Boycottaru?

The failure here is indeed one of specification. It should read "it's not society's responsibility to shelter children from media and other entertainment they consume. (Though we do to an extent, with ratings and so on.)

Of course society should care for orphans and other kids who have a fucked up situation.

Very good. Carry on.

Further on this point, would you prefer it if we didn't have a classification system? As it stands, the reason that we have it is in the same spirit of all laws protecting children.

The Child & Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1988 defines child abuse as:

(a) the physical injury or sexual abuse of a child or young person, or
(b) a child or young person suffering emotional or psychological harm of such a kind that the emotional or intellectual development of the child or young person is, or is likely to be, significantly damaged, or
(c) the physical development or health of a child or young person being significantly harmed,

Media classification is here because as a society we agree that if children of a certain age are exposed to certain content (graphic sex, violence, etc) then that will affect their emotional development, and is technically child abuse.

Secondarily, Marc, can I lose the GOONTOOLMOON rank? It reminds me too much of MOOSE CAR TOOL.

For a point of interest:

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=675392

+postcount

No, I think we should have a classification system. I guess I never spelt out the ages of children that I was referring to, either, as I'm not sure what age I would set for this kind of thing. I certainly don't think that a 12-year-old will be emotionally harmed by seeing a movie with a sex scene in it, particularly if they're properly educated about sex. I'm not sure how low in age I'd go with that, though.

Children, Children,
Future, Future,

Children are the Future
[Children are the Future]

That's all I'll say. And I'm out.

It depends on a number of factors, methinks. Firstly, you have to recognise that all 12 year olds aren't at the same stage of emotional development, that should go without saying. Secondly, the above article proposes that children at certain stages of development are able to recognise and associate emotions that they witness on television. The age that they demonstrated is 8 years old.

The issue here isn't especially about the graphic nature of the sex perhaps, although there is a serious issue here that Glen raised, involving the media depiction of what is to be considered 'beautiful', but more the moral issues that surround it. For example, if your morals say that you shouldn't be having sex before marriage, then you would not want your child to see a film in which people have sex before marriage and it turns out very well for them, because it WILL affect their emotional development into believing that it is ok. I know this is an example that you guys might not agree upon, but consider the viewpoint of a child watching a particularly violent sex scene?

It essentially falls down to society's morality. Glen's view (as I understand it to be) is that society is gradually getting more immoral. You can understand his view, I'm sure. If you were to take a lingerie ad that might be on the side of a bus shelter today and take it back 50 years it might well be labelled 'pornography'. The thing here is, though, not that we are losing our morals, more in that what we consider to be morally good is changing. Humans are generally excited by new things, and this is generally reflected in pop culture. Let me throw out an example: If you were to go back to England in 1800, then a cabaret show where woman dance around and show their legs was considered pretty raunchy. However, as people became more and more accustomed to seeing women's legs, it no longer excited them, and they had to take it to the next level. Nowadays you can chuck on the music channel and you'll see Britney Spears dancing around, mimicking sex with her backup dancers while wearing practically nothing, and it's considered fairly standard.

Now, bringing it back, the issue here is this sort of stuff is being directly marketed to children. 12 year old girls are seeing this sort of stuff and associating it with an acceptable way to act and dress. Our morality is changing to think this sort of thing is all hunky dory. Where will we be in 10 years time? 20 years time? Eventually Britney dancing around in a bikini isn't going to excite us anymore, and we're going to have to take it to the next level. Is it not foreseeable that you could have hardcore pornography in a music video with the 2030's version of Britney appealing directly to the 12-16 market? Now do we have a problem?

Interestingly enough, we tend to slowly change our views bit by bit, until it gets too much for some people and we tear everything back to where it started. It's basically Sodom + Gomorrah.

Some good points there Glen. Some seem a bit misguided but thats what Andy is here for.

Glenjamin wrote:or even things like Pedophilia (granted laws were different) that didn't exist 200 years ago.

Think of women who get so abused by the media they end up believing themselves so hideously obese that they starve their bodies to the point of death, just to be accepted,

Couldn't help but laugh at these two.
So we're ignoring the Greeks and Romans love of young boys then? Or that we used to marry our daughters off much younger and had them spitting out babies as soon as possible which is at around 12yrs old or even earlier? People are always saying how we are sexuallising our children earlier and earlier with the media etc which may be true compared to the 1950s but when put into the context of human history the opposite is true. The only difference is that we have media now.

