Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

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.

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?

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.

But blocking the channels is not regulating the airwaves...Is your position that of no regulaion at all?Shouldn't poeple have regulated airwaves (not channel blocking) if they want it?Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, but from what I did read, its a lot of crap to dig through to find the good parts....

Then they say this: Contradiction. If the studies are inconclusive, how can they be clear?Furthermore: well gee, that's stupid, don't you think? You have a tool there--use it. Then maybe the parents, who are the first and last line of defense should learn what those ratings are and use the tools given to start with before we introduce restrictive legislation.I mean geez, this is common sense stuff. Of course the V-chip isn't working when so many damn parents aren't doing their "job". But wait, isn't it their "job" to "protect"? They're not doing that to begin with regardless the tools they have. Are these, then, negligent parents? Or are they just ignorant? If they're ignorant, teach them how to use the damn thing.

one little nitpick, later I'll hit the rest: Freedom of speech is actually a negative right. A positive right is like the right to health care. The difference? Positives gauruntee you something, while negatives protect something from being taken away. (Later I'll revise this, too. that's a pretty cruddy and vague definition). um, riight. A hypocrite is where you say one thing, and do another. Like "I will not lie" and then you proceed to lie. That's a hypocrite. We are not hypocrites if we don't see a problem and decide to do squat about a non-existant problem. Plus, we've even told you what you can do. You just don't like our suggestions (my guess is because they're too difficult [in your mind]). irrelevant. The topic is censorship, not abortion. You then follow with "unwanted" pregnancies. unwanted /= accidental. abortion /= censorship. If anything, making abortion illegal is censoring what the women chooses to do with her body. Making abortion legal repeals that "censorship". But really, abortion does not equal censorship. No hypocrisy here. um, aside from being unconstitutional, censorship is just plain out wrong. When you censor things, you censor creativity, you limit it, you restrict it. You put a halt on advancement and progression.And since you have no problem with censorship, perhaps we should sensor the bible outright, no? (it's been on those lists before). Or do you just favor censorship when it works in your favor?Censorship is: turkeys really can't fly that well. I would think an eagle would have no problem flying away unless mobbed by the turkeys.*no clue how to do that text scratch out. seen it before, just don't remember the code. should an admin happen upon this, can you do the scrath on "great" in the quote? thanks.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

I'm in a bit of a rush so I can't dig up real research but here are some bits of a recent New Scientist editorial and article.The article is subscription only I'm afraid.Article:

quote:

---

Experiments in the lab have addressed the causal question, by dishing out particular viewing or gaming experiences followed by behavioural tests or questionnaires. This kind of study has shown that after watching just half an hour of violence, children have more devious and aggressive thoughts, are more likely to inflict punishments, and are less likely to cooperate.

​

Brain imaging and other physiological measures also reveal changes in emotional responses to violent images as a result of viewing violence or playing violent games. Bruce Bartholow of the University of Missouri, Columbia, has found that people with a history of game playing have a reduced brain response to shocking pictures, suggesting that people begin to see such imagery as more normal. Another study found that frontal lobe activity was reduced in youngsters who played a violent video game for 30 minutes, compared with those playing an equally exciting but non-violent game. This brain region is important for concentration and impulse control, among other things. A region called the amygdala, important for emotional control, was more aroused in those who experienced the violent game.

​

...

​

The big picture is clear. Modern media such as TV and computer games are changing our minds, and the more we are exposed to them the greater the changes. They are making us smarter and better at some tasks, but worse at others. And there is no getting away from the fact that on-screen violence fosters off-screen violence.

---

Editorial: In denial about on-screen violence

quote:

---

Yet every time a study claims to have found a link between aggression, violence, educational or behavioural problems and TV programmes or computer games, there are cries of incredulity, even (ironically) anger. People seem to doubt that such a link exists, or think the evidence is generally weak.

​

That view is not shared by the vast majority of researchers who study the subject. They see a clear link between media consumption and aggression, and also mounting evidence for an increased risk of attentional, behavioural and educational problems with extended exposure to TV and computer games. They have been in little doubt for around half a century (see "Mind-altering media"), and over that time scientific confidence in the detrimental effects of media violence has only increased. Why, then, the disconnect with public perception?

---

If Freedom of Speech only meant freedom to say something that didn't offend anyone, it would disappear. Freedom of Speech is absolutely, 100% no question about it, the right to be an asshole. As you acknowledged earlier in this thread, only those opinions that are offensive need the protection of the First Amendment. Popular opinions by definition need no protection. This is probably the first thing you said in this thread that I agree with. It's also pretty much what most of us have been saying to you, so it's nice to see you starting to come around. If someone is being an asshole by taking advantage of the First Amendment in ways you don't like, stay away from them. That pretty much sums the whole thing up in a nutshell.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I won't purport to speak on nator's behalf, but it certainly is my position that there be no regulation of the airwaves at all. That's called Freedom of Speech, I can't see how anything else could be called Freedom of Speech.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Have some kids, then you'll agree. Way to mix two different topics.That is completely irrelevant.For every study there is a counter study, or one that comes out a few years later, that contradicts the original studI wonder if a study on studies has ever been done?Listen, I am not totally against studies, as I have pointed out to you in the past, but I will not live my life purely on studies, as I have seen them get it wrong too many times. Logically studies should become more accurate over time, as we factor in more variables, and an increase of knowledge is added to the sauce.But there is a saying, "the more we learn, the less we know" It also doesn't prove that it is not a causation. Thank you mrs.nator, can I be exused to go to the bathroom now? I just might. I wouldn't call that study, and what I see directly with my kids "little evidence" I would call it overwelming evidence. That is an exptermely unfair statement. And when people have irresponsible sex, they can get pregnant.Let's at least be consistent in our approach to life.....

---

---

Exposing the lies, one truth at a time!

I have kids...I don't agree. What makes you think Schraf would agree if she had some?

Yes and thankfully theres a way to deal with the consequences without infringing on the rights expressed in your constitution. I fail to see what this has to do with censoring TV.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Through censorship and the limiting/removal of the First Amendment!!!!Saying "It's for the children!!!" doesn't change that. And yet, Rat, their ability to restrict SPEECH on the airwaves is EXACTLY what we're debating! "They have the right to limit speech, because they do it! They do it because they have the right to!" Thanks for the circular argument. Yet you haven't proven that there IS real harm, and you havent addressed the fact that you don't need to let your kids watch TV when you arent around to censor it for them )and NOT everyone else) yourself. No, you IGNORE what the study says when it disagrees with your position, and continue to disparage scientific evidence that contradicts your "common (non)sense" position. TV is a part of life IF YOU CHOOSE IT TO BE! The fact that 99% of people have one or more is irrelevant - you are not FORCED to watch television, and are not FORCED to listen to anyones expression of free speech on the airwaves. Thus you have no right whatsoever to censor that speech in any way. Which is irrelevant, as the point I was making was that the "majority" of people find violence to be too prevalent, and yet "the majority" apparently watches those same violent shows.Your entire argument, Rat, coems down to an appeal to popularity, and "I said so!"

---

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

Have a pair of stepdaughters. Don't agree. You can't prove a negative! Jesus.Rat, I've got a massive bruise on my head from bashing it against your Wall of Ignorance.

---

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

quote:

---

But blocking the channels is not regulating the airwaves...

​

Is your position that of no regulaion at all?

---

Pretty much.You're a conservative, you should like that. Let the free market regulate itself.Actually, I don't disagree that advertizing should match the "rating" of the show it is shown during, and that there should be a clear rating system so people know what "octane" a show is about to be shown.But that's about it.