3,942 Forum Posts by "D2Kvirus"
Well, it has gotten better - david Blunkett has finally gone. Now all we need to do is wait three months until Charles Clark gets ideas of his own, rather than pretend that he's going to follow Blunkett to the letter.
That's assuming, of course, he'll be allowed...
Bloody typical - nobody else is celebrating the fact the UK no longer has to live in fear, as David Blunkett's resigned.
At 12/13/04 10:02 PM, Empanado wrote:At 12/13/04 09:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: First to mention this is thread 777, the same number as JTHM's house.Oooh, Jhonen Vasquez. I'm not familiar with JTHM, but Zim kicked ass. Best cartoon ever.
Not familiar with JTHM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Consider yourself wacky.
Besides, you should all try and track down I Feel Sick - the two issue spin-off featuring Devi. It's somewhere between 'Nny and Zim, which isn't as weird as it sounds. Now, don't make me sing The Doom Song...
The People Who Hate People Party:
"People who hate people, come together!!!"
"No."
At 12/13/04 11:57 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:
Best Reg
BCC
Worst Reg
Shouldn't this be a top three? Tough choice between Jimsween, 70TA and Damian3003. I'll go with Damian, since Sween'll win it anyway.
Biggest Spammer
70TA
Biggest Attention Whore
Shrike, all you need to do is type his name into the topics at the bottom to see why...
Best n00b trap
Anything containing the word "Bush."
Yes - not only because it's barbaric and cruel in the extreme, but also because it would serve notice to the COuntryside Aliance that they should stop acting like they can order around everyone or, failing that, the threat (or use of) violence should enforce their worldview.
These are the sort of people who say that if fox hunting is banned, 20,000 dogs will have to die - why can't they just hunt the dogs then, since they obviously show no compassion towards anything other than themselves? And you can also guarantee that if the dogs turned 'round and tore a huntsman to pieces, they won't say it's OK - yet it is when a fox is hunted down.
Not only that, but if it was promised in 1997 as an Election Pledge, and the furthest we've got is "You can hunt, but only if you have a license" - isn't it time we actually had a bargain honoured?
At 12/9/04 01:36 AM, Hermannator wrote:
While a majority of the media is right wing and pro-American and stuff, would you say that a majority of people in Britain support Bush and the war or do a majority hate Bush and are against the war in Iraq? I know that there are plenty of people in Britain who are against the war, but there still should be people who aren't. I just do not know the percentage.
when today's Page 3 Girl is saying we should support America for all they've done for us during the war (erm, which one, exactly?), you know there's something going on that you wouldn't want to consider.
It reminds me of a time when I was at school (Christ, that's practically ancient history) where some dickhead ran up behind me in the playground, punched me in the back of the head, and yelled "Piss yourself!" at me. And I'm the one that got bollocked for, rightly, calling him a motherfucker, at very loud volume, in front of two teachers.
The point is that you can't actually prevent yourself from shouting "Jesus Christ!" when you bang your head, find out Dimebag Darrell was murdered on stage, or any other event where emotion dictates more than cerebral. If this is enforced, every time a bloke does DIY he's fined - is that remotely logical? Is it even enforcable? Or is it just a PR blitz to deflect attention from another Act being passed that strips away out liberties - i.e., the new pensions wheeze of calculating it by the average over your working life. Now remember, thos ethat have worked in the Civil Service for 30+ years started on a salary of £1,000 a year...
At 12/8/04 11:18 AM, The_Darklands wrote:those arent "real" christiansThey thought they were.
When he says "real", I believe he means it in the context of Jennifer Lopez and other deluded rappers trying to prove they're from the street and so forth...
At 12/7/04 01:02 PM, stevenherman wrote:
Personal responsibility is a concept unbeknownst to liberals.
Couldn't see that one coming at somer point, because ill-informed Liberal bashing isn't rife or anything...
By the way, what kind of score do you get when you manage to fire a bullet from a tight angle (when you aren't reknowned as a good shot), over a motorcade, before it spins in mid air and ploughs into JFK's cranium?
It better be fucking high...
At 12/7/04 12:24 PM, LeapOfFaith wrote: This law, like so many others that have been created during the time of the "Blair Puppet" look like one thing -in this case the prevention religious discrimination- but could be so easily be used wrongly -censorship, curtailment of personal freedom, that insane type of political correctness that New Labour tend to deal with-. This is just an example of the new "nanny state", soon we wont be able to wipe our arses without written permission.
Bugger - that's what I was going to say, just more sarcastically.