As for anorexia.
1) Our girls are fat. Straight up.
2) If it's caused by the media then why don't all girls have anorexia? They all watch the same crap.
3) Even if it is caused by the media it's ultimately a parents repsonsibility to raise their child with good nutrition and excerise as well as strong wills. Only weak minded people can be so deeply affected by something as trivial as television.

Simmo! wrote:The issue here isn't especially about the graphic nature of the sex perhaps, although there is a serious issue here that Glen raised, involving the media depiction of what is to be considered 'beautiful', but more the moral issues that surround it. For example, if your morals say that you shouldn't be having sex before marriage, then you would not want your child to see a film in which people have sex before marriage and it turns out very well for them, because it WILL affect their emotional development into believing that it is ok. I know this is an example that you guys might not agree upon, but consider the viewpoint of a child watching a particularly violent sex scene?

This opens up another issue: education by indoctrination. In the example you provide (setting aside the fact that I have no problem with sex before marriage, which is what I think you mean when you say that we won't agree on that example) you say that you don't want a child to see something that you personally don't agree with. Which is a rather unhealthy, censoring view to take, and is tantamount to lying to your child in order to scare them into believing what you want them to believe. You want to conceal that people who have sex before marriage can live full and happy lives? That's lying to your child to force them to conform to a narrow view of the world. This comes back to what Dawkins said on child-rearing: the best thing we can do for kids is not to force our views on them; we should teach them how to think, not what to think. Explain to them why sex should be saved until after marriage, don't ban them from doing it. And if they reach the conclusion that they don't want to follow your morals handed down from above, you should give them your blessing and let them do what they want. You can't live through your children and you shouldn't indoctrinate them.

Wait, Trevor, did you imply that I was the perpetrator of misguided ideas, or the Destroyerer of? ‘Cause if it was the former then...

*shakes fist menacingly*

But if it was the latter, then...

*shakes fist, with ice-cream in it. Menacingly*


I'm not exactly sure what's going on in this cartoon anymore, but I'll just say I think Trev’s point about the Ancient Man-Boy love is good; they loved it. The men did, at least. The boys probably didn’t mind...

Also, It’s amazing to see how fitting Bende – I mean Trevor’s – signature really is. Gold.

I also fall in line behind Marc’s anti-indoctrination call.

Hmm... I didn’t actually contribute anything useful, did I? I’ll stick to the other topics. But I love watching this one. And... Go!

Marc wrote: the best thing we can do for kids is not to force our views on them

Why?

Whats good and bad depends on your perspective, as is what you consider a 'full and happy life'. Imagine you're a strong Christian. You believe that premarital sex is a sin, and all sin separates you from God. This is a bad thing. Effectively, from that perspective, it's the spiritual equivalent of teaching your child that the stove is hot. Kindly don't begin a metaphor war by saying 'But if the child burns themselves thats the best way to learn!', because the concept of sin makes it a fruitless venture.

You don't ... hate... children, do you Marc?

Andrew.C wrote:Wait, Trevor, did you imply that I was the perpetrator of misguided ideas, or the Destroyerer of? ‘Cause if it was the former then...

*shakes fist menacingly*

But if it was the latter, then...

*shakes fist, with ice-cream in it. Menacingly*

Sorry for any confusion. Twas the latter.

Simmo! wrote:

Marc wrote: the best thing we can do for kids is not to force our views on them

Why?

Whats good and bad depends on your perspective, as is what you consider a 'full and happy life'. Imagine you're a strong Christian. You believe that premarital sex is a sin, and all sin separates you from God. This is a bad thing. Effectively, from that perspective, it's the spiritual equivalent of teaching your child that the stove is hot. Kindly don't begin a metaphor war by saying 'But if the child burns themselves thats the best way to learn!', because the concept of sin makes it a fruitless venture.

You don't ... hate... children, do you Marc?

Why force your child to be a Christian? Why not teach them about different points of view and let them make up their own minds? Indoctrinating a child speaks of an insecurity in your beliefs; it's like you can't trust your child to follow in your footsteps based on the merits of your ideas, but you instead take that choice away from them. You say that what's good and bad depends on your perspective, which is obviously true. But you should let your kid have their own perspective and make their own decisions.

I wont try to speak for Simmo- nor will i be Val and tell you what he really means.

