So, what you're saying, if I understand this right, is... that every child is different. That some kids mature slower, some faster, and some kids can handle what some can't. That there is no "magic number," no age where they magically learn to tell wrong from right, and to separate fantasy from reality. That some kids might even be more inherently drawn to violence than others, and that parents need to know their children and be able to identify what they know and what they can handle...
Sorry. I don't buy it. I demand you give me a list of ages and what's appropriate, universally. Also, if you have any pills that will make kids sit down and shut up and get smarter, I'd appreciate it.
You're forgetting, though, the most important part of being a parent:
Banning your kids from doing anything you thought was fun as a child.
Listen, I was living on high with a pad of my own, 100k surplus to spend on whatever I wanted, and then I got tied down with those little shits... why should *I* be the only one to suffer for it?!
(ED: BakaHoushi is a 20 year old jobless college student. Any resemblance to actual fact in the above post is unintentional and completely coincidental.)
Don't worry. We have the technology to prevent such abuse. Simply place an upside down basket on a stick, and place a dollar bill under it. If a record executive or a lawyer is hidden in a corner, they won't be able to resist and the basket will fall on them.
I think the analogy to the painter is good, but flawed in one crucial way. That is the number of buyers.
In the painter's scenario, $1,500 for a painting that took a lifetime of skill to produce is fair, I should think. But a painting is only a singular item. What if 1,500 people wanted that painting and could share it? Why not each pay the artist $1? The artist is paid for his skill, his work is spread around and admired, and the people get the painting they desire.
Obviously, you can't share a painting like that, but an album you can. Millions of copies can be made for a relative pittance. And if you sold it at even $4, you'd make large profits. It's just instead of 20 people paying you $100, 2000 people pay you $1.
This, of course, assumes that $1 spent on a CD was $1 to the artist... Or, heck, even $.75 or even $.25 but that is not the case.
Personally, I knew it was a fake when they used the names of the so called "victims." "David?" "Jenny?" Such common, down-to-Earth salt-of-the-Earth American names of honest people, being ripped off by the soulless, godless heathen pirates, who only wish to bring injustice to this world...
Puh-lease. It's as transparent as any fake story I've ever seen. The Onion has made more realistic stories. So, yeah, we need a -2, Hoax moderation.
As a 20 year old jobless college student coasting by on earned savings (and what little remains of my previous job) I don't exactly enjoy spending money on gas. Of course, I have a Chevy Cavalier with 32 mpg, and gas prices aren't nearly as high as Europe or Japan, but still... Wouldn't it be nice if all cars could get that mileage? (It's not like Oil Executives are starving to death)
You mean politicians would waste millions of dollars on pointless, useless, expensive "solutions" that would only worsen the problem, all in the name of being re-elected?
Don't those people who walk on to sing, only to be torn apart by the judges count as a cameo? What of the crowd? If not, well... As the poster above said, "FATALITY."
You know, quick question, but wouldn't a demolition crew check a house thoroughly BEFORE tearing it down? I mean, even looking through the window, if you see a ton of furniture, especially stuff that'd sell pretty well on eBay at the very least, odds are, it's not really scheduled for demolition.
And even if it really is, why not TAKE all of that furniture, first? I hate waste. Take the stuff for yourself, sell it, donate it to the homeless/a shelter/an orphanage/whatever! Tearing a place down still full of usable things seems just completely wrong to me, when people are still in need.
Actually, carbs will lower my blood sugar levels. Hypoglycemia can be a disease in and of itself, or a symptom. What you just said about upping your carbs is a good thing to do if you're diabetic and going into a hypoglycemic shock. My case is a little different. When I take in carbs, my pancreas acts a bit like a broken valve: It releases too much insulin. Far more than necessary. In other words, if I ate enough carbs to increase the level of glucose in my blood by 50 points (to make up numbers at random), my pancreas will release enough to drop it 100 points.
I honestly don't know all the details of my condition, but I've had it for about 17 years at least. And I know eating carbs WILL make me sick. Very sick, if in the wrong amounts. And sadly, most of the non-meat protein sources I've come across contain more sugar and carbs than I can deal with.
Don't think I'm trying to excuse myself, because I assure you, I am NOT a meat fan. I dislike steak, ribs, etc. and would live on fruits, vegetables, and starches if I had the choice. Sadly, that is not the case.
