The Energon Pub

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

My parents have showed me horror movies since a very young age.

I think I turned out relatively normal.

A little on the morbid side when it comes to my sense of humor but I never hurt anyone.

Or do drugs like the media claims violent movies and so on and so forth promote

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

And once more, Burn speaks nothing but truth!

Yes, there ARE some things children don't need to see, don't need to hear. Would you let your child see CNN show a terrorist video of a guy getting his head chopped off?

EDIT: To elaborate: There's a word called "Decency," and if more people had it, Censorship wouldn't be a problem.

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

Not allowing YOUR children to see something is not censorship. It's parenting.

I would support my five year old be exposed to such things before I'd take away everyone's else's right to see it if they wanted.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

Not allowing YOUR children to see something is not censorship. It's parenting.

I would support my five year old be exposed to such things before I'd take away everyone's else's right to see it if they wanted.

I sure as hell wouldn't. Child psychiatrists cost a lot.

Really, you think a five year old would be able to maturely and reasonably register a picture of a kid just like him murdered? No, he wouldn't. He'd be scared shitless and scarred for life.

Shadowman wrote:
Really, you think a five year old would be able to maturely and reasonably register a picture of a kid just like him murdered? No, he wouldn't. He'd be scared shitless and scarred for life.

Interesting assertion. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Professor Smooth wrote:

Shadowman wrote:
Really, you think a five year old would be able to maturely and reasonably register a picture of a kid just like him murdered? No, he wouldn't. He'd be scared shitless and scarred for life.

Interesting assertion. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

It's common sense. The same reason you don't show "We Were Soldiers" to someone with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after fighting in a war.

EDIT: or better yet, I can say this: Children aren't mentally equipped to see those kinds of things.

Shadowman wrote:
It's common sense. The same reason you don't show "We Were Soldiers" to someone with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after fighting in a war.

EDIT: or better yet, I can say this: Children aren't mentally equipped to see those kinds of things.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that "it's just common sense." You've made the argument that seeing (or hearing about) another child murdered would scar a child for life. That is a tremendous assertion that I am not willing to simply take at face value. Surely, if such were the case, than evidence supporting your claim will not be hard to find.

I await your findings.

Without citing evidence (seeing as i'm at work and don't have time to search the net), if you believe that children can't be psychologically affected by witnessing a traumatic event, then why do they send counsellors to schools where something has happened to another student, be it a car accident or victim of mass shooting?

And while you're sending Shadowman on his merry hunt for evidence, can you produce any evidence of your own to back up your disbelief?

Or is it a simple case of "this is my opinion, prove it wrong" without making an effort to back up your own opinion?

Burn wrote: Without citing evidence (seeing as i'm at work and don't have time to search the net), if you believe that children can't be psychologically affected by witnessing a traumatic event, then why do they send counsellors to schools where something has happened to another student, be it a car accident or victim of mass shooting?

I never said that they can't be. I said that I'd like to see some evidence saying that they are. Considering that he's advocating taking the right to see something away from a group of people, I firmly believe that more than assumed "common sense" in in order.

Burn wrote:And while you're sending Shadowman on his merry hunt for evidence, can you produce any evidence of your own to back up your disbelief?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? How am I to do that? Find everybody who's ever seen a news report about a child murderer as a child and find out if they're messed up?

Burn wrote:Or is it a simple case of "this is my opinion, prove it wrong" without making an effort to back up your own opinion?

In my opinion, when suggesting that a group of people be banned from being able to do something, evidence is required. Evidence shows that alcohol impairs motor skills, so the right to drive while intoxicated is taken away. Evidence shows that smoking is one of the major causes of lung cancer, so the right to smoke is restricted to people above the age of consent. If there is evidence to suggest that seeing a news report about a child murderer is likely to lead to serious psychological problems for children, then the right to see them may rightfully be restricted. However, such evidence must be presented in order to reach that conclusion.

I don't think I'm being unfair here. If you're going to argue in favor of restriction or censorship, then kindly present evidence in favor of your argument. Show that there's a danger. If there's not, then there is no reason to restrict or censor.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? How am I to do that? Find everybody who's ever seen a news report about a child murderer as a child and find out if they're messed up?

Umm...he's asking you to find research that shows that showing children those types of images doesn't seem to have much adverse reaction. It's basically the same thing you're asking the one guy to find, only in your case you're looking for research that has come up with a "no evidence of damage" type result. Obviously you can't find evidence for EVERY child, but that goes without saying for both the positive and negative results.

In my opinion, of course children and adults are the same "species" but the mental states and their ability to handle trauma and stress are VASTLY different. They will need to learn to handle "adult" things eventually, but it's a gradual process.

can't say I believe in censorship in any form. The swastikas been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, just because some wankers in Germany decided to use it as thier Insane-O Trademark shouldn't completely negate the use of a swastika. Sadly enough it used to be a very peaceful symbol.

btw, the God Warrior woman is positively frightening. She's the exact 100 percent reason that alot of people think "some" Christians are extremely insane with there bible thumping holier then thou stuff.

and I think it's a safe bet to say that if a child were to witness a murder, it'd mess him up for life. Alot of adults couldn't witness murder without getting screwed up in the head. However when I was a young boy a young boy was kidnapped and on the news, his name was Adam Walsh, they found him in a creek with his head cut off. I heard it on the news when I was right around the same age as Adam, it scared the hell out of me and is actually the moment I learned what the word "decapitation" meant. My parents didn't try to shield me from the news, and Grandma is the one who told me what decapitation meant. I didn't need to see a shrink or anything like that, but it did mess me up for awhile as a kid. I was pretty scared when I was out by myself, I don't think I ever went playing in the woods by myself again, and I distinctly remember just having a hard time understanding why someone would want to cut the head off a little boy.

