Underage rape scenes in movies [Archive]

usmc1

01-27-2007, 10:42 AM

Ms. Fanning, who is a very accomplished, well-trained and precociously talented young actress, replied to an interviewer about her participation in the scene in this manner, "It's called acting!". She ahd to find in herself those emotions and physical responses that she would feel if she were truly raped..it is called honesty. But, as an actress, she knows that those emotions are merely tools and once used are left behind.

Her response was a lot more mature than some of the silliness already posted in this thread.

There are only three "rules" for actors:
1. Don't "leave" the scene until you hear "cut".
2. You may not hurt yourself.
3. You may not hurt another actor.

Acting is about living life intensely and fully open without the emotional encumbrances and physical facades of everyday life. That is what people pay for; to see others live life without the emotional restraints and rules by which they are required live their lives. In everday life, we are not "permitted" to always dispaly our real feelings. The most difficult part of acting is learning how to have those emotions at the ready without any sort of filter.

While the emotions one feels in a scene are real, actors understand that while they are indeed "honest" emotions, the experience which is triggering them is not real.

No child is exploited in this movie, and in fact, the rules governing children in films are stringent and onerous.

The rape scene is merely part of the story line and to single it out for such is more about morbid interest in such than anything else.

It is acting, get over it, and if you don't approve don't rent the video.

brainyguy9999

01-27-2007, 10:58 AM

The scene in question leaves almost everything to the imagination. From a description of the scene, they show Dakota's hand and hear her scream "No". That's about it. There is a long, long way between that and child pornography.

The Smoking Gun site has the part of the script in question posted (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125074hounddog4.html). Although anyone who's ever worked with films knows that the script is only a guideline. The director and producer decide how it finally appears on the screen. But, even the script says that the whole scene is filmed in darkness, with only periodic flashes of lightning that illuminates "areas of the space that are carefully chosen, keeping everything else in darkness and primarily revealing faces or symbolic objects."

Keep the politicians out of it. They screw up everything else we have. Let viewers decide what to support by paying for tickets or not.

My opinion is: Yes, this is a disturbing story. But, it happens in reality every day, not only in the US South, but all over the world. It's a subject that affects many, many women and even some men. If we can watch it and become more sensitive and understanding to this issue, then the writer and movie makers have done a good job.

Stay nude.

bg

Bob S.

01-27-2007, 02:40 PM

Big-Thinker:"I believe it should indeed be illegal to simulate sex with a minor or involve them in sexually-charged, very scary or traumatic scenes."

There is a huge difference between simulated sex and a scene in a movie that portends to show a minor engaging in sex. I saw "Bastard Out of Carolina" a few years ago and it also has a rape scene of a young girl (played by Jena Malone who was about 11 at the time). The "Bastard" rape scene is much more brutal as it shows, at a distance and in light, the man who is raping her (played by Ron Eldard) on top of her.

But to assume that any actor will want to rape a child, that any director will want to orchestrate an actual rape, that the cameramen will want to videotape a rape, or that everyone on the set will want to watch a rape is ridicuolous.

The major issue is that this is about freedom of expression that is being attacked. Yes, there are lines that can be crossed, but as usmc stated, rules and regs for child actors are well known and there are enough people on set that will protect the children.

Bob S.

NudeWil

01-27-2007, 02:45 PM

We aren't always given the whole story by the media. Sometimes it's just editing for limited space. Sometimes there's an agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">although the NC politician suggeted there should be new legistation so that the state would have to approve any script that is to be filmed in the state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The article in my paper was quite a bit longer than the original poster's article, and included the following (sorry, I can't find the article online): "A state lawmaker in North Carolina also said he is drafting legisation that would require the state to approve the script of any television or movie production seeking a state tax break." (emphasis mine)

That puts the state approval in a different category from was printed in the original poster's article.

usmc1

01-27-2007, 03:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeWil:
We aren't always given the whole story by the media. Sometimes it's just editing for limited space. Sometimes there's an agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">although the NC politician suggeted there should be new legistation so that the state would have to approve any script that is to be filmed in the state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The article in my paper was quite a bit longer than the original poster's article, and included the following (sorry, I can't find the article online): "A state lawmaker in North Carolina also said he is drafting legisation that would require the state to approve the script of any television or movie production seeking a state tax break." (emphasis mine)

That puts the state approval in a different category from was printed in the original poster's article. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't, not really. That was put in as a cover to provide the "legitimacy" of the overreach. "Since we're giving tax breaks, we get to screen the scripts".

The truth is that virtually all states (NC, in particular, hosts a lot of major film and TV production) provide millions upon millions in tax breaks to have movies shot in their state. The benefits to the state are obvious, grips, caterers, drivers, lighting, cameras (unless some highly specialized FX is done) xtras, day players, casting directors, talent agents all are local or regional fish feeding off the shark, and the money they make turns over many times.

This means that any major production company seeking to film, or shoot for TV, in NC would be covered by the law...as it is those sorts of projects which would be looking for tax breaks.

All that is to say, low=budget, indy films or fly-by-night porno prodcuers would not be covered since they would not be seeking those tax breaks. And they would be the ones most likely to bend that envelope a bit.

It is all really a very stupid, reactive and over-reaching attempt at prior censorship. Cooler heads will prevail, but the thumpers will applaud and love the guy for standing up against those godless, liberals from Hollywood.

No production company is going to submit to that sort of BS. They just wouldn't shoot in NC. And, I got to tell you this, that state has a lot of film industry people who would bleed if that came about.

The law ain't gonna come out of commitee.

nacktman

01-27-2007, 03:42 PM

Tis a hallabaloo about nothing going on here.

The film is destined for straight to video and that means almost certain death for most films.
Add in that it is a bad movie even by straight to video standards (and we all know how low those are), and you have a big noise about nuttin'.

Wil, those "seeking state tax break(s)" are every production company filming in the state ... that's why they come here. So, the proposed legislation will effectively pre-censor all films made here. Or, they wont be made at all, which is what will happen when the production companies go elsewhere and what good would my SAG membership do me then?

As others have pointed out there are very strict laws and industry rules governing child actors and violation of any of them is unthinkable for any production company -- even those that do not use 'child' actors but only look like children or manipulate footage to make an actor appear as a child ... no need to expound any further down that road, correct?

This is nothing more than another 'issue' generating ploy by a politician to garner publicity for political gain, a la, Foley, and we all know how that one turned out now don't we?!

Sanslines

01-28-2007, 05:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The major issue is that this is about freedom of expression that is being attacked. Yes, there are lines that can be crossed, but as usmc stated, rules and regs for child actors are well known and there are enough people on set that will protect the children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my area there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Movies and television have a very powerful effect on people and do motivate the sickos in our society to go out and do sick things.

Swimguy

01-28-2007, 08:54 AM

Naturist Mark

01-28-2007, 09:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my area there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Movies and television have a very powerful effect on people and do motivate the sickos in our society to go out and do sick things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it is very important to keep depictions of such molestations off the screens and out of the public discussion where it can incite predators. The less said about such things the better. The way to keep kids safe is to deny the danger, stop the discussion, and discourage anyone from admitting that they were ever victims. It only encourages the predators.

Yep.

Soon all kids will be safe.

As far as we know.

Sanslines

01-28-2007, 10:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would hope, like Utah's Attorney General stated, that the film would help people who are victims of such horrible crimes to come forward and speak out about the problem. This is still a very taboo subject where many crimes against children are left unreported. Although I hear the film was quite disturbing, I think we probably need to hear these stories to admit that such things happen. This will be the catalyst for us to work towards putting an end to such vile acts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding of the scene in this movie is that it is an implication of a rape scene and not a graphic depiction. Having discussions about this is great but people are very much worried about child abuse today. A week doesn't go by around here where the local tv stations do not carry a story about local child molesters. My point above had more to do with another sad event that occured in the past. A movie was shown and this movie did incite some teenagers to copycat by commiting animal torture and sacrifice. What some don't want to admit is that there are too many sick people out there that commit horrible acts.

Sanslines

01-28-2007, 10:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, it is very important to keep depictions of such molestations off the screens and out of the public discussion where it can incite predators. The less said about such things the better. The way to keep kids safe is to deny the danger, stop the discussion, and discourage anyone from admitting that they were ever victims. It only encourages the predators.

Yep.

Soon all kids will be safe.

As far as we know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfect! I shall immediately let the local population know of your agreement with their concerns. You will be a hero in this area and the mayor will probably give you the key to the city.

P.J.

01-28-2007, 10:46 AM

The subject of the movie "Hound Dog" is certainly generating too much attention for everyone's sake.

For the benefit of Dakota Fanning, she should not be playing such sexually charged roles as a rape victim, especially when her role calls for a simulated sex scene of any sort.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that my views fall on the right-side of center.

But those who defend issue(s) of freedom from censorship, this should be a matter of concern. A child in any situation which is controversial, especially where that child's moral, morale and well-being (real or imagined) are involved is like a lightning rod.

I'm one neocon who doesn't want to bring in the politicians and invite the government to meddle in our rights. There are times when it's not smart to push the issues too far.

usmc1

01-28-2007, 10:50 AM

There is no proven cause and effect between such scenes and actual events.

Before video games, and while the Legion of Decency and the Hays office were censoring movies to the extent that married couples had to be portrayed as sleeping in twin beds, child rapes, teenage crime, and horrible heinous sex crimes took place.

Back then, the blame was placed on comic books.

Caryle Chessman, Charlie Starkweather, and the freshman kid at my Catholic high-school who slit his grannies throat while she was taking her afternoon nap, never once saw a movie protraying violence, sex or child rape, not did they ever play a vido game other than the pin ball games at the bowling alley.

Yes, there is more now because there are more people now. But, there is no magical cause and effect. If there were such, everyone that saw such portrayals would be compelled to commit these violnt acts, not just a scattered few.

Those few, would have committed their crime regardless of movies, books or video games.

Baremore

01-28-2007, 11:11 AM

I'm showing my age, but Sophia Loren won the 1962 Academy Award as best actress in the movie "Two Women." In the most memorable scene in the movie, Sophia, and her daughter, played by 12 year old Eleonora Brown, are both gang-raped by soldiers in war torn Italy. The only thing you see is Eleonora's face, but the moment of penetration is unmistakable (sp?) and the image is indelibly seared into your mind.

I don't recall anyone at the time making a fuss over Brown's participation in the movie.

Naturist Mark

01-28-2007, 12:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For the benefit of Dakota Fanning, she should not be playing such sexually charged roles as a rape victim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To say that Dakota Fanning is "playing" a sexually charged role by portraying a rape victim is to argue that rape victims are being sexual.

Just the same old blame the victim mentality that keeps the world safe for rapists.

-Mark

Sanslines

01-28-2007, 12:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my area there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Movies and television have a very powerful effect on people and do motivate the sickos in our society to go out and do sick things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it is very important to keep depictions of such molestations off the screens and out of the public discussion where it can incite predators. The less said about such things the better. The way to keep kids safe is to deny the danger, stop the discussion, and discourage anyone from admitting that they were ever victims. It only encourages the predators.

Yep.

Soon all kids will be safe.

As far as we know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just got back from my next door neighbor's house. We went to see his great grandma Gertrude who lives just over the hill and down the road towards the village in the valley. I showed your comments to her and this is what she had to say:

"Yes sir, back in 1934 when I was a little girl the older folks never much talked about such things. If they did it was always late at night in a dimly lite room, well after the little tykes were sent to bed, and all such talk was in hushed whispers. You see, back in those days we had much better things to talk about. On a Saturday night, Uncle Freddy would usually go out and hand crank the old '28 Ford Model T to life. Mom, Dad, Aunt Betty and Uncle George would head out to the Bijou Theatre and for a whole nickle a piece could see the latest Clark Gable motion picture. That Clark, he sure had a way with those ladies! Then there was that Roosevelt man in the Big House down in DC. He spents lots of money so that the younger fellas could work some and then go and take their gals out to the local dance halls and for a whole thin dime could dance the night away.
Ya see, any younger fellas who did talk about such a thing got themselves a whooping out behind the back shed, had their mouths washed out with some of that horse soap, and were sent to bed with no dinner.
Yes sir, those were the good old days!"

Note: Great Grandma Gertrude is so happy with your response that she has gotten out her old knitting needles and wants to knit you a fine woolen sweater with your name across the front.
See what happens when you agree with Great Grandma Gertrude. She thinks you are a fine young fellar, unlike most of them thar troublesome youngins of today.

earthpassenger(Kevin)

01-29-2007, 06:13 PM

Just to warn you folks, there will be a rape scene of a minor when Peter Jackson's film version of the best-selling novel "The Lovely Bones" is released in the theaters. I expect it will be as horrifying as the first chapter of the book by Alice Sebold--a woman who was raped as a college student--or as horrifying as the murder scene at the end of Jackson's film "Heavenly Creatures", made before the Lord of The Rings. As long as there is tragedy in life--rape, murder, suicide, warfare--it will be depicted in movies and in literature either to help people draw some meaning out of the confusion and suffering they go through in life and also by lesser creative artists to simply shock people or get their attention.

