I've been a kid in Europe... what nasty stuff have I been exposed to? I mean, sure, there's nudity all over the place, but nudity isn't nasty stuff.
Most American parents are very concerned about nudity and consider it especially nasty. Also, they probably wouldn't like the amount of drinking and smoking you Euro types are wont to do. Further, they would be shocked at the irreligious nature of your society.
I, on the other hand, love Europe. Nudity, drinking, smoking, atheism? The only thing keeping me here at this point is . . . damn . . . I can't complete this sentence.
I've been a kid in Europe... what nasty stuff have I been exposed to? I mean, sure, there's nudity all over the place, but nudity isn't nasty stuff.
Where the hell do you live where I don't? There's hardly any nudity here in the Netherlands. (or I'm too accustomed to it to not notice it anymore)
Most American parents are very concerned about nudity and consider it especially nasty.
Thesis, American parents who are (over)concerned about nudity are fat and/or overly shy about their own bodies and thus want everybody to, just like them, walk around as clothed as possible. How far am I from the truth?
@ Hungryjoe. I don't see why you like Europe so much. Yes, we tolerate more and are less whiny, but still. As what might be keeping you in the US, wife who doesn't want to leave?
As what might be keeping you in the US, wife who doesn't want to leave?
Actually, she and I have been semi-seriously discussing moving to Iceland, so it's not that she doesn't want to leave.
It's more inertia than anything else at this point. There's enough pressure from all the right wing-y shenanigans going on now to make us think about it, when before we would not have considered it, but still not enough pressure to make us more serious. I suppose the worse it gets, the more serious we'll get, until we either actually do it or the borders are closed.
I don't see why you like Europe so much. Yes, we tolerate more and are less whiny, but still.
Actually, she and I have been semi-seriously discussing moving to Iceland
But it's Ice cold there. The only redeeming point of Iceland is its hot water springs, but you can't sit in those for the rest of your live. Also, the main problem with going to Europe, either go to the UK, and meet chavs and tea-addicts who only want to be in the EU for the benefits, or learn a new language. Which takes time. Temperature-wise, France = win. Sadly its language and habits are teh suck.
You sum it up very nicely. Isn't that enough?
. . . Hungryjoe 1. Nine 0. *hits forehead* Less is more, once again.
What demonstrable harm is there in children observing such censorship-evoking things as nudity, violence, and adult language? Do you actually believe the Jack Thompsons of the world? If so, I'm not even going to try to argue against it; that crosses the line of insanity.
This is the kind of topic that people don't actually study. When someone goes out of their way to gather actual scientific data, people just ignore it unless it backs up their view. I understand the mentality; fanatic devotion to an idea is nothing new. I don't know why it's so common.
I believe it is an extraordinary claim to say that merely communicating information can cause harm, especially when, in order to vulnerable to said harm, you must, arbitrarily, be between the ages of 0-18.
Standards and customs are one thing; honest belief that such things hurt children is another.
Of course, communication can be used for ill, against children or anyone, as we all know. Thus, I exclude communication that is meant to hurt people. But you do not censor the speech. You punish crimes. It makes as little sense as banning every possible weapon (which some people would like to do as well) to avoid violent crimes.
If anyone here, at any point in their childhood, feels as if they were honestly and truly hurt by something they observed, tell your story. Extraordinary tales are always interesting.
"Health and safety reasons".. Huh. I dunno, it hurt more to get sand -trapped- in my top... >>; Whatever.
If anyone here, at any point in their childhood, feels as if they were honestly and truly hurt by something they observed, tell your story. Extraordinary tales are always interesting.
Well, I saw that puck right before it hit my face. Does that count?
Where the hell do you live where I don't? There's hardly any nudity here in the Netherlands. (or I'm too accustomed to it to not notice it anymore)
Bavaria, Germany.
Also, there is no such thing as utopia.
It makes as little sense as banning every possible weapon (which some people would like to do as well) to avoid violent crimes.
That is true, but I still don't think that it should be legal to own MG3s. I mean, the MG3 is fun and all, and looks like the MG42, which is kinda cool, but I *would* feel uncomfortable if anyone in my village had one of these.