This eventually grew into a morbid fascination with death and the death of the innocent. Movies, books, serial killer biographies, etc.

Did it turn me crazy and make me want to kill people? Nope, not even close. But I will say that as a soon to be 31 year old man, I wouldn't let my children see what I saw on the news. I'd rather they keep thier youth and innocence as long as possible.

Just because a kid 'can' deal with somethings he hears or sees, doesn't mean he should have to.

But that goes back to parents acting like parents, taking responsibility, blah-blah-blah



/rant>

Kids don't need to watch a lot of extremely violent things. But it also depends on the child himself. As a kid I was able to handle Freddy Kruger and other horror films just fine. I also read Goosebumps and Fear Street in middle school. I am a healthy-minded adult, but like most adults in general (hell, kids too!) I am fascinated by death. Most folks are, or it wouldn't be news.

My parents were more sensitive about my watching something with sex in it than something with violence or language. Anytime it came on something, I was told to watch tv in my room, if they were watching a movie. That was their discretion as parents.

yeah I see your point. I was and still am a HUGE Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees nut, but like most kids I had no problems differentiating between real life and the movies.

Real life is scary as hell. And in the past 10 years it's gotten a whole lot scarier.

but I hate censoring movies, books or songs. Especially movies, because who's to say how much blood is too much? How many decapitations are too many? How come some movies will have heads exploding left and right, but if *contraversial director "X"* makes a movie, then the censors are all over it, cutting this and cutting that?

it's like if Stephen Speilberg made a seriel killer movie, I don't think the gore would be as closely scrutinized as if say John Carpenter, Wes Craven or Rob Zombie directed the movie. Then it's not just censorship, it's playing favorites. But all that back room bullshit about edit this, cut this, this is too much blood, etc. It all effects us as the viewing public.

How come overseas the commercials and tv can be sexually explicit, but here in the US sex is considered extremely taboo. Which..............just makes everyone wanna have sex more.

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

I have to agree with Burn. I don't like censorship myself, but in regards to children, there are things they shouldn't be subjected to.

I'd agree that things can 'mess people up', but doesn't hiding those disturbing things from them and filling their head with thoughts of the opposite only make the fall more hard? It's almost like ignoring a thorn in your hand for a year, only to have to pull it out after it's grown over and pussed.

I mean, if you look at rural society, you're looking at kids who've seen sex in action (at least non-human) and personally seen or took part in killing, gutting, and cooking their own food all by about the age of eight, but I really've not seen many farmers becoming total klepto-nutjobs.

As well, I think they should really subjectify this 'age of consent.' I'm maybe 2 months away from 18, but yet I'm smarter and more mature than many adults I'm met, and have been open to many of these 'taboo issues' (drugs, porn, cursing, sex, violence) for years, now.

Optimus Convoy wrote:

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

I have to agree with Burn. I don't like censorship myself, but in regards to children, there are things they shouldn't be subjected to.

but should that be down to the government or down to the parents of said child?

DesalationReborn wrote:
I'm maybe 2 months away from 18, but yet I'm smarter and more mature than many adults I'm met, and have been open to many of these 'taboo issues' (drugs, porn, cursing, sex, violence) for years, now.

man, it's amazing how every 18 year old I meet says the same exact thing. Oh yeah, I said it too when I was 18. So did my dad, and his dad, and his dad.

Not any more true now then it was then. Take the smartest most mature 18 year old in the world, and they're still an 18 year old with 18 year old intelligence and maturity. I'm not being condesending to you, I'm just saying, "wait, it gets much harder."

That feeling of, "I'm just a kid, I don't have to take too many things too seriously." Doesn't exactly go away, as much as it gets beat out of you.

Robo-Chugster wrote:
but should that be down to the government or down to the parents of said child?

That's my whole point. Deciding what YOUR children can and can't see is not censorship. It's parenting. It's GOOD parenting. Censorship is deciding what everyone else can't see.

Telling your child s/he's not allowed to watch a certain movie or choosing to keep him/her from hearing about something in the news is a choice between you and your child. It's parenting.

Making a law saying that certain content can not appear in ANY movies is censorship.

I am all for the former and strongly against the latter.

Malikon wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:
I'm maybe 2 months away from 18, but yet I'm smarter and more mature than many adults I'm met, and have been open to many of these 'taboo issues' (drugs, porn, cursing, sex, violence) for years, now.

man, it's amazing how every 18 year old I meet says the same exact thing. Oh yeah, I said it too when I was 18. So did my dad, and his dad, and his dad.