Peace,
Kevin

Bob S.

01-29-2007, 08:08 PM

Sanslines:"In my area there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Movies and television have a very powerful effect on people and do motivate the sickos in our society to go out and do sick things."

I know what you meant, but your choice of words is representative of the problem: there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Of course those who are already inclined to want to molest children are going to be attracted to the scene.

Dakota Fanning movies are not only faves of movie fans. Dakota is a cute actress and is seen in a more perverse light by, well, pervs.

I don't know about anyone here, but I know that just by watching a violent movie, I do not want to become violent myself. Or rape someone after seeing it in a movie, or do anything that is against my own personal moral code just because I saw it somewhere else. It is just like with hypnotizing someone. You can't make them do something that would go against who they are.

PJ:"A child in any situation which is controversial, especially where that child's moral, morale and well-being (real or imagined) are involved is like a lightning rod."

Yes. And this type of thing is exactly what Foley brought us when he had FL look into the nudist summer camp, leading VA to pass their law, and TX to pass their regs. If a state gets into the job of abridging the creative rights of filmmakers by denying them a permit if they do not agree with the screenplay, then how long will it be before children will not even be allowed to have a bath scene in a movie?

Bob S.

barenaked1

01-29-2007, 08:12 PM

I think there is a strong difference between shock value and trying to open people's eyes to the real world. These issues existed in the days of 'Leave It To Beaver' and 'Father Knows Best". Too many people live with blinders on. We don't live in a perfect world, but the proper awareness might help us become stronger and help prevent future abusiveness.

DoctorSurferDude

01-29-2007, 11:56 PM

Here are some statistics I looked up...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
- 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
- 1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
- Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
- An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.
- 44% of rape victims are under 18 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a bigger problem than one movie scene. The reality is far worse than Hollywood would ever care to represent.

l2ltlarry

01-30-2007, 01:34 AM

And as johny from Riga, Latvia, EU said in another thread, the better way is to "learn the children something", teaching them how to live in the world as it is. That's probably harder than anything else we could do because if we don't talk about the problems or see the problems, then they won't really exist. I used to say, "I believe in reality, but I don't believe in overdoing it."

Authorities and the powerful in our society define reality for us, and its always more simplistic than the real thing. The Bible says, "Respect everybody". If society could learn or teach people to do that, then problem solved.

Naturist Mark

01-30-2007, 04:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know what you meant, but your choice of words is representative of the problem: there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Of course those who are already inclined to want to molest children are going to be attracted to the scene.

Dakota Fanning movies are not only faves of movie fans. Dakota is a cute actress and is seen in a more perverse light by, well, pervs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

I think it is crystal clear that for the safety of the children, they should never be portrayed in films. That only encourages child molesters.

NO MORE CHILD ACTORS!

-Mark

Sanslines

01-30-2007, 05:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sanslines:"In my area there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Movies and television have a very powerful effect on people and do motivate the sickos in our society to go out and do sick things."

I know what you meant, but your choice of words is representative of the problem: there is more discussion about how the scene would motivate child molesters to go out and start molesting children. Of course those who are already inclined to want to molest children are going to be attracted to the scene.

Dakota Fanning movies are not only faves of movie fans. Dakota is a cute actress and is seen in a more perverse light by, well, pervs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I could have phrased it differently. One big problem around here is that not a week goes by without a tv report on child molesters. As a result of all of this constant tv coverage, people perceive that every other house has either a child molester or potential child molester living in it. Things have reached the point that if you see a grown man hug a child in the street, then people would take a very strong interest and some would probably want to know what exactly is going on - all because a man hugged a child. I think part of the strong reaction against this scene (and the scene is not graphic but implied) is that people are very frustrated and do not know what to do or how to solve the child molestation problem. More and more laws are passed and yet tv constantly shows child molestation as a extremely out of control problem. Whether the tv reports are representative of reality are another story but it is only what people perceive that matters to them.

A better way to bring media attention to this problem MIGHT be a factual documentary on FRONTLINE which is shown on PBS.

Nude in the North

01-30-2007, 05:40 AM

Is it safe to let the kids out of their Plastic Bubbles yet??

Steve

nacktman

01-30-2007, 07:18 AM

Originally posed by Nude in the North:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Is it safe to let the kids out of their Plastic Bubbles yet?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...Only if we put them in their Steel Cages!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

NudeWil

01-30-2007, 04:19 PM

usmc1 & nacktman,

I agree with what you wrote about prior censorship and such.

I was unaware, but I'm not at all surprized, that giving tax state breaks to production companies was more the rule than the exception. I just found on wikipedia that "North Carolina is the third largest film production state behind California and New York."

The US Navy and other services often cooperate with filmmakers, but their cooperation is dependent on the service's approval of the script. I believe the primary reason is to ensure that the film won't depict the service in a bad light. I doubt that this is a frequent concern of the state tax authorities and whoever else is involved in getting the tax breaks. If someone wanted to film a script that dissed North Carolina, they could always move the production to South Carolina. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course, not one person who has complained or discussed the issue has seen the movie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These ill-informed "protectors of the children" are only accomplishing one thing: raising awareness of the film. More people will probably view the movie just because it's been in the news.

Caipora

01-30-2007, 06:46 PM

USMC1 said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no proven cause and effect between such scenes and actual events. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've heard that too, but I always wonder - if TV doesn't get people to do things, why do advertisers pay for ads?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
- 1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
- 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
- 1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
- Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
- An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.
- 44% of rape victims are under 18 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think I've seen those numbers too, and read in more reliable sources that they're a crock. People who are "rape victim advocates" or "sexual abuse professionals" make their living from fostering a broad belief in sexual abuse being widespread. The media also gives highest numbers the greatest credibility, because they're more "newsworthy". Give your sources, please.

Besides the numbers being inflated, the reality is that most - about 90% - child sexual abuse is family: stepfathers, uncles, grandfathers, fathers. Not to mention stepmothers, etc. In the media view though, these numbers are somehow all attached to the Sexual Predator; the Strange Man in the Overcoat; the person outside the family that the children must be protected from.

- Caipora

Bob S.

01-30-2007, 07:20 PM

Caipora:"I've heard that too, but I always wonder - if TV doesn't get people to do things, why do advertisers pay for ads?"

There was a comedian a while back that was comenting on the idea that there were subliminal messages on some metal and rock records (vinyl) that could be heard if you played them backwards. These messages were always about being violent, committing suicide, or the like. This comedian wondered if they started putting messages such as mow the lawn or clean the house, would you have stoned teens in the front lawns of their homes doing their appointed chore?

TV can influence what you buy. It can't change your internal morals. Ronald McDonald can make kids want Happy Meals, but he can't make them want to kill someone unless, of course, the person already was intent on killing.

Bob S.

nacktman

01-31-2007, 05:44 AM

Is it just me or does every post from south of the border sound like it is defending sex with minors on this and other threads? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

There is no cause and effect relating to viewing a scene in a film and re-enacting it in reality.
There is a minor connection in the nurturing and physical environment of ones early development in relation to aggressive behavior.
There are differences, overt and subtle, in differing cultures as to what is and is not aggressive behavior.

The film that sparked this latest round of hysteria among the troglodytes is garbage and as another pointed out is bound for a much wider audience that it deserves based on it's own merits due to the furor whipped up by politicos and similar hacks to further their agendas ... which is ever the case when they play, I mean prey on the fears (which often are over-hyped in the first place) people.

The numbers on the stat sheet for such as sex with minors, sexual abuse, etc., are higher than they were a generation ago, but are still close to the same avarage, which is very low in relation to the population (which is larger now), and have remained fairly consistant throughout ... so any claims as to caustation being anything other than just a "crossed" wire in the brain of an individual are bogus for the most part.

The simple "solution" here is just not to see the movie.

The "simple" solution to the real picture, well we're working on it ... personally I feel -- those that abuse children in any way should be lowered into a vat of boiling oil feet first so they know what it is thst is happening to them.
Either that or allow me to take them in a dark alley and give me five minutes and ask no questions as to how their "religion" got changed!

shomymojo

01-31-2007, 06:13 AM

Children are raped and abused...all around this planet everyday...so to act as if it never happens...by ignoring it..and banning the subject from media...is like burying your head into the sand...as if...since you don't know about it...it never happened...exposing the problem is the first step to correcting it...JMHO

Sanslines

01-31-2007, 06:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Children are raped and abused...all around this planet everyday...so to act as if it never happens...by ignoring it..and banning the subject from media...is like burying your head into the sand...as if...since you don't know about it...it never happened...exposing the problem is the first step to correcting it...JMHO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People in New York are very well aware of child abuse. A week does not go by when we do not read in the newspaper or see on the tv news a report on sexual preditors. If you ask anyone here, they will tell you that child abuse is wrong. The problem in New York is not ignorance. The problem is what to realistically do to eliminate the problem. The New York state legislature has increased sentencing and placed all kinds of restrictions as to where convicted sex preditors can live, etc. Yet, the problem continues. The problem is how to stop this problem and no one seems to have a good realistic idea of how to accomplish this. Meaningful education of the populace concerning the seriousness of this crime has already occurred in New York State. The problem continues to be what to do next about it.......

missouriboy

01-31-2007, 07:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">USMC1 said:
quote:
There is no proven cause and effect between such scenes and actual events.
I've heard that too, but I always wonder - if TV doesn't get people to do things, why do advertisers pay for ads? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As someone else already pointed out, it doesn't get anyone to do what they're not already predisposed to do. The paid ads only implore existing buyers to "Buy MY product, not the OTHER guy's product."

Caipora

01-31-2007, 12:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is just me or does every post from south of the border sound like it is defending sex with minors on this and other threads? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I assume that's a dig in my direction.

I've done some volunteer work with civil rights groups, that being a major problem area in Brazil. On that line, let me recommend the fine people at http://dhnet.org.br/redebrasil/index.htm Even if you can't read the Portuguese text, you may find their cartoon Indian symbol on topic here: he's not wearing any pants. And no one sees that as a problem.

In my view, one of the most serious civil rights problems in the United States at present is the demonization of sex offenders. They're given nasty names - I think there's a movement now from "sexual predators", which isn't nasty enough, towards "sexually violent predators". They're forced to live in ghettos - there are states where regulations now permit them to live only in very rural areas. They must wear yellow stars, or if you prefer, ring bells and shout "Unclean, unclean!" - with lifetime registries available through the Internet. The only difficulty politicians face is passing laws against them is coming up with something newer and more oppressive - special license plates, lifetime parole, ankle bracelets.

All of this backed up by statistics that are twisted or entirely false, and even when correct numbers are used, ignoring that 90% of offences are committed by family or friends, as portraying all as being due to "stranger danger".

So laws are passed, and politicians are always searching for someone else who can be unmasked as a Danger to Children. If you haven't noticed, nudists have a big bull's eye painted on them. Even Congressman Foley saw political mileage is protecting children from nudists, while he was texting mash notes to barely legal young men.

Didn't anyone find an odd aspect of the Shawn Hornbeck kidnapping that all the Maginot Line defenses against Child Abusers were useless? Granted, no one who would actually know has yet accused Devlin of sexual abuse, and that may not be a factor. But one would expect some use from the anti-Sexual Predator measures in the case of a child kidnapping, though. But he only effect was at first to fail to look closely at Devlin because he hadn't yet had a yellow star pinned on him - and once he was arrested, for the press to immediately and falsely accuse an entirely different Michael Devlin who was "registered" in a neighboring state.

Now, as to why I post on these threads, two comments. One, I do post on-topic items from the Brazilian press when I run across them, as both the country and the language are under-represented here. Two, my field is logic. I am very good at persuading computers to see things my way. I am less persuasive when arguments are waged based not on facts and reason, but rather on lies, distortions, fear, emotionally charged vocabulary, and group hysteria. I need practice at polemicizing. This is one way to do so.

- Caipora

usmc1

01-31-2007, 02:15 PM

Caipora, facts are slippery and elusive little critters, subject to interpretation. If you want to present an argument using "facts" and logic you probably want to verify that each leg of your fact-based syllogism is true.

And by way of example, a waterglass with water to the exact centerpoint of that glass can be argued "factually" as being either half full or half empty.

Or, here's another example. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"! I watched, those gloves seemed not to fit and taht is a fact, but OJ most probaably used them when he killed his wife and the kid from the restruarant. And that too is a fact. But, each of those "facts" are, as I said, slippery slimy little creatures and subject to individual interpretation.

Sanslines

01-31-2007, 03:10 PM

Caipora,

One thing that you might want to be aware of is when a small amout of truth is used and then extrapolated to support an argument. The person who is presenting the argument then can fall back upon this little bit of truth when challenged. Another thing that you might want to be aware of is that life is not black and white. There are so many shades of grey in between and so in many cases peoples arguments do contain some aspects of truth. In many threads, posters refer to 'truth' and 'lies'. What exactly is a 'truth' and what exactly is a 'lie'? From Webster's Dictionary, a truth is reality, actual fact, conformity with an established standard. A lie is a statement that a person knows to be false. Baesd upon these definitions, one person's truth is another person's lie. The only thing that can differentiate a truth from a lie is an established standard that most people agree upon. In many areas, people do agree upon an established standard. Politics is one major area which is very nebulous when it comes to establishing 'truth' versus 'lie'.