I am a Christian, i will also raise my children in a Christian house-hold, this means i will teach them the facts of the bible and my understanding of other religions. i will also pray for and with them (unless they tell me that they don't want to pray, in which i will pray for them, LOTS), read the bible with them and yes allow them to make up their own mind. don't ever tell me that by doing so i am indoctrinating them, i am in fact teaching them- and no i won't be able to present them with an unbiased view, without being "too" fundamentalistic (not a real word, but the best i can come up with) I won't sacrifice my child's soul to the worlds understanding of "tolerance" (which is wrong but probably better reserved for another thread)- i am teaching them the truth, you may not agree with me, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Anyway, i don't think boycotting the Beijing Olympics will solve anything- i think not buying Chinese products, or supporting companies/ organisations which support an unfair regime/ government in China will have a much greater effect.

See how i brought us back to the main topic?

Glenjamin wrote:I wont try to speak for Simmo- nor will i be Val and tell you what he really means.

I am a Christian, i will also raise my children in a Christian house-hold, this means i will teach them the facts of the bible and my understanding of other religions. i will also pray for and with them (unless they tell me that they don't want to pray, in which i will pray for them, LOTS), read the bible with them and yes allow them to make up their own mind. don't ever tell me that by doing so i am indoctrinating them

I never said you were planning to indocrinate your children. You've got this thing going on where you turn my opinions into hostile attacks on you, which is never my intention. I don't believe it's your INTENT to indoctrinate, and I know that it's well-nigh impossible to keep your own biases out of teaching.

Glenjamin wrote:Anyway, i don't think boycotting the Beijing Olympics will solve anything- i think not buying Chinese products, or supporting companies/ organisations which support an unfair regime/ government in China will have a much greater effect.

See how i brought us back to the main topic?

Haha, seamless!

Synergy.

Glenjamin wrote:I am a Christian, i will also raise my children in a Christian house-hold, this means i will teach them the facts of the bible and my understanding of other religions. [...] read the bible with them and yes allow them to make up their own mind. don't ever tell me that by doing so i am indoctrinating them, i am in fact teaching them

This may be nit-picking but I think there was either some slips of word usage (which I am no stranger to myself) ...or something more sinister. What I think you might have meant to say was "teach them the facts about the bible"? Or, alternatively, we need to agree on a new meaning of the word "facts" (which in everyday speak is rather vague, granted). Because otherwise, when we consider your "allow them to make up their own mind" statement we're left wondering whether this is just lip service: it's all well and good to say you'll do it, but what does it actually entail? I'm not sure how different "teaching" kids that 'such and such is the case' is from indocrinating them... or do we need a new word for "teaching" as well?

Glenjamin wrote:I won't sacrifice my child's soul to the worlds understanding of "tolerance" (which is wrong but probably better reserved for another thread)

I don't know if I understood this, but would be interested to hear more. If you wanted to elaborate.

I think he means edjucate them about the bible, atleast thats what I think he means.


(NO JOKES HERE)

Glenjamin wrote:
See how i brought us back to the main topic?

You are the segue king.

Ok, i've started one new thread "Faith Vs. Religion", which i think is more for our discussions on the bible- i'm also starting one called "What's the deal with Tolerance" for the meaning of the word/ what modern usage has turned it and other words into.

Now back to the Olympics- which funnily enough, was created (i think this is how i remember it) so that warring nations could resolve issues under the banner of a truce AND beat each other at stuff, without slaughtering all those pesky non-combatants that one finds on the battlefield.
Edit
I think it also had a certain religious aspect... and now my scroll bar has stopped working AGAIN!

Didn't Ancient Greece have something to do with the Olympics? About people competing against each other to see who was the best and then perceived as God-like? Hence "Olympics" and the relation to Mount Olympus...? Or did they compete against other nations as well? But then again, I think the Ancient Greeks were still pretty heavily into their 'military warfare'; they loved the combat, as far as I know. Oh I don't know anything about the history of the games - Wikipedia, here I come!

No i think it was a greek only thing- but every state was its own country (Athens, Corinth, Sparta, etc) and they fought constantly...

I think you mean "every state was its own state." Being at war with another part of your country doesn't make you a separate country; it just means it's a civil war.

To Glen: Wait - oh..? I'm gunna ignore your immediately previous post, because I'm not sure what it's about, but I'll re-address your other post that I commented on: I see what you mean, wikipedia has cleared it up, you were talking about the "Revival" of the Olympic games, not technically the "creation" of.

wah? Andy you make no sense... at least, i dun un'stand.

clarify, prease.