Yes, it's possible for one, such as yourself, to eat a vegan diet and get all your nutrients, but I do think taste should be SOMEWHAT of a factor. Not everyone wants to eat that way, and given our body's chemistry, I'd say that's a legitimate feeling.
I should note, however, that as I mentioned, I am hypoglycemic and have difficulty keeping my blood sugar up without high protein, which is hard to find in th required amounts in a vegan diet.
Congress makes needless changes that ultimately annoy people but makes no positive change on the world around them in order to make themselves look like busy people when they're not out having affairs with children and expanding their power base.
How, exactly, is this newsworthy? Same old, same old. Move along, nothing to see here...
Hey, I'm not saying we should hold animals up on a platform beside us. I'm not saying we need a "Bovine-American Rights" act to give cows the right to enroll in college, vote in elections, and buy sports cars during a midlife crisis, but that forcing livestock into puny cells for their entire lives before ritualistically and painfully slaughtering them is a bit much. We can't even let them walk a little bit? I'm not expecting them to be living in the lap of luxury, but it needs improvements. It may cost a LITTLE more (I doubt much more. I wouldn't be surprised to find out about price jacking in the meat market.), but I'd say it's worth it.
Let's not be so picky. Omnivorism is a result of evolution (hey, it makes sense. Plant or meat, we eat it. That means a larger food source, less dependency on a specific environment, and various nutrients to be found), but I meant designed only in the sense that for maximization of our bodies, we need nutrients found in meat as well as plants. Personally, I'm hypoglycemic and need a lot of protein, which is difficult to find in non-meat sources.
Whenever I think of how we kill animals, I think of a quote by Winston Churchill.
"If you're going to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."...Or something like that. The point is, I'm not a fan of meat, but we're human, and we're omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat some meat. It's just a fact of life. But why do we have to do it in such horrible ways? Why aren't we banning what are clearly appalling methods of raising and slaughtering livestock? Of forcing them to live in tiny cages or pens their whole lives with not even a foot of space to move?
I think all animals deserve at least a painless death, if nothing else as a right. Even when I kill a bee in what I consider self-defense, I don't want the bee to be in pain. I just want it dead.
Kyle: Anyone who believes in those stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories is retarded. Cartman: Kyle, 1 in 4 Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. Are you saying 25% of America is retarded? Kyle: Yes, I think 25% of America is retarded.
Change the topic to Evolution, to 48%, and you have my view.
In my personal experience, the people who say "God HAS to be the one who created the universe" are the same people who tell me people who don't believe in God can't have morals. "But the only thing keeping us from killing each other is God!" Actually, I'm pretty sure that's a little thing called common decency (And a product of social evolution. Group A is willing to work together and Group B is willing to kill each other for food. Well, whaddya know, group B didn't last too long, did it?).
You make some good points, but I still disagree. Allow me to explain my point of view here:
I did not mean to say that anything humans have done in the past means it's A-OK to do now. Yes, people married off at the age of 14 back in the days of Shakespeare, but people also had a life expectancy of something like 40-50, assuming they didn't die of giving birth/infestation related diseases. Obviously, this is not the case today, and we put off the legal ages of child-rearing until the body has had adequate time to develop fully to make it safer and healthier for the mother and the child, but there is one problem: The human mind is still "wired" to desire sex from that young age (which makes sense, if you think about it. Our ancestors wanted it earlier, whereas developing humans in the early days who didn't reach a state of puberty until later, would be more likely to die off before reproducing, and any humans who may have reached puberty before these years likely could not handle the strain of child-rearing, leaving our bodies to believe ~14 is a good age to have children). Because of this, it is perfectly natural to WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, even if you're 27 or something (random age).
Of course, this does not mean I condone the act, just that such a feeling is, by definition, natural. (And obviously 14 year olds engaging in sex for porn is illegal, and rightfully so, so avoiding that in the media is fine by me, even though it is a natural feeling).
It is, IMHO, the same with violence. Humans like to fight. Who hasn't, at some point, imagined being some sort of martial artist master/samurai/ninja taking on a horde of villains single handedly? Natural instincts often tell us to solve problems with violence. Punch your boss in the face. Kick the loud, obnoxious bastard you at a restaurant, and hey, who HASN'T wanted to shoot Bill O'Rielly? Releasing stress through physical violence is a good feeling. Now, obviously, to live in anything resembling civilized society, as good and natural as that feels, we need to hold it back and instead mock our boss silently in our minds, tune the obnoxious bastard out, and turn off FOX News respectively, so if people want to release some of that pent up aggression through the media, I think that's just fine.