It's another law created that sounds good when spun out beyond belief, especially with some keywords like "discrimination" and "freedom" thrown in, but all along it isn't about any of that.
Of course, it isn't a smokescreen as other acts, with more serious repercussions for our rights, are pushed through away from the media glare. Or to get the focus off Blunkett, for that matter.
At 12/6/04 12:38 PM, Damien3003 wrote:Religion does - and that's something else that has more effect on society than the media, as it is engrained within our culture.And so are video games, movies, music, and television shows.
I don't recall four Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition being born from video games, movies...
Video games aren't ingrained within our culture for the exact reasons you're flapping your arms around for - they're looked down upon, not encouraged, by society. They are seen as low art, a hobby for nerds, and having no intellectual or social standing. TV is the same, while movies are half and half.
Religion is encouraged and promoted as a great cornerstone of society - a few thousand years of existence creates that sort of standing. How can a medium with barely a century of history compete with that?
Mein kamph is available at most bookstores, too. Is that ingrained into our culture?
I don't recall it being shoved down the world's throat between 1933-45, only Germany's. I don't know how you can compare the two.
Besides, it isn't as if you're encouraged to buy Mein Kampf, but the exact opposite - and you get on an FBI list. Buy the Bible, no questions asked, no assumptions made, and no disapproving glances.
I'm not saying that. I've repeatidly said that no sole party is to blame. I think it's the parents responsibility to limit what their children are exposed to. It's also the child's responsibility to adhere to the things that are acceptable in society.
By saying what children are exposed to, you imply the media - therefore you point your finger in that direction. You also imply that children are too stupid to tell the difference between the Real and the Non-real, or what is socially acceptable.
Now, take this into account: In the 1890s, the Lumier Brothers aired the film Train Coming into a Station (snappy title, I know) in Paris, showing a train pulling out of a station. The audience – adults - actually ducked, assuming they'd be killed.
Now, if you rounded up a group of adults and put them in a theatre with the same film today, would they duck? No. Would children? No. Would anyone?
It's everyone's 'fault', and it'll take everyone to prevent things like columbine.
How about the social peers, those who dictated that Harris and Klebold were "fags" and supposed to be bullied by students and teachers alike? Not the parents, not the media…
Never said stupid....i said ignorant. There is a huge difference. Children are simply untaught...sure, one day, they'll know much more. But a four year old doesn't have the same kind of mindset an 18 year old has.
Ignorance implies stupidity.
Besides, as you say, if by 13 kids know what video games they like, what will they know by 18 - their favourite brand of beer?
Work out there's a few dozen shades of grey you casually ignore in an effort to appear clever, which makes you look like an ass.
At this point, you denegrate your "Argument"...because it proves you're just a jumped-up prick with no opinions worth mentioning :)The parent needs to influence the child correctly.Yours didn't, if you feel being an asshole is the correct thing to do. Go have a talk with them.
I, and the whole BBS, stand by that quote – you stand behind it.
So you're saying human nature needs to be nipped in the bud?No, it needs to be controlled. Supressed, even.
And when you do that, it's more likely to explode with violent force. Repressing and suppressing build up pressure, and by doing this, it just means that there will be a greater explosion when the pressure gets too much. Regular catharsis is damn near necessary.
Why else do you think I'm typing?
Didn't think of that, did you - humans are violent in nature,Yes, obviously. But this country has many, many institutions (as in, schools, boot camps, boys homes, universities) all with the common goal or supressing violent tendencies. Don't blame me for that, blame our fellow man.
Nope - they're set up to socialise people. How the hell can you suppress violent tendencies when they're positively encouraged in sports? Yup, I blame our fellow man for that.
Violent tendencies can't be stamped out, but can be controlled.Exactly my point above. At long last, we agree on something.
If you read above, you'd realise that once again you bit off more than you can chew. Are you on a shoe leather diet or something?
Then they should be institutionalized for life, or until the imbalance is corrected. If they 'couldn't help themselves' one time, it could happen again.
"Corrected"? Do you realise how totalitarian that sounds? What do you prescribe, exactly - lobotomy? Electro shock treatment? At the end of the day, they’re removed from society wholesale, and cannot function within it.
See, you're pigeonholing. You act as if i'm a christian...and i am so obviously not, it's painful.
What's painful is you taking the moral high ground. Besides, ignorant blabbering is a Christian Fundamentalist past time.
And where exactly did I say you were Christian - is this another giant leap for presumption? I said you agree with their regurgitations, I didn't say you were joining in with the brotherhood.
