You're right! The magical entity called the 'conomy that runs entirely on scarcity must be appeased through science budget cuts!
Because when you're trying to make sure there will *be* a next year
I know, right? The world will just vanish... because there's no money. Or something.
what happens 50 or 100 years down the road becomes less important.
Yeah! All that matters is now. The oceans are big, let's dump garbage and toxins into them! There's plenty of trees right now, so let's just cut and burn as many down as we please! What future? The 'conomy comes first.
No, but it's easier to control. Not to mention that feeling of sadness and anger can lead to further problems (such as stress).
I never said you should believe whatever makes you happy, though. I just said that merely feeling happy (but still responding to situations logically) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
They think that by not mentioning any of this that "normal people" will remain ignorant.
And it seems to work, too. I've come across quite a few people on random websites that believed that bittorrent is used entirely by 'pirates' (technologically illiterate people, of course). Not only were they ignorant, but they were stubborn in holding onto this belief.
No, no. Violent media merely makes people aggressive! And, as we all know, those temporary aggressive thoughts always turn into physical violence! Therefore, games should be banned/censored. Also, teenager's brains haven't completely formed yet, so that automatically means that they are so ignorant that they can't tell the difference between fiction and reality (the same goes for children). This is all very scientific, you see...
More generally, it might not be such a good idea to train people to ignore what other people think.
I didn't say that anyone should. I said that people should not get offended. That does not translate to "ignore everyone." Basically, respond to the situation logically. Getting offended will only make it worse.
Why would I advocate your approach if both you and I agree that it is ineffective for most?
Because there are few options and it is simple.
Many times empathy and emotion-based concepts will produce better outcomes when dealing with a child's problems than could purely rational statements, however accurate.
Then it looks like they will have to learn through experience.
Did I say that I can't tell the difference? I asked for a logical reason for treating them differently in a situation like this. More specifically, why should a minor be able to say anything they please without consequence whilst a teacher would be fired?
I know this as well. However, you asked me how they could be taught, not whether it would be effective or not. For most, it probably wouldn't be. All you can really do is advocate the idea whenever possible. Some will vehemently reject it, others simply won't change, but others will. Other than that, there's not much you can do, as far as I know.
I stated that there is a link between aggression and violent media.
By aggression, you mean violent thoughts, correct? Then let me ask you: how often do these thoughts translate into action? Statistically speaking, almost never.
Those two are not the same thing. However, for your proof, UCLA did a study in which young children watched video of two children playing with a toy truck. One of the children in the video then took the truck and the other child hit her.
Yes, I know about such studies. Extremely young children are prone to do such things (likely because they don't know how it affects the other person). Solution: parenting (parenting doesn't mean keeping them in a bubble through censorship) and common sense. Now, besides that, how many of these young children who have access to knives and are exposed to violent media actually go out and hurt people (stab someone with a knife, shoot someone with a gun, etc)?
Now, if you want to make the argument that all of us do not possess learned behaviour as part of our make up, I will ask you to present a study to that effect.
I never said that it wasn't learned behavior. I said that a very, very large majority of the population can differentiate between fiction and reality and would not hurt others because of violent media. Young children can differentiate between fiction and reality provided that a trusted parental figure isn't actively lying to them, and most of them would still never hurt someone severely either way.
Does this mean every teen exposed to violent media will go beserk?
Not just not every teen, but only an abysmally small number of them.
but it happens a lot more than the public is aware of.
And you know this, how?
Again, I am talking about aggressive behaviour, not violent behaviour.
Temporary aggressive behavior, you mean. People, the few that are actually affected, behave this way while being subjected to the media, but then quickly return to normal. Unless there's some study saying it changes them for life...
As for aggression, I don't really care. If you're merely talking about temporary aggression, then this is a non-problem. Don't ban/censor things because of what a few people do, and don't over-hype a situation that isn't really anything to be concerned about. Unless a majority of these cases become actual physical violence, think nothing of it.
In a perfectly logical reality we would be (at our kindest) sterilizing people incapable of empathy.
I'll ask again: what good does it do to succumb to anger or sadness? In many cases, it merely temporarily deprives you of your rationality, leading to illogical decisions. I never said that you should not feel positive emotions (such as happiness). Though, you shouldn't let them control you all the same.
That said, sterilization needs to be employed, anyway. There are simply too many people inhabiting this planet as it is.
