source;

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070419/rap_lyrics_070419/20070419?hub=Entertainment

As well they should.
And while they're at it, how about cleaning up objectionable lyrics that smack of a hostile nature against anyone.
Time for a vigorous pushing of a shit-removal broom.

i agree with pessimist but if someone is going to cry evrytime something objectional is said why not make it manditory atleast medium security jail time that way i dont have to hear about it evry other week or so. especialy one race in paticular which i wont mention that has a double standard things they say are fine but if someone of another race says it all hell breaks loose

So much of what the music industry has allowed into our society has been nothing short of destructive.

Of course there are a number of media problems, from violent games, to cashing in on the latest murderous rampage "news" items.

The malevolent music lyrics of todays artists fuels a particulary violent segment of society, namely those between the ages of 20-30.

All the music industy is worried about are future lawsuits against them? I think we all need to worry about our children and young adults, and just what kind of future they are inheriting.

Re: "double standard"

Right. It needs to be consistent, regardless who does the flagrant stuff.

And I agree with what Pepe wrote.

In America, I can say anything I want except for.....

(we need to update that list, that's all)

sure you might be able to say anything but you might find yourself in jail, fired from your job, your house burnt to the ground, or someone just might find you and/or your families corpses laying by the side of the road. or if your lucky or part of the double standard nothing will happen

We aren't talking censorship are we people?

If censorship means becoming responsible adults in relation to the pursuit of cleaning up the continual poisoning of our young peoples minds for a healthier future generation, then I guess that's what we have to talk about.

These people that go out gunning down school and college students? They are not the cause of the problem, they are only a symptom of the problems out there....And there are a LOT of problems. Our society is sick and in trouble, and this needs to be seriously addressed.

"These people that go out gunning down school and college students? They are not the cause of the problem, they are only a symptom of the problems out there"

If anyone really thinks that by eliminating disgusting lyrics in Rap music we will solve the world's problems and prevent a Va Tech event from happening again, I say think again. That guy was an idiot with a mental problem. Having better knowledge of brain disorders will do far more than cleaning up rap lyrics.

Although I believe we are not empty vessels or lemmings that immediately imitate or become what we see and hear, I am stupified at every election when these same lemmings continue to put Democrats and Republicans in power. So maybe I am wrong.

Our culture is indeed in trouble, as Pepe wrote. No, it wouldn't be a total solution to eliminate unnecessarily hostile and flagrantly violent material of the worst kinds in all our forms of entertainment, but common sense says cleaning up the perverse crap in ways such as that surely could be expected to help our society to an extent. Does more need to be done than that? Of course.
However:
I did note that both Eric and Dylan at Columbine H.S. were partial to vicious video games. I also take note of the obvious similarity of some of the video poses of Cho and at least one of the rather explictly brutal vengeance trilogies that received widespread acclaim (even a film award).
Yes, logic would have us point to the many thousands -- okay, millions -- that play those games or see those shows who don't go off on a killing spree. But we only "need" one or two to do it, don't we, to devastate us... so that's one big reason why it matters (and there are other reasons it matters).
Don't try to tell me that that stuff doesn't have an effect on certain susceptible individuals and can't be a concomitant factor in their going over the edge in acting out presdisposed twisted tendencies.

Just to remind us how images can impact people: After the Disney film "Bambi" first premiered in the fifties (with poor Bambi's mother having been shot by a hunter), the very next deer hunting season saw a dramatic downturn, in fact the fewest number of hunting permits purchased for the previous twenty years. Not likely a coincidence!
I know, film makers, Hollywood, and other vested interests, including addicted video and "R" movie freaks, don't want to hear about this kind of causal impact (impacts can be bad or good, obviously) but tough shit. All sorts of entertainment industries have been fond of (for too long) saying their material is not influential.

The problem, though, is pervasive. Generally, Americans have been overly fascinated with rough stuff and murder and mayhem for as far back into our history as you care to go.
Who-done-its, "thrilling" murder mystery novels, current popularly viewed crime television shows depicting brief but gross vignettes of violence even during prime time, "R" movies, -- you get what I'm driving it. Even prominent law enforcement officials have occasionally lamented that our society desperately needs to get over being enthralled with bad guys and bad deeds, so to speak.

So, the so-called "gangsta" mystique does need some censuring, yes. They should have monitored themselves to a reasonable extent, but they didn't -- thus, as in other areas of life, those who don't care to do things responsibly often find themselves faced with having responsibility imposed upon them. Fair enough.

Some of the same things I'm bringing up have already been written over on another RIAA thread, the one about the rootkit issue. Issues about Virginia Tech were started there because we don't have a current off-topic thread, though obviously, we need one (and were promised to have one)... where is it?

I alluded to some posts over at the "Free anti-root Software" thread. Here's one I wrote:

"I want to weigh in with an observation about something else that's been brought up.
What can you expect from a nation that has a history of "justified" violent take-over (land from native Americans; manifest destiny), glorifies pre-emptive force in its military approach to foreign "problem-solving" (Iraq; next, Iran?), is enthralled with murder mysteries and fascinated with crime stories, and, oh, yeah, glorifies the bad-boy image practically everywhere?
Grumpy is right about that male macho problem of aggression that permeates society.
It is puzzling, isn't it, how this is such a huge issue and yet remains undebated and unchanged.

And I also should say: Aha, I see a few viewpoints of disgust and pessimism being posted on this forum and on several others around the internet.
Good! I hope the feeling spreads.
Maybe if more people get really fed up with the sorry state of affairs in this country, there can be a chance for change.
At least, a slight chance.

— a rather rare glimmer of hope from a perennial pessimist"


[Okay; I'll hand the microphone on to the next person now.]

Sorry, one more thing:

regarding: "... lemmings continue to put Democrats and Republicans in power."

You are absolutely correct!
Until the public wakes up and demands better choices of leaders (and gets over its foolish polarization of Dems vs. Repubs), our government won't change for the better.

Dreddsnik also has referred to this fact in at least one recent post.


There.
I'm really done now.

pessimist

You're right, social issues and the music industry, internet industry, seem to trail each other around all too often...Music is about life, but there is a right way and a wrong way in it's portrayal..and more often than not, the industries take the wrong road.

And to say that all these people who go on these killing rampages are sick, or have mental problems is a cop out!

Are we to believe that all suicide bombers are insane? These people actually go to schools to train for this.

Yup, totally off topic now...I'm so good at that

This speaks for itself;

http://www.afr.net/newafr/wekickedgodout.asp

Well there goes my new song about 100 ways of killing your bitch of an ex-wife... damn...

Censorship BAD
Labeling and checking IDs GOOD

stuff that was R rated and not very easy for children to be exposed to 20 years ago is now the most popular Mtv video. This is a Yin and a Yang to every debate. I am 100% opposed to censorship and feel that after showing my ID, reading a warning label, I should get what I paid for, however, as much as I love South Park, TV shows like that should be stuck on HBO (gotta be 18 to buy HBO) and any "all public" TV, including Mtv, should be rated G until 9pm then PG-13 after that.
HBO has had great success with TV style series such as "Sex in the City", not because the show is wonderful but because it is uncensored and has a real amount of R rated content. Imagine, if you will, popular network shows with the realism of R rated content that HBO, Showtime and other "paid" channels can allow. "Friends" or "Mad about You" with swearing? Id watch em, but they shouldnt be 100% public like NBC nor Mtv is.
At a certain level parents need to block content, channels, games, ect. At a certain level the Media Industry needs to claen up their General and make it easier on parents and harder on children to be exposed to garbage, filth, rap, ect.
People are responcable for their actions, not the singer who sang about killing his ex-wife. I'd love to hear ChillinBuzz's song, but there should be a simple warning label (is it simular to my first country song Im writting, "I miss my dawg more then my exwife"?)

Violent and hostile crap in our entertainment is in need of cleaning up. Call that process by whatever name you wish, but it needs doing.