The military, organized religion, AND the media CAN be good things, and they can be bad things. It's all about how they're applied.
"Imagine a boot, stamping on a human face, forever."
Those are the first two to a T, as millennia have proven. If anything, the media offers a catharsis - you can't go out and beat someone to death with a baseball bat, but you can do it in a computer game - and realise that you don't want to go outside and do it for real.
It's the media that toes political and religious lines you should worry about, because those project dogma to you - dogma like video games create killers, prayer is the answer, your Leaders are doing a good job...
Take away those pressures and you learn something, commonly known as Truth. But to assume that children will bow to the media's suggestions is ludicrous - it's the adults that do it which creates problems. Why? Because it's more subtle, yet all the while they think the children need to be protected – because that's the message being told.
Of course, getting so wound up about where your children are and what they're doing at all times is healthy and doesn't build up pressure...
At 12/6/04 12:36 PM, Damien3003 wrote:
No...see...that's my whole point. My parents instilled rationality, and a sense of responsibility and recourse.
So you didn't learn responsibility in social situations?
Do you?
Yup. Next question.
No. This debate is based around opinions. Don't like my opinions? Then find someone else's.
Do you see where you bit off more than you could chew there?
Yea, those kids at columbine really learned from it. Same thing with the menendez boys (yes, i butchered the spelling.). They obviously learned LOTS.
Isolated cases. maybe it gets so much attention because it's a rare event, so the unpredictibility of it happening offer up more of a shock and - let's not forget this, shall we - more sales/ratings/conservative fearmongering bullshit.
After all, when a 40 year old man shoots somebody in cold blood, it isn't major news (unless it was a celebrity or politician, natch), and it isn't blamed on anything other than cold blood. But why not?
I did. Yet it still remains a fact that many children do not 'learn from things like that.'
Again you use words like "fact" when you aren't reading any of them.
Until you can do away with the large number of children that DON'T know right from wrong...your opinion is flawed.
Again you make a bold assumption, yet with nothing to back it up.
And how do you plan on doing away with them - letting them play GTA for hours on end, hading them weapons and letting nature take its course. It'll be a long wait, because the odds are they won't start blowing each other's heads off.
I do not 'wholeheartedly' agree with any christian anything. I just happen to be realistic enough to realize that the media, when placed as an enviromental structure, doesn't always have a positive effect.
You're regurgitating their opinions, so you're agreeing wholeheartedly - while using the exact same facts as they do, i.e. NONE.
Because detatching them from the family unity is so healthy and productive.*shrugs* Sometimes people need to make sacrifices.
And when they come out of bootcamp and repeat that mantra while taking aim from on top of that clocktower...
remember, one of the Columbine kids grew up on military bases, so he should know how to act around guns, right?Yea, he knew how to act around guns real well. He also knew how to shoot them, real well. Maybe if his parents had spent the last few years coming down on his ass with both feet, the shootings wouldn't have happened. If he had been in military school at the time...the shootings wouldn't have happened.
And once again you don't seem to be reading what's being posted. Don't you think his parents taught him about gun responsibility - or anyone else on the airforce bases he grew up on? Again, you take a bold leap to a presumption - and don't quite realise that you're not standing on any firm ground.
Oh yea...it teaches you lots. It teaches you what video games you like, and what movies you don't. It teaches you a very basic level of responsibility (i.e. getting up to go to school every day, doing some household chores). Those first thirteen years of life develop personality.
And if you believe that, you once again prove why you're in no position to make an assumption dressed as an argument.
But intelligence? No. Thirteen years of life does not connotate the definition of 'intelligent' or even 'rational'.
See above.
Yes...and many thirteen year olds think a 'visa' is a credit card. Hence, my point.
See two above.
I never said 'adults have more morals'...i said they were more rational.
See three above.
I don't care what the officer said.
Why not - it's his JOB. If he deducts - correctly - that Child's Play 3 couldn't have influenced a murder BECAUSE NEITHER OF THE CULPRITS WATCHED IT - you should care. What was that BS line about opinions you gave, again?
What you said was ' the father watched scary movies all day, and the child could not take it...he committed an act of violence, because of this'.
Yes - the child didn't watch them. Oh, and didn't watch the film in question. F-A-C-T. That's what they look like.
The point is not the trail, in court. It's the fact that the little boy 'could not handle the scary movies'.
because he hadn't watched them.
And there's a difference between being scared by watching them, and being inspired to go on a killing spree.
Just to make it REALLY FUCKING CLEAR, he falls into the former category.