Keep in mind, I'm merely saying this from a legal and psychological viewpoint. Personally, I find most violent music and movies to be annoying and distasteful.
While I do agree with the idea that the media overproduces violence and sex, I don't think the situation is quite as dire. If anything, I see the media's glorification of violence as more of a cop-out. "Well, we could put together a cast of likable, emotional characters, a well-scripted story, and thought-provoking, philosophical dialogue... Or, we could blow our budget on a huge-ass gunfight on the top of the Empire State Building. With Ninjas." As an example, I mentioned CSI. When that show came out, the number of "whodunnit?" murder mysteries exploded on primetime TV. I don't think this is due to a sudden change in culture, but just a bunch of copycats trying to cash in on a fad, and try to PROMOTE a change in society's views in order to maximize the fad's potential. But like all fads, someday it will crash and burn and TV will move on to something new.
I will admit, some violent media COULD potentially push a few people over the edge and cause them to emulate what they see, but as you said, more often than not, this violence is unrealistic, so said child will probably find trying to run up a wall while firing dual M60s quite difficult and will most likely fail in his attempts.
I joke a little there, but in truth, I don't think exposure to violent media in any moderate amount has any real dire consequences (Maybe if you sat at home and watched nothing but war movies 20 hours a day, but I believe if you do that, you have some OTHER immediate psychiatric needs to address.). Yes, some misguided youth or two may attempt to copy what he saw on wrestling or Jackass or what have you, but to this I say: The youth of the world has ALWAYS been prone to doing dumb, violent things. These kids are stupid, and if MTV didn't "inspire" them to light themselves on fire, they'd probably be out trying to jump ledges in their car. Stupid people and unnecessary violence are like two peas in a pod, even if the media didn't put them there.
Wait, what the Christ? I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote, but people being inherently violent doesn't mean that's ALL we believe in. What is says is, given the proper circumstances, pretty much anyone can and will resort to violence. It means violence doesn't have to be taught, because it's built in.
A small child will shove another child to get a toy that he wants. Adults go to war for territory, and they have since the dawn of time. In fact, let's take a look at history and the media long before the modern age: Books: War and Peace, full of war. The Wizard of Oz, plenty of violence including decapitations. Alice's Adventure Through the Looking-Glass, I don't even know where to begin with this one. And if you move on to Greek culture, with stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey, well... Plays: Take a look at pretty much ANYTHING Shakespeare did. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and for God's sake Macbeth... They were all full of horrid acts of violence. Even children's fairy-tales are full of murder and death (Pied Piper leads a town's kids to death, Humpty Dumpty's death, even Ring Around the Rosie is about the black plague), and it's nigh-impossible to find one mythological creature in Western Culture that DIDN'T somehow lead to the demise of many.
Second of all, TV doesn't JUST show violence. Let's not forget sex and comedy. I half-joke there, but there's more to TV than violence. I happen to enjoy some nice sci-fi drama now and again, violence need not apply (Personally, my favorite Star Trek movie is IV: The Voyage home, and there was not only no real violence, but there wasn't even really a bad guy to it).
I'm of the opinion that more often than not, art imitates life, not the other way around. Swearing on TV is an extremely recent thing, and we've been swearing LONG before then. "Realistic" violence also predates TV by a good dozen millenia or so.
Let's not say though that I ENJOY vast amounts of violence on TV. I find shows like CSI and the other 200 murder mystery dramas to be in bad taste. But to say that TV is ONLY violent or that violence is not "natural" is just plain wrong.
I think there is one fatal flaw in your logic. IT seems to suggest that if these influences were done away with, there'd be nothing to corrupt the youth into liking violence and finding it "cool."
I believe, however, that humans, or at least the vast majority of us, are inherently violent. Even if 24/Eminememem or whatever the hell his name is/etc. weren't around... well, look at past generations. Before TV and the media were even invented. Kids played, what, cowboys and indians. Mimicry of the brutal slaughter of an indigenous people. Let's not forget kids wrestled. Long before Steve Austin was pounding people with folding chairs. And let's not forget.... WAR. That's certainly not new.
The sad fact is, people are violent. And yes, many kids today like to act tough like *insert tough celebrity and/or his persona here*, but how many of these kids would actually stick around for a REAL fight?