Re: labelling & checking I.D.s
Kids have ways of getting access to bad stuff (through someone's negligence or someone's facilitation).

General principle:
Prevent contamination whenever feasible.
Clean up contamination where it already exists.

Also, what GrumpyGeezer and some others wrote (off-topic) over at the thread "Free Anti-rootkit Software" is worth reading about. I kind of wish that material and similar parts of this thread could be combined into one open-thread. I don't know if we have any admin's attention or not, but as I said previously, we had been promised a current open-thread to be available even after Shmoo posted his resignation. So far, nada.

*sigh*

Here we go again.
no matter how you spin it, it's censorship.

" Violent and hostile crap in our entertainment is in need of cleaning up. Call that process by whatever name you wish, but it needs doing. "

Ok then ...
Who decides what's too much ?
Who is so much above it all, that they
can decide whats too much for me ?
Whats too much for you ?
Who ?

For them to decide, they have to see it
or hear it, or read it , correct ?
Who is so trustworthy, that they can be
allowed to decide what's best for others ?

No one in 'power' now, as far as i'm concerned.
Every time we turn around we see glaring
examples of 'do what I say, not what I do '

I decide for me.
I decide for my kids.
When my kids reach a certain age, THEY
decide for themselves, and all I can do
is hope I raised them right.

That is PARENTING.

Somethimes though, and I have seen
plenty of examples, even the best parents
can't change who their kid becomes.

Censorship can't help.

This is more 'what about the chiiiiildren crap'

As for ..

" I did note that both Eric and Dylan at Columbine H.S. were partial to vicious video games. I also take note of the obvious similarity of some of the video poses of Cho and at least one of the rather explictly brutal vengeance trilogies that received widespread acclaim (even a film award). "

Did the video games CAUSE this ??
Or, perhaps did these two ALREADY
troubled freaks gravitate to it, because
of their own innate interest in it ?

No one is qualified ( or trustworthy )
enough to decide what others can
view , read or hear.

no one.

Once it starts, it won't stop.

It really is the first step towards tyranny.

i have to agree mostly with insanewayne ...
I have an 11 year old. I make sure what he watches plays and listens to is ok at least to my standards...(not that I have any rofl)... I do have to throw this out there, Bob Dylan wrote in code, so did most the great musicians of the 50's- 80's in what was the more popular genre "rock", heck even back to jazz all lyrical content has had these same things but they were hidden in code... todays popular music rap/hip hop is so much more out front with the meanings ... the streets them self are so much more out front... in the 70's and 80s when I was a teen, we still "got" the meanings and innuendos.. my thought is its the dumbing down mixed with the Quickening. TV and movies ? well here in the US its still mild compared to many European ratings.. does any one remember Porkys, Kentucky fried movie, last American virgin... I could go on all R at the time actually today the R movies are tame comparatively, more violence, but heck its on the news everyday.

something I discuss with friends an auful lot is why are there so many more killings than when we were young, or rapes, shootings, how about child molesting? is it that there always was this much sickness and it was hidden and the media feeds on it now? or has something changed?

can we blame the video games? rap? metal? horror movies? sex on the tv? ???
NO
we can not, nor can we blame the entertainment industries
that would be like suing Ford because a Taurus killed someone it was the driver not the car, and weather or not grand theft auto was played for 2 years straight makes no difference because bottom line we have a choice each one of us and free will, along with the ability to get help if we need it ... ok off my drunk wheehw

To burn books or not? That is the question. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it has repercussions. Public speakers be wary.

Lots of issues; here are some points to be reckoned with:

1) We need reasonable and fair standards of decency that support a culture effectively.
Perhaps some people have difficulty determining what's right and what isn't. That's their problem, but it doesn't have to be a problem for what society needs to do to maintain values and protection from deterioration.
Our founding fathers had no qualms in borrowing from a code of conduct that served folks well throughout the ages. Why should we have trouble accepting the same? It’s only to our detriment if we don’t. Calling it a part of God’s laws is NOT necessary, perhaps not even recommended. What IS necessary is providing for the public good.

2) Cars aren't designed for killing. Accidents happen, but they are incidental. Guns' main purpose is to kill. That’s not to say they don't serve an important function in the hands of law enforcement officers, or citizens desiring to protect themselves in their homes. I'm not putting the primary blame on guns, though. I am saying, however, that guns need to be restricted (disallowed) when it comes to certain individuals... and I think you know the rest of THAT story.

3) "Why are there so many more killings now than when we were young..."
Progressive Increases in entertainment violence has seen parallel increases in actual violence. The reverse can be true, too. Remember the instance of how the premier of Bambi resulted in a DRAMATIC decrease in deer hunting the very next deer season?
I know, film makers, Hollywood, and other vested interests, including addicted video and "R" movie freaks, don't want to hear about this kind of causal impact (impacts can be bad or good, obviously). All sorts of entertainment industries have been fond of (for too long) saying their material is not influential on people...along with the mantra of how everyone should reserve not only the right to see, read, and dwell on whatever strikes his or her fancy, but also that horrid stuff should be made available in ample supply.
The ultimate impact is on impressionable youth who find ways to become absorbed with it.

Logic would have us consider the many thousands -- okay, millions -- that play brutal video games or see “R” shows who don't go off on a killing spree. But we only "need" one or two to do it, don't we, to devastate us as a nation and to prompt a negative trend.
Dredd, in regard to your question about “cause”:
Can bad influence predispose toward bad behavior? This is an important question. What would be your answer to it?
Predisposed, troubled kids don’t need any more impetus from bad influences to go off the deep end; why allow the risk?
Why court unnecessary risk of that occurring just to placate other people who are addicted to violent forms of entertainment and those who profit from it?
This problem in our society is pervasive and has permeated us long enough. Generally, Americans have been overly fascinated with rough stuff and murder and mayhem for as far back into our history as one cares to go. Who-done-its; "thrilling" murder mystery novels; current popularly viewed crime television shows depicting brief but vicious vignettes of violence even during prime time; movies; cruel movies -- you get what I'm driving it. (And, by the way, doubtlessly, the intensity of the “R” movies indeed has worsened over time, as Distilled1 pointed out.)
Even prominent law enforcement officials have occasionally lamented that our society desperately needs to get over being enthralled with bad guys and bad deeds.

The youth have ways of getting access to gory stuff (through someone's negligence or someone's facilitation).

General principle:
Prevent anti-social contamination whenever feasible.
Clean up the contamination where it already exists.

Don't try to tell me that the gross media stuff doesn't have an effect on some youngsters and certain other susceptible individuals, and that it can't be a concomitant factor in their going over the edge to act out twisted tendencies that have been unnecessarily highlighted through the worst of entertainment. A person can go on doubting cause and effect, or demand more and more evidence, but just a little common sense can go a long way. Reduce the bad influence, for God’s sake!
A republic won’t fall if a majority of citizens stand up responsibly for decisions of decency that uphold traditional values undergirding the culture. But a society that tolerates TOO much can get into trouble just as one that is too intolerant. Dredd, you have the right idea about bringing up kids (with direction and nurturing). Any notion to the contrary of bringing up kids to decide most values for themselves without influential guidance is dangerous. For example, take the argument to the extreme: If individuals were allowed to do just about anything they felt (taking civil liberties beyond the limit), we’d actually end up with “a first step toward tyranny”. That’s because there IS such a thing as too much freedom, and it, like a train, it’s also “hard to stop” (anarchy tends to lead to tyranny -- history 101).
True, there needs to be a balance. But the balance scale has already skewed too far in one direction, and an appropriate correction is indicated and overdue.

Regarding: “Who decides?”
Please return to my point 1).

4)
Regarding: “Has something changed to cause more violent crime?” (yes, something changed)

Regarding: "free will, along with the ability to get help if we need it."
Oh, my. Did Cho need help? (yes, he did) Did he make effort to get it and use it? (no, he didn’t)

Regarding: “We have a choice.”
(Yes, but when inappropriate choices run counter to the safety of others, it should be a principle that those who can’t control themselves deserve to be controlled by responsible laws and other society-friendly procedures.