Once again, thanks for the fodder.
Thanks for another opportunity to show what a fucking idiot you really are.
Do you have any other response, or are you just tiresome?If my convictions are too strong for you, brother, then relinquish the debate.
What - the conviction that you're right, despite an overwhelming dossier proving the exact opposite?
I'm not holding you here.
You are - you're entertaining in your banality.
lol it's nothing more than an utopian idea, to insinuate that a five year old is just as rational as me, or you.
The rate you're going, an unborn phoetus is more rational than you. It can tell right from wrong, for a start - being right from wrong.
I am an adult. I have had plenty of advice from adults.Exactly. Other adults made it possible for you to form rationality. Exactly my point. Thank you.
Not children in my social group when I was growing up, then? Look up the word "socialised" before you reply, please.
Where do you get your material from?
Including adults that work as psychologists.So another adult helped you become the person you are? Thank you, again.
See above.
And I have experience of being a child growing up. What the hell more can you possibly need?Nothing, now. Obviously, from what you've said...without adults, you wouldnt be where you are now. Which is exactly my point.
By God, you're pathetic. Worse still, you believe you have a point.
What did you generalise about serial killers - after saying you don't generalise about people, especially children who are all too dumb to think for themselves?
At 12/4/04 04:26 PM, pielover87 wrote: You got the really expensive Prince of Persia 2 but not AH? AH is only have the price. Tom will ban you for this!
Maybe he should ask for a UK release, then...
God, you're still not mentioning Blunkett...
At 12/3/04 06:55 PM, spanishfli wrote: Prince of Persia 2 is bad ass...
although, since when did he get a tat? The whole game is a whole lot darker, Prince looks creepier for some reason.
Crap - no money. I fucking hate being generous for Christmas...
At 12/2/04 03:33 PM, Damien3003 wrote:
Yes, when my parents told me, as soon as i watched my first 'scary movie'. Hence: The responsibility of the parent.
So you can't take responsibility for yourself, is that what you're saying.
Some can, some can't.
WHo are you to say - do you have any knowledge of the subject, psychological qualifications, or are just just trying to piss me off with your inane babble?
And even if they CAN tell what's acceptable, and what isn't...they'll still make decisions based on what influences them. If the parent offers NO influence...and all they know is 'the media'...they will not grow into an acceptable adult.
So the fact that they aren't taught at school that sorting out problems can only be done with a 9mm, their parents don't regularly shoot at people, and any gun incidents on the street (if any) aren't condemned.
Get real. You learn from things like this.
but do you think a 13 year old will play Doom, then decide to shoot up the neighbourhood?No, i don't. Can i say the same thing for a five year old? No, i cannot.
Read above.
Remember, before the Columbine shootings, the two students went bowling. So, does that mean bowling caused this?No...a lack of parental supervision and guidance caused this.
Not being bukllied by students and teachers alike? Wy not blame Marilyn Manson like the other Christian Fundamentalists you agree with wholeheartedly.
Let's say you're right...it's still the parents responsibility to control and inhibit that 'violent' nature. If that means sending your kid to boot camp, then do it.
Because detatching them from the family unity is so healthy and productive. remember, one of the Columbine kids grew up on military bases, so he should know how to act around guns, right?
Of course, hazing and other activities at boot camp will also help a child grow into a fully functioning adult. Just remember that marines have a habit of snapping, before going on shooting rampages...
It's not clear cut like that, no. But when you're thirteen...you are an unexperienced, naive, ignorant, know nothing youth...with no concept of how the world works...or even how you, yourself works.
So now you're saying that thirteen years of life doesn't teach you anything? Riiiiiiight...
Besides, how many adults are rational to begin with?There are more rational adults then rational teenagers.
Considering the top story over here is how our Home Secratary got a married woman pregnant, bullied her over it, as well as getting a quickie visa for her nanny to kep her quiet, I'd reconsider.
Or will you assume that teenage pregnancies are being encouraged by this behaviour? After all, he has a lot of influence - a lot more than a few pixels and polygons on a monitor.
So you're saying...the child was young, impressionable, and unable to comprehend the FANTASY? And that because of the movies...his frail mind was led into violence?
Let me make this abundantly clear to you:
THE INSPECTING OFFICER IN THE CASE RULED THE LINK OUT ENTIRELY. THE JUDGE MADE THE LINK AT THE TRIAL, AS HE WAS A STUPID, SENILE, OUT OF TOUCH DICKHEAD. JOURNALISTS SEIZED UPON THIS SOTRY AS IT IS EASIER THAN REPORTING HOW OUR CHILDREN CAN BE COLD BLOODED KILLERS WITH NO REMORSE.