Further, they would be shocked at the irreligious nature of your society.
I had religion classes all my school life. In the final two years, there were two lessons of history per week as well as two lessons religion. I do not consider that very secular. Well, on the other hand, I live in Bavaria. Bavaria : Germany = Texas : USA.
I had religion classes all my school life. In the final two years, there were two lessons of history per week as well as two lessons religion. I do not consider that very secular. Well, on the other hand, I live in Bavaria. Bavaria : Germany = Texas : USA.
The fact that you think that's a lot demonstrates how some American parents could think Europeans are irreligious. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your classes were about the philosophy of Augustine, Aquinas, and other deep thinkers - not about how evolution is wrong, the world is only four to six thousand years old, and Jesus rode dinosaurs.
The fact that you think that's a lot demonstrates how some American parents could think Europeans are irreligious. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your classes were about the philosophy of Augustine, Aquinas, and other deep thinkers - not about how evolution is wrong, the world is only four to six thousand years old, and Jesus rode dinosaurs.
To be fair, Joe, I think you should admit this is a teensy bit alarmist, yes?
In JesusLand..., er, I mean the USA, we could be doing many things better in our education system. Concentrating more on learning and scholarship, and less on "sensitivity" and other non-teachable nonsense, is the biggest problem area, as you and I seem to agree. It is not the case, though, that our schools have been totally taken over by the religious wingnuts. We have had some recent examples of that happening in a few places (Kansas, Dover PA), but they are probably the exception.
The Dover case (see the PBS Nova show in that) was notable because the wingnuts actually got as far as they did with their crazy creationism nonsense. We should also note (and give ourselves a wee bit of credit as a society) that the judge in that case --- a Dubya nominee, no less --- delivered a smackdown of epic proportions in his written decision. They religious psychopaths, lead down the primrose path by the Thomas More Law Center, thought they had a slam dunk, and got their heads handed to them.
The problem in USoinian education is less about over-religion (though that can cause trouble), but in under-give-a-shitness. Unless and until being smart is valued over being {famous|rich|good looking|other}, we will have what we have because that's what we (in the sense of the entire society) want. Maybe we don't want it consciously, but our actions and inactions show our inner desires. When more parents care than don't, and when it is seen as shameful to be ignorant, things will improve.
I'm not being alarmist at all. It's a fact that there are some Americans who believe that the the world is only four to six thousand years old, and Jesus rode dinosaurs. It is a further fact that these people teach their kids this garbage and would love to teach more and more kids this same garbage.
What I said was: those people would view most Europeans as irreligious. I'm not saying that I'm alarmed by this. It has been the same in America for as long as I can remember (and that is a long time). It's simply something we know have to continuously fight, like we have to shovel our sidewalks every winter. We'll never actually win, like we won against the horrors of Disco.
[T]he judge in that case --- a Dubya nominee, no less --- delivered a smackdown of epic proportions in his writtendecision. They religious psychopaths, lead down the primrose path by the Thomas More Law Center, thought they had a slam dunk, and got their heads handed to them.
The thing that really makes me angry is that they don't realize it was a smackdown. If you watched that episode of Nova, you'll remember they said at the end that the judge was an "activist", and so his decision doesn't really count for much.
People who cannot be swayed by reason scare the beejesus out of me.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your classes were about the philosophy of Augustine, Aquinas, and other deep thinkers - not about how evolution is wrong, the world is only four to six thousand years old, and Jesus rode dinosaurs.
It was about philosophy like that, but it was done really poorly, and only in the final two years. In the other years... well, let me put it that way: they managed to do it poorly without actually doing anything. It was not like doing something poorly, just distilled doing poorly.
However, back to topic: I think censorship has lost meaning, because you can't censor the internet without destroying it. What is far more important nowadays, I think, is what is widely reported by mass media such as television and what is not reported.
Have you ever read the short story "A Logic Named Joe" by Murray Leinster? It is notable, because it anticipated personal computers and the internet, which is an achievement for a story published in 1946.