Sure. You can summarize it in a few lines of text. "There is no reason for you to be offended by mere words. The words have not hurt you, and there is no universal law that states that you must be offended, sad, or angry. Realize how pointless it is to succumb to negative emotions in such a situation, and realize that it is not necessary, and in some cases, detrimental, due to the fact that anger and sadness can lead to irrational behavior."
But for a teacher who is supposed to be educating the students (and their grades may affect future job availability), that is not acceptable, despite it happening in the real world. Especially when they're getting paid to educate.
That's why it's impossible for children to believe in Santa Claus, right?
Believing in Santa Claus because a trusted parental figure lied to you is quite different than believing that an obvious work of fiction (video games, movies, etc) is real. No one lies to you about that. However, even if a child believed that, say, a movie, was real, all it would take is the parent to tell them that it isn't. That's all. No banning/censorship necessary. Not to mention that even if they did believe it was real, it wouldn't mean they'd replicate it. They might already know that what is presented in the fictional media is a bad thing to do. The chance of someone actually acting upon these thoughts is abysmally small, and therefore not worth worrying about.
The rest of your examples fall into the same place. No one is going around lying to people and saying that fictional entertainment is real.
The fact that there is a rating system in the first place, seems to indicate that there is some sort of societal norm to base the rating on.
Not necessarily. Not everyone in our society is decided through majority vote. In fact, most of it isn't.
As for studies showing the link between watched violence and increased aggression, there are too many to count.
Sorry, but no. Link to them. I'd like to see studies that actually link physical violence (not temporary violent thoughts) to violent media whilst also explaining why a majority of the population isn't violent despite being exposed to violent media. Yes, that likely sounds incredibly difficult and specific, but if you're not able to do this, there is nowhere near enough evidence to prove your point.
As for coping mechanisms and brain development, it is a medical fact that ones brain does not finish forming until one enters their 20s.
That doesn't mean that they are as idiotic as you described. You made it sound as if they were so dysfunctional that reality itself was distorted for them, which is just ridiculous in a majority of cases. What you say is true, but that does not make them imbeciles anymore so than the behavior I've seen in full-fledged adults.
As for statistics, I try not to rely on them unless I absolutely have to.
No, inquiring about them is perfectly reasonable. Why isn't a majority of the population violent? Why are crime rates (including those involving minors) dropping despite media being more violent than ever? Correlation doesn't equal causation, sure, but you'd be very hard pressed to prove your point if you aren't able to answer these questions. Why is it that normal people aren't violent?
Facts are so much better.
Since you're dealing with correlation, there are likely no facts that you will find, even in the 'studies' which you claimed exist. Especially on a subject such as this.
Now, I'd like to see a few of these:
studies that actually link physical violence (not temporary violent thoughts) to violent media whilst also explaining why a majority of the population isn't violent despite being exposed to violent media.
First, I'm not sure that sense of satisfaction really gives me a clue that I should be doing this instead of, say, having a satisfying meal.
Well, if you care more about a meal than helping others, then that is your own problem.
Being sad did help the situation
So would visiting there under the pretense of helping others, and potentially society.
Sometimes, yes, but for what I'm talking about, the adrenaline was very necessary, and I think anger is going to lead to better results in this case than fear.
You can get motivated without anger.
My point was, saying you act out of logic instead of emotion is nonsensical, if your emotions are necessary predicates for your logic.
I seem to do fine without anger or sadness, but as long as you don't do anything illogical due to those emotions (and people often do), then they might not be so terrible in certain situations.
Please, please, please tell me you're a hyper engineer-type and have nothing to do with actually raising, caring for, or managing human beings, dogs, or plants, in -any- capacity.
I didn't say that positive emotions are bad. I just believe that you should not let them affect your rationality too much. Feeling happy is okay to me, depending on the situation, because it doesn't typically have severe consequences like that of anger or sadness.
Yes, everything should be handled logically, and we should never be offended by words.
Yes. Why should you be offended by words? They haven't hurt you, you are under no obligation to do so, and getting angry or sad usually leads to negative consequences (irrational behavior). Just don't let it effect you in the first place.
You can espouse this "we should all be logical" masturbation until you're satisfied, but rest assured, my smug little friend, that people who truly understand the subtleties of how other people react emotionally to "just words" will always, in some form or fashion, be in control over people like you.
No, when I was in school, I avoided such things. However, at the time, I had not yet come to the conclusion that words are just that: words. It would have been nice if someone informed me of such.
So it's okay to be controlled by a positive emotion?