This is true, but I, for one, would like to say, that anyone who believes television and wrestling is the sole cause of violence in the youth (which, IIRC, has been steadily decreasing over the last decade, despite the increase in violence in the media) is a fool.
And anyone who disagrees with me should be shot, drawn and quartered, and I'LL DROP KICK THEIR FACE IN! I'M NOT VIOLENT AT ALL! ARGH!
I think this needs to be in a pamphlet delivered to... everyone in the world. The Internet is a public place. Yes, you may have rights over a part you've designed/created, but it's still supposed to be for public viewing. Like an artist "owns" the work he gives to an art gallery, but can't tell people how to look at or think about it. He can't deny people the right to be inspired by said work. Much how you can tell someone they can't copy your website to make an identical website and claim it as his own. But that's not what Archive.org does. It merely records what WAS there. It doesn't create a new website. It doesn't claim to own the material. Web crawlers can't tell what websites want to be crawled and they can't negotiate contracts.
And one thing still bothers me. I consider there to be justified and unjustified lawsuits. A justified lawsuit is when someone is actually damaged in some way by the actions or inactions of another that could have and should have been avoided (as an example, my father took a nasty fall 2 years ago when a regular customer of his failed to mention the work that was being done on the floor inside. HE stepped in and fell right onto his shoulder, requiring massive amounts of surgery and time to heal, putting us out of business for quite some time. He was never notified of this work, and, in fact, my father was not even the first one to fall. We were forced to sue to pay for medical costs and to cover the expenses of being out of work).
In this woman's case... okay, so a crawler has been copying old copies of her webpage. So what? Who gives a fuck? I know there needn't be an actual bit of damage for a lawsuit, but the fact that people can and WILL sue when nothing bad has happened to them... it just makes me sick.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what you're saying, if I understand this right, is... that every child is different. That some kids mature slower, some faster, and some kids can handle what some can't. That there is no "magic number," no age where they magically learn to tell wrong from right, and to separate fantasy from reality. That some kids might even be more inherently drawn to violence than others, and that parents need to know their children and be able to identify what they know and what they can handle...
Sorry. I don't buy it. I demand you give me a list of ages and what's appropriate, universally. Also, if you have any pills that will make kids sit down and shut up and get smarter, I'd appreciate it.
You're forgetting, though, the most important part of being a parent:
Banning your kids from doing anything you thought was fun as a child.
Listen, I was living on high with a pad of my own, 100k surplus to spend on whatever I wanted, and then I got tied down with those little shits... why should *I* be the only one to suffer for it?!
(ED: BakaHoushi is a 20 year old jobless college student. Any resemblance to actual fact in the above post is unintentional and completely coincidental.)
Don't worry. We have the technology to prevent such abuse. Simply place an upside down basket on a stick, and place a dollar bill under it. If a record executive or a lawyer is hidden in a corner, they won't be able to resist and the basket will fall on them.
I think the analogy to the painter is good, but flawed in one crucial way. That is the number of buyers.
In the painter's scenario, $1,500 for a painting that took a lifetime of skill to produce is fair, I should think. But a painting is only a singular item. What if 1,500 people wanted that painting and could share it? Why not each pay the artist $1? The artist is paid for his skill, his work is spread around and admired, and the people get the painting they desire.
Obviously, you can't share a painting like that, but an album you can. Millions of copies can be made for a relative pittance. And if you sold it at even $4, you'd make large profits. It's just instead of 20 people paying you $100, 2000 people pay you $1.
This, of course, assumes that $1 spent on a CD was $1 to the artist... Or, heck, even $.75 or even $.25 but that is not the case.
Personally, I knew it was a fake when they used the names of the so called "victims." "David?" "Jenny?" Such common, down-to-Earth salt-of-the-Earth American names of honest people, being ripped off by the soulless, godless heathen pirates, who only wish to bring injustice to this world...
Puh-lease. It's as transparent as any fake story I've ever seen. The Onion has made more realistic stories. So, yeah, we need a -2, Hoax moderation.
If you find out where to go, e-mail me a link.
As a 20 year old jobless college student coasting by on earned savings (and what little remains of my previous job) I don't exactly enjoy spending money on gas. Of course, I have a Chevy Cavalier with 32 mpg, and gas prices aren't nearly as high as Europe or Japan, but still... Wouldn't it be nice if all cars could get that mileage? (It's not like Oil Executives are starving to death)
You mean politicians would waste millions of dollars on pointless, useless, expensive "solutions" that would only worsen the problem, all in the name of being re-elected?