Naturist Mark

01-31-2007, 03:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">in the United States at present is the demonization of sex offenders. They're given nasty names - I think there's a movement now from "sexual predators", which isn't nasty enough, towards "sexually violent predators". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The terms "Sexual Predator" or Sexually violent predator" are useful as they distinguish between those who are actually dangerous (or have been dangerous) and those who just ran afoul of our prudery laws.

Unfortunately for most of the US, Megan's Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megans_law) make no such distinction, rendering them pretty much useless, or worse - they instill inappropriate fear of people who shouldn't be on the lists, and subject those people to unwarranted victimization. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>Arrests for indecent exposure could improperly include incidents that would involve public nudity in which one could become a sex offender. The activities in question include streaking, skinny dipping, public urination, and mooning. Consensual sodomy, adultery, and oral sex are also crimes for which one could be declared a sex offender and required to register under the law.

A number of police officers, prosecutors, and crime victims' rights advocates view Megan's Law as an ineffective and unreliable method of preventing sexual predators from repeating their crimes because of their inability to be "cured". Some of these critics favor life imprisonment for high risk sex offenders (especially child sexual offenders) instead of community notification.

The registration database is built on information provided by former offenders who are complying with the law, and who are therefore inclined toward accepting responsibility and living law-abiding lives. The registry therefore becomes, in effect, a database of those former sex offenders who presently are law-abiding citizens, and who therefore may be the least likely to re-offend. The real threat, critics maintain, is posed by those offenders who do not bother to register or who provide false information. [/list]

Megan's laws might be useful if they only applied to real predators, but almost universally they apply to 'sex crimes', and almost everything is a sex crime these days - from dirty jokes to forgetting to close your shades.

-Mark

Caipora

01-31-2007, 04:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or, here's another example. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"! I watched, those gloves seemed not to fit </div></BLOCKQUOTE>One nice thing about living in Brazil is I never need to remove the weather from the sidewalk with a shovel.

But, from the years I did that, I can offer a six-step process: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Put on leather gloves that fit<LI>Do Something<LI>Soak gloves in water or blood, your choice, may be combined with step above<LI>Allow gloves to dry and shrink<LI>Demonstrate that gloves to not fit (Warning: must pick jury that has never dealt with leather gloves in snow)<LI>Get off free[/list]

Sanslines,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing that you might want to be aware of is when a small amout of truth is used and then extrapolated to support an argument. The person who is presenting the argument then can fall back upon this little bit of truth when challenged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You've made an important point here. On this sort of subject there's a lot of appeal to anecdotes. There are anecdotes of two 14-year-olds accused of molesting each other and both forced to register for a lifetime as sex offenders. But there are also, unfortunately, true anecdotes of a genuine danger who was released and attacked or killed again.

Then you get the line about "If it saves one child..." If children were banned from riding in private cars it would save thousands of lives, but no one proposes that. I don't happen to like driving. I am very fond of the right to be considered innocent before being proven guilty, however, and want my children to have that right. I want my children to grow up safe, but I also want them to grow up to a world worth living in, and not a police state.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only thing that can differentiate a truth from a lie is an established standard that most people agree upon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The progress of civilization is largely linked to the adoption of the scientific method. It is important not because it lets you know when you're right - any religion will do that for you - but because it provides a means for reasonable men to see when they are wrong.

There is unfortunately a trend to decide that science is optional when it doesn't fit the religious or political agenda - vs. Bush and global warming. The scientific method is "an established standard that most people agree". When Bush deviates from it, it doesn't mean that he's exercising his right to an opinion, or his mandate from the American voter. It means he's wrong.

- Caipora

DoctorSurferDude

01-31-2007, 09:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Caipora:
I think I've seen those numbers too, and read in more reliable sources that they're a crock. People who are "rape victim advocates" or "sexual abuse professionals" make their living from fostering a broad belief in sexual abuse being widespread. The media also gives highest numbers the greatest credibility, because they're more "newsworthy". Give your sources, please.

Besides the numbers being inflated, the reality is that most - about 90% - child sexual abuse is family: stepfathers, uncles, grandfathers, fathers. Not to mention stepmothers, etc. In the media view though, these numbers are somehow all attached to the Sexual Predator; the Strange Man in the Overcoat; the person outside the family that the children must be protected from.

- Caipora </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Caipora,

Those results were gathered from different places...I wanted to know what the incidence was among the "under 18" population since that was the topic. I didn't find any statistics limited to "rape"....the first two statistics are combined incidence of rape/attempted-rape/molestation.

The numbers are an estimate, based on the "lack of reporting" dynamic....so based on some studies of actual vs. reported #'s, there is a deficit....so the numbers are re-adjusted...up....why is that so bad?

Please go read these numbers on the CDC.gov (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm) website. Pay attention to the part about college students then recall the "some won't say" dynamic...and bear in mind those statistics are for rape only, not molestation or other forms of sexual abuse.

You are right about the majority being somebody the victim knows....and among those, usually a family member. Overall...80% of these crimes occur at the hand of an acquaintance or friend or family member, including underage cousins,siblings, etc. (still counts). 95-97% of the sexual predators are male.

I'm not against the movie and I'm not a part of the religious right, I don't like censorship. But I'm still kind of confused why you are down-playing the issue? It exsists...it's sad, and it's prevelant. I can name at least 10 friends that have been victims of some form of sexual abuse...not including all the patients I've met...it's a very painful reality. I don't care much about the accuracy of numbers, if it was HALF that it would be outrageous....but people downplay the reality of it all and why? I guess ignorance is bliss.

l2ltlarry

01-31-2007, 09:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Letters to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch, Sat. 1-27-07

Sex-offender laws benefit only politicians
Saturday, January 27, 2007

According to The Dispatch, Upper Arlington [a suburb of Columbus, OH] is considering restricting sex offenders who have paid for their offenses with prison time from living or working in their community. What arrogance! What ignorance!

Upper Arlington, like every other community, has sex offenders, most of whom are never revealed. They are daddies, brothers, mothers, cousins, teachers. There are as many in Upper Arlington as in any other community.

Some, if charged, are "sentenced" to long months of costly therapy, and their neighbors never learn who they are or who was abused. Many sex offenses are never revealed because the family loves the abuser and needs his income. Do you actually believe that stockbrokers, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers and police never sexually abuse children?

So, which offenders would be banished from Upper Arlington? Why, just the ones who have served time and are known to the police. And where shall they live? In a cornfield? Downtown? That makes country children and condo grandkids vulnerable, but who cares about them? Long live Upper Arlington!

The only people benefiting from such fear-based laws are politicians.

JOAN BROWN

Mansfield

Copyright © 2007, The Columbus Dispatch </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This letter seems like logic to me. Caipora, your posts always impress me as logical and well-reasoned. When I refer to logic, I'm seldom or never referring to dry and sterile "debate logic" as defined in textbooks. Rather I'm referring to timeless and universal wisdom or common sense.

By agreeing with the Mansfield woman's letter, does that make me a "south-of-the-border type", supportive of sex with minors? Re: "It is just me or does every post from south of the border sound like it is defending sex with minors on this and other threads?" For one thing, the definition of 'minor' or the age of consent or the age of majority keeps changing, going up and up. The kids i.e. LOVERS getting charged as sexual predators and sent to detention or worse and are labeled for life, IS AN ATROCITY. (Yes, I'm shouting.) I like the Elvis movie, 'Follow that Dream', but I think the idea of unthinkingly encouraging people to follow their dreams is dangerous and can cause more harm than good.

For example, people in the movie 'Julian Po' are encouraged to follow their dreams, leaving wreckage and carnage in their wake. Dear Abby and some other advice columnists do the same. Dear Abby's Ms. Phillips' answer to these situations is always the simplistic, pure-as-the-driven-snow "go to the law". That's an answer that probably causes more harm than good too many times. While going to the law is a "follow that dream" purist answer, the letter to the editor above, to me, makes more sense. Too often here in Columbus, the victims have been murdered by their abusers for "outing" them.

johny's answer is still the best. We need to "learn people something". The law is a poor way to deal with the problem.

nacktman

01-31-2007, 10:05 PM

"Is it just me or does every post from south of the border sound like it is defending sex with minors on this and other threads?"

Caipora wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I assume that's a dig in my direction </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You assume incorrectly.
It was not a dig.
It was more of a factual observation.
One that others appear to have made as well.

While DoctorSurferDude and I have not seen eye to eye on recent topics, I agree with him here ... numbers, numbers, fu(k the numbers ... one is too many.
I have seen many people through my practice that were abused as children.
Some adjust to life well, some do not, all are 'different' for the rest of their lives.
Ignoring the fact that abuse occurs by any means ... here it is proposed legislation to mandate prior restraint (i.e., censorship) ... will not make it go away.
Fanning the flames of a smoldering fire is not a brilliant idea ... a stray spark will burn you every time.
Such is what will happen with the fuss kicked up about this film and the scene in it.
As a result abuse will not be eradicated.
False claims will clog up the systems in place to the point they will not function.
All the while actual cases of abuse will go undetected.
Oh, and every man alive will have to go out and ravage a young girl just like in the movie, because that is what is expected of them.

Time to get real, people!

02-01-2007, 06:49 AM

Okay .... had to put a posting here.

After reading the posts here there is some accuracy and truth to what some posters are saying; however, to say that violence on TV and in movies does not influence someone is totally wrong. It does! A lot of research has been done on violence against people and the consensus among many of those studies is yes, violence, on TV and in movies does influence and affect people.

The point about how advertising affects what consumers will "want" and buy is a good example. Like advertising on TV and movies, violence in many movies is a constant. With the number of hours people spend watching TV and movies, to say there is not a cause and effect is to truly have one's head in the sand.

Following are studies that have been done regarding violence on TV/movies or other media and how it does affect people, in particular children. This is just a cursory list as there are numerous studies, some of which I have listed.

"Movies and TV shows affect our attitudes and beliefs. Depending on what our values are, they can either strengthen or erode them over time.

TV shows and movies are made by people who want to affect viewers. They want to change minds, they want to 'enlighten' (which means they want to make you believe whatever they do). Most of them would do almost anything to get their project made because they understand the power of film and television." Random Terrain – source

Television (TV) has its good side. It can be entertaining and educational, and can open up new worlds for kids, giving them a chance to travel the globe, learn about different cultures, and gain exposure to ideas they may never encounter in their own community. Programs with positive role models can influence people to change their behavior for the better. However, the reverse can also be true: Kids are likely to learn things from TV that parents don't want them to learn. TV can affect kids' health and family life.

It' s worthwhile for parents to think about what role they want TV to play in their family. Consider:
• A great deal is known about children and television, because there have been thousands of studies on the subject. Researchers have studied how TV affects kids' sleep, weight, grades, behavior, and more. It' s worth looking at what the research says when deciding how to manage television in your family.
• Spending time watching TV can take time away from healthy activities like active play outside with friends, eating dinner together as a family, or reading. TV time also takes away from participating in sports, music, art or other activities that require practice to become skillful.
• TV viewing starts earlier than other forms of media—often beginning before age two. In recent years, TV, video and DVD programs geared to babies and toddlers have come on the market—and now even a cable channel for babies. We don' t know yet what effect TV-viewing by babies may have on their development. We do know that time spent watching TV replaces time spent interacting with caregivers and other children. Social interaction is critical to a baby' s healthy development.
The American Academy of Pediatrics takes a "better-safe-than-sorry" stance on TV for young children [12]:
"Children of all ages are constantly learning new things. The first 2 years of life are especially important in the growth and development of your child's brain. During this time, children need good, positive interaction with other children and adults. Too much television can negatively affect early brain development. This is especially true at younger ages, when learning to talk and play with others is so important."
"Until more research is done about the effects of TV on very young children, the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend television for children age 2 or younger." University of Michigan Study, American Association of Pediatrics

“The industry cries defensively in unison: "Art just imitates life." They claim it is not their fault that life can be vulgar, pornographic and sadistic. They are just doing a public service by letting us in on these sordid facts. And, indeed, the artist is being influenced by his life experiences to create his work. But millions of viewers are then exposed to it and often become tragically affected when their life imitates art.
As psychiatrists, we need to be on the lookout for ways in which our patients are constantly being influenced by the media. Though it may not seem noteworthy when they copy a style of dress or a slang expression from a movie or television show, it is the same unconscious psychological process that makes them copy a revenge fantasy scene and blow their classmates away.
If Hollywood continues exploiting our instinctual drives for their fun and profit, society will continue to self-destruct by engaging in senseless violence and promiscuous sex. The answer does not lie in trying more children as adults, but rather in making the entertainment industry take responsibility.”
Examining the Media's Influence From a Psychiatrist's Perspective by Carole Lieberman, M.D., June 2001, Vol. XVIII, Issue 6 , Psychiatric Times

For more on TV violence and kids:
• A 1993 summary of some of the research on TV violence and behavior.
• Television Violence: Content, Context, and Consequences
• The National Television Violence Study (NTVS)
• About the NTVS—an article from the AAP
• Television Violence: A Review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages—a 1995 70-page report and review of the literature.
• Violence in the Media--Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects: Decades of psychological research confirms that media violence can increase aggression
• Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence—a fact sheet from the American Psychiatric Association
• Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children: Congressional Public Health Summit—a statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association.

