The Underworld Of Lightly (& Logically) Moderated Discussion & Debate


    I hate this idea of

    Share
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:57 pm

    "I am outraged about something that I have a choice whether or not to buy/view, and I am going to tell everyone about it"

    Dear god, I'm all for freedom speech but why impose your backward values on us, people who like boundary pushing things.

    Let me cite 2 examples:
    1) Christians protesting the virgin Mary episode of south park.
    Okay if you want to say why this is bad and ask for a boycott I don't mind, but why ask for it to be pulled of air? You don't half to watch it.

    2) Grand Theft Auto IV/ Little Big Planet
    Blaming video games has generally been societies way of soothing its guilt laden conscience of accusations of bad parenting. But in GTA's case, We slap an R18 sticker on it, you must be 18 to buy it, so why remove content that everyone else was privy to? And LBP (annoyed me the most), why complain about a music track in a game that promotes cross-ethnic friendship and a sense of community of the whole world, it has a Muslim song in it to promote and international feeling of "togetherness", yet you fucking PC faggots had to complain and delay it all for everyone.

    I could go on and on, but for fucks sake, freedom of action allows you to ignore stuff you don't like, so why annoy us who do like this stuff?
    avatar
    master5o1
    Cyclopes
    Cyclopes

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  master5o1 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:45 pm

    I like it when they do this but it just creates a Streisand effect.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  Waireka on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm

    It's all dependant on the ability to laugh at ones self.

    If you are sure about your beliefs then someone else making light of them, or disagreeing with them, shouldn't be the end of the world for you.
    avatar
    master5o1
    Cyclopes
    Cyclopes

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  master5o1 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm

    Waireka wrote:It's all dependant on the ability to laugh at ones self.

    If you are sure about your beliefs then someone else making light of them, or disagreeing with them, shouldn't be the end of the world for you.

    I.E: You choose to be offended by what others say/do.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:52 pm

    It appears I do
    avatar
    master5o1
    Cyclopes
    Cyclopes

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  master5o1 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:54 pm

    superarmy wrote:I could go on and on, but for fucks sake, freedom of action allows you to ignore stuff you don't like, so why annoy us who do like this stuff?


    Because one can.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:55 pm

    Waireka wrote:It's all dependant on the ability to laugh at ones self.

    If you are sure about your beliefs then someone else making light of them, or disagreeing with them, shouldn't be the end of the world for you.

    I'm just puzzled as to why they care about something they will never do/watch/play/ and why they choose to oppose it for us who do enjoy it.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  Waireka on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:58 pm

    superarmy wrote:
    Waireka wrote:It's all dependant on the ability to laugh at ones self.

    If you are sure about your beliefs then someone else making light of them, or disagreeing with them, shouldn't be the end of the world for you.

    I'm just puzzled as to why they care about something they will never do/watch/play/ and why they choose to oppose it for us who do enjoy it.

    Some people make other peoples business their own.

    Some (as mentioned) believe that certain things impact negatively on society (like Pornography) and they have genuine concern for society.
    avatar
    master5o1
    Cyclopes
    Cyclopes

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  master5o1 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:36 pm

    Waireka wrote:Some (as mentioned) believe that certain things impact negatively on society (like Pornography) and they have genuine concern for society.

    These people are idiots Razz
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  Waireka on Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:45 pm

    master5o1 wrote:
    Waireka wrote:Some (as mentioned) believe that certain things impact negatively on society (like Pornography) and they have genuine concern for society.

    These people are idiots Razz

    Hmmm, depends on where you draw the line with 'negative impact' on society.

    Television has BCS... due to this.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:48 pm

    Waireka wrote:
    master5o1 wrote:
    Waireka wrote:Some (as mentioned) believe that certain things impact negatively on society (like Pornography) and they have genuine concern for society.

    These people are idiots Razz

    Hmmm, depends on where you draw the line with 'negative impact' on society.

    Television has BCS... due to this.

    This idea of "negative impact" is due to a lack of proper parenting. It could easily be fixed by parents not letting their kids be raised so isolated, parents need to take an active interest in what there kids do and make sure they understand them.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  Waireka on Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm

    superarmy wrote:
    Waireka wrote:
    master5o1 wrote:
    Waireka wrote:Some (as mentioned) believe that certain things impact negatively on society (like Pornography) and they have genuine concern for society.