Well, that's not really what I meant to say. Negative emotions often have negative effects (loss of rational behavior, critical thinking, and perhaps even stress). No, you shouldn't be controlled by 'positive' emotions, but merely having them is okay, I think. Responding to situations logically is still important.
Feeling them is ok, letting them control you isn't necessarily better than letting anger or fear control you.
I agree.
But getting sad means I care what happens there.
You could just help them to get a sense of satisfaction. You don't have to be sad or angry to take action or have goals. You don't go back there because you are sad, but it is likely because you feel good helping them, I would think.
but the anger means I'm going to go at this full-speed until it's done.
Rational thinking can do that, too. I am of the opinion that getting things done sooner, rather than later, is the more intelligent decision because you do not know what the future holds (not to mention that you would likely feel a sense of satisfaction out of getting it done).
and how are they not ultimately based on at least your own personal preference
They are. However, that doesn't mean that any one emotion is completely controlling you.
What lesson? I learned not to be afraid of words through rational thinking. They have not hurt me, and I have no obligation to be offended by them (nor does it do many any good to be offended by them, and in many cases, getting offended will lead to irrational behavior).
Telling someone not to be offended is like telling them not to think about pink elephants.
I'm telling them that there is no reason to be offended by mere words. They have no obligation to do so, and there is no universal law that states that they must. I ask them to realize that they will be better off approaching the situation logically.
Actually, I never claimed that you should get rid of positive emotions. I just said that you should not let negative ones control you and effect your state of mind by not getting offended in the first place.
I'm sure that will work well for the general, um... human, population.
There's no reason that humans have to be offended by everything. And indeed, a more logical mindset probably would benefit a majority of the population (or so I believe).
But believe it or not, a large number of folks (teens, younger, and *gasp* even some older) do care about the opinions held by people they respect - and when younger, especially those opinions of authority figures.
Which is who I'm speaking out against. I know this because it's obvious. But that's why I believe these people need to be taught that there is no need to act in such a manner.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right! The magical entity called the 'conomy that runs entirely on scarcity must be appeased through science budget cuts!
Because when you're trying to make sure there will *be* a next year
I know, right? The world will just vanish... because there's no money. Or something.
what happens 50 or 100 years down the road becomes less important.
Yeah! All that matters is now. The oceans are big, let's dump garbage and toxins into them! There's plenty of trees right now, so let's just cut and burn as many down as we please! What future? The 'conomy comes first.
Hapiness is no more rational then anger.
No, but it's easier to control. Not to mention that feeling of sadness and anger can lead to further problems (such as stress).
I never said you should believe whatever makes you happy, though. I just said that merely feeling happy (but still responding to situations logically) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
They think that by not mentioning any of this that "normal people" will remain ignorant.
And it seems to work, too. I've come across quite a few people on random websites that believed that bittorrent is used entirely by 'pirates' (technologically illiterate people, of course). Not only were they ignorant, but they were stubborn in holding onto this belief.
legally
We're talking about school suspensions.
Basically, the law believes that minors are too dumb and easily-influenced to know what they're doing.
Depends on the person. The population at large seems to have a herd mentality.
No, no. Violent media merely makes people aggressive! And, as we all know, those temporary aggressive thoughts always turn into physical violence! Therefore, games should be banned/censored. Also, teenager's brains haven't completely formed yet, so that automatically means that they are so ignorant that they can't tell the difference between fiction and reality (the same goes for children). This is all very scientific, you see...
More generally, it might not be such a good idea to train people to ignore what other people think.
I didn't say that anyone should. I said that people should not get offended. That does not translate to "ignore everyone." Basically, respond to the situation logically. Getting offended will only make it worse.
Why would I advocate your approach if both you and I agree that it is ineffective for most?
Because there are few options and it is simple.
Many times empathy and emotion-based concepts will produce better outcomes when dealing with a child's problems than could purely rational statements, however accurate.
Then it looks like they will have to learn through experience.
They would not be called "emotions" if the did not affect the mind uncontrollably.
Sure they would. You can feel happy without being irrational. That is much harder to do with anger or sadness, however.
But i am the odd one that prefer been offended over been bored...
You don't have to be bored or irrational. All I'm saying is to not let mere words offend you.
What makes you say that?
Did I say that I can't tell the difference? I asked for a logical reason for treating them differently in a situation like this. More specifically, why should a minor be able to say anything they please without consequence whilst a teacher would be fired?
