Subject:
|
Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:05:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1129 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Violence in the movies is not the
> > > > > > > > same as in real life.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How so? What is different?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just what war torn coutry do you live in?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm just wondering what the difference is in your mind.
> > > >
> > > > As I cycle to work, cars do not screech around corners. Buildings do not
> > > > explode. But I am sure that behind a couple of doors a husband is beating a
> > > > wife. A dad is beating his kids. A mother may be beating her kids too. The
> > > > reality is that most violence in society happens in the home. Movies do not
> > > > show that. Perhaps if movies did, there would be less domestic violence?
> > >
> > > It might be a way to curb that type of violence, yes. So why not show that
> > > type of violence in movies? Get it out in the open. Don't hide it from your
> > > children. Allow them to see the violence and have a chance to understand
> > > that it is wrong and *why* it's wrong.
> >
> > Because, I expect, people do not want to know. Domestic violence exists, but
> > too many in society turn a blind eye.
>
> Now why is that I wonder? Get it out in the open. It wasn't too long ago
> that homosexuality (for an example) was socially taboo for subject matter.
> Now people tend to take it as a matter of course. I beleive that the media
> had a huge hand in that change.
>
> > > > > > Movies have the stylised violence we see today as the market does
> > > > > > not want to see the real thing. Films which show real violence (Nil by >>>>>Mouth
> > > > > > comes to mind) do not make huge $$, because the market wants, to a certain
> > > > > > extent,
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why is there such a hunger for the media to lay their hands on (to use
> > > > > the example again) autopsy photos of Dale Earnheardt?
> > > >
> > > > Who is this?
> > >
> > > He is a racecar driver who was killed in an accident during a televised
> > > racing event.
> >
> > Was it a few months ago - Is that the guy who did not wear a helmet?
>
>
> Yes, but he WAS wearing a helmet. IIRC he wasn't wearing the Head and Neck
> Safety Device.
>
> > > > > I think people truly want reality in their media, even if it is a stylized
> > > > > representation of reality interpreted by the director. Why shield people by
> > > > > removing their rights?
> > > >
> > > > Why expose kids to it?
> > >
> > > Why trample their rights? Children have rights too. It's up to the parents
> > > to determine what is appropriate for their childs developmental stage.
> >
> >
> > I do not believe that parents always know best. I think most parents try
> > their best, but at times that is not good enough. Children are too fragile
> > to be left to trial-and-error parenting.
>
> Isn't all parenting trial-and-error? I would argue that the parents know
> better than the government what type of movies and television their children
> are able to watch and comprehend. I don't want the government telling me how
> to raise my children.
Either do I, but I intend to be a good parent. But I am glad the safety ne
is there to protect kids... not just my own.
Scott A
>
> >
> > Scott A
>
>
> -Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