I do not support censorship but do know from my work with families of abuse that influencing factors from the media among children and young adults has a significant impact.

Allie

Sanslines

02-01-2007, 07:17 AM

I agree with the above post by Allie. It is widely known that television does influence people. How many people see the so called 'ideal' life where people are wealthy, live in huge houses, and are not in need of anything? How many strive to be like them?

There is a fine line between censorship and non censorship. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. As far as this implied movie rape scene is concerned, it will turn out to be much ado about nothing and will fade away shortly. However, even though we might not agree with the way that some people bring attention to the seriousness of a rape scene of a child, I do not think that we should mock those same people. Their objections to showing such scenes do bring attention to the problem and do open up debate and discussion which will result in both sides coming to some agreement as to what can and can not be shown on tv or in movies.

nacktman

02-01-2007, 07:45 AM

Not quite accurate ...

Alexis wrote:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> After reading the posts here there is some accuracy and truth to what some posters are saying; however, to say that violence on TV and in movies does not influence someone is totally wrong. It does! Alot of research has been done on violence against people anf the consensus amony many of those studies is yes, violence, on TV and in movies does influence and affect people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did you leave out the most crucial piece of information in the statement above?

ALL studies done concerning violence toward others show outside influences affect an individual exposed to them and ALL of those same studies show that those already PREDISPOSED to violent behavior react to exposure to acts of violence with the types of behaviors they are, by their indivdual nature, predisposed to. Those same studies have found that individuals NOT predisposed to violence are not influenced to begin to exhibit behaviors they are not predisposed to.

Also, the quotation from that hack with an agenda, (and I do know her personally) Lieberman, is just that -- a furthering of her agenda.

Trotting out the "Social Worker's" scripture is never a good policy as all social workers are ill trained to do they work they say they are performing, and yes I mean ALL social workers. The mantra is to fit all the pegs in the same hole ... it will never work, but they keep insisting it will ... hey, wait a minute, isn't that one of the defining characteristics of insanity -- doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results?!

To this particular topic:
It still boils down to a furor created to futher the polictical agenda of those that are narrow minded and backward thinking.
It will do nothing to end the very thing the furor is about.
All this for the movie that from what I hear stinks to begin with (from those who are actually working on it); so even with the hoopla I most likely will not see it.
Will that keep me from being influenced by the "rape" scene?
From that particular scene, probally, but not from what I see everyday.
Will what I see influence my behavior?
Well, doh, what do you think?
Will viewing a scene in a movie cause me to become violent?
No, but seeing violence in person, might.
I mean I will not sit back and allow abuse before my eyes ... for my reaction please refer to the Why Are Some So Stupid thread in the Open Conversation section.

02-01-2007, 08:00 AM

Nacktman, doesn't matter if anyone is PREDISPOSED .... a continous diet of violence from a young age upward does have an impact. You, if you are truly, a psychologist, know this.

ALL social workers are not ill-trained. That is the same as saying ALL pscyologists are ill trained to do what they say they are doing or performing.

Read some research, Nacktman. But since you never post anything to support your opinion, guess I am asking you to do more than you wish to do

Allie

usmc1

02-01-2007, 10:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Nacktman, doesn't matter if anyone is PREDISPOSED .... a continous diet of violence from a young age upward does have an impact. You, if you are truly, a psychologist, know this.

ALL social workers are not ill-trained. That is the same as saying ALL pscyologists are ill trained to do what they say they are doing or performing.

Read some research, Nacktman. But since you never post anything to support your opinion, guess I am asking you to do more than you wish to do

Allie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look Allie, let me suggest this. Violence, rape, murder and theft have been a part of humanity since before we started tracking such things.

It is not TV, comics, video games or any other outside stimuli which causes these things.

We had the Bloody Benders, and Jack the Ripper and the rapes and enslavement of the children embarked on the Children's Crusades, long, long before there were radio, TV, Comic books, movie or vido games and men such as Caryl chessman and Charlie Starkweather during a period of near puritanical censorship. So, can't we say with some certainty, at the very least, that violent behavior does not depend on those things in order to manifest itself?

And can't we also say, with certainty, that the vast majority of those viewing, reading or playing such things are not compelled to act out the violence.

So doesn't it seem a bit tenuous, at best, to suggest that such things cause violent behavior, since violent behavior occurs without those things and those things do not propel all people into violent acts?

The problem with the so-called studies into this area is that those things which supposedly cause the violent behavior are so ubiquitously a part of society that there is virtually no way to extablish a control group and no baseline or benchmark of human behavior from which to draw a conclusion.

mnstnz-Dan

02-01-2007, 10:57 AM

DoctorSurferDude

02-01-2007, 11:17 AM

The movie is called "Hounddog" and it deals with the heavy topic of child rape and sexual abuse. Brooke Shields and Jodie Foster came under the same scrutiny for their underage roles in the 80's. In an interview Fanning told the press that she felt the issue needed to be discussed and that if her role helps somebody to open a dialouge about their abuse and seek help, then it was worth it. She got upset when the press accused her parents of practicing poor judgement saying that it was ok to critisize her, but not her parents.

The writer-director Deborah Kampmeier is herself a victim of rape and childhood sexual abuse, so in many ways this movie is somewhat autobiographical and an important topic to bring awareness to.

nacktman

02-01-2007, 12:50 PM

Quite well put usmc1.

Oh, Allie, as one who has actually DONE more than a few of the studies you cited and WRITTEN the defining paper on the same said studies, there is not much more Research I can do.

Impact from modern media is little more than nil.
The fact is that abuse and violent behavior have been around since ... air.
Another, fact is that every "age" has it's focal point for fixation of blame.
None have anything to do with the fact that abuse and violent behavior occur.

Reactionary calls for censorship will do absolutly nothing to address the fact of abuse and violence.
ALL social workers ARE ill trained.
They are trained in the "western-european" (read:W.A.S.P.-White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant), cultural worldview, which does not allow for the differing cultures of the world and what is "societal norms" outside of that dynamic: therefore, they do more irreversable damage than any good in almost every case.

Fortunately the film is destined for the backend lower shelf of the video store where all horrid films end up.
Fortunately the reactionary calls will wither and die on the vine as the film leaps into obscurity.
Unfortunately, Doc, what the actress and director are hoping to inspire ... a debate and hopefully solutions ... will not occur precisely due to the reactionary calls sounding now.
The abuse and violence will continue and when the next scapegoat is found (and it will), to "blame" the reactionaries will again scream and howl, and again nothing will be done to solve the real problem of abuse and violence.

Remember the numbers are extremely low in relation to the total population even though they are higher than in the past -- more people and better reporting have seen to that -- the percentages are virtually the same as they have ever been.
Which makes the problems of violence and abuse very low on the priority list for society to address -- outta sight, outta mind, ya know! -- hence the calls to censor in lieu of finding solutions.

hm0504

02-01-2007, 01:14 PM

AlexisDanielle, in examining how exposure to media affects behaviour, would you not agree that it is important to distinguish between depictions that celebrate a vile act and those that denounce it.

It would seem to me in your comments (and I'll admit to not having followed this thread carefully) that this distinction is not clear. Do you think depictions that show a vile act in a negative light are going to have the same effect (encouraging that behaviour) as depictions that show the same act in a positive light.

Sanslines

02-01-2007, 02:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem with the so-called studies into this area is that those things which supposedly cause the violent behavior are so ubiquitously a part of society that there is virtually no way to extablish a control group and no baseline or benchmark of human behavior from which to draw a conclusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is assumed true, then how can anyone absolutely asert that there IS or IS NOT a direct correlation between watching violence and commiting violence?

Sanslines

02-01-2007, 02:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
AlexisDanielle, in examining how exposure to media affects behaviour, would you not agree that it is important to distinguish between depictions that celebrate a vile act and those that denounce it.

It would seem to me in your comments (and I'll admit to not having followed this thread carefully) that this distinction is not clear. Do you think depictions that show a vile act in a negative light are going to have the same effect (encouraging that behaviour) as depictions that show the same act in a positive light. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm.............it might already be too late. Allie has probably been driven off the forum. Yet we wonder why so few women post let alone come to this forum.

usmc1

02-01-2007, 03:43 PM

Sanslines

02-01-2007, 04:01 PM

Sanslines

02-01-2007, 04:10 PM

More on the Copycat Effect:

Here is what I (meaning Loren Coleman) am finding:

- most contemporary school shootings tend to occur primarily during two
periods of the school year - at the beginning (late Aug through October) and
near the the end of the academic year (March-April)...

- copycats follow a regular temporal pattern that repeats - these could be
after a primary media event in a day, a week, two weeks, a month, a year, ten
years - vulnerable humans have internal media clocks...

- copycats imitate the previous violent attacks, oftentimes down to specific
details as that mirror the previous specifics of the shooter, the victims, and the methods -

- "celebrity" events have a far-reaching impact and modeling effect - so, of
course, Columbine serves as a dark cloud over many school shootings.

One of the silliest things I have heard from cable news in the last several days during mid-September 2006, is that "these school shootings aren't like the other school shootings." This is short-sighted, and factually untrue.

Before the current model (post-1996) in which a member of the student body would go into their own school and kill fellow students, the pattern was one of outsiders - often adults - going into schools and killing students. In my book, I discuss some of the more infamous cases (on pages 166-167, and in a long list in my appendix, following page 263).

Every year is different, and a fresh view must be considered based upon observations that are right in front of our eyes. What I do at the beginning of a new school year is to see if there is an emerging pattern that will be the re-worked "copycat" model for the new school year. To me, it was and is obvious where we were going this year.

Specifically, here is the recent short history...a mix of outsiders invading school and students making plans:

Thursday, August 24, 2006 - Essex, Vermont - two dead (two teachers) - three wounded (two teachers, plus the shooter who turned the gun on himself) - the shooter was a male, all victims were female. Christopher Williams, 26, of Essex, attempted to kill his former girlfriend, first-grade schoolteacher Andrea Lambesis. The dead was Lambesis' mother, Linda, 57, the first victim, and veteran Essex Elementary School second-grade teacher Alicia Shanks, 56, of Essex, slain in her classroom at the school at about 2 p.m.

Wednesday, August 29, 2006 - Hillsborough, NC - one dead (father of teenage shooter) - two wounded (two students) - shooter showed up in a trench coat, with guns, pipe bombs, in a copycat of Columbine - Asked by police why he went to Orange High School, Alvaro Rafael Castillo, 19, responded: "Columbine. Remember Columbine."

According to Coleman, the media's attitude is "death sells... if it bleeds, it leads." The author, who has written and lectured extensively on the impact of media, mounts a convincing case against newspapers, TV and books that sensationalize murders and suicides, thus encouraging others to imitate destructive crimes. He traces the problem's roots to Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774), which spotlighted a fellow who shot himself over a failed romance and inspired many young men to do the same. The novel encouraged widespread use of the term "the Werther Effect" when referring to copycat catastrophes. Coleman addresses Marilyn Monroe's 1962 death, pointing out that thanks to extensive coverage of the star's passing, "the suicide rate in the United States increased briefly by 12%." Other subjects include the 2002 Washington-area snipers John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, whose actions spawned numerous sniper killings; suicide clusters among fourth-century Greeks; cult leaders [Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and David Koresh], who attained gruesome glamour through melodramatic press perusal; Jack the Ripper—who created copycat killers from the late 1800s into the 20th century—and today's suicide bombers. Although readers may feel there's little they can do to muzzle media destructiveness, Coleman presents his advice to with enough punch to intrigue the public and possibly exert a minor influence on the press.

--Publishers Weekly June 21, 2004

In this startling new work, Loren Coleman translates the academic research on copycat effects into a very readable and accessible book. He brings imitation of violence to life through many detailed case studies and person-centered examples, such as on the sensationalized reporting of suicide, sniper attacks, and suicide bombers. The media are still largely in a state of denial on how its coverage of death contributes to the violence and destructiveness in our society - but Coleman's book should wake them up!
--Dr. Steven Stack, Sociologist, Center for Suicide Research

Sanslines

02-01-2007, 04:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Quite simple really. Since we know that violence happened through the ages without the so-called "trigger" from movie, TV, comic books and video games we know that violence exists outside of, and without those stimuli.