I know this as well. However, you asked me how they could be taught, not whether it would be effective or not. For most, it probably wouldn't be. All you can really do is advocate the idea whenever possible. Some will vehemently reject it, others simply won't change, but others will. Other than that, there's not much you can do, as far as I know.
I stated that there is a link between aggression and violent media.
By aggression, you mean violent thoughts, correct? Then let me ask you: how often do these thoughts translate into action? Statistically speaking, almost never.
Those two are not the same thing. However, for your proof, UCLA did a study in which young children watched video of two children playing with a toy truck. One of the children in the video then took the truck and the other child hit her.
Yes, I know about such studies. Extremely young children are prone to do such things (likely because they don't know how it affects the other person). Solution: parenting (parenting doesn't mean keeping them in a bubble through censorship) and common sense. Now, besides that, how many of these young children who have access to knives and are exposed to violent media actually go out and hurt people (stab someone with a knife, shoot someone with a gun, etc)?
Now, if you want to make the argument that all of us do not possess learned behaviour as part of our make up, I will ask you to present a study to that effect.
I never said that it wasn't learned behavior. I said that a very, very large majority of the population can differentiate between fiction and reality and would not hurt others because of violent media. Young children can differentiate between fiction and reality provided that a trusted parental figure isn't actively lying to them, and most of them would still never hurt someone severely either way.
Does this mean every teen exposed to violent media will go beserk?
Not just not every teen, but only an abysmally small number of them.
but it happens a lot more than the public is aware of.
And you know this, how?
Again, I am talking about aggressive behaviour, not violent behaviour.
Temporary aggressive behavior, you mean. People, the few that are actually affected, behave this way while being subjected to the media, but then quickly return to normal. Unless there's some study saying it changes them for life...
As for aggression, I don't really care. If you're merely talking about temporary aggression, then this is a non-problem. Don't ban/censor things because of what a few people do, and don't over-hype a situation that isn't really anything to be concerned about. Unless a majority of these cases become actual physical violence, think nothing of it.
In a perfectly logical reality we would be (at our kindest) sterilizing people incapable of empathy.
I'll ask again: what good does it do to succumb to anger or sadness? In many cases, it merely temporarily deprives you of your rationality, leading to illogical decisions. I never said that you should not feel positive emotions (such as happiness). Though, you shouldn't let them control you all the same.
That said, sterilization needs to be employed, anyway. There are simply too many people inhabiting this planet as it is.
Sure. You can summarize it in a few lines of text. "There is no reason for you to be offended by mere words. The words have not hurt you, and there is no universal law that states that you must be offended, sad, or angry. Realize how pointless it is to succumb to negative emotions in such a situation, and realize that it is not necessary, and in some cases, detrimental, due to the fact that anger and sadness can lead to irrational behavior."
But for a teacher who is supposed to be educating the students (and their grades may affect future job availability), that is not acceptable, despite it happening in the real world. Especially when they're getting paid to educate.
That's why it's impossible for children to believe in Santa Claus, right?
Believing in Santa Claus because a trusted parental figure lied to you is quite different than believing that an obvious work of fiction (video games, movies, etc) is real. No one lies to you about that. However, even if a child believed that, say, a movie, was real, all it would take is the parent to tell them that it isn't. That's all. No banning/censorship necessary. Not to mention that even if they did believe it was real, it wouldn't mean they'd replicate it. They might already know that what is presented in the fictional media is a bad thing to do. The chance of someone actually acting upon these thoughts is abysmally small, and therefore not worth worrying about.
The rest of your examples fall into the same place. No one is going around lying to people and saying that fictional entertainment is real.
The fact that there is a rating system in the first place, seems to indicate that there is some sort of societal norm to base the rating on.
Not necessarily. Not everyone in our society is decided through majority vote. In fact, most of it isn't.
As for studies showing the link between watched violence and increased aggression, there are too many to count.
Sorry, but no. Link to them. I'd like to see studies that actually link physical violence (not temporary violent thoughts) to violent media whilst also explaining why a majority of the population isn't violent despite being exposed to violent media. Yes, that likely sounds incredibly difficult and specific, but if you're not able to do this, there is nowhere near enough evidence to prove your point.
As for coping mechanisms and brain development, it is a medical fact that ones brain does not finish forming until one enters their 20s.
That doesn't mean that they are as idiotic as you described. You made it sound as if they were so dysfunctional that reality itself was distorted for them, which is just ridiculous in a majority of cases. What you say is true, but that does not make them imbeciles anymore so than the behavior I've seen in full-fledged adults.
