed? Who gets to be exposed to these images and who doesn't? Should we remove real violence from the news as well as the fictional violence that you are so against? How many people on this planet watch TV? How many people watch movies? How many play video games? How many people go out and commit crimes as a direct result of watching TV and/or movies and/or playing video games? Blaming TV, movies and video games for society's problems is a cop out. TV, movies and video games are an extremely minor part of a much more complex problem.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

In order to watch TV you need to buy a television and you need to either subscribe to a service provider or buy a digital antenna. The sames goes for the internet you need to subscribe to a service provide and have a device that you can go online with. These are choices.

You could chose not to have a Television and simply have a radio for all relevant news it's true. But exercising that choice does not benefit broadcasters and they're sponsors.

With technology should come BETTER CHOICES not limited choices.

So who decides what scenes get removed?

Government.
If a system is moral than that system would make moral choice based on the GREATER GOOD not the greater evil.

Who gets to be exposed to these images and who doesn't?

You make it sound like a privilege.
Choice. There should be a choice. And better choices.

Should we remove real violence from the news as well as the fictional violence that you are so against?

I am specifically against fictional violence because it's purpose is to entertain. Entertaining with violence is wrong and there is no other way to view enjoying the viewing of death and destruction.

The media currently does a good job censoring explicit imagery from the public air waves.

Blaming TV, movies and video games for society's problems is a cop out. TV, movies and video games are an extremely minor part of a much more complex problem.

It's logic.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction...even in psychology.

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Government.
If a system is moral than that system would make moral choice based on the GREATER GOOD not the greater evil.

The key word in you sentence is "If."

Originally Posted by Saquist

You make it sound like a privilege.
Choice. There should be a choice. And better choices.

Right now there is a choice. Those warnings before TV shows were put in place to tell viewers what content is in the programming they are watching so they can choose if they want to watch it or not. Movies have ratings and so do video games. You can choose not to watch those things. You are saying the government should create a chip that removes fictional violence from programs as they are being broadcast meaning there is no longer a choice for someone to watch it or not.

Originally Posted by Saquist

I am specifically against fictional violence because it's purpose is to entertain. Entertaining with violence is wrong and there is no other way to view enjoying the viewing of death and destruction.

Well I guess we better censor the whole Dominion War out of DS9. There was lots of fictional violence in there.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I completely concur.
That's why EA won't rate online interactions.
It's the downside of interactive and live play.
Yet anytime you go on-line it's a choice. On-line isn't a truely public area. It's still a bit exclusive so it's a concerted choice to interact and thus parents know the harm.

TV however is very public and take for granted by just about everyone.



I agree but we have the tech to do censorship and free speech. Not everyone has to be exposed. The government could create a V-chip like device that removes certain scenes from viewing on just a transmission signal. It's that easy especially now that everything is digital.

To your first point, it is the ESRB that does not rate online activity, not EA. Electronic Arts is just a game developer/publisher. The ESRB is the entity that assigns ratings to video games (just as the MPAA does with movies). The reason that ESRB won't rate online activity is because one does not know what to expect from human interaction. Even with an E (Everyone) rated title, online interactions are never rated.


To the second point, it is possible. One company (cannot remember who) created a device that is designed to omit violence, language, or other objectionable material from a digital viewing (DVD) at the time that children are present.

Hell, I have a multi-DVD player that can apparently swap out PG/PG-13/R rated expletives with less intense expressions. Oh, hell can become oh, dang. I've never tried it though....to me, it would sound ridiculous.

Thankfully, I have no kids, so my inhibitions are few if any.