It also dealt with the censorship issue. It was sort of artificially weighted toward the security and safety side of the question, because without censorship, the logics were able to tell people how to murder others and remain free of detection and other things a bit more subversive.
What demonstrable harm is there in children observing such censorship-evoking things as nudity, violence, and adult language? Do you actually believe the Jack Thompsons of the world? If so, I'm not even going to try to argue against it; that crosses the line of insanity.
Kenjura, you made the claim, so the proof is on you. Nice attempt at ducking it, though.
So you can see that reasonable people would be concerned with what their children saw on TV and in the movies. You can argue how they should be protected, and whether censorship is an appropriate method. That's a rational discussion.
Given these facts, are you just going to continue to use the great debate tactic of saying that I've "crossed the line of insanity"? Or are you going to come up with some non-ad hominem evidence to back up your claim?
I'm just amazed at how many people on these boards think that children are just "little adults" who can be exposed to anything and won't suffer any harm. While that is convenient to an argument such as kenjura's, it flies in the face of pretty much any study ever done on child development. It doesn't help your position if your argument is based on a premise that can be refuted by anyone who has taken Child Psychology 101.
About the harm/no harm done to children by media debate: Personally, I would care what my children watch on TV. However, to play the devil's advocate: How do you define this "harm"? One harm, two harm? Or do you count off mental hitpoints and people will run amok when they reach zero? One thing you always have to bear in mind when you use a study as scientific evidence: a statistic corelation does *never* prove a cause-result relation between two things. It tells you whether things are related or not. That's all.
An ophthalmologic example (because I work with that kind of stuff): Myopic patients have a higher risk of ablatio. This was proven by many studies. Does this mean that myopia causes ablatio? No. As further studies and other scientific methods show, the longer eye causing myopia also puts more tension on the retina, because the retina develops independently from the rest of the eye, and seems to not grow equally. So, the myopia and the higher ablatio risk are not caused by one another, but have both the same cause, which is the longer eye.
As for censorship: Parents should be able to control what their children see on TV. However, as an adult, I need to be able to watch whatever the hell I want, and I must be able to view whatever content I like on the internet anonymously. No need to censor the internet, young children simply don't belong there.
Comments
I, on the other hand, love Europe. Nudity, drinking, smoking, atheism? The only thing keeping me here at this point is . . . damn . . . I can't complete this sentence.
@ Hungryjoe. I don't see why you like Europe so much. Yes, we tolerate more and are less whiny, but still. As what might be keeping you in the US, wife who doesn't want to leave?
It's more inertia than anything else at this point. There's enough pressure from all the right wing-y shenanigans going on now to make us think about it, when before we would not have considered it, but still not enough pressure to make us more serious. I suppose the worse it gets, the more serious we'll get, until we either actually do it or the borders are closed. You sum it up very nicely. Isn't that enough?
This is the kind of topic that people don't actually study. When someone goes out of their way to gather actual scientific data, people just ignore it unless it backs up their view. I understand the mentality; fanatic devotion to an idea is nothing new. I don't know why it's so common.
I believe it is an extraordinary claim to say that merely communicating information can cause harm, especially when, in order to vulnerable to said harm, you must, arbitrarily, be between the ages of 0-18.
Standards and customs are one thing; honest belief that such things hurt children is another.
Of course, communication can be used for ill, against children or anyone, as we all know. Thus, I exclude communication that is meant to hurt people. But you do not censor the speech. You punish crimes. It makes as little sense as banning every possible weapon (which some people would like to do as well) to avoid violent crimes.
If anyone here, at any point in their childhood, feels as if they were honestly and truly hurt by something they observed, tell your story. Extraordinary tales are always interesting.
Also, there is no such thing as utopia. That is true, but I still don't think that it should be legal to own MG3s. I mean, the MG3 is fun and all, and looks like the MG42, which is kinda cool, but I *would* feel uncomfortable if anyone in my village had one of these. I had religion classes all my school life. In the final two years, there were two lessons of history per week as well as two lessons religion. I do not consider that very secular. Well, on the other hand, I live in Bavaria. Bavaria : Germany = Texas : USA.