As for statistics, I try not to rely on them unless I absolutely have to.
No, inquiring about them is perfectly reasonable. Why isn't a majority of the population violent? Why are crime rates (including those involving minors) dropping despite media being more violent than ever? Correlation doesn't equal causation, sure, but you'd be very hard pressed to prove your point if you aren't able to answer these questions. Why is it that normal people aren't violent?
Facts are so much better.
Since you're dealing with correlation, there are likely no facts that you will find, even in the 'studies' which you claimed exist. Especially on a subject such as this.
Now, I'd like to see a few of these:
studies that actually link physical violence (not temporary violent thoughts) to violent media whilst also explaining why a majority of the population isn't violent despite being exposed to violent media.
First, I'm not sure that sense of satisfaction really gives me a clue that I should be doing this instead of, say, having a satisfying meal.
Well, if you care more about a meal than helping others, then that is your own problem.
Being sad did help the situation
So would visiting there under the pretense of helping others, and potentially society.
Sometimes, yes, but for what I'm talking about, the adrenaline was very necessary, and I think anger is going to lead to better results in this case than fear.
You can get motivated without anger.
My point was, saying you act out of logic instead of emotion is nonsensical, if your emotions are necessary predicates for your logic.
I seem to do fine without anger or sadness, but as long as you don't do anything illogical due to those emotions (and people often do), then they might not be so terrible in certain situations.
Please, please, please tell me you're a hyper engineer-type and have nothing to do with actually raising, caring for, or managing human beings, dogs, or plants, in -any- capacity.
I didn't say that positive emotions are bad. I just believe that you should not let them affect your rationality too much. Feeling happy is okay to me, depending on the situation, because it doesn't typically have severe consequences like that of anger or sadness.
Yes, everything should be handled logically, and we should never be offended by words.
Yes. Why should you be offended by words? They haven't hurt you, you are under no obligation to do so, and getting angry or sad usually leads to negative consequences (irrational behavior). Just don't let it effect you in the first place.
You can espouse this "we should all be logical" masturbation until you're satisfied, but rest assured, my smug little friend, that people who truly understand the subtleties of how other people react emotionally to "just words" will always, in some form or fashion, be in control over people like you.
How so?
No, when I was in school, I avoided such things. However, at the time, I had not yet come to the conclusion that words are just that: words. It would have been nice if someone informed me of such.
So it's okay to be controlled by a positive emotion?
Well, that's not really what I meant to say. Negative emotions often have negative effects (loss of rational behavior, critical thinking, and perhaps even stress). No, you shouldn't be controlled by 'positive' emotions, but merely having them is okay, I think. Responding to situations logically is still important.
Feeling them is ok, letting them control you isn't necessarily better than letting anger or fear control you.
I agree.
But getting sad means I care what happens there.
You could just help them to get a sense of satisfaction. You don't have to be sad or angry to take action or have goals. You don't go back there because you are sad, but it is likely because you feel good helping them, I would think.
but the anger means I'm going to go at this full-speed until it's done.
Rational thinking can do that, too. I am of the opinion that getting things done sooner, rather than later, is the more intelligent decision because you do not know what the future holds (not to mention that you would likely feel a sense of satisfaction out of getting it done).
and how are they not ultimately based on at least your own personal preference
They are. However, that doesn't mean that any one emotion is completely controlling you.
What lesson? I learned not to be afraid of words through rational thinking. They have not hurt me, and I have no obligation to be offended by them (nor does it do many any good to be offended by them, and in many cases, getting offended will lead to irrational behavior).
How so?
Telling someone not to be offended is like telling them not to think about pink elephants.
I'm telling them that there is no reason to be offended by mere words. They have no obligation to do so, and there is no universal law that states that they must. I ask them to realize that they will be better off approaching the situation logically.
Your advice is to stop being human.
Actually, I never claimed that you should get rid of positive emotions. I just said that you should not let negative ones control you and effect your state of mind by not getting offended in the first place.
I'm sure that will work well for the general, um... human, population.
There's no reason that humans have to be offended by everything. And indeed, a more logical mindset probably would benefit a majority of the population (or so I believe).
But believe it or not, a large number of folks (teens, younger, and *gasp* even some older) do care about the opinions held by people they respect - and when younger, especially those opinions of authority figures.
Which is who I'm speaking out against. I know this because it's obvious. But that's why I believe these people need to be taught that there is no need to act in such a manner.