Honestly, that's too crazy and unheard of.
Don't those people who walk on to sing, only to be torn apart by the judges count as a cameo? What of the crowd? If not, well... As the poster above said, "FATALITY."
You know, quick question, but wouldn't a demolition crew check a house thoroughly BEFORE tearing it down? I mean, even looking through the window, if you see a ton of furniture, especially stuff that'd sell pretty well on eBay at the very least, odds are, it's not really scheduled for demolition.
And even if it really is, why not TAKE all of that furniture, first? I hate waste. Take the stuff for yourself, sell it, donate it to the homeless/a shelter/an orphanage/whatever! Tearing a place down still full of usable things seems just completely wrong to me, when people are still in need.
Common decency? Hmmm... Oh yeah, I remember that. We pawned it off for a Big Mac, a sports car, and a cameo appearance on American Idol.
It didn't bring us the happiness we wanted, but hey, we were on FOX being humiliated by Simon Cowell! How cool is that?
Actually, carbs will lower my blood sugar levels. Hypoglycemia can be a disease in and of itself, or a symptom. What you just said about upping your carbs is a good thing to do if you're diabetic and going into a hypoglycemic shock. My case is a little different. When I take in carbs, my pancreas acts a bit like a broken valve: It releases too much insulin. Far more than necessary. In other words, if I ate enough carbs to increase the level of glucose in my blood by 50 points (to make up numbers at random), my pancreas will release enough to drop it 100 points.
I honestly don't know all the details of my condition, but I've had it for about 17 years at least. And I know eating carbs WILL make me sick. Very sick, if in the wrong amounts. And sadly, most of the non-meat protein sources I've come across contain more sugar and carbs than I can deal with.
Don't think I'm trying to excuse myself, because I assure you, I am NOT a meat fan. I dislike steak, ribs, etc. and would live on fruits, vegetables, and starches if I had the choice. Sadly, that is not the case.
Yes, it's possible for one, such as yourself, to eat a vegan diet and get all your nutrients, but I do think taste should be SOMEWHAT of a factor. Not everyone wants to eat that way, and given our body's chemistry, I'd say that's a legitimate feeling.
I should note, however, that as I mentioned, I am hypoglycemic and have difficulty keeping my blood sugar up without high protein, which is hard to find in th required amounts in a vegan diet.
Congress makes needless changes that ultimately annoy people but makes no positive change on the world around them in order to make themselves look like busy people when they're not out having affairs with children and expanding their power base.
How, exactly, is this newsworthy? Same old, same old. Move along, nothing to see here...
Hey, I'm not saying we should hold animals up on a platform beside us. I'm not saying we need a "Bovine-American Rights" act to give cows the right to enroll in college, vote in elections, and buy sports cars during a midlife crisis, but that forcing livestock into puny cells for their entire lives before ritualistically and painfully slaughtering them is a bit much. We can't even let them walk a little bit? I'm not expecting them to be living in the lap of luxury, but it needs improvements. It may cost a LITTLE more (I doubt much more. I wouldn't be surprised to find out about price jacking in the meat market.), but I'd say it's worth it.
Let's not be so picky. Omnivorism is a result of evolution (hey, it makes sense. Plant or meat, we eat it. That means a larger food source, less dependency on a specific environment, and various nutrients to be found), but I meant designed only in the sense that for maximization of our bodies, we need nutrients found in meat as well as plants. Personally, I'm hypoglycemic and need a lot of protein, which is difficult to find in non-meat sources.
Whenever I think of how we kill animals, I think of a quote by Winston Churchill.
...Or something like that. The point is, I'm not a fan of meat, but we're human, and we're omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat some meat. It's just a fact of life. But why do we have to do it in such horrible ways? Why aren't we banning what are clearly appalling methods of raising and slaughtering livestock? Of forcing them to live in tiny cages or pens their whole lives with not even a foot of space to move?
"If you're going to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
I think all animals deserve at least a painless death, if nothing else as a right. Even when I kill a bee in what I consider self-defense, I don't want the bee to be in pain. I just want it dead.
I'm reminded of an episode of South Park.
Kyle: Anyone who believes in those stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories is retarded.