5) Regarding: “Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it has repercussions.”
(Yes. And we could agree that it SHOULD have some limits -- against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded public building when there is no fire, or against using a denigrating slur that offends.)
By the same token, there needs to be OTHER LIMITS -- to hurtful forms of behavior, to prolific sources of hostile and brutal material, and to easy access of certain weapons by unstable individuals.

OMISSIONS

At one point, this phrase got left out:
movies depicting cruelty and graphic vengeance.

At another place, part of a paragraph got left out:
Requiring minimum age limits and I.D.s for objectionable material has not worked well. The youth have ways of getting access to gruesome stuff (through someone's negligence or someone's facilitation).
That fact speaks in favor of drastically reducing the extent of the availability.

Kids today swim in a 'culture of mean':

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070421/mean_culture_070421/20070421?hub=Entertainment

~~Whether it be cyber-bullying over the Internet or being pushed around and locked in a school locker, Coloroso places the lion's share of the blame with television and movies.

"I think we are experiencing something amiss culturally where the TV shows if you turn them on and people are laughing at one another's pain,'' said Coloroso. "Enjoying seeing someone kicked off the island, enjoying seeing someone go down in flames on American Idol, satire not being used but sarcasm. If you turn on radio talk . . . it's mean and cruel.''

With teens learning to laugh at others' pain, it's little wonder that bullying is running rampant in North American schools, she said. And as in many other cases, the shooter at Virginia Tech and those at Columbine were what she calls "bullied bullies.'' After being the target of bullying, eventually the victim becomes what he fears the most.

"The bullied bullies not only strike back but they do it with that utter contempt, that cold look on their face. They have become themselves what they hated,'' explained Coloroso. "Just as he was treated as an `it,' he treats other human beings unmercifully.''~~~

When we say, "they" need to take more responsibility, we refer to those placed in leadership roles, in our governments, our schools, our courtrooms, our churches, our news media, our movie and music makers.

You ask whose making those decisions for us now, these very groups, and they have been making some really bad decisions....and I mean ALL of the above.


And for those out there who believe we are living in an era of free speech? That's a real laugh. We now have to deal with this thing called political correctness, which can get you sued for the slightest imagined impediment.

" Regarding: “Who decides?”
Please return to my point 1). "

Doesn't answer my question at all.
Who decides ?
Who sets the standards ?

Standards, nlaa blaa, all well and good.
WHO decides for me ?
Who is so trustworthy that decides
what moral standards we all live by ?
The bible ?, the Koran ?
Who set the standard for 'rightness?

You ?

" Don't try to tell me that the gross media stuff doesn't have an effect on some youngsters and certain other susceptible individuals, "

I won't , you've already decided.
Besides, you answered me.
Certain .. susceptible .. individual.
The few that are already predisposed
to that behavior.
Because of that, the vast majority that
AREN'T influenced must remove it
from their lives ?
the need of the few .. lol

bullshit.

As I said, all this boils down to is censorship.

It's for our own good you know.
Listen to our lawmakers, they KNOW
whats good for us.
Those words are 'bad' those are 'good'
trust us, we saw them we know you will
be 'disturbed' by them. ..etc ...


" And for those out there who believe we are living in an era of free speech? That's a real laugh. We now have to deal with this thing called political correctness, which can get you sued for the slightest imagined impediment. "

What some are asking for ...
will be even more restrictive.
but it's for our own good of course.

Good grief,
how can you look at the cover my ass
actions of those in charge now, and even THINK
that any form of censorship won't be
patently misused ?

C'mon pessimist ..
tell me, what books and games should be
eliminated so our more 'sensitive' society
members won't be influenced to kill us ?

Never mind ..
I am NOT going to do this, it will only
make me angry, and I am never going to
go along with censorship of any kind.
I will never agree that banning guns
is an answer, no matter how smooth
the line.

I will never agree that the actions of a
twisted few justify punishing all.

ever.

I gotta agree wholeheartedly with Dreddsnik on this one.

Don Imus is a prick IMHO, and he deserves tons of criticism for his horrible remark. However, I think the he got rail-roaded by the PC bandwagon spearheaded by Al Sharpton (whom I otherwise admire a lot.)

" Don Imus is a prick IMHO, and he deserves tons of criticism for his horrible remark. However, I think the he got rail-roaded by the PC bandwagon "

Yup it was a dumb thing to say, but ..
If Marlon Wayans had said it ?
( He probably will in future standup
routines ).

The worst Imus should have suffered is
a little dressing down, and then the
action of free choice ....

Turn the damn dial if you don't want to hear it.

Blaming Virginia Tech on video games started before the shooter had even been identified. It's a bullshit excuse, just like music lyrics or movies or television.

There's only one thing responsible. The sick bastard that pulled the trigger 200 times and shot 60 people.

Manson wrapped his insanity around the Beatles. So did Mark Chapman. Video games hadn't been invented, except the arcade variety.

Then there's the guy who blew up the school in Bath, Michigan in 1927. They didn't even have video, much less games.

We have 300 million people in this country. Some of them are going to flip out on any given day and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

On Censorship -- I've heard that somewhere there is a group of "family values" people that watch every movie, listen to every new CD, play every video game to count the swear words and the violence and the sex so you don't have to.

But they see and hear and play each and every one of them. And a lot of it really pisses them off.

So you've got a group of angry, morally superior types sitting around watching Quentin Tarentino and listening to gangsta rap all day while playing World of Warcraft.

If this stuff causes the behavior that they proclaim, these people should be the first ones to have a meltdown and kill a crowd of people.

Children emulate their parents, My husband watched his drunk dad and swore that was where he was aiming for, (and he sure tried hard enough). Children emulate their peers, they emulate their hero's, their "perceived to be hero's" . We used to watch our cowboy hero's on tv and want to ride around on horses and shoot the bad guys...I was a real tomboy...

Yes, there has always been violence in America, there's always the insane, the angry, the down on their luck, those looking for their own way to notoriety BUT, do we really need to start the children off with guns ablazing, heads being cut off, blood spurting everywhere...kill kill kill, to the point they are the winning victors..do we really need to teach them it's ok to feel superior when something at our hands is mamed or dies?

And just who? decided for MY KIDS, that this is all ok?

And please, don't sit there and tell me that I don't have to buy the game, turn the tv off, yada yada yada...cause there is always, ALWAYS a way for the kids to find their way to these things......

Most of these "kids" nowadays are pushing 30 and STILL playing these lousy games.
And hunting the innocent in the halls of our hallowed schools.

how else is bush and other bush emulators going to keep getting more solders other that planting the seeds in the youth

"Children emulate their peers, they emulate their hero's, their "perceived to be hero's" . We used to watch our cowboy hero's on tv and want to ride around on horses and shoot the bad guys...I was a real tomboy..."
-----------

pepe, I love you and honor you.

-------------

But, It is YOUR responsibility to raise your kids. If you are the "mold" they must fill, then, IN YOUR OWN HOME, shape it as you desire.

DO NOT ask for the REST of us to automatically fall into YOUR version of what is "wrong and right". (I actually agree with more than 90 percent of the time within my own home and family)

However,

There is a differnece between what is "right and wrong" as far as Tv, the Internet, Radio, etc. goes ...and, what is REALLY right and wrong.

Teach your children from your HEART about the "rights and wrongs"

Forget the overlords of "tradition" which may or may-not have been accepted into your own psyche.

Aw, fukkit, I ain't got no right to tell you what or not to do.

lol.

As always,

I'm just spoutin' out shit IMHO.