If you're going to ignore what I'm saying, you can go fuck yourself if you think I'm going to treat you with anything other than contempt.
No, not every time is there something that influenced the child...but most often, there is.
Do you have any other response, or are you just tiresome?
Young children cannot. And you said children, not teenagers. Teenagers may or may not be able to tell right from wrong...children usually definitelly cannot.
Teenagers can, children can - and I can tell the difference between rational debate and some asshole trying to get a rise out of somebody. You're the latter.
You're saying children are not easiliy impressionable, and not easily led. You're saying that with no advice from an adult, a child could rear himself, knowing right from wrong.
I am an adult. I have had plenty of advice from adults. Including adults that work as psychologists. And I have experience of being a child growing up. What the hell more can you possibly need?
And i'm saying you're full of shit.
And at this point you denegrate your "argument" - because it proves you're just a jumped-up prick with no opinions worth repreating.
Hey, I proof read.
The media doesn't shove the bibles down our throat. There are not telathons, trying to sell bibles for 19.95.
Religion does - and that's something else that has more effect on society than the media, as it is engrained within our culture.
And how can it not be shoved down your throat when Gideons leave bibles in your hotel room, you have people coming to your door, and it's available at every bookshop?
A book is a media artifact. The ible is a book. Do the math. If you haven't been influenced, of course...
You're placing no blame on the media, and that is not fair.
It's EVERYONE'S responsibility. Mostly, however, it falls to the parent, and the child.
What is not fair is placing ALL the blame on the media with no proof. What is not fair is assuming children are stupid, and cannot think for themselves.
The parent needs to influence the child correctly. And the child needs to learn this, quickly, to base his morals and values on.
Your didn't, if you feel being an asshole is the correct thing to do. Go have a talk with them.
When a movie is watched, the child needs to be educated. When a video game is bought, a child needs to be kept under a watchful eye. Violent tendencies need to be nipped in the bud, at a young age.
So you're saying human nature needs to be nipped in the bud? Didn't think of that, did you - humans are violent in nature, because their eyes are in the front, just like any other predator? Violent tendencies can't be stamped out, but can be controlled. However, there are people that cannot control this - and it isn't GTA that sets them off. It's a chemical imbalance in the brain.
of course, being trained to kill by the military doesn't help much. But, apparently, the military are a good thing - just like religion - in our society, while the media isn't.
And if you believe that, you're a moron.
At 12/2/04 09:44 AM, ultrabitch wrote: If you can be affected by media unknowingly, such as th desire to own a mobile phone, then yit's also likely that you're being affected by the media in other wayes, was the point I was making.
So it isn't peer pressure, from your social contempories? Have we got to the point where everything can be blamed on TV etc, rather than social situations?
Twenty years ago, a mobile phone was a status symbol to show off wealth. These days, you're supposed to have one or you're a social pariah. It isn't TV saying this, it's the social circle.
Very young chidlren can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and that's a fact. A five year old watching Eastenders would certainly not grasp that it wasn't real, though they would probably grasp the fact that it wasn't happening in their living room.
But as soon as they're 18, they can...
When will people get it into their heads that there isn't some point where people tell the difference as if by magic - they learn it for themselves, and a lot younger than they're supposed to. The fact that a child watching EastEnders, yet cannot intereact with the surroundings, will teach them something, you know. SOmething like it isn't real, as they will know that they can interact with people.
An eight year old playing GBA - VC would see the images and realise that this person is killing pople and picking up money from their corpses. Why can't they do it?
Because they can't buy a gun, let alone carry it.
By the way, in the story that began the thread, did the kids actually shoot up the interstate, then run to the nearest TV crew and proclaim Vice City made them do it? Or did they get apprehended, and advised to find a scapegoat to get twenty less eyars for possession of a weapon, discharging a weapon within city limits, attempted murder...
Trust me, it makes a big difference.
A ten year old would probably have the moral message drummed into their heads by now, but their minds are still open to new ideas.
Talking about something they don't have any idea about?
This is why age certificates are a good thing.
Are they? Remember that this is a country where The Exorcist was banned for 25 years as James Firman, then head of the BBFC (may he rot in peace) said so - as he found it scary. And, for that matter, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for, quote, "An unarmed woman being persued by an armed assailant" (so ban every slasher film in world history).