And we also know that not all of those who, in today's society, use those so-called "trigger" stimuli do not commit the acts portrayed.

So.

Violence does not require movies, tv, comics or video games to occur.

Many, almost all, the people who use comics, video games, and movies depicting violence do not commit violent acts themselves.

Since both of those statements are true, isn't it then logical to assert that there is no cause and effect relationship between actual violence and depicted violence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's take a look at this piece by piece:

1) Since we know that violence happened through the ages without the so-called "trigger" from movie, TV, comic books and video games we know that violence exists outside of, and without those stimuli.

This simply means that violence can occur outside those stimuli. It, in and of itself, does not mean that violence can occur within those media. At this point it can be deducted that violence can occur either within or outside of the stimuli.

2)And we also know that not all of those who, in today's society, use those so-called "trigger" stimuli do not commit the acts portrayed.

'Not all of those' is not an absolute term. This leaves the door open to the reasonable assumption that some of those who use the so called trigger stimuli can commit those acts.

In conclusion, you are picking and chosing a specific aspect of premise one and premise two to form an absolute conclusion. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the premisses is that there is no cause and effect between depicted violence and actual violence in SOME cases. Absolute conclusions are based upon absolute premisses.
The words "many", "almost all", "not all of those who......" leave the door open to the other interpretations because they are not absolutes.

nacktman

02-01-2007, 06:47 PM

Sans, you are forgetting the central key to the behavior attributed to "copycats".
ALL of them have been found to be predisposed to the very actions they commit.

Copycat behaviors are just that -- they imitate the percieved "norm".
If that perception is skewed by a predisposition to violence then violence will occur.
One that is predisposed to acts of kindness and charity will react with kindess and charity when given the same stimuli as one who is predisposed to violence. They will not change their behavior simply from contact with events.
Behavior Modification is a very difficult and dicey thing at best and not very successful in the long term through mechanical efforts. Behavior modification does occur in individuals regardless their predisposition from severe personal trauma ... and with the exception of those with mental difficulties to begin with ... no one viewing violent acts on a movie screen will have a severe personal trauma from doing so. Those prone to empathy will feel moved to "help" the victim. Those prone to be unempethetic will feel moved to "delight" in the plight of the victim.

It is a disgraceful tragedy the way the reactionaries are brushing this worthy topic under a mountain of hype and hyperbole. Real solutions will be found only when people are talking and not wringing their hands and howling for censorship or promoting the abusive behavior by claiming it's all right to "love" a minor.

The problems exist.
There are solutions.
Real solutions.

As I stated before it's time to get real, people!

02-01-2007, 07:13 PM

Nacktman, who is "howling for censorship" here?

And this thread is NOT being posted by reactionaries. Who is a reactionary?

And who was "promoting the abusive behavior by claiming it's all right to "love" a minor."

If this thread is such a "disgraceful tragedy..." don't read the thread. Simple solution.

Allie

nacktman

02-01-2007, 08:22 PM

Allie, please read the initial post of this thread. It contains who the "reactionaries howling for censorship" are, along with several others.

And YES here are reactionaries posting to this thread ... I am addressing this post to one of them now.

You might want to brush up on the postings from our southern hemisphere before asking who may be claiming to believe "love" of a minor is all Hunky Dory.

This thread is NOT a disgraceful tragedy ... the reactionary howling that is distracting attention from the real issue is. Your post above this one is as pure example of reactionary hyperbole as one could ask for, none of the post dealt with the topic of the thread, instead you focused on your own erroneous reading of another poster(s) statements.

Yet, again I say ... it's time to get real folks!
Let's see if we can accomplish that with as much dispatch as possible and as little disruption from the peanut gallery as possible.

Find real and lasting solutions to the problems of abuse and violence.
Calling for censorship of a movie or future movies will not do it.
Vainly attempting to equate modern media as a causation of violent behavior will not do it.
No matter how hard you try, apples and oranges are two seperate and distinct types of seed pod, and you can not make one into the other.

Put another way ... those viewing nude pictures would be induced to commit lewd and lacivious behaviors using the "logic" used by those who say violent TV, Movies, Music, etc., causes violent behavior.
How many on this forum would go out and commit lewd and lacivious behaviors after viewing a nude photograph?
Hopefully, not any!

A bad film is just that ... a bad film.
This one may not even make it to the backend lower shelf.
The furor created about this film for self gain has done nothing to answer the problem of abuse and violence.

Now let's all repeat the new mantra ... 'It's time to get real, folks!'

Sanslines

02-02-2007, 03:20 AM

It was stated in previous posts (very clearly) that: "There is NO proven effect between watching violence and then commiting violence". The above referenced quote never made mention of exceptions and was meant as an absolute, all inclusive statement. My examples of copycat criminals were used to show that there has been a connection between watching violence and commiting violence. My examples show that the above statement can not be used in an absolute sense. The statement needs to be modified to say something to the effect of: "there is no direct connection between watching violence and commiting violence for "normal" people or for the majority of people. The statement now allows for the exceptions which do exist.

As far as censorship is concerned, there will always be a group on one extreme side that calls for censorship of everything and another group on the exact opposite extreme side that would allow anything and everything on tv and in movies. The end result will be that the group in the middle will find some reasonable and balanced approach to allowing some things and disallowing others. Some movies are provocative and will test the current boundaries which is a good thing. It will be up to people to decide if the currently established limits will indeed change.

l2ltlarry

02-02-2007, 05:34 AM

Whatever else this thread is, it is a good discussion. Too many of the topics are too lightweight for my liking. I like digging into important things. usmc1, I thought your original post in this thread was very good (not that the others haven't been).

Sanslines

02-02-2007, 06:42 AM

Well, at least Allie has not been driven out of here.........yet!

02-02-2007, 07:47 AM

Oh Sanslines --- not to worry ---- individuals of Nacktman's ilk are just slight irritants. He just like to espouse his "Forum All Knowing, Know-All-God-complex" opinions; he is very subjective and never offers any backup for his opinion(s). You know, he is the All Kowing One. His feelings of superiority as he posts his condescending, talk-down-to posts are typical of his closed mind when one is out of his "thought-camp".

I would not be "run-off" this forum by a Nacktman but would cease to post to someone who is as inane as he gets with his posts. Why waste the screen space? Why cater to his perverse enjoyment of being an_________?

Happy Friday,
Allie

nacktman

02-02-2007, 08:47 AM

Well Bob, I see the thread you began has fallen to the derivative reactionary drivel as questions as to real solutions go unanswered in lieu of obfuscation and diverting smoke and mirrors.

l2ltlarry, the "good discussion" you mentioned in your previous post has been a bit one sided due to the aformentioned drivel. Hopefully you, I and the others attempting to hold a "real" discussion with some ideas that could be actual solutions to the problems of abuse and violence will be able to overcome the distracting ones.
Your pointing out the post of another about 'learning people something' is a great place to start, however 'learning' isn't the lasting solution at least not in its whole.
As to what the 'whole' solution may be, well that is the question before us now isn't it?

The proposed legislation to force production companies to submit their scripts for prior approval here in NC by the reactionary politican has already died on the table ... censorship has lost yet again, as it should.
The furor created by the same said politician has already begun to wane but the damage has all ready been done; the film will not get the 'message' its creators hoped across. Instead it will fall into obscurity and be placed on a list of movies that were made with an asterisk and maybe someday some one will notice the title and see the asterisk and look up the film-bio and see the furor about the film and trot it out ... and discover that it was a much ado about nothing and that it was a horrid film anyway ... who knows. Or it could be as baremore pointed out about 1962's TWO WOMEN ... which was far more graphic in its depiction of the rape of a child than Hound Dog reportedly is, and all it showed was the face and the expression on that face, but one had no doubts as to what was happening as it depicted the ravages of WWII in Italy ... and it will remind us that such things do occur and need to be stopped.
Now how to accomplish this?

What are some of the ideas you have for accomplishment of this goal?
Leave us not let the drivel of the reactionaries divert us from the path of this discussion.

usmc1

02-02-2007, 12:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Quite simple really. Since we know that violence happened through the ages without the so-called "trigger" from movie, TV, comic books and video games we know that violence exists outside of, and without those stimuli.

And we also know that not all of those who, in today's society, use those so-called "trigger" stimuli do not commit the acts portrayed.

So.

Violence does not require movies, tv, comics or video games to occur.

Many, almost all, the people who use comics, video games, and movies depicting violence do not commit violent acts themselves.

Since both of those statements are true, isn't it then logical to assert that there is no cause and effect relationship between actual violence and depicted violence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's take a look at this piece by piece:

1) Since we know that violence happened through the ages without the so-called "trigger" from movie, TV, comic books and video games we know that violence exists outside of, and without those stimuli.

This simply means that violence can occur outside those stimuli. It, in and of itself, does not mean that violence can occur within those media. At this point it can be deducted that violence can occur either within or outside of the stimuli.

2)And we also know that not all of those who, in today's society, use those so-called "trigger" stimuli do not commit the acts portrayed.

'Not all of those' is not an absolute term. This leaves the door open to the reasonable assumption that some of those who use the so called trigger stimuli can commit those acts.

In conclusion, you are picking and chosing a specific aspect of premise one and premise two to form an absolute conclusion. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the premisses is that there is no cause and effect between depicted violence and actual violence in SOME cases. Absolute conclusions are based upon absolute premisses.
The words "many", "almost all", "not all of those who......" leave the door open to the other interpretations because they are not absolutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, any counter argument you present based on "assumption" has no validity in making false either of the two premises I presented. Nor, has anything you've written made either of them false.

Not all is indeed absolute. As in not all A's are B's. So one could incorrectly infer that some B's are A's. But the premise that not all A's are B's gives us no evidence that some A's are B's, or C's.

If A's are those who partake of the so-called stimuli.
And B's are those who commit violent acts.
And C's are those who committed violent act before the stimuli existed.

Then we know, as a matter of fact, that not all A's are B's. Aboslutely! Because not all A's commit those violent acts, and even if some A's do become B's, we know to look elsewhere for the cause of the violence, since if the stimuli were the cause of violence, all A's would be B's.

Also we know that no C's can be A's, therefore we know that for violence to take place, the stimuli is not required, since violence preceded the existance of A's.

And since we also know that there were B's before the stimuli under discussion existed we know, absolutely, violence exists without stimuli, so the logical conclusion is that there is no demonstrable effect on B's by the stimuli.

nacktman

02-02-2007, 01:00 PM

Absolutely, usmc1! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

Caipora

02-02-2007, 02:35 PM

Nactman said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well Bob, I see the thread you began has fallen to the derivative reactionary drivel as questions as to real solutions go unanswered in lieu of obfuscation and diverting smoke and mirrors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And that indeed is the problem in the real world.

Real problem: 90% of child sexual abuse is in the home, done by relatives or trusted friends.

Smoke and mirrors: Ban movies, find ever more terrible penalties for "registered sex offenders", ban teen nudist camps.

There is always a political market for "doing something" in a way that only affects other people. And it's always an easy sell, an easy solution, to find someone to hate as a way of solving all our problems. Not too long ago in the United States, it was the Communists and the homosexuals ("the reds and the pinks") who were undermining the country. Oh, and the blacks. In other places it was the Jews, or the lepers, for the Puritans it was anyone who didn't think like them - they hanged women for being Quakers, though maybe that wasn't part of your elementary school Thanksgiving pageant.

(Off topic, but besides sex offenders, our modern lepers are Moslems. One thing everyone knows is they hatet the U.S. because it supports Israel, and the Moslems hate the Jews and always have. Now, the oldest synagogue in New York is the Spanish and Portuguese synogogue; the Jews there came there after being expelled from Brazil, where they we went after being expelled from Spain. In fact there were Jews all over the place in the 1500s and 1600s who were expelled from Spain - Spinoza is clearly a Spanish name, for example. Why the heck were there so many Jews in Spain, anyways? Because they had lived and prospered there for centuries in peace under the Moors, under the Moslems, and were only persecuted once the Christans took over.)

Someone here brought up, regarding child sexual abuse, that "one case is to many." I agree. But let me tell about my corner dry cleaner when I lived in New York, a young man I saw a couple of times a month, who one day was accused by an 11-year-old girl of raping her. He spent two weeks in jail before she confessed she made it all up and her family left the county. He came back altered and strange, and died not long after from a drug overdose that I could never believe was accidental.

And look at the Duke "rape" case. Three young men who, although not the sort I would have liked to associate with in college, have not a shred of credible evidence against them. The accuser has changed her story many times, and the number and variety of DNA samples found in and about her person are such that - how can I say this without offending the board's censorware? - if she were a square on a Monopoly board, she'd be one of the public utilities.

How many false accusations of rape are too many? I think the answer there, too, is that one is too many. How do we strike a balance?

Are the two cases parallel? A victim of child abuse or rape is the victim of a single twisted individual. The victim of a false accusation has against him the police, prosecutors and press; and incited by them his friends, family and neighbors. Those who come to his defense are themselve promptly accused as being monsters themselves (and if you doubt that, look at some of the satanic ritual abuse panics).