“Tell me, what . . . should be eliminated?”
[coaxing for specificity]

“Turn the damn dial if you don't want to hear it.”
[ostensibly referring to shows like Don Imus and Howard Stern]

Just don’t use your “avoidance” recommendation as a sweeping excuse to support the status quo in areas where pressing change is obvious -- i.e., such as purging a chunk of the (offensive, bloodthirsty) crap that is very prolific in our society. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to identify what crap looks like or smells like; SOME people may have a problem perceiving it or doubting if it can reliably be perceived, though, because they are inclined to keep saying “who is qualified to decide”, or, if they can’t recognize when something is obviously malodorous, a question such as “What books or songs or shows or movies”, etc., probably provides a tactical diversion. May I suggest: Open your eyes and sniff with your nose; shouldn’t be too hard of a problem.

Given enough time, naysayer ostriches won’t prevail, but that won’t keep them trying to hold back a potentialy onrushing tide until the last moment.
Yes, I’m coming on a little strong here because of the way YOU respond (not willing to show responsibility in acknowledging obvious need for change) but rather clinging to a form of status quo that impedes improvement. There’s an application from an addage: Keep doing what we’ve done and we’ll keep getting what we have.
And part of what we have ain’t working well. Given enough time, greater numbers of articulate people may rage against the current circumstances, probably making you as well as many others belatedly wish they had been a little pro-active when they still had the opportunity to do so.


“I will never agree that the actions of a
twisted few justify punishing all. Ever.”

First off, this “punishing” is neither an imposed deprivation of loss of some worthwhile opportunities, nor is it some sort of chastisement for wallowing in anti-social decadence. “Punishment” is not exactly a fair word for the effect of putting the brakes on runaway gross crap, but I’d rather skirt this distracting temptation for the moment.

Alright, then, so, just keep sitting around rejecting the cries for need of re-adjustment -- and see what happens. Keep on holding on to overly, ULTRA-libertarian positions -- and see what happens. I’ll tell you what can happen. Eventually the tide WILL turn with such gusto that the average citizen can be expected to lose lots of rights, including gun ownership in totality, and perhaps even a part of our free speech. Better to take corrective steps now and not just keep waiting for things to settle down, hoping that pressure won’t accumulate for more drastic change to be pushed through. Better to devise reasonable restrictions for gun ownership to disturbed individuals, for example, than to take no such action whatsover!
Better to re-think the need for selling semi-automatic weapons, for another example... as Australia has already done years ago.
(Note that during all these years, there has not been another repeat of the type of “Tasmanian devil” who slaughtered 35 people with a semi-automatic gun as was done back then prior to change of law.)

Alas, perhaps your rather obstructive if not obstinate position will be too common here in America to accomodate reasonable corrective change.
Perhaps your way will prevail, after all.
And then, one day, much of our nation can regret it, but it will be too late.
Just remember that when the entire second amendment gets shoved out the window, my friend.


On to another facet:
A person is as he thinks.
Predisposition together with subsequent bad influence is POWERFUL.
If a person entertains bad thoughts and focuses his attention on bad things, isn’t he more prone to bad behavior?

I noticed you did not directly answer this important question:
“Can bad influence predispose toward bad behavior?”

Instead, you apparently deflected it by referring to a type of us vs. them approach.
I quote:
“Certain .. susceptible .. individuals.
The few that are already predisposed
to that behavior.
Because of that, the vast majority that
AREN'T influenced must remove it [the gross stuff]
from their lives?
the need of the few .. lol
bullshit.”

Let’s breifly allude to the need of the “few” to which you refer . . . the few that somehow relish in the depiction of graphic, anti-social violence. Are we as a collective society obligated to refrain from depriving them, even if it could entail the risk of facilitating some twisted individuals to go over the edge and act out some of that rotten stuff for real? Come on.
Do you believe in a law mandating the use of helmets for motorcyclists, or do you consider it an unacceptable form of inconvenience and imposition on the vast majority of motorcyclists who don’t have accidents?

I must say I’m taken aback and disappointed by your summarily dismissing my position and labelling it as mere “bullshit”.
More than anywhere else, this is where extreme libertarians part ways with what a society reasonably depends upon for their constitutional common good to thrive and make effort to prevent at least some of what we have seen happening in our country of late.
Notwithstanding, if it develops that most people in the U.S. turn out to espouse your sentiments, I’ll be influenced to change my username to “extreme pessimist.”

If bad influences can predispose toward bad behavior,
and if bad influences do not get minimized by restrictions in instances where restrictions are possible, those “unaffected” individuals having easy access to crap would not necessarily be able to avoid suffering repercussions anyway.
Without my stooping to using your word (punishment) to designate the impact of common-sense restrictions, you should realize impact, in one form or another, directly or indirectly, is very likely going to occur with or without restrictions. . . just different impacts!

Predisposed individuals are a type of time bomb (and we did not address different ways they might get that way) with an unlit fuse.
Wouldn’t it make good sense to try to limit some of the obvious opportunities for conditions of combustion that could ignite that fuse?
(Incidentally, I’m posing this question to both Dredd AND George.)
Contrarywise, we can try to shove precautionary good sense and reasonableness aside, and go back to being an ostrich hoping to protect a tidy turf of uncompromising libertarian pronouncements.


“Standards, nlaa blaa, all well and good.
WHO decides for me ?
Who is so trustworthy that decides
what moral standards we all live by ?
The Bible?, the Koran?
Who set the standard for 'rightness?”

I’m just glad this type of reasoning wasn’t in the vast majority back when our founding fathers had to decide (and seek approval from the people) for what standards of conduct would be right and acceptable for citizens under America’s initial government. Otherwise, most of us might still be sitting around with arms folded, resisting to proceed with needed decisions for fair rules to govern our lives. (On second thought, we might still be under British control, or even comrades as part of a communist regime, who knows.)
“Standards to live by”: Come on, how about obvious ones that apply in such fashion as your right to swing your fist stops at the point where my face begins? I mean, really, Dredd, you’re pushing the envelope here.
Is that the best you can do to avoid melting a bit of your icy ultra-libertarian exterior?
And don’t get me wrong; don’t lash out and say that I’m not in favor of civil liberties; I am, and I vote independent. I believe in all the first amendments to the Constitution, and in the rights of citizens to live their lives free from undue harassment and unreasonable restrictions (note how I worded that) within a country that honors the concept of theory of government.
Okay, this is a case in point: On balance, it really appears that the ACLU (despite much of the good they have achieved over the decades) sometimes take such adamant positions to support individual autonomy to the detriment of the common good of society. So, if you want to debate that position, fire away, and I’ll access the repertoire of the details of some of their former case loads and their stated opinions.
Here’s the thing: Individual rights must still be balanced to accommodate the protective needs of other people. That’s what distinguishes government from anarchy. It’s sometimes been quite doubtful that all the staff members of the ACLU subscribe wholeheartedly to that concept in both theory and practice.


"Don't try to tell me that the gross media stuff doesn't have an effect on some youngsters and certain other susceptible individuals." — pessimist


In your most recent post, your stated objection to this very statement speaks volumes.
That’s how it’s clear to discern you are not willing to surrender the too-easy availability of what I’ve been referring to as crap in our society.
And that’s why the prospect of your kind of intractable position will likely impede progress in improving the current plethora of the gross stuff I’ve been talking about. This really sets you most apart from those who hope for needed change in America, and will ultimately be expected to work to a dire disadvantage of all those who wish to avert a future cumulative and overwhelming landslide of reaction against certain of our cherished amendment rights (yes, including free speech). A reactionary tsunami can come like an inexorable wall of water crushing all in its path, including you. Wouldn’t it be wise to make an effort to avert that form of devastation?


I implied (without incurring criticism, I noticed) that too much freedom can cause a people to lose freedoms, so to speak. Does that hypothesis ring with reality or not? Can it be granted without debate?


“Listen to our lawmakers, they KNOW what’s good for us.”