    These people are idiots Razz

    Hmmm, depends on where you draw the line with 'negative impact' on society.

    Television has BCS... due to this.

    This idea of "negative impact" is due to a lack of proper parenting. It could easily be fixed by parents not letting their kids be raised so isolated, parents need to take an active interest in what there kids do and make sure they understand them.

    I don't disagree.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:52 pm

    I personally think you can show your kids anything ( I mean ANYTHING) and can still teach them right and wrong from it.
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:58 pm

    superarmy wrote:Let me cite 2 examples:
    1) Christians protesting the virgin Mary episode of south park.
    2) Grand Theft Auto IV/ Little Big Planet

    1) I think I agree with you in this case

    2) Do you not believe that society has at least some role to protect children when their parents do not? Letting four-year-olds play adult games might be bad parenting, but there is no way you are going to prevent it happening. By preventing the worst end of the adult content, you are protecting children from stuff they are going to see/play, whether society likes it or not.

    A second point is desensitisation having an effect (even if gradual, or not discernible) on adults. The effect is proven fact.

    Edited for typo (deleted one letter)


    Last edited by relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:00 pm

    superarmy wrote:I personally think you can show your kids anything ( I mean ANYTHING) and can still teach them right and wrong from it.

    Probably, but if you want to show them things they can handle, then the age of the kids is relevant.

    That is why PGR is a classification. It recognises that somethings can be fine for children to view so long as there is someone with whom they can discuss the issues that arise.

    (Edited to add a space)
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  Waireka on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:04 pm

    How bad is desensitisation?
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:07 pm

    By preventing the worst end of the adult content, you are protecting children from stuff they are going to see/play, whether society likes it or not.

    But is this worth punishing the law abiding mature citizens who feel like the game is incomplete without it?
    Though somewhat a valid point and now I'm somewhat being unfair the bit omitted was the "hot coffee" sex game, odd though that the graphic violence was still included(sorry the whole violence vs sex thing is another topic altogether)

    Probably, but if you want to show them things they can handle, then the age of the kids is relevant.
    I think if you start early enough, that anything will be fine for them. Actually that would be a very interesting study.
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Desensitisation

    Post  relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:18 pm

    Waireka wrote:How bad is desensitisation?

    That depends on how far it goes; ie, time and circumstances.

    Given extreme circumstances, and sufficient time, one can transform from a person who believes killing is wrong and something one will never do, to someone who enjoys and seeks out killing. The extreme circumstances during the Rwandan ethnic conflict between Tutsi and Hutu caused this to happen many times. Those refusing to kill the 'opposing' side were considered traitors, so people would kill just one person to save their own lives. After time, one killing was insufficient to be safe from being considered a traitor - a trait 'worthy' of death. After even more time, and as the number of murders one was required to commit to save their own life increased, people began to enjoy what they previously found abhorrent.
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:27 pm

    superarmy wrote:But is this worth punishing the law abiding mature citizens who feel like the game is incomplete without it?
    Though somewhat a valid point and now I'm somewhat being unfair the bit omitted was the "hot coffee" sex game, odd though that the graphic violence was still included(sorry the whole violence vs sex thing is another topic altogether)

    Sure. Why not? They'll live.

    I agree though, there is a tendency in our culture to unjustifiably differentiate between inappropriate content of a violent or a sexual nature.

    superarmy wrote:I think if you start early enough, that anything will be fine for them.

    I strongly disagree. Starting early and giving perfect explanations and unlimited emotional support still does not negate a child's limited ability to comprehend.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:29 pm

    I strongly disagree. Starting early and giving perfect explanations and unlimited emotional support still does not negate a child's limited ability to comprehend.

    Nevertheless I think it would be a most interesting study. If anyone had the balls to do it, how does overexposure with proper explanation of all phenomenon at an early age affect people?
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:36 pm

    superarmy wrote:overexposure with proper explanation

    See, now there is the problem. The phrase is an oxymoron. Proper explanation is dependent on ability to comprehend.

    An example: Shortland Street is PGR, right? I don't think young children should watch it without supervision and discussion of the issues, and then I probably don't have much of a problem. But it's not so simple. You can't discuss every issue at length, and as a parent, you have no idea what things made an impression on your child, and what things they understood, or even took in, unless you talk about every point (impossible).