There is, of course, therapy for victims of rape and abuse. They can, with patience, have their self-image rebuilt, and learn that what happened to them was done by a bad man, and the world is a good place. What can a therapist tell someone who's been falsely accused? That he's a good man, but that the whole of society ranged against him were bad people? He knew that, and therapists are trained to cure paranoia; I'm not sure if they're equipped to deal with people who have found that everyone really is out to get them.

And really, in a situation where the falsely accused was the only sane one, he doesn't need psychotherapy. He needs his savings back, and his job, and his house if he lost it, and his reputation restored. But while there's all sorts of money for victims of child abuse, there's none for those falsely accused of it. Indeed one of the strings attached to the Federal money for child abuse victims is that, to get it, states must pass laws shielding those who make false accusations from lawsuits.

Doc Surfer Dude posted that he sees victims of rape and child abuse in his work. In my unpaid work with civil rights groups, I see victims of the police, victims of false accusations like my long-ago drycleaner. I understand that Doc feels for the victims he sees, it would be strange if he did not. But I too feel for those I see.

About a year and a half ago on this board, someone posted a link to Nikki's "Nudist Hall of Shame". I looked at one of the cases there, and old man who had temporarily taken in the two children of a friend and neighbor who was battling a drug problem. When she disappeared, he called Child Services, and they found a more permanent home. But alas, once there they were questioned by social workers who knews what they wanted to hear, and wouldn't stop asking untill they got it. Stories evolved and changed, innocent incidents were fraught with significance. They came and arrested the old man, and he posted bail, and his friends and neighbors signed petitions on his behalf, and he wrote and posted his defenses. So they came and arrested him again, claiming they'd found child pornography on his computer. They got a judge to set a bail that could not be met, and though the newspaper says he bellowed in court that he had done nothing, they locked him away.

It's will be two years in April that that old man is jailed, denied his right to a speedy trial, denied his right to reasonable bail. Ninety percent of the charges have been dropped, unnoticed by the papers, because they were really only filed to make headlines. The remaining charges about the children seem to come down to the old man being a nudist. It seems quite clear he he is an old man who did no one any harm. (And if you think he harmed someone by looking at pictures, I'd like names or at least initials, please.)

It seems quite clear that there's no evidence to convict him, and to avoid the embarassment of an acquital, the prosecution is hoping he'll die in jail.

What is the difference between that old man and a victim of child abuse?

A child can "fall through the cracks", her suffering can be hidden, but once the abuse is noticed, something will be done. No one applauds, or says she was asking for it (well, very few do, at least).

The old man, however, is the subject of a well coordenated and well financed attack. Besides the people paid to persecute him, there are all sorts of volunteers, nasty people like Nikki Craft. If he was accused, he must be guilty, right? But there were always people to stone the adulter, to gather ***gots to burn the witch, to haul on the rope at the lynching, to tell the men in black uniforms where the Jews were hiding.

It's always easy to see the errors of the past. Ah, if I were there, I would have forgiven the adulters, turned the village's wrath away from the witch with soft words, hidden the Jew, embraced the black and the Communist in the public square. I'm good man, an enlighted man, and would never make the mistakes those intolerant people of the past did. However, those sexual predators are something else, and after we boil them all in oil we should go after those Islamic towel heads who everyone knows are intolerant.

We live in the present, and are judged not by what we think of the sins of the past, but what we do to in the face of the wrongs of the present. And I think the punishments being meted out to sex offenders are a frightening retreat from centuries of civil liberties, and are too high a cost to pay for imaginary security.

- Caipora

Sanslines

02-02-2007, 03:29 PM

USMC,

You seem to be adament in applying a purely subjective reasoning thought process and using only part of a purely objective tool to support your conclusions. Using subjective reasoning is commonly used in this forum as follows: Someone wants to demonstrate a point and uses supporting official (sounding) links and other references to support their point. They exclude other information that may contradict their point because it weakens their argument. They then insist that their point is 'truth'or 'reality' and what other poster's post is 'false' or 'lies'. Both you and I have seen this used over and over again in this forum. Both you and I are intelligent enough to understand the application of this technique.

Now what I have applied to your premisses and your words is pure objective logic. My analysis of your premisses does not exclude your conclusions because they are also valid. However, I demonstrated that your wording also allows for my conclusions. To simplify this process:

From your above posting:

"And since we also know that there were B's before the stimuli under discussion existed we know, absolutely, violence exists without stimuli, so the logical conclusion is that there is no demonstrable effect on B's by the stimuli."

In conclusion, violence exists without stimuli but based upon your premisses (as I have explained above) it also exists with stimuli. Your wording clearly allows for this conclusion in addition to the conclusion that you have stated. In purely analytical deductive logic, you must allow for all conclusions and can not pick and chose only that which allows for your conclusion. Now I have shown how your wording allows for your conclusion. Can you not accept that your wording also allows for mine?[/QUOTE]

nacktman

02-02-2007, 03:50 PM

Obfuscation and semantic word-play do not contribute to the debate.
Still trying to force the apple and the orange into one thing, are we?

There is NO correlation between violent stimuli and violent action.
One out of a million is hardly a correlation.
(And that number is artifically inflated.)
So it is possible to make the statement that there is no cause and effect in viewing a violent scene in a movie and violent behaviors with the Absolute in mind.
It is NOT possible to make the statement that there are exceptions in the causation and effect of viewing violent scenes in a movie and violent behaviors with the Absolute in mind.
To make an exception is to be less than absolute.

The problem of abuse and violence is a major one despite its low numbers in society.
The victims of abuse and violence are forgotten when the next commerical comes on.

But, as one just pointed out with the hysterical reactionary calls for censorship, new laws and guilty if accused, there are another set of victims as well ... victims of false allegations.
These are the ones I mentioned in an earlier post as the ones that will clog the systems in place to the point of them being unable to function even at the insufficant level they normally work at.
Persons actually guilty of abusing or committing violence upon another walk away from their actions without nary a nod in their direction due to this.

However, unlike victims of abuse and violence, false accusation victims are not forgtten as easily nor as quickly ... this is also very wrong.

Again I ask what do you think possible solutions to be?

usmc1

02-02-2007, 03:57 PM

Sanslines,

The argument is not that violence and stimuli might both exist. The position I am taking is that there is no cause and effect relationship between violent media and actual violent acts.

I think my syllogism leads one to that conclusion. Of course the stimuli and action exist, but, I say separately from each other with no cause and effect relationship. Based on my syllogism it is logical to draw the inference that any violence with stimuli is purely coincidental and the violence would ahve happened without the stimuli since violence does not rely on the stimuli to happen.

Caipora

02-02-2007, 05:29 PM

It's not a black/white violence/no violence.

Clearly violence predates television, and even civilization, and can't be caused by it.

Two useful questions are
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Whether television or anything else can increase or decrease violence. The answer to this of course can't be found by logic but only by research.
<LI>Whether the kind or degree of violence can be influenced.[/list]
On the second point, let me elaborate. Years ago in Copacabana I saw a group of schoolboys leaving the beach. Two of them got angry, squared off - and started kicking.
Brazilians play soccer rather than baseball, capoeira (a dance that is stylized fighting, with a lot of kicking) is common, and kids fight by kicking whereas in a U.S. suburb they would throw punches.
A few years back I read an article on high schools in Detroit. A big linebacker type kid told an older reporter that he was afraid of violence in school, and the reporter commented he looked big enough to take care of himself. the kid replied that kids didn't punch each other anymore, they'd just pull out a gun and shoot - no sweat, no mussed clothes.
And, in West Side Story or somesuch, one group of kids is appalled when in a fight an "outsider" pulls a knife: strictly not done, very gauche.
One of the solutions for slum kids in the U.S. in the last century was boxing programs. You let them slug each other under organized circumstances with rules.

Now all these kids - kick-fighting Brazilians, suburban American kids throwing punches in a schoolyard, inner-city Detroit boys with guns, ethnic gangs with and without knives, boxing slum boys - all these kids employ violence. Maybe all teenage boys tend to, it could be part of evolution.

One of the argument made early on is that TV only works if you're already disposed to something. OK, all these kids are prone to violence. But they express it in different ways, some far more harmful than others.

It's been generally agreed that TV may not make you drink cola, but it can change the kind of cola you drink. If you're disposed to violence, can't it alter the way in which violence is expressed? A schoolyard dustup with fisticuffs may end in a bloody nose and nothing more serious. But that makes bad television, whereas gunshots and bloody death can impart drama to even a mediocre script. Can the TV reliance on deadly violence cause children to see that, rather than feet or hands or even knives, as the proper way to settle differences?

Something makes all these groups fight in different ways. Surely it is broader cultural factors than television. But television is a lot of how children learn about the world these days.

- Caipora

Sanslines

02-02-2007, 06:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The position I am taking is that there is no cause and effect relationship between violent media and actual violent acts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then what do you have to say about those copycat killers who, when asked what motivated them to commit violence, refered to another violent act that they witnessed on television as their motivation? Are they all liars?

"Based on my syllogism it is logical to draw the inference that any violence with stimuli is purely coincidental and the violence would ahve happened without the stimuli since violence does not rely on the stimuli to happen.'

It is true that violence does not absolutely need stimuli to occur. However, this does not infer or mean that violence cannot occur without any stimuli.

To keep this simple:

1) Violence without stimuli can occur.
2) Violence with stimuli can occur.

The conclusion that violence without stimuli can occur says nothing about whether violence with stimuli can or cannot occur. You are using one conclusion erroneously to attempt to infer that the second conclusion cannot occur. One conclusion is not exclusive of the other.

What you are doing is similar to saying that the atmosphere contains oxygen. Then conclude that because the atmosphere contains oxygen, it cannot contain nitrogen. What I am saying is that I agree that the atmosphere contains oxygen. However, to me this does not mean or infer that the atmosphere can not therefore contain nitrogen.

l2ltlarry

02-03-2007, 02:01 AM

By nacktman Jan. 23rd in "Park Service won't say...." topic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Larry just count the numbers in your precious book.
That would be the obivious source to any with a working brain or so I would have thought having a working brain and all.
That is the source of the numbers that many have counted.
While you're at it count the number of rapes, assaults, infanticdes, homocides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide that are contained within the text.
If you count them all you'll be real surprised at how large a number it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The mayhem of "rapes, assaults, infanticides, homicides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide" which were recorded in the bible continue unabated. One can read any daily or weekly newspaper and be sickened at man's inhumanity to man.

To me, neither the bible nor Christianity nor religion is the main cause of this. Probably before society can fix the problem, it or we will have to figure out what's causing all of this people hurting people. If we are going to "learn people something", we need to first figure out what we need to "learn" them. Is this even possible in our politically correct world with a blizzard of differing opinions on basically everything?

I share Caipora's concern with false accusations and how they destroy people, leaving no hope of ever recovering one's good name or reputation or financial wellbeing. Let's see, the bible says something in one of its numerous "bad people" lists about "false accusers".

There's a nearly unknown verse in the bible that says, "The law kills; the spirit gives life." Another workplace saying is, "It's not paranoia if you think they're out to get you, and they are." In order to understand "The law kills; the spirit gives life" one must look at the pre-translation words. "Law" is "grammateis" where "gramma" is "man-made rules" + "teis" = "people". So made-up law is called a killer. The other kind of law is "nomie", as in economy; this is enduring-principles law. "Spirit" is "pneumatika" which means "compressed air". I think "compressed air" means "atmosphere" and the idea is "spirit" and what causes "atmosphere" are one and the same. To me, it's the timeless and universal principles by which our world and life works. Trying to find these principles and align ourselves with them probably would eliminate rape, false accusations, and the other problems. Making more laws won't.

l2ltlarry

02-03-2007, 02:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And really, in a situation where the falsely accused was the only sane one, he doesn't need psychotherapy. He needs his savings back, and his job, and his house if he lost it, and his reputation restored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Franz Kafka writes of a world where up is down and down is up, forward is backward and backward is forward, the inside is outside and the outside is inside, false is true and true is false, sanity is insanity and insanity is sanity, the positive is negative and the negative is positive, good is bad and bad is good.

A lot like the world we live in.

Bob S.

02-03-2007, 02:48 PM

Alexis:"to say that violence on TV and in movies does not influence someone is totally wrong. It does! A lot of research has been done on violence against people and the consensus among many of those studies is yes, violence, on TV and in movies does influence and affect people."

I will grant you that there is some influence, but the influence is small compared to real life. There was the Bobo clown(?) experiment where children watched a video of someone punching and being violent with a punching bag. The kids were then allowed to play in a room with that same punching bag and they acted just like the person in the video. Those children who did not see the video did not act so violent.

I will grant you that yes, modeling does account for something, but you would have to totally discount the parental, sibling, and peer influences. People tend to watch shows, movies, etc. that they are drawn to for whatever reason. The question is which came first, the fascination or the exposure? I am sure if you were to watch a hard core porn video, you would not suddenly feel like having sex with the first person that came your way. When the average person watches a rape scene in a movie, they feel horrible and can sympathize or even empathize with the victim. Much fewer will be turned on, and even fewer will be urging the rapist on. The latter two, however, are those who are already fascinated by rapes.