Besides, with the 12A certificate causing a lot of probelsm with children allegedly traumatised by Lord of the Rings (so say parents who, of course, didn't shit themselves during Shelob's attack), how can this be a good thing? Plus they get subjected to a torrent of foul language 'cause the little bastards won't shut up for five minutes...
At 12/1/04 10:05 AM, redskvnk wrote:Sween is boring.
No, The English Patient is boring - Swhine is an irritant.
Surely society hasn't wrapped them in so much cotton wool they can't see or hear anything that might guide them in the right direction?No...that's the parent's responsibility to 'stear them in the right direction'. If the parents refuse this responsibility, and the child is exposed to violence, sex, and overexposer, in general...well, welcome to columbine.
John Wayne Gacy grew up in a nice, normal Christian nuclear family, so what happened there? So was Ted Bundy. No overexposure to sex and violence on TV, yet they have well over 70 bodies to their credit.
Maybe fearmongering reporter in need of a good story should be more responsible. After all, they get paid to be so damn ignorant...They only point out what's there. I highly believe that, in this example, media DID have an influence. Would it have happened if the media didn't exist? Probably. But the media only fueled the fire.
I'm afraid they don't - where the hell do you get your notions from in this day and age, anyway? In this country, only The Daily Mail fearmongers against the Evil Media and gives us the "Somebody think of the children!!!" spiel, to mass derision from those that aren't staunch Tories (which is quite a lot).
The mied LIGHT the fire, and fact extinguishes it in the end. People like you are poking the dying embers trying to light a new one.
Have you seen Scream 2? That's far more accurate to reality than the notion you'd shoot up some people after playing GTA. Besides, you miss the mechanics between the incident and their saying they were influenced. In there, there's lawyers and advisors to get sentences down, and fearmongering journalists looking for a headline guaranteed to shock and - most importantly - run on and on, so they can make more stories out of it.
It's called the Hyperdermic Needle model, look it up. There's a ton of books on the subject - I should know, as I have a Masters in Media Studies, and this is my main subject of expertise.
At 11/30/04 04:50 PM, Damien3003 wrote:
I DIDN'T realize it was fake...i was like, three, for chissakes.
But you learned otherwise? Besides, children are a lot smarter than people give them credit for, and can tell what's real and what isn't. For example, they don't believe that there's a second world within the TV set they can climb into, like Alice in Wonderland or something. Did you try that aged three, in convenient retrospect, or did you not?
Well...that holds alot of truth. Children, and young teenagers...they are naive, an inexperienced. They, without a doubt, need a LOT of guidance.
No, they may need a good slap around the head every now and again, but do you think a 13 year old will play Doom, then decide to shoot up the neighbourhood? They know it is not real, and it is not encouraged. It's fantasy, for God's sake, and they can tell the difference. If anyone says there's a link, it's deluded reaction groups, or lawyers hoping for a shorter sentence.
Remember, before the Columbine shootings, the two students went bowling. So, does that mean bowling caused this? Besides, the film that has caused the most violence and aggression this year seems to be Fahrenheit 9/11, not some slasher film of Kill Bill. Perhaps people are inherently violent in nature, and don't need to watch some film or play some game to get them into that state?
but any time before that you're supposed to be totally dumb and can't tell fact from fiction, right from wrong, etc.Not TOTALLY dumb...but definitely not a rational adult.
How many times do I have to repeat the foolish notion that the second you turn 18 you're a "rational adult" before it becomes clear that it's ludicrous?
Besides, how many adults are rational to begin with? Take a look at some of them for a moment. The father of one of Jamie Bulger's killers watched horror films all day and all night, but he hasn't killed anybody - but his son who was scared of them and couldn't watch, and this quote is on record, did.
It's the same thing as the Columbine shootings being the fault of Marilyn Manson, the murder of Jamie Bulger because of Child's Play 3, etc.And how about the kid who, after watching a World Wrestling Federation television program, closelined his sister and broke her neck. His siter died.
And how about Mary Bell, a ten year old who stabbed two people to death with scissors in separate incidents? Note there isn't a scapegoat there. Because there isn't one.
What about the thousands of people who watch WWE programming and don't perform moves on each other? One isolated incident does not an outbreak of copycat violence make. Besides, what if the full story of that incident went along these lines: the two children wanted to play wrestling (which is discouraged on the shows, by the way), but one of them went too far. Details like that get lost after headlines like the one you brought up.
Kids are easily influenced...especially when a parent offers no guidance, or knowledge of the real world.
And once again, we're back at cast iron notions that are ludicrous - children can't tell right from wrong, because they're innocent and easily led.