    I'm not being disparaging of Shortland Street with respect to its appropriateness for children. I'm using it as an example to say that a PGR rating, even if parents take it to mean offering supportive explanation, is not necessarily enough for very young children.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:46 pm

    relict wrote:
    superarmy wrote:overexposure with proper explanation

    See, now there is the problem. The phrase is an oxymoron. Proper explanation is dependent on ability to comprehend.

    An example: Shortland Street is PGR, right? I don't think young children should watch it without supervision and discussion of the issues, and then I probably don't have much of a problem. But it's not so simple. You can't discuss every issue at length, and as a parent, you have no idea what things made an impression on your child, and what things they understood, or even took in, unless you talk about every point (impossible).

    I'm not being disparaging of Shortland Street with respect to its appropriateness for children. I'm using it as an example to say that a PGR rating, even if parents take it to mean offering supportive explanation, is not necessarily enough for very young children.

    Though at what point in a kids lifeline does this stuff become, objectable? Wouldn't there be a way to install how it should be and so that a child can face it and realize it's wrong without being immature about it?
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  relict on Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:59 pm

    superarmy wrote:Though at what point in a kids lifeline does this stuff become, objectable? Wouldn't there be a way to install how it should be and so that a child can face it and realize it's wrong without being immature about it?

    Objectionable is a strong word. I wouldn't use it in the case of Shortland Street-type stuff. It is a legal term.

    I agree 100% that parents should talk openly about current issues with their children as they arise, and many times before they arise. But I still advocate those talks should be appropriate to the child's level of maturity. For example, you might say to your six year old "yes some men do have relationships with other men a bit like Mummy and Daddy have with each other", but I wouldn't bother saying that unless the context arose, and I wouldn't give more details until the child was older.

    However, teaching your child skills such as critical thinking is appropriate (beneficial even) at any age. For example, if a three-year old said that all families have mummies and daddies and children living in a house, I'd take that as an opportunity to say something. I might say that the families that they can remember right now might be like that, but there are other types of families too.
    avatar
    superarmy
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  superarmy on Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:01 am

    relict wrote:
    superarmy wrote:Though at what point in a kids lifeline does this stuff become, objectable? Wouldn't there be a way to install how it should be and so that a child can face it and realize it's wrong without being immature about it?

    Objectionable is a strong word. I wouldn't use it in the case of Shortland Street-type stuff. It is a legal term.

    I agree 100% that parents should talk openly about current issues with their children as they arise, and many times before they arise. But I still advocate those talks should be appropriate to the child's level of maturity. For example, you might say to your six year old "yes some men do have relationships with other men a bit like Mummy and Daddy have with each other", but I wouldn't bother saying that unless the context arose, and I wouldn't give more details until the child was older.

    However, teaching your child skills such as critical thinking is appropriate (beneficial even) at any age. For example, if a three-year old said that all families have mummies and daddies and children living in a house, I'd take that as an opportunity to say something. I might say that the families that they can remember right now might be like that, but there are other types of families too.

    Agreed completely, I was just wondering about the extreme cases.
    avatar
    woody67
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  woody67 on Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:47 am

    I think worlwide we are getting to close to taking away our childrens options on freewill and their ability to develop their own sense of right and wrong.....for example the legal age to drive when I was young was 15 yrs old I got my license and chose not to drink and drive I chose not to exceed the speed limit ( although in a morris minor even if I wanted to be a speed demon it would have been hard)Yes I lost friends in car accidents when this choice option for them was to drink or speed but would the statistics today show MORE deaths back then , I dont believe so.I sometimes feel by restricting and censoring pretty much everything we are almost forcing a level of immaturity on our children( driving decisions I was making from 15 are not being made till a couple of years later now etc).
    I do realise that we have more technology etc now but shouldnt we be giving our kids the life skills to choose?

    Yes there is correlation at times between games and violence, but there has always been the personality types who will be influenced by this type of thing ( who can forget about led zep and playing it backwards!!)
    I think to protect the few who are unable to discern what is right /wrong we ard disablling the ability in the majority to develop a maturity and empathy toward the world in general and how it works.

    Sponsored content

    Re: I hate this idea of

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:02 am