Most of our citizens DO know though; and that, all said and done, is our nation’s most enduring hope -- that their common sense desires for reasonable justice will prevail, even if politicians are prone to sometimes screw things up. So, on the one hand, you do bring up a valid point that gives cause for pessimism. But, on the other hand, the way you phrased it (in that type of sarcastic “tone”), together with the context of other things you have written previously, makes me wonder if your intended meaning could encompass more than seeming face value.

In general, is it with withering reluctance that you endure compliance with basic laws of protection which you may deem encroaching on your freedom of choice?
What is your personal view of the theory of government and the establishment and maintaining of a viable society that functions on law and order? (Even Jeffersonian principles entail restrictions.)
I’m trying to get a better fix into your mindset on this crucial topic.
Others might be interested, too.


“. . . but it’s for our own good, of course.”

Hmm. More sarcasm.
But the welfare of society (what the Constitution refers to as the common good, remember?) is best served by some reasonable restrictions ... including against inappropriate availabillity of weapons to unstable individuals as well as horrific bloodthirsty materials that can incite notions of vengeance in susceptible individuals. (I’m not talking about eliminating profanity -- in the event such a prospect was causing undue apprehension -- there are things much more worthy of attention than that, and you must most certainly concur with that particular observation.)
If reasonable restrictions to better serve the common good makes a society seem too “sensitive” (to use your adjective), then, yes, so be it!
Again, sardonically stated positions of intractability will not likely serve to avert the alternative of an eventual tsunami backlash. It’s your choice; you can either be for needed change or against it. You can do something helpful and work to prevent a more powerfully enforced reaction in the future, or you can just wait and hope your present protracted position will prevail when a huge wall of sweeping surf finally does come advancing your way.
Will your high ground be high enough?

Keep your water wings handy.

“Teach your children from your HEART about the rights and wrongs.”

Pretty good advice.
That’s because we’ve all been endowed not only with certain rights (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence), but also with a conscience.
Do you suppose perhaps those founding fathers considered their consciences as well as historical “standards of morality” (that quoted phrase courtesy of Dreddsnik) in their deliberations regarding what code of conduct ought to be fair rules to have society ordered by?
I don’t know about you, but I’d be astonished if THEY had any doubts about what ought to be right and wrong.
(Not sure why some people have such trouble discerning what gross crap is, BTW.)

independentm..., thank you for the accolade! I think we all miss you around here, I know I do.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be raising our own kids as we see fit..far from it...what I'm saying is that all this "evil" for lack of better word, in the media, the movies, music, games, is fighting against todays parents who are trying their best to raise their kids properly. It's an endless uphill battle.

Communities used to help raise the children as well...if I dug a hole in my neighbors yard three blocks down, MY MOM knew about it and I paid....boy did I pay....

When I was young, any adult had authority over me...If that neighbor came out and hollered at me to go home...I left and speedily....I didn't call him an ass....e and throw a rock through his window....

There was respect back then....

"I must say I’m taken aback and disappointed by your summarily dismissing my position and labelling it as mere “bullshit”."

I'm sorry if you took that personally. I was actually thinking of a woman I saw on Fox News. When you blame the actions on outside stimuli, you are making excuses for the killer.

"Wouldn’t it make good sense to try to limit some of the obvious opportunities for conditions of combustion that could ignite that fuse?"

Like final exams? RIAA lawsuits (16 went to Virginia Tech on March 21)? Job interviews? Politics? Religion?

How about we just keep a closer eye on the people who we think may be losing it?

"Wouldn’t it make good sense to try to limit some of the obvious opportunities for conditions of combustion that could ignite that fuse?"

Well, I actually was thinking of the instance how Cho might have been seething with the cumulative hurt from rejection for years. Considering that he was unstable, he would be expected to experience things with greater intensity. So, if he gets into images of vicious revenge films (such as the Vengeance Triad) and perhaps even has some gory target practice with certain selected video games, are these the kinds of things that might help push his unstable frame of reference over the edge? We may never be absolutely sure, just as we weren't in the case of Eric or Dylan either. It's a source of bad influence; that much as been relatively established. Thus, there is a degree of risk involved, palpable or otherwise.
It's kind of like Pepe has described (refer to her most recent postings). Good judgment speaks to say we can do without the quantity of gross crud that gets put out there, for several reasons (and one of them has to do with how impressionable youth can manage to get access to the worst stuff that’s available). The best tact is to curtail the availability.


Re: blaming a killer's actions on outside stimuli --
We all know causes are seldom simplistic, of course, and what I wrote earlier on two long postings did a fairly balanced treatment, I think. You're welcome to disagree about whether I really did manage a proper balance; though I could quote some of my perspectives to attempt a good case for that.


"How about we just keep a closer eye on the people who we think may be losing it?"

Quite possibly the single most important thing that should be done!
(Thanks.)

I wrote "curtailing the availability", but
I meant "curtailing the production".

I refuse to make this personal, no matter how hard i am pushed.

I am not an ostrich, or whatever negative image hinted, simply because i don't agree with censorship.

No argument or namecalling will ever make me think it's ok for someone else to decide that i can't see or hear sonething that THEY CAN ( to evaluate it for my own good, of course )

Censorship is the cornerstone of tyranny.

and i have MY head in the sand ?

Sorry i can't play for a while, but i got other things to worry about right now.

bback when i can

I usually try to stay out of things like this, because it never seems to lead anywhere constructive, but...

pessimist, what form do you think the "media review" should take? Would it be an individual? A panel, or group?

How would these guardians of decency get these positions? Election? Appointment?

Who would be eligible? Politicians? Religious leaders? Average Joe Schmoe?

Will you be satisfied when this group who deems films like Saw and Kill Bill unfit, also deems films like The Godfather and Saving Private Ryan too violent for the general public.

Remember, what you deem reasonable will be very different from what others deem reasonable.

Also, to whom will this group be accountable? The public? The religous right? Corporations? No one?

What do you think will happen when fanatics and special interest groups begin excersizing their influence on the group?

Where will it stop?

Here are some questions to think about:

Which do you think had more influence on Cho: violent movies and video games; or the constant bombardment of news reports on the Columbine incident?

Should the news be forced to limit reporting on incidents like this to avoid glorifying them?

One last thought: Does our society become more violent because it is imitating the violent media, or does the media become more violent because it is imitating our violent society?