Cartman: Kyle, 1 in 4 Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. Are you saying 25% of America is retarded?
Kyle: Yes, I think 25% of America is retarded.
Change the topic to Evolution, to 48%, and you have my view.
In my personal experience, the people who say "God HAS to be the one who created the universe" are the same people who tell me people who don't believe in God can't have morals. "But the only thing keeping us from killing each other is God!" Actually, I'm pretty sure that's a little thing called common decency (And a product of social evolution. Group A is willing to work together and Group B is willing to kill each other for food. Well, whaddya know, group B didn't last too long, did it?).
You make some good points, but I still disagree. Allow me to explain my point of view here:
I did not mean to say that anything humans have done in the past means it's A-OK to do now. Yes, people married off at the age of 14 back in the days of Shakespeare, but people also had a life expectancy of something like 40-50, assuming they didn't die of giving birth/infestation related diseases. Obviously, this is not the case today, and we put off the legal ages of child-rearing until the body has had adequate time to develop fully to make it safer and healthier for the mother and the child, but there is one problem: The human mind is still "wired" to desire sex from that young age (which makes sense, if you think about it. Our ancestors wanted it earlier, whereas developing humans in the early days who didn't reach a state of puberty until later, would be more likely to die off before reproducing, and any humans who may have reached puberty before these years likely could not handle the strain of child-rearing, leaving our bodies to believe ~14 is a good age to have children). Because of this, it is perfectly natural to WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, even if you're 27 or something (random age).
Of course, this does not mean I condone the act, just that such a feeling is, by definition, natural. (And obviously 14 year olds engaging in sex for porn is illegal, and rightfully so, so avoiding that in the media is fine by me, even though it is a natural feeling).
It is, IMHO, the same with violence. Humans like to fight. Who hasn't, at some point, imagined being some sort of martial artist master/samurai/ninja taking on a horde of villains single handedly? Natural instincts often tell us to solve problems with violence. Punch your boss in the face. Kick the loud, obnoxious bastard you at a restaurant, and hey, who HASN'T wanted to shoot Bill O'Rielly? Releasing stress through physical violence is a good feeling. Now, obviously, to live in anything resembling civilized society, as good and natural as that feels, we need to hold it back and instead mock our boss silently in our minds, tune the obnoxious bastard out, and turn off FOX News respectively, so if people want to release some of that pent up aggression through the media, I think that's just fine.
Keep in mind, I'm merely saying this from a legal and psychological viewpoint. Personally, I find most violent music and movies to be annoying and distasteful.
While I do agree with the idea that the media overproduces violence and sex, I don't think the situation is quite as dire. If anything, I see the media's glorification of violence as more of a cop-out. "Well, we could put together a cast of likable, emotional characters, a well-scripted story, and thought-provoking, philosophical dialogue... Or, we could blow our budget on a huge-ass gunfight on the top of the Empire State Building. With Ninjas." As an example, I mentioned CSI. When that show came out, the number of "whodunnit?" murder mysteries exploded on primetime TV. I don't think this is due to a sudden change in culture, but just a bunch of copycats trying to cash in on a fad, and try to PROMOTE a change in society's views in order to maximize the fad's potential. But like all fads, someday it will crash and burn and TV will move on to something new.
I will admit, some violent media COULD potentially push a few people over the edge and cause them to emulate what they see, but as you said, more often than not, this violence is unrealistic, so said child will probably find trying to run up a wall while firing dual M60s quite difficult and will most likely fail in his attempts.
I joke a little there, but in truth, I don't think exposure to violent media in any moderate amount has any real dire consequences (Maybe if you sat at home and watched nothing but war movies 20 hours a day, but I believe if you do that, you have some OTHER immediate psychiatric needs to address.). Yes, some misguided youth or two may attempt to copy what he saw on wrestling or Jackass or what have you, but to this I say: The youth of the world has ALWAYS been prone to doing dumb, violent things. These kids are stupid, and if MTV didn't "inspire" them to light themselves on fire, they'd probably be out trying to jump ledges in their car. Stupid people and unnecessary violence are like two peas in a pod, even if the media didn't put them there.
Wait, what the Christ?
I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote, but people being inherently violent doesn't mean that's ALL we believe in. What is says is, given the proper circumstances, pretty much anyone can and will resort to violence. It means violence doesn't have to be taught, because it's built in.