In JesusLand..., er, I mean the USA, we could be doing many things better in our education system. Concentrating more on learning and scholarship, and less on "sensitivity" and other non-teachable nonsense, is the biggest problem area, as you and I seem to agree. It is not the case, though, that our schools have been totally taken over by the religious wingnuts. We have had some recent examples of that happening in a few places (Kansas, Dover PA), but they are probably the exception.
The Dover case (see the PBS Nova show in that) was notable because the wingnuts actually got as far as they did with their crazy creationism nonsense. We should also note (and give ourselves a wee bit of credit as a society) that the judge in that case --- a Dubya nominee, no less --- delivered a smackdown of epic proportions in his written decision. They religious psychopaths, lead down the primrose path by the Thomas More Law Center, thought they had a slam dunk, and got their heads handed to them.
The problem in USoinian education is less about over-religion (though that can cause trouble), but in under-give-a-shitness. Unless and until being smart is valued over being {famous|rich|good looking|other}, we will have what we have because that's what we (in the sense of the entire society) want. Maybe we don't want it consciously, but our actions and inactions show our inner desires. When more parents care than don't, and when it is seen as shameful to be ignorant, things will improve.
So OK, maybe it is as bad as you say. Carry on...
What I said was: those people would view most Europeans as irreligious. I'm not saying that I'm alarmed by this. It has been the same in America for as long as I can remember (and that is a long time). It's simply something we know have to continuously fight, like we have to shovel our sidewalks every winter. We'll never actually win, like we won against the horrors of Disco. The thing that really makes me angry is that they don't realize it was a smackdown. If you watched that episode of Nova, you'll remember they said at the end that the judge was an "activist", and so his decision doesn't really count for much.
People who cannot be swayed by reason scare the beejesus out of me.
However, back to topic: I think censorship has lost meaning, because you can't censor the internet without destroying it. What is far more important nowadays, I think, is what is widely reported by mass media such as television and what is not reported.
It also dealt with the censorship issue. It was sort of artificially weighted toward the security and safety side of the question, because without censorship, the logics were able to tell people how to murder others and remain free of detection and other things a bit more subversive.
In any event, here are some studies that back up my point. Or are you going to claim that these were done by Jack Thompson?
Study One.
Study Two.
Study Three.
And the Grand-Daddy of all studies.
So you can see that reasonable people would be concerned with what their children saw on TV and in the movies. You can argue how they should be protected, and whether censorship is an appropriate method. That's a rational discussion.
Given these facts, are you just going to continue to use the great debate tactic of saying that I've "crossed the line of insanity"? Or are you going to come up with some non-ad hominem evidence to back up your claim?
I'm just amazed at how many people on these boards think that children are just "little adults" who can be exposed to anything and won't suffer any harm. While that is convenient to an argument such as kenjura's, it flies in the face of pretty much any study ever done on child development. It doesn't help your position if your argument is based on a premise that can be refuted by anyone who has taken Child Psychology 101.
Personally, I would care what my children watch on TV.
However, to play the devil's advocate: How do you define this "harm"? One harm, two harm? Or do you count off mental hitpoints and people will run amok when they reach zero?
One thing you always have to bear in mind when you use a study as scientific evidence: a statistic corelation does *never* prove a cause-result relation between two things. It tells you whether things are related or not. That's all.
An ophthalmologic example (because I work with that kind of stuff):
Myopic patients have a higher risk of ablatio. This was proven by many studies. Does this mean that myopia causes ablatio? No. As further studies and other scientific methods show, the longer eye causing myopia also puts more tension on the retina, because the retina develops independently from the rest of the eye, and seems to not grow equally. So, the myopia and the higher ablatio risk are not caused by one another, but have both the same cause, which is the longer eye.
As for censorship: Parents should be able to control what their children see on TV. However, as an adult, I need to be able to watch whatever the hell I want, and I must be able to view whatever content I like on the internet anonymously. No need to censor the internet, young children simply don't belong there.