Shows like '24' get advice from U.S. health agency
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070423/24_cdc_070423/20070423?hub=Health

~~~CDC officials make time for Hollywood meetings, because they know what's on screen can be influential. In a 2000 CDC-sponsored survey, more than half of TV viewers said they trust health information on prime-time shows to be accurate, and about one-quarter said prime-time television is one of their top three sources of health information.~~~~~

Now tell me, if there are adults out there that can't tell the difference between reality and tv programing..just what do we expect from the kids?

"No argument or namecalling will ever make me think it's ok for someone else to decide that I can't see or hear something that THEY CAN."

Limits to bloodthirsty and gratuitous violence could/should be in place by force of law.
Penalties accruing to film-makers for breaching the statute would likely lead to few cases of having someone ELSE(someone that isn't you) get a "privilege" (yeah, right) of viewing what will be ILLEGAL crap at that point in time, because it would seldom risk being made in the first place. That's what is really needed -- a law with teeth of enforcement.

You know, it's rather weird. People across all walks of life don't seem to have any problem being unanimously opposed to the production, distribution, and viewing of child pornography. To a lesser degree, admittedly, but still significantly, the majority of Americans could well agree to be opposed to chain-saw films or those with graphic violent crimes followed by blood-spattered acts of vengeance. Those things can get seen by kids despite so-called controls, and they just might inflame the inclination of imbalanced individuals. Hence, the risks far outweigh the opposing arguments.

Folks, there already IS censorship with respect to child pornography, isn't there?
If not, name one mainstream Hollywood film or T.V. show containing it.
See what I mean?
So, let's get something straight here right off the bat. It's not like there's no such thing as censorship already; the ice is already broken, so to speak, and has been for a long time in the history of our culture.
We need to have a realistic perspective.
And we need to take some common-sense action now, as I have written, before a surging tide of reaction can come and sweep a lot of things away.
You may choose to avoid considering that possibility. Go ahead.

I'll address a different topic with an additional post; otherwise, things get too lengthy.

Say, there, what about Pepe's post?
That tells a whole lot, right there, about the POWER of influence (good OR bad).

"Censorship is the cornerstone of tyranny."
"and i have MY head in the sand?"

1) I am not unaware that uncontrolled or uncontrollable censorship, or repression of public news, etc., are some of the building blocks of tyranny. I used to teach history.
2) Tyranny can come from a lack of controls or structure (i.e., ultimately, anarchy being a forerunner to tyranny).
The prospect of major acts of lawlessness (massacres, terrorism, etc.)
do not bode well for a free society that treasures individual liberties.
If we can try to take some preventive steps -- (and George already stated an excellent one; so did Grumpy on a different thread) -- we ought to, before a clamor for over-reacting, extreme action might occur... and that could be far worse than what we've been otherwise discussing here.

clarification:
By "worse than what we've been otherwise discussing here", I was referring to the topic of this thread (rap lyrics; denigrating speech; profanities)

And, while I'm at it, just to sort of conclude my previous post:
A state of imbalance (dwindling freedom or excess freedom) is a risk for the development of tyranny.
Economic disparity can be a contributing factor.
(This is not an exhaustive list.)

The problem with your analogy, pessimist, is that child porn is the filming of a real, illegal action, whereas slasher films are (bad) special effects. If they actually killed people in the making of these films, that would certainly be illegal.

Unless you are a psychologist who specializes in deranged individuals and who has personally worked with Cho, you have no way of knowing what set him off and how much influence anything had on him. Since this is unlikely the case, your arguments, although passionate and seemingly well-intended, just seem like a knee-jerk, extremist reaction of someone who is looking for reasons to blame, or someone who already had an axe to grind against "slasher films."

I'm afraid that you have presented little that makes me think such a heavy-handed move is justified.

The fact is, a certain (small) percentage of the population is going to be messed up enough to commit heinous violence. Since the population of the world is constantly increasing, this means the actual number of "psychos" is also increasing. Nothing short of taking away all of our freedoms will stop this kind of tragedy from happening. It doesn't matter if the only thing available to watch is reruns of Little House on the Prairie.

Sorry, I just don't agree with you at all.

Censorship of this kind will only lead to a bad future.

Yeah, you and the rest of America that feel that way can just keep on going and doing what's been done, and hope for a different (improved) result? .... (good luck) by resisting pro-active changes that at least stand a chance to make a difference.

"Censorship of this kind will only lead to a bad future."

We shall see what kind of future there will be without any reasonable pro-active controls over crap during the present and near-future window of opportunity.

Re: "someone who already had an axe to grind"
And YOU don't have a preconceived notion to grind?
(Yeah, right.)

I'm perfectly on track with the choice of my username; it really underscores the prospect of how things are and how they won't change for the better anytime soon (if at all).

BTW, here's hoping you guys all have access to some water wings for the long term.

Slasher films are not illegal now? No argument there.
My point is that they ought to be.

Slasher films are not "real" because they are special effects, okay. So, does that mean they don't have an influence?
Perception is reality. Virtual reality.
The first time you see that boulder coming straight at you in a 3-D film, you (intellectually) know it really isn't going to hit you, yet you flinch anyway, don't you?

Did you read Pepe's most recent post?

And something else:
You can't deny we already have (and our nation's history is replete with prior examples of) instances of censorship all around us (things that are not permitted to be shown or done in public -- even with mannequins, and those aren't real people either).
Do you think the law will allow you keep two nude love dolls complete with genitalia, in embracing contact with each other, displayed directly on your front lawn?
Or, how about a mannequin with its head severed lying next to the rest of its body with a hatchet and fake but realistically appearing blood all around nearby?
It might be instructional to consider the consequence of arranging something such as this.
Even if we could discount the likelihood of very young children viewing these things, and only think of teens and older (who are usually able to access the grossest of R movies that are released, anyway), there could still be an anology here to ponder.

My point is that your point doesn't defeat my point.

And that's because what isn't illegal (just because it isn't REALLY happening) isn't precluded from risk of having some bad influence .... even significant influence... on a small minority of unbalanced individuals. If we can help to avert just one more shooting spree, it would be worth it not only for the sake of the lives saved, but to try to stem the rising tide of an eventual over-reaching backlash.
I'm mainly talking about films and video games having graphic, bloodthirsty scenes or even plots.
But my other issue is similar to one already described by someone in another thread -- about trying to make good effort to deny accessibility of certain weapons to documented unstable people.

You obviously have your mind made up that there will be more murders with the current media choices than if we begin censoring all media to fit your idea of decency.

That's exactly the kind of twisted logic the RIAA uses to equate each download with a lost sale...nothing concrete...just because you say so.

I appreciate that you think that this will make a difference, and if I thought it actually would, I would seriously consider it...I would!

Unfortunately, you still have not provided anything to backup your point of view, other than simply restating that horror movies are bad...really, really bad.

No one has said anything about putting graphic displays in full public view. That is simply ridiculous. You are just putting words in my mouth (text?) that are not there. I never even mentioned anything to do with sex...you brought that up...I was only refering to violent movies. I'm not advocating that anyone should be forced to view anything they do not wish to. That's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that you don't seem to realize that once a censorship panel is in place, they are not going to stop with just the material that you find offensive. Everything offends someone, somewhere. It's not possible to please everyone. Pretty soon, everything you do enjoy will begin to be censored.

Most folks on this site are here fighting for choice. The choice to listen to what we want, when we want. We don't want groups like the RIAA having full and unrestricted control over our entertainment lives. We don't want them picking what we'll listen to, dictating when and where we'll listen and telling us how much we're going to pay for it.

Do you honestly believe that a media censorship panel won't end up run by a group just as bad as the RIAA? That's not pessimism...that's optimism to the EXTREME!

You know, if the freedoms we enjoy in the US are too lax, there's always China...where you are explicitly told what media you can access. Oh yeah, they'll keep all of the harmful parts of the internet safely tucked away, so you don't have to worry about accidentally stumbling across some of it.

"If we can help to avert just one more shooting spree, it would be worth it...."

Nobel cause, to be sure...but starting a censorship witchhunt isn't going to help.

"Yeah, you and the rest of America that feel that way can just keep on going and doing what's been done, and hope for a different (improved) result? .... (good luck) by resisting pro-active changes that at least stand a chance to make a difference."

You keep saying this, yet I'm all for doing something. I just don't agree that censorship is the cureall you seem to think it is. Obviously something should be done.

Cho threw up more flags than a bad referee. Someone as screwed up as he shouldn't have been handled as casually as the school did. Also, the counsellors and psychologists did not seem to do a stellar job of evaluating his condition. I think we need to see a lot of improvements in identifying individuals like him and making more of an effort to help them or...if they can't be helped...remove them from society.

I definitely agree that someone like him should never have been allowed to purchase a gun. A psych eval should be required for any weapon purchase.

Btw, pessimist, you never said anything about the questions I posed earlier:

"Which do you think had more influence on Cho: violent movies and video games; or the constant bombardment of news reports on the Columbine incident?"

"Should the news be forced to limit reporting on incidents like this to avoid glorifying them?"

I'd really be interested in your opinion on this.

One last thing.

Before I get accused of it, I don't care for the ultra-gross violent flicks. I'm not debating you because I'm a fan.

However, I care even less for someone else to tell me what I can or can't watch. I like to make my own choices.

In case you missed it, I chose the username Goo no evil as a statement against "Do no evil" Google aiding China with censorship.

It's a very slippery slope.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070424/simmons_epithets_070424/20070424?hub=Entertainment

Simmons says three epithets should be banned

~~~~Expressing concern about the "growing public outrage" over the use of such words in rap lyrics, Simmons said the words "bitch," "ho" and "nigger" should be considered "extreme curse words."