Bob S.

Bob S.

02-03-2007, 03:12 PM

Sanslines:"In conclusion, violence exists without stimuli but based upon your premisses (as I have explained above) it also exists with stimuli."

Yes Sanslines, but which people would be most apt to become violent after watching violence, those who are already violent, those who like the glorification of violence, those who do not like the glorification of violence, or those who abhor violence?

Violence must already be a part of the person's psyche in order for some media to influence them. With the logic that media has such a major effect on people's behaviour, why not just blast some Barney into the Middle East to make them peaceful? "I love you, you love me..."

Can peaceful shows influence the violent to become peaceful? Can good, positive shows ever influence bad, negative people into being good? Are TV and movies theraputic? If they can't affect people in such positive ways, why would the reverse be true?

Bob S.

Bob S.

02-03-2007, 03:21 PM

nacktman:The numbers on the stat sheet for such as sex with minors, sexual abuse, etc., are higher than they were a generation ago"

There is a reason, the number of reported cases has gone up. Back a generation and past generations ago, there were fewer cases that were reported even if the same percentage were being abused. In fact, the number of abuse cases was probably higher the farther back you go as children were viewed in a totally different light.

Kids are safer today, even if they feel less safe.

Bob S.

Sanslines

02-03-2007, 04:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Sanslines:"In conclusion, violence exists without stimuli but based upon your premisses (as I have explained above) it also exists with stimuli."

Yes Sanslines, but which people would be most apt to become violent after watching violence, those who are already violent, those who like the glorification of violence, those who do not like the glorification of violence, or those who abhor violence?

Violence must already be a part of the person's psyche in order for some media to influence them. With the logic that media has such a major effect on people's behaviour, why not just blast some Barney into the Middle East to make them peaceful? "I love you, you love me..."

Can peaceful shows influence the violent to become peaceful? Can good, positive shows ever influence bad, negative people into being good? Are TV and movies theraputic? If they can't affect people in such positive ways, why would the reverse be true?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob,

What people keep assuming in this thread are only the reactions of 'normal' people. They have made conclusions based upon a 'normal' person's reaction. However, our world is not composed entirely of 'normal' people. Numerous textbooks have been written addressing the issues of abnormal psychology. The vast majority of 'normal' people have no idea what goes on within the mind of an 'abnormal' person.

My points above only addressed the issue that it cannot be concluded with absolute certainty that absolutely no individual in this world will never be motivated to commit violence by watching violence.

The questions that you ask above are good ones. Each person would answer those questions based upon their history, knowledge, and understanding of themselves and the people around them. To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, this past Fall while on an ivy league school campus, I picked up a copy of the student newspaper. The main topic of discussion concerned the question 'what is poverty?" Based upon the written responses to the paper concerning this question, most students had no idea what it is like to live in poverty (many even openly admitted this) . Because of this lack of background, they would be unable to relate to those living in poverty. Reading studies about poverty is one thing. Actually going out and experiencing it first hand is another. (I was glad to see that many students made a point to go to a housing project downstate to experience what poverty is all about).

To consider your first question: "Can peaceful shows influence the violent to become peaceful?"

What comes to mind is what occured back in the 1960's when both peaceful and violent African American groups were both at work trying to gain civil rights and end their oppression. Some groups were completely polarized in that no matter what they heard or saw, nothing would change them from going from violent to peaceful means or visa versa. Many (maybe most) African Americans were somewhere in the middle ground and could be influenced either way. Along came Dr Martin Luther King and his advocacy for peaceful change. I have interviwed some African Americans and they have told me that at that time, they could have resorted to either violent or peaceful means. They told me that watching and listening to the speeches of Dr King directly motivated them to resort to peaceful means to achieve their goals. Instead of taking to the streets with guns, they went out on peace marches.
We have had many leaders who use the power of the pulpit or the power of media to influence and motivate people to do certain things. Another example, back in WWII, media in those days was used to motivate people to buy war bonds, plant victory gardens, save materials for recycling, etc.
As for violence versus peace, if you remember the old Star Trek series, many episodes were based upon the issues of the day (ie Vietnam) and other social issues. One particular episode focused upon the good and evil within a man. One man was beamed by the transporter 'out there' and retured as two visually identical images of the same man. The difference was that one was purely peaceful (soft and at peace) and one was purely evil (scheming and violent). In the end, the two halves had to be recombined by the transporter in order for the man to survive. The two halves would have both died if they remained seperate. The point of this particular episode was that a man is a sum total of good and evil. Good versus evil can be represented by a mathematical bell curve with very few almost purely good men or very few almost purely evil men on each side. Most are somewhere in the middle and are a mix of good and evil. To get back to your points above, most people have within themselves peaceful and violent tendencies. Some people can suppress their violent tendencies and control themselves. Others can not. People are complicated and emotional beings and as such I don't think that we can use terms such as violent and peaceful as all inclusive terms. People are a mixture of both and each person is unique. Media has perfomed numerous exhaustive studies to determine how to motivate the greatest number of people to (for example) get off their butts and go out and buy their product. Media has an extremely powerful influence on people and how they live their lives and most people are not even aware of this.

Bob S.

02-04-2007, 08:20 PM

Sanslines:"My points above only addressed the issue that it cannot be concluded with absolute certainty that absolutely no individual in this world will never be motivated to commit violence by watching violence."

I agree with you that there are some who are influenced by the violence that they see in the media. However, the only ones who will are those who are already leaning toward those tendiencies in the first place.

But 'normal' people cannot be dismissed in the discussion about influence of sex/violence in movies/TV/media. 'Normal' people are the majority of society and are the ones who watch the most movies/TV. So far, not a single study has suggetsed that any kind of movie/TV can affect the psyche of a person so much to the point that they are permanently altered and will do things that, before the viewing, they found abhorrent.

Sanslines:"Many (maybe most) African Americans were somewhere in the middle ground and could be influenced either way. Along came Dr Martin Luther King and his advocacy for peaceful change."

But these people were open to listen. They heard a voice of reason who was advocating peaceful resolutions and they followed that. Yes, they could have gone to violence, but what that showed is that they had the propensity to fight for their rights with violence. But fighting for civil rights is a huge difference than watching someone kill someone else on the big screen.

Sanslines:"We have had many leaders who use the power of the pulpit or the power of media to influence and motivate people to do certain things."

Again, using the pulpit to fight for change is a huge differnece than senseless violence. And realize that these people already want to help with whatever cause they are selling at the pulpit. No matter how many times someone comes to the pulpit, I am not going to be convinced to give my money or assistance to help Al Qaeda.

Bob S.

Naturist Mark

02-04-2007, 09:00 PM

I recall reading of studies many many years ago that suggested that entertainment that presented violence as easy to resort to with little consequence to the person who used violence - like that often shown on unrealistic westerns or cop shows (think Walker Texas Ranger or the A-Team) desensitized viewers to violence. But real violence with consequence on the news, or ... believe it or not ... soap operas - did not desensitize. Of course today's news is different - we don't see the violence of war, or the consequences - only sports metaphors.

It sounds as if the rape scene in the movie in question is not being done gratuitously, I expect it is not the sort that tends to desensitize.

Does anyone remember those studies?

-Mark

Sanslines

02-05-2007, 04:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But 'normal' people cannot be dismissed in the discussion about influence of sex/violence in movies/TV/media. 'Normal' people are the majority of society and are the ones who watch the most movies/TV. So far, not a single study has suggetsed that any kind of movie/TV can affect the psyche of a person so much to the point that they are permanently altered and will do things that, before the viewing, they found abhorrent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob,

I'll elaborate on a couple of points here. First of all, to be clear, I am not calling for any kind of censorship concerning this movie. I have not seen it but from what reports I have read on the internet, the scene is implied and the debates about this movie are already fading. With that said, my point is entirely this. Regardless of whether the majority of normal people are not affected by violence or even that the majority of abnormal people are not affected by violence, are we as a society ready to dismiss those who bring up the point that violence may incite some (however many that is) to go out and commit violence? Are their points not worthy of consideration? Like it or not our media does have controls placed upon them. The media is not free to show anything and everything that they want. The controls or limits come about because people on one side object to certain content and on the other side people object to any control on content. Media that is allowed to be shown is somwhere in the middle between the boundary lines. Back to this topic, if one child is raped as a result of someone watching a media rape, is anyone prepared to go to the child's parents, quote studies, and tell them that the majority of people will not be affected by violence and therefore what they have experienced is just a sad consequence of modern day living? What kind of respose do you think that you such a statement will receive?

For the other points:

"But these people were open to listen. They heard a voice of reason who was advocating peaceful resolutions and they followed that. Yes, they could have gone to violence, but what that showed is that they had the propensity to fight for their rights with violence. But fighting for civil rights is a huge difference than watching someone kill someone else on the big screen."

Yes, that's what I meant above when I said that some groups wer polarized and could not be motivated to change their opinions. However, the group that I was addressing could be motivated either way and were motivated by an inspirational speaker to follow his way. They rejected the alternate way.

"Again, using the pulpit to fight for change is a huge differnece than senseless violence. And realize that these people already want to help with whatever cause they are selling at the pulpit. No matter how many times someone comes to the pulpit, I am not going to be convinced to give my money or assistance to help Al Qaeda."

Bob, you keep applying perspectives based upon a rational, normal, and sensible person's way of thinking. Not all people think like this and those are the ones that I am talking about. "Normal" thinking does not apply to everyone and that is another point that I was trying to make above. A normal person can not think how an abnormal person thinks. There is a huge spectrum of the way people think and so the word 'normal' has a very broad definition. This definition also changes over time and within some broad limits.

Nude in the North

02-05-2007, 05:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does anyone remember those studies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I Remember a more recent study.

It concluded that 50% of all studies done in the past or present, eventually end up being proven to be WRONG.

Steve

Naturist Mark

02-05-2007, 05:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I Remember a more recent study.

It concluded that 50% of all studies done in the past or present, eventually end up being proven to be WRONG. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and that 67% of statistics are made up on the spot! ...

nacktman

02-05-2007, 05:34 AM

I remember those studies.
Their conclusions have been proven to be wrong.
There is no correaltion between viewing violence and violent behavior.
The "de-sensitization" occurs when violence is depicted as a denunciation or as a glorification.
All aspects and events of human existence are 'desensitized' by repeatition (thus proving wrong those that make claims that 'seeing' something promotes that something), that could lead to the point that, that aspect or event is not even noticed when they occur.

Humans are 'desensitized' to violence in varied degrees in the 'hardwiring' of the brain -- with the vast majority having a 'lassez-faire' attitude toward violence until it touches them personally; then their reaction to violence can run the gambit.

Just what are solutions or the solution to the problems of abuse and violence?

Thus far the following have been 'discussed' ...

Censorship ... won't do it -- never has, never will.
Religion ... nope, it always promotes violence and abuse, so that will not help.
Education ... it helps, but won't do the entire job.

What will?
Time to get real!

02-05-2007, 05:42 AM

Why don't you just go ahead and post what will, Nacktman?

Allie

nacktman

02-05-2007, 06:01 AM

Poor, poor, Allie, you do not get it do you?

I am asking for what will work to find out what will work to solve the problems of abuse and violence.
To this point none of the ideas put forth will do the job.
No one has offered any 'new' ideas for discussion.
No one has mentioned any of the 'other solutions' that have been promoted in the past as well as now, yet, either.
Those being: internment, surgry, sterilization, euthanasia, chemical, and so on. -- none of those listed will work either as some of the "solutions" are abusive and violent in and of themselves.
Ironic isn't it ... using abuse and violence to solve abuse and violence?!

What will work?
It's time to get real!

02-05-2007, 06:23 AM

Oh, I get it alright, Nacktman. I am just saving time here on this thread by suggesting you just go ahead and post what will.

Come on .... put it on the screen! We know you want to so go with it!

Allie

nacktman

02-05-2007, 06:50 AM

Nope, just don't get it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif
Typical reactionary though.

Again, what will work?
Don't let the noise from the cheap seats distract us.

02-05-2007, 09:46 AM

Nacktman, you claim that there is no correlation between watching violence and committing violence and you offered no proof -- just your mere opinions without any substantiation. '

Now, you keep asking what will work .... is this a panel thread where you sit as judge to anything anyone posts?

Walk your talk, Nacktman ... what will work?

Allie

usmc1

02-05-2007, 12:20 PM

Alex - Nack, When are you guys gonna get a room, I swear it looks like a love match to me. One of those Rock Hudson-Doris Day feuding into true love deals..

LOL

usmc1

02-05-2007, 12:40 PM

And now back on topic.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, serious violent crime has declined since 1993.

And, violence in video games, movies, and TV, have increased and become more available.