Nobody actually wants to believe that children are capable of such dark acts - so have to provide a scapegoat.That's not it..it's just the FACT (and it is, a fact i mean) that children are easily impressionable. This is something more parents need to realize.
Don't use words like "fact" when they go against a ton of evidence, because it looks like you aren't even reading what I'm typing, as you've made up your mind (or been influenced...) as to what the answer is.
Just remember, the one media artefact which has the most deaths attributed to it is...THE BIBLE. That's a fact right there, yet that isn't brought into the argument by the Evil Media Brigade. Mostly as they're Christian Fundamentalists, who deem objects such as a videotape, DVD, CD ROM as evil, because it's nice and simplistic - and, of course, they're produced by evil, corrupting influences.
It IS the family's responsibility to instill traditions and actions that are tolerable to society. Parent's don't always live up to that responsibility.I'm referring to the family as a construct, not the actual family.So am i.
No, you're referring to the family as a notion. The CONSTRUCT of the family is one set in stone by the same people that say horror films are evil and that children are so innocent and easily led by corrupt influences.
The construct of the family states that it is what is good in modern society, with 2.4 children and so forth, despite the fact that it was built in the 1950s, and pumped into society via sit-coms. How often is it the father is the breadwinner and the mother is the homemaker 50 years on?
Although, once again, are children so dumb they don't learn for themselves?Correct. Don't like it? Too bad. It's been proven again and again.
Just because you're too dumb to learn anything doesn't mean everyone else is. Time and again it's been proven that media related violence is a S-H-A-M brought on to cloud the truth, to lessen sentences, or to sell newspapers.
At 11/30/04 03:18 PM, ultrabitch wrote: The problem is that you don't think you're affected by media. How many of you own mobile phones? Would you buy thewm or have asked for them if you hadn't seen all those adverts and film stars looking 'cool' while talking into them?
No, I bought one because where I was living at the time didn't have a phoneline, and it was going dirt cheap. Besides, I tend to need to be contacted at regular intervals, and sitting at home all day awaiting a phone call isn't productive.
Then again, that could mean I am being affected by the media - BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WORK.
Would you have be texting hundreds of messages a day if it hadn't been pounded into your brain how wonderful texting was by all those adverts texting soppy messages to each other?
Not because people don't have their phones turned on, and everyone knows voicemail is redundant as nobody checks it?
Media does affect us, and for the most part we aren't even aware. It's practically sublibinal advertising.
Subliminal?!? It's pretty overt - even in the way you talk about it. If you had a clue what you were talking about...
At 11/27/04 03:59 PM, Damien3003 wrote:
I never said that. The thirteen year old kid, the parent who bought the game, and the company who made the game share small pieces of responsibility. Most of it falls to the parent, though. When i was young, one of the first times i watched some gorey movie, my parents had a talk with me. I was told that what i was watching was fake...studio produced movie magic, and nothing more. I was told that behavior like that was not acceptable, nor tolerated, in the real world.
The fact your parents expected you not to actually realise that is the point I'm making - the whole set-up is that once you're 18, you can tell right from wrong (unless you're Wayne Rooney, who's 19), but any time before that you're supposed to be totally dumb and can't tell fact from fiction, right from wrong, etc. It's the same thing as the Columbine shootings being the fault of Marilyn Manson, the murder of Jamie Bulger because of Child's Play 3, etc. Nobody actually wants to believe that children are capable of such dark acts - so have to provide a scapegoat.
However, I don't recall one in the case of Mary Bell, Britain's youngest serial killer.
You can't blame the family, because they're supposedly wholesome and representitive of what society should be like.It IS the family's responsibility to instill traditions and actions that are tolerable to society. Parent's don't always live up to that responsibility.
I'm referring to the family as a construct, not the actual family. Although, once again, are children so dumb they don't learn for themselves? Surely society hasn't wrapped them in so much cotton wool they can't see or hear anything that might guide them in the right direction?
Kid's, and teenages (and this includes myself, mind you) have little experience. All the know is what they are exposed to. If a child is raised with constant violence, and sex, and expose over and over again...coupled with the situation of the parents never explaining right from wrong...never telling their children what is acceptable, and tolerable: This is where the problem stems from.
Of course, this is all hearsay - where's the evidence that it happens?
It's true...you're 14 or 15 year old son needs to be watched...you needs to be informed about society, and what is real, and fake, and intolerable. But the parents share some blame, too.