"We recommend (they're) always out," Simmons, the pioneering entrepreneur who made millions of dollars as he helped shape hip-hop culture, said in an interview Monday. "This is a first step. It's a clear message and a consistency that we want the industry to accept for more corporate social responsibility."~~~~

~~~"It shows that people in the industry are realizing that the pendulum is swinging and that there's a national conversation that they don't want to be on the wrong side of," Kitwana said of the recommendations. "This is further along than we could have expected them to go 10 years ago. But there has to be more. I think they can do more around the question of content."~~~


pessimist

You see, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon, and the neat thing is, is that people won't even realize it's censorship. It just won't be there anymore. Just like how all the crap snuck up on us in the first place....

Maybe a little hope for some much needed optimism in this old world? We just need to backtrack somewhat.

Ive never seen an ID checked at a movie theatre nor rental store with the exception of porn. There is no "Adult" rating, except for porn's "X".
Simply creating the "Adult" rating for non-porn movies would have an impact, think of how many movies would go into that catogory. Having a fine for cashiers much like illegal cigarettes sales would be an idea also. However there is no fine for minors attemting to buy cigarettes.... at a certain point the indivisual must be held accountable for their actions.

Video games, porn, and movies do NOT CAUSE violence. Proven by shrinks years ago. However unstable people are drawn to media that feuls their fire.
The Village can not allways blame the parents. Bad Parents can wind up having wonderful children (Jen's an addict, her daughter is on the honor roll) and Good Parents can have horrible children (Jeffrey Dalmer told us not to blame his parents)

Im not sure where some people live, what some have seen, but don't deny what is in front of your face and don't be afraid to imagine ANYthing.
Be Well

I wasn't going to go into this Cho thing, untill I ran across this...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20070420_Does_violent_art_promote_violence_.html

Does violent art promote violence?

~~~~That's Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui pictured above right, wielding a hammer in a pose obviously modeled on the vengeful central character in South Korean director Park Chan-wook's disturbing 2003 film, Oldboy. The film received a four-star review from Roger Ebert and won a jury prize at the Cannes Film Festival (and was featured at the 2005 Philadelphia Film Festival). It is about a man imprisoned in solitary confinement for 15 years who, once freed, goes on a bloody rampage mowing down his captors.~~~~

TO GOONOEVIL (mostly):

"You obviously have your mind made up that there will be more murders with the current media choices than if we begin censoring all media to fit your idea of decency."
"That's exactly the kind of twisted logic . . ."

Huh, "my" idea of decency? "Twisted" logic?
As I have previously implied, in dialogue with Dreddsnik, some things are so gross and crappy that it shouldn't take a nose of an expert to detect them. Do we need to research to find a rare form of the most reliable olfactory nerves before proceeding to weed out rotten garbage? Come on. Common sense should prevail, but it may be difficult to offset the circumstance of too many people such as yourself who are opposed to reasonable efforts to curtail the production of the blatant stuff.
MY exclusive idea of decency? TWISTED logic? Is that a fair assessment of what I had written?
(I'll just exhale a subdued "wow", and let the matter speak for itself.)

Regarding "just the material that you find offensive":
Here you are again! You are not willing to grant there is patently offensive and harmful material too easily available, but instead are prone to point at the messenger of the news and focus on him instead of the content of the news. Sorry, condemning me with debate strategies aren't going to change the current lamentable situation in this nation, my friend. Change will require some action; just a taking a swim even in shallow water still requires getting your feet wet.
"It's a very slippery slope."
Often, so is the approach to a swimming pool, even the wading pool portion!
Take reasonable precautions.

(Memo to state the obvious: Reasonably prudent safeguards need to be imbedded in laws.)


"Unfortunately, you still have not provided anything to back up your point of view, other than simply restating that horror movies are bad...really, really bad."

And YOU don't think they are? You don't think they're anti-social in a detrimental sense or could have an adverse effect on certain individuals?

Unfortunately, you and likely many others, may be content to just sit back on your haunches hoping to protect an extreme libertarian turf of position that even the worst of the horribly cruel/bloody and potentially inciteful/inflammatory material should not be subject to control -- with the justification that there is no incontrovertible proof that it could make a difference.
What Pepe referred to is pretty strong indications, as is what I had written about the Bambi premier.
Yeah, as I said before, you and likeminded others can go ahead and drag your feet, carry on as usual, and hope for a different result than we've been getting. [ What is that process called?]

I recall forty years ago, the medical world's perspective was that people who desired to help themselves through prevention with alternative methods such as healthier (organic) foods and natural supplements were considered somewhat fringe and nutty, on the grounds there was no proof that such would be worth the extra money. (Well, no proof from their overly stringent parameters, which entail very costly if not difficult double-blind, long-term studies along with acquiescence from peer reviews.) I maintain that common sense and reasonableness could have prevailed then, as it should now.
Do you think perhaps time has mellowed that medical response in all these years?


Will time mellow YOUR response to the current dilemma of production of media that flaunts excessively bad influence?

You can always wait for something dramatic to occur that can subsequently start an over-reaction type of tidal wave, I guess, and then take a regretful look back at the window of time we have now.


"No one has said anything about putting graphic displays in full public view.
You are just putting words in my mouth (text?) that are not there. I never even mentioned anything to do with ... "

I realize that, as everyone else does. What you evidently DON'T realize is that I used those displays to punch a hole in your premise: that because the unnecessary cruel or bloody films and the gratituitous violence of video games aren't "real" (aren't actually occurring events in the filming process), they should be exempted from control as opposed to child pornography.
I brought up both sexual as well as brutal examples to make my point clearer about the effect of mannequins, though not real people doing real things, still being significant. I'd be surprised if most other people didn't get the impression I tried to convey.


Regarding what you wrote concerning the internet, and accidentally stumbling across the harmful parts of it . . .
No one has said anything about the internet. You are just putting words in my mouth (text?) that are not there! I never even mentioned anything having to do with ....


"Most folks on this site are here fighting for choice."

Go ahead, rally the troops any way you deem to be pragmatic. Personally, I am opposed to the RIAA because of their tendencies of improper intimidation and misuse of the legal system, along with their misguided sense of priorities. They don't believe in doing what is proper and helpful. I guess I'm guilty of not liking those who don't want to do what is reasonably right and helpful in any crucial arena for the collective group at large (society).


A different poster wrote: ". . . at a certain point the individual must be held accountable for their actions."

True enough. But at a certain point, SOCIETY must be held accountable for the decisions it makes, or doesn't make -- such as in the area of the PRODUCTION of the worst stuff in the first place. (No imposition to enforce I.D.s on the worst stuff if the worst stuff isn't allowed to be put out there in the first place. And please don't berate a dead horse by inquiring what the worst stuff smells like.)


Speaking of meaningful change, goonoevil wrote:
"I'm all for doing something."

Good. So am I.
And, granted, some of the things you mentioned are admirable and needed.
It's just that you are not in favor of having some of the worst stench out there being purged.
Controls and limits should themselves have controls and limits codified, yes ... but something cries for correction! Those cries may mostly be reaching deaf ears.


"Which do you think had more influence on Cho: violent movies and video games; or the constant bombardment of news reports on the Columbine incident?"

Which do you think has more negative influence on impressionable young minds: bad habits from negatively behaving peers, or a father's poor role model?
Which do you think has more negative potential to a person lost in a desolate desert during the middle of the hottest time of year -- exposure, or lack of water?
Which do you think has more negative impact on car accidents -- drinking before driving, or drinking while driving?
(Is it necessary to decide a choice? In each case, BOTH can be...uh, bad; really, really bad.)


"Should the news be forced to limit reporting on incidents like this to avoid glorifying them?"