Not any more true now then it was then. Take the smartest most mature 18 year old in the world, and they're still an 18 year old with 18 year old intelligence and maturity. I'm not being condesending to you, I'm just saying, "wait, it gets much harder."

That feeling of, "I'm just a kid, I don't have to take too many things too seriously." Doesn't exactly go away, as much as it gets beat out of you.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. When I was 18 I had just dealt with a devastating death, and it "matured" me a bit, as it was the first close death in my life (VERY close) and I had to learn how to cope. But even then, even after living by myself a while at 17, as a girl mind you, I wasn't "mature" in any way, shape, or form. There is just so much you don't know, and it's simply due to lack of age and experience. Hell, I'm 23 and I have a lot of responsibility: a family of four, a house, a van, two businesses, vice president of my grandmother's company, and I still barely know my head from my ass. And I'm not a complete dunderhead, either. I'm simply too young to be considered fully mature.

But that in no way means that you aren't mature for your age. If you have your act together, my friend, then you are off to a good start to adulthood. Kudos!

Professor Smooth wrote:

Robo-Chugster wrote:
but should that be down to the government or down to the parents of said child?

That's my whole point. Deciding what YOUR children can and can't see is not censorship. It's parenting. It's GOOD parenting. Censorship is deciding what everyone else can't see.

Telling your child s/he's not allowed to watch a certain movie or choosing to keep him/her from hearing about something in the news is a choice between you and your child. It's parenting.

Making a law saying that certain content can not appear in ANY movies is censorship.

I am all for the former and strongly against the latter.

Word of the day: "Decency."

That's both the FCC's biggest shortcoming, and their most powerful weapon.

Now, would you swear like a sailor in front of a large group of people, before showing off your wang? No, you wouldn't, because there's a 100% chance it would piss people off.

Now consider how many people are offended by this kind of thing.

Robo-Chugster wrote:

Optimus Convoy wrote:

Burn wrote:So you'd support your 5 year old being exposed a news report and hear and see graphic details and images of another 5 year old being brutally raped and then murdered?

There are some things children simply don't need to be subjected to.

I have to agree with Burn. I don't like censorship myself, but in regards to children, there are things they shouldn't be subjected to.

but should that be down to the government or down to the parents of said child?

Point. That's what the likes of watersheds are there for, and frankly I think it's about as far as censorship should go. Obviously no parent worth their salt wants their kids exposed to excessive sex, violence and bad language, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to be deprived. The watershed's there so that parents know that programming should be safe for younger viewing, even if it's not suited to it (obviously some channels are exceptions, but you know what to expect from them). After the watershed it's fair game, so if parents continue to let their kids watch TV and they see something they shouldn't, they've got no grounds for complaint.

As for censorship of books and movies, I'm bang against it.
Regarding school reading, certainly it's the school's responsibility to provide books that are suitable for the age ranges they teach. But as in the instance of the original post, I can possibly understand parents railing against the school providing Huck Finn to their kids, depending on what school it was (I'm doubtful it should be in a primary/junior school library, but as one of the classic American novels, I think it'd be remiss not to have it in high school libraries). But to demand it be removed from sale altogether is completely out of order, and smacks of a knee-jerk extreme reaction.

Shadowman wrote:Word of the day: "Decency."

That's both the FCC's biggest shortcoming, and their most powerful weapon.

Now, would you swear like a sailor in front of a large group of people, before showing off your wang? No, you wouldn't, because there's a 100% chance it would piss people off.

Now consider how many people are offended by this kind of thing.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. It seems that you're suggesting that nothing that you know could be deemed offensive should be allowed within the public domain. You're right in that the general public aren't going to want to be seeing Schmoove's danglies. But if he's doing it in a pre-arranged place with plenty of warning, then people who don't want to see it won't be there. And that's the point.

Offensive material is only offensive to certain people, and as long as it's marked and the nature of the offensiveness is made clear (like a spoiler warning, if you will), there's no reason that those who do want to see it should be denied.
Movies with bad language, sex or violence have it stated as such, so if it offends you, you don't see the movie.
Pre-watershed TV is (supposedly) child-safe, but parents know that after that, they're taking their chances. And TV guides give a good indication of what to expect anyway.

On the subject of nudity being offensive...

Here in Nippon, we have something called onsen. Basically it's a public bath heated by a natural hot spring. You go in, stuff your clothing in a locker, and literally hang out. These places are open to everyone. There are extremely young kids, geriatrics, and everyone in between. Everyone can see everyone's everything. And yet, it's not considered offensive. Nobody's offended.

Professor Smooth wrote:On the subject of nudity being offensive...

Here in Nippon, we have something called onsen. Basically it's a public bath heated by a natural hot spring. You go in, stuff your clothing in a locker, and literally hang out. These places are open to everyone. There are extremely young kids, geriatrics, and everyone in between. Everyone can see everyone's everything. And yet, it's not considered offensive. Nobody's offended.

That's because Japan is extremely different from America in what is and what isn't acceptable.

Shadowman wrote:
That's because Japan is extremely different from America in what is and what isn't acceptable.

Obviously. Though I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.