Therefore, in the spirit of the silliness put forth by those who see cause and effect where it does not exist, I put forth this:

The more violent media becomes available the less actual violence takes place, because they (the violent media) provides a safe outlet for those violent urges.

Makes as much sense as the counter view!

Sanslines

02-05-2007, 01:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, in the spirit of the silliness put forth by those who see cause and effect where it does not exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now come on USMC, no matter what anyone says, no matter what proof anyone gives, no matter any sources or references, you will never ever consider the remotest possibility that there may be one case in this entire universe where media violence motivated an individual with any kind of mental state (normal, abnormal, lacking a mental state) to go out and commit violence. You are so convinced of this that you will just close your mind and ignore the victims who do exist in reality. You know, the children who were harmed by these maniacs. You keep grasping at straws to justify your position and so let's just clear up this whole topic. Just because violent crime has decreased over the past few years does not mean that violent crime does not still exist. Ask any victim of crime and they will tell you that any crime is too much. Just because violent crime has declined says nothing about watching violent media and following through with commiting a violent act. You are trying so hard to find any correlation to support your point that you have descended into the silliness zone.

Your final conclusion: You are totally and absolutely convinced that there is no correlation between media violence and actual violence and you will not consider anything to the contrary regardless of any information that may exist. Case closed!

usmc1

02-05-2007, 02:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, in the spirit of the silliness put forth by those who see cause and effect where it does not exist </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now come on USMC, no matter what anyone says, no matter what proof anyone gives, no matter any sources or references, you will never ever consider the remotest possibility that there may be one case in this entire universe where media violence motivated an individual with any kind of mental state (normal, abnormal, lacking a mental state) to go out and commit violence. You are so convinced of this that you will just close your mind and ignore the victims who do exist in reality. You know, the children who were harmed by these maniacs. You keep grasping at straws to justify your position and so let's just clear up this whole topic. Just because violent crime has decreased over the past few years does not mean that violent crime does not still exist. Ask any victim of crime and they will tell you that any crime is too much. Just because violent crime has declined says nothing about watching violent media and following through with commiting a violent act. You are trying so hard to find any correlation to support your point that you have descended into the silliness zone.

Your final conclusion: You are totally and absolutely convinced that there is no correlation between media violence and actual violence and you will not consider anything to the contrary regardless of any information that may exist. Case closed! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since you qualify it with the entire universe, maybe on Barsoom or Trafalmadore, if you insist.

And, I never said there could be no correlation, what I insist on is that there is no cause-and-effect relationship as the hand-wringers in this thread keep asserting.

But, even you should admit, that with violent crime declining and violence in media increasing, there might be somewhere in the universe a correlation which says, violent media provides a safe outlet for the violence prone thereby reducing actual violence.

I suspect that early childhood neglect, emotional abandonment, and physical, sexual, and psychological abuse stemming from drug and alcohol abuse have much more to do with violence than does any medium.

It is just easier and requires less commitment and involvement to point the finger at abstractions such as movies, TV shows and video games. That way we can shift the blame to an abstract generality rather than taking individual responsibility for the sort of world we inhabit and engage in ineffectual handwringing about the boogy-bear of the moment.

When I was a kid it was EC comics causing the problem, now its video games.

C'mon, get a clue!

Sanslines

02-05-2007, 03:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And, I never said there could be no correlation, what I insist on is that there is no cause-and-effect relationship as the hand-wringers in this thread keep asserting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know this with such certainty? You keep insisting this without concrete proof. This is very plausable and we owe it to the victims of child abuse to take each and every concern seriously and not dismiss them so easily based upon pure opinions. As you know, there are many approaches to problem solving. Take the scientific method that is used in science, engineering, medicine, and other logic, objective, and rationally based fields. The first step is to acknowledge that a problem MIGHT exist. The next step is to form a hypothesis. Next step is to go through a rigorous methodology to gather information (data) and then objectively either keep or delete the data as it applies to the problem at hand. Subjective problem solving, on the other hand, is based upon opinions and is a main reason why we have so many unresolved problems in this country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, even you should admit, that with violent crime declining and violence in media increasing, there might be somewhere in the universe a correlation which says, violent media provides a safe outlet for the violence prone thereby reducing actual violence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike most, I would never immediately discount this as a possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suspect that early childhood neglect, emotional abandonment, and physical, sexual, and psychological abuse stemming from drug and alcohol abuse have much more to do with violence than does any medium. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of these are important factors that I acknowledge. They might very well (probably do) have more to do with with violence then any medium. They might even predispose individuals to reacting to violent media. All factors should be considered carefully. Different names apply to this approach. Names such as keeping an open mind, thinking outside of the box, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is just easier and requires less commitment and involvement to point the finger at abstractions such as movies, TV shows and video games. That way we can shift the blame to an abstract generality rather than taking individual responsibility for the sort of world we inhabit and engage in ineffectual handwringing about the boogy-bear of the moment.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The don't listen to those closed minded individuals who only react superficially without thinking things through carefully. Also don't discount anything because a group is objecting from a purely emotional or subjective viewpoint.

It might have been a long time since you were on a university campus and attended any classes. Over time, people do forget what the collegiate education process is all about. The most important thing that anyone can learn at a university is to think for themselves. This critical process involves ALWAYS keeping an open mind to any possibility, trying to see the issue or problem from as wide a variety of angles as possible, gathering as much information as possible, discounting the non applying or non factual information, and then coming to some reasonable and logical conclusion based upon objective means. It's best that we all leave the spin, hype, and distortions to Hollywood and politicians if we ever hope to resolve any problems in this country.

nacktman

02-05-2007, 04:42 PM

Hey, usmc1, you wanna take her? I have to wash my hair. LOL. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

The "next" thing to blame for violent behavior will be air, right?! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif
Oh, my heavens, How'll we ever solve it then?! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

l2ltlarry

02-05-2007, 07:50 PM

By nacktman, posted February 05, 2007 05:34 AM(Pacific Time) <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just what are solutions or the solution to the problems of abuse and violence?

Thus far the following have been 'discussed' ...

Censorship ... won't do it -- never has, never will.
Religion ... nope, it always promotes violence and abuse, so that will not help.
Education ... it helps, but won't do the entire job.

What will?
Time to get real! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My answer is Nothing. In this blizzard of competing opinions, isn't Nothing as good as anyone else's answer? I liked what George Orwell is said to have said, "In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth becomes a revolutionary act." One problem is, we can't even come close to agreeing on what might constitute "truth". The word in the bible most often translated "sin" is the Greek word "amartyr" or "amartia". The best translation of this Greek word is, "The truth is there is no truth." One of my bosses made this statement to me one time.

Like the topic Caipora posted about the question, "why do people wear clothes?" where it was answered that "some of the people got together and agreed that people would wear clothes. But the Indians didn't agree so they continued to go naked." Does anyone think our society will get together and agree to all do such and such to solve the problem? What the "rules and regulations, commands and controls, and laws and orders types" would come up with wouldn't be my cup of tea. Individual freedom is too important to me; also thinking for my self. That awful book, the bible, does say "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Don't submit again to a yoke of bondage." I take my freedom very seriously.

I was just reading some of Einstein's 'very complex' thoughts on God (and Jesus Christ) and religion. In his 1930 "Letter to an Arab", he said this: "If one were to purge the Judiasm of the Prophets and the Christianity of Jesus Christ of all later additions, it would be sufficient to cure all the social ills of mankind."

To me, it overstates the case to say that religion always promotes violence and abuse, as in "Religion ... nope, it always promotes violence and abuse, so that will not help."

I see a heck of a lot of good advice contained (particularly) in the New Testament part of the bible. Yet any and all good advice it might contain gets rejected wholesale by some.

The "later additions" religion is what some or most see when they think of religion. At root, the concept of religion is a reconnection to the timeless and universal principles by which life works. Instead, maybe the cause of the mayhem, human hurtfulness, and man's inhumanity to man detailed in the Grand Canyon topic (and above)and filling our daily newspapers is what the Sprint SuperBowl ad called "Connectile Dysfunction".

usmc1

02-06-2007, 05:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And, I never said there could be no correlation, what I insist on is that there is no cause-and-effect relationship as the hand-wringers in this thread keep asserting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know this with such certainty? You keep insisting this without concrete proof. This is very plausable and we owe it to the victims of child abuse to take each and every concern seriously and not dismiss them so easily based upon pure opinions. As you know, there are many approaches to problem solving. Take the scientific method that is used in science, engineering, medicine, and other logic, objective, and rationally based fields. The first step is to acknowledge that a problem MIGHT exist. The next step is to form a hypothesis. Next step is to go through a rigorous methodology to gather information (data) and then objectively either keep or delete the data as it applies to the problem at hand. Subjective problem solving, on the other hand, is based upon opinions and is a main reason why we have so many unresolved problems in this country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, even you should admit, that with violent crime declining and violence in media increasing, there might be somewhere in the universe a correlation which says, violent media provides a safe outlet for the violence prone thereby reducing actual violence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike most, I would never immediately discount this as a possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suspect that early childhood neglect, emotional abandonment, and physical, sexual, and psychological abuse stemming from drug and alcohol abuse have much more to do with violence than does any medium. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of these are important factors that I acknowledge. They might very well (probably do) have more to do with with violence then any medium. They might even predispose individuals to reacting to violent media. All factors should be considered carefully. Different names apply to this approach. Names such as keeping an open mind, thinking outside of the box, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is just easier and requires less commitment and involvement to point the finger at abstractions such as movies, TV shows and video games. That way we can shift the blame to an abstract generality rather than taking individual responsibility for the sort of world we inhabit and engage in ineffectual handwringing about the boogy-bear of the moment.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The don't listen to those closed minded individuals who only react superficially without thinking things through carefully. Also don't discount anything because a group is objecting from a purely emotional or subjective viewpoint.

It might have been a long time since you were on a university campus and attended any classes. Over time, people do forget what the collegiate education process is all about. The most important thing that anyone can learn at a university is to think for themselves. This critical process involves ALWAYS keeping an open mind to any possibility, trying to see the issue or problem from as wide a variety of angles as possible, gathering as much information as possible, discounting the non applying or non factual information, and then coming to some reasonable and logical conclusion based upon objective means. It's best that we all leave the spin, hype, and distortions to Hollywood and politicians if we ever hope to resolve any problems in this country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sanslines, none of this makes any sense. You're just wandering all over the place in a rant.

I thought I'd rebut, but there's no there there to rebut. C'mon sis, get a grip!

Sanslines

02-06-2007, 11:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And, I never said there could be no correlation, what I insist on is that there is no cause-and-effect relationship as the hand-wringers in this thread keep asserting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know this with such certainty? You keep insisting this without concrete proof. This is very plausable and we owe it to the victims of child abuse to take each and every concern seriously and not dismiss them so easily based upon pure opinions. As you know, there are many approaches to problem solving. Take the scientific method that is used in science, engineering, medicine, and other logic, objective, and rationally based fields. The first step is to acknowledge that a problem MIGHT exist. The next step is to form a hypothesis. Next step is to go through a rigorous methodology to gather information (data) and then objectively either keep or delete the data as it applies to the problem at hand. Subjective problem solving, on the other hand, is based upon opinions and is a main reason why we have so many unresolved problems in this country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, even you should admit, that with violent crime declining and violence in media increasing, there might be somewhere in the universe a correlation which says, violent media provides a safe outlet for the violence prone thereby reducing actual violence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike most, I would never immediately discount this as a possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suspect that early childhood neglect, emotional abandonment, and physical, sexual, and psychological abuse stemming from drug and alcohol abuse have much more to do with violence than does any medium. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of these are important factors that I acknowledge. They might very well (probably do) have more to do with with violence then any medium. They might even predispose individuals to reacting to violent media. All factors should be considered carefully. Different names apply to this approach. Names such as keeping an open mind, thinking outside of the box, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is just easier and requires less commitment and involvement to point the finger at abstractions such as movies, TV shows and video games. That way we can shift the blame to an abstract generality rather than taking individual responsibility for the sort of world we inhabit and engage in ineffectual handwringing about the boogy-bear of the moment.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The don't listen to those closed minded individuals who only react superficially without thinking things through carefully. Also don't discount anything because a group is objecting from a purely emotional or subjective viewpoint.

It might have been a long time since you were on a university campus and attended any classes. Over time, people do forget what the collegiate education process is all about. The most important thing that anyone can learn at a university is to think for themselves. This critical process involves ALWAYS keeping an open mind to any possibility, trying to see the issue or problem from as wide a variety of angles as possible, gathering as much information as possible, discounting the non applying or non factual information, and then coming to some reasonable and logical conclusion based upon objective means. It's best that we all leave the spin, hype, and distortions to Hollywood and politicians if we ever hope to resolve any problems in this country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sanslines, none of this makes any sense. You're just wandering all over the place in a rant.

I thought I'd rebut, but there's no there there to rebut. C'mon sis, get a grip! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too complicated for you to understand? How sad. OK I will simplify it all for you: Open your mind! Having a closed mind never did anyone any justice.