Parents need to take responsibility far more than the children do - look at Jamie Bulger's mother. What kind of mother would leave her toddler outside, with no-one watching them, in a busy shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon? This was never mentioned once in the investigation. The fact Child's Play 3 wasn't responsible - in fact, one of the children hadn't even watched it, or any other horror film - WAS. However, one ill-informed, off the cuff comment from a judge later, and once again it was Evil Media time.
Maybe fearmongering reporter in need of a good story should be more responsible. After all, they get paid to be so damn ignorant...
"I want to handle this is a quiet and private manner." - David Blunkett, on allegations a woman he was having an affair with mothered at least one child by him. By dragging her through court and making the child give DNA samples.
Cecil Parkinson did the same thing, and was ruined as a result. Affairs with married woman and getting them pregnant isn't usually good for a political career, you know...
At 11/28/04 01:50 PM, Lord_Melon wrote: Thats right. British Politics.
Appears that the General Election has been set for early May. That means over 100 days of debating. Dont all cheer at once.
So much for a snap election, then...
I hope all Brits reading this, will vote Conservative. Labour needs to be removed from office. This is a dictatorship-like state. We cant even drive safely! And criminals are better off then victems.
That's right - we should all vote Conservative, after two straight elections of voting conservative...
I mean, lets face it. Do you REALLY wanna see Tony Blair in the next series of 2DTV again?
I think the sentence that would actually work as any sort of argument would be "Do you REALLY wanna see Tony Blair in power again?"
At 11/28/04 03:32 PM, dudeI8urmom91 wrote: What do you think about the plans for the Freedom Tower in place of where the World trade centers ounce were. Its supposed to be the tallest building in the world ounce finished
Proof that money talks louder than actual emotion - considering how Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC site (to the tune of several billion dollars, which he paid about a month before 9/11), bullied the architect, Daniel Liebeskind, into doing things the way he wanted time and again - with the New York Commissioner unable to do anything, due to being of little use.
At 11/26/04 10:22 AM, ShadowsFall wrote:At 11/26/04 06:50 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Oh yes, at long last Tony Bliar reaches out to the younger generation by taking past in a text chat courtesy of O2.Damn- I only found out he had done this in the papers this morning. If I had known I would have texted him to ask what hes going to do about the mess hes made of the asylum system in Britain.
I'm on Virgin Mobile anyway, so couldn't have participated to the tune of...most of my friggin' credit in the space of two minutes. And, as I said, the legendary question asked of Five Star is too tempting. Or maybe something like "Are you aware Chirac, Schroeder and Putin can't stand you, you jumped up little shit?"
By the way, Beyonce did the same thing last year, and got 2,000,000 questions. Indication of our society, or a sign Bliar doesn't appeal to those born yesterday?
At 11/26/04 04:01 PM, Damien3003 wrote:At 11/22/04 10:47 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: Here is the truth. You can't point fingers. There are so many factors that make kids act that way they can't all be accounted for.Sure we can point fingers. It's someone's fault. Most things are someone's failed responsibility. If the parents by the game, but choose not to educate properly..then they have failed in their responsibility of child rearing, no?
I know, it's somebody's fault - never your own. People can't accept something may be their responsibility, so get finger pointing in random directions at the usual suspects (usually media related - McDonalds ads after 9pm?!?).
When it's parents, they usually want to deflect attention from the possibility that maybe - just maybe - they didn't raise their kids that well. Of course, right wing media fearmongers buy up the concept that Evil Media is corrupting our kids, and video games is the latest format to do just that. Just like video. Just like TV. Just like cinema. Just like "penny dreadful" comics.
I just covered 100 years in a few words, by the way. Blame the media, as you can make out they're some evil, corrupt orginisation as a whole. You can't blame the family, because they're supposedly wholesome and representitive of what society should be like. Even if, in the case of Manhunt corrupting society's children, it turned out the murderer never even had the game - the victim did. Of course, at which point it's clear the victim's parents can't handle the fact they let an unbalanced murderer into their household several times, and didn't spot the warning signs.
And I haven't even got on to wondering why parents assume their children are stupid and can't tell what's right from wrong, morally or otherwise, until their 18th birthday. Is it related to the idea playing GTA: SA ten times makes you more dangerous than if you only played it once?
At 11/26/04 03:23 PM, TheShrike wrote:
So.... why did they feel the need to respond to some mediocre partisan documentary which doesn't even mention relegion? It's all partisan bullshit rhetoric offering an equally lame response to ¡GASP! more partisan bullshit rhetoric.
Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaahmbulance...