A small child will shove another child to get a toy that he wants. Adults go to war for territory, and they have since the dawn of time. In fact, let's take a look at history and the media long before the modern age:
Books: War and Peace, full of war. The Wizard of Oz, plenty of violence including decapitations. Alice's Adventure Through the Looking-Glass, I don't even know where to begin with this one. And if you move on to Greek culture, with stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey, well...
Plays: Take a look at pretty much ANYTHING Shakespeare did. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and for God's sake Macbeth... They were all full of horrid acts of violence.
Even children's fairy-tales are full of murder and death (Pied Piper leads a town's kids to death, Humpty Dumpty's death, even Ring Around the Rosie is about the black plague), and it's nigh-impossible to find one mythological creature in Western Culture that DIDN'T somehow lead to the demise of many.
Second of all, TV doesn't JUST show violence. Let's not forget sex and comedy. I half-joke there, but there's more to TV than violence. I happen to enjoy some nice sci-fi drama now and again, violence need not apply (Personally, my favorite Star Trek movie is IV: The Voyage home, and there was not only no real violence, but there wasn't even really a bad guy to it).
I'm of the opinion that more often than not, art imitates life, not the other way around. Swearing on TV is an extremely recent thing, and we've been swearing LONG before then. "Realistic" violence also predates TV by a good dozen millenia or so.
Let's not say though that I ENJOY vast amounts of violence on TV. I find shows like CSI and the other 200 murder mystery dramas to be in bad taste. But to say that TV is ONLY violent or that violence is not "natural" is just plain wrong.
I think there is one fatal flaw in your logic. IT seems to suggest that if these influences were done away with, there'd be nothing to corrupt the youth into liking violence and finding it "cool."
I believe, however, that humans, or at least the vast majority of us, are inherently violent. Even if 24/Eminememem or whatever the hell his name is/etc. weren't around... well, look at past generations. Before TV and the media were even invented. Kids played, what, cowboys and indians. Mimicry of the brutal slaughter of an indigenous people. Let's not forget kids wrestled. Long before Steve Austin was pounding people with folding chairs. And let's not forget.... WAR. That's certainly not new.
The sad fact is, people are violent. And yes, many kids today like to act tough like *insert tough celebrity and/or his persona here*, but how many of these kids would actually stick around for a REAL fight?
Don't worry. If people start to accept torture as an acceptable policy, we can just torture them until they don't!
This is true, but I, for one, would like to say, that anyone who believes television and wrestling is the sole cause of violence in the youth (which, IIRC, has been steadily decreasing over the last decade, despite the increase in violence in the media) is a fool.
And anyone who disagrees with me should be shot, drawn and quartered, and I'LL DROP KICK THEIR FACE IN! I'M NOT VIOLENT AT ALL! ARGH!
I think this needs to be in a pamphlet delivered to... everyone in the world. The Internet is a public place. Yes, you may have rights over a part you've designed/created, but it's still supposed to be for public viewing. Like an artist "owns" the work he gives to an art gallery, but can't tell people how to look at or think about it. He can't deny people the right to be inspired by said work. Much how you can tell someone they can't copy your website to make an identical website and claim it as his own. But that's not what Archive.org does. It merely records what WAS there. It doesn't create a new website. It doesn't claim to own the material. Web crawlers can't tell what websites want to be crawled and they can't negotiate contracts.
And one thing still bothers me. I consider there to be justified and unjustified lawsuits. A justified lawsuit is when someone is actually damaged in some way by the actions or inactions of another that could have and should have been avoided (as an example, my father took a nasty fall 2 years ago when a regular customer of his failed to mention the work that was being done on the floor inside. HE stepped in and fell right onto his shoulder, requiring massive amounts of surgery and time to heal, putting us out of business for quite some time. He was never notified of this work, and, in fact, my father was not even the first one to fall. We were forced to sue to pay for medical costs and to cover the expenses of being out of work).
In this woman's case... okay, so a crawler has been copying old copies of her webpage. So what? Who gives a fuck? I know there needn't be an actual bit of damage for a lawsuit, but the fact that people can and WILL sue when nothing bad has happened to them... it just makes me sick.
Let's see... "Authority figures abuse broad, poorly defined laws for their own benefit... film at 11, after our exclusive report The Sky: It's Blue."
Personally, I thought the whole point of the FBI was to abuse power and civil liberties. I mean, congress does its best, but it can only do so much.