Oh, no, not at all. In the name of all that is sancrosact, heaven forbid. We shouldn't interfere with the media's right to report and display whatever they wish in whatever WAY they wish (including repetitive showing of Cho's self-made videos.) If glorifying occurs as a result, let it. Anything close to control of any sort would be "censorship witchhunting", and we MUST all unite to be adamant in utilizing a censoring or witchhunting label against most forms of potential, albeit reasonable, monitoring and adjustment, even in cases where common sense implores for taking preventive action.


Regarding: " . . . someone else to tell me what I can or can't watch. I like to make my own choices."
Okay, granted, you have better discretion than to watch the worst. I give you credit for that, and you even alluded to how you don't care for it.
However, since you don't believe in reasonable limits to what crap is produced and put out there in the first place, there will continue to be the risk of unstable individuals being unnecessarily influenced by the worst to do the worst.

When I say, in a separate paragraph, something about "excessively bad influence" without specific qualification, I do mean the crap of unnecessary cruel or bloody films and the gratituitous violence of video games -- so, please don't waste your time lamenting on how bad does bad have to be, or that it depends on the meaning of "is" or something.
If it smells like shit, and looks like shit, it most likely IS shit, for God's sake!
Enough already!
Those who say crap can't be discerned might be mistaken for those who are most commonly in the camp of sullenly rejecting change needed for the betterment of society.

Pessimist, you still haven’t acknowledged my suggestion that there is absolutely no way to create an oversight group that will choose to disallow only the material that you (personally) find patently offensive. You keep going back to your argument that everyone should have an identical set of sensibilities and should therefore find an identical set of media to be patently offensive. I respectfully disagree and restate that everyone is different and you will never find parameters that will make everyone happy.

The worst of the worst is what you want gone?

What would happen if you got your wish?

Let’s say, you got your wish, the government created a Decency Panel and you, personally, were allowed to choose the absolute worst material to ban. As soon as that is gone, the material that was previously considered milder now becomes the worst. Then Decency Panel will be pressured to extend the ban to include that material.

Soon the worst of the worst (with regard to violence) may become the realistic war films. Since that is now the worst there is available, someone will decide it’s time to step up and eliminate those. Obviously the psychos now consider themselves soldiers and are emulating these war films. Now all war and historical films are banned by the DP.

Do you think it will stop there? Anything like this happens incrementally. Soon, once it becomes apparent that continually eliminating the worst of the worst hasn’t stemmed the tide of violence from loonies, it is deemed that the psychos are simply emulating and idolizing the villains in even the tamest of films. Therefore, it’s time to ban any film with villains or any kind of conflict whatsoever.

Of course, the whole time, those with substantially different ideas of what is the worst of the worst will chime in and demand that other things get banned. Things that are too sexy, too rude, too racial, too religious (or not the right kind of religious) must go.

What are we eventually left with? Blue’s Clues and Sesame Street?

The ban won’t contain itself to just movies, either. High school biology class will need to be eliminated or radically altered because dissection and the study of biology will obviously feed the sick passions of the psychotic mind. Medical research and study materials will need to be eliminated, altered or at least seriously locked up to avoid fueling the sick minds.

Since the differences between us as individuals tend to be a major factor in feeding the hate of psychos, all individuality must be stamped out. We must all begin to wear identical “uniforms,” draw from a pool of similar possessions and never speak in public of anything controversial.

Since personal relationships cause undue stress and conflict, soon it will become necessary to seek approval to marry or even date. Your friends are chosen for you.

If you think this is extreme, remember it will all happen in tiny, tiny steps. No major leaps or bounds to make the public stand up and say “Wait a minute.” No, it’ll happen a little at a time. But, hey, if it’ll save even a few lives, it’ll all be worth it. After all, society must be held responsible. But, what kind of a society will we be left with when all is said and done? Will life still be worth living?

No matter what, there will always be the worst of the worst. The definition of the worst of the worst will always change, but you can never eliminate it. Something will always offend someone. Unless you intend to declare yourself the ultimate judge of all that is good and decent. I’m not sure I’m ready to trust you with that responsibility.

Although I would not miss the grossest of the gross, I am not willing to take the step onto that slippery slope because I am not willing to give up everything else. Once you go down that path, turning back may no longer be an option and we may just get pushed further down it than we intend to go...until we arrive at a very ugly place.

You keep saying that the “crap” is obvious. Well, look at it this way: Many folks love green beans, though they may look and smell like “crap” to you. At the same time, the dishes that you enjoy may be the ones others consider “crap.” Who gets to decide which is which?

Let’s look at this a different way. If your worst of the worst is so offending that it can easily be defined and should therefore be patently offensive to “normal” people, why is it made in the first place? Obviously, if the real sickos are just a fringe element of society, how can the creators of such material find enough buyers to make a profit? Why doesn’t it just disappear on it’s own for lack of money? Or is it that the sickos are actually out there in greater numbers and are feeding the market? Are there more sickos that normal people? If so, how can we hope to survive, let alone institute your world saving ban?

after working in the plant where green beans are processed I support the banning of all green beans from existant.

Another exsample is the age of consent. Differant ages in differant places, why? Differant values? Higher? Lower morals? more truthful or more denial? Who decides and how?
Society? Like the Govenment? How about the Corrupt Industry (RIAA/MPAA) knowing that teens buy more then other groups?
Censorship Bad
Checking IDs Good
nothing will ever be perfect tho'

"nothing will ever be perfect"

Praise Be and also Damn God/Allah at the same time for that!

Good grief, I don't think anyone here believes that we could do away with violence competely. I think we're living with enough reality to know it could never be wiped out..I mean it did start way back with Cain and Abel...

All we're asking is to tone the language down, way down, and maybe let us folks go back to using our imaginations....Now there's a word, IMAGINATION..remember what that was for? You didn't have to see the axe actually cut the head off....all you had to see was the head, then focus on axe...see axe fall...and the imagained image was left up to ourselves....Ahh, those were the good old days.. :0)

Re: ". . . you will never find parameters that will make everyone happy."

That's useless truism. No needed law or policy can please everybody.
Obviously, those who feed off the worst stuff wouldn't be happy to see it go.
So, a notion of trying to please all people is tantamount to a cop-out, a kind of rationale to support doing nothing. (And while I'm at it, so is your insistance that there is no genuine way to determine how bad the worst has to be, or something like that, for it to be rejectable. Read how I describe that kind of stuff in the next several paragraphs.)

Pleasing "everyone" is not a feasible or a necessary goal. The goal is to bring some common sense to the runaway violence in too much of our media. The goal is to acknowlege when a movie or video game is presented with excessive or overly graphic viciousness, cruelty, or bloodthirstyness. Some people can't discern that? Perhaps those who don't have much of a clue need some sensitivity training.
Do you actually think this issue can be fairly compared to liking or disliking green beans?? I lowered my head and moved it slowly from side to side when I read those words.

Reason would argue there is a big difference between a military documentary and a movie about a deranged person going off on thrill-kill tangents. Incidentally, that reminds me of a prime example, decades ago already, of a movie I heard the ad for on the radio entitled "Deranged", whereby a monstrously cruel murderer took pleasure in sadistically torturing his female victims in lingering agony for certain periods of time before granting them the relief of death to end their painful screams at last. This is the kind of crap the public needed to rebel against and demand for-God-sake change back then, but they didn't. And they still haven't.

Some film-makers relish taking note of the worst and raising the ante even one notch higher (worse) than his colleague; that's part of the Hollywood mindset.
The majority of people are not in favor of this trend, but they have yet to strive to have action taken.

There have many variations on themes of unnecessary, horrific movies . . . and many of them seem starkly realistic in their brutality. Again, even over three decades ago, there was a show advertised that graphically depicted axe murders.
NO ONE benefits from these things! Not an individual. Not a society. And to even say "no one benefits" is too mild. (It's not only that there aren't plusses; there are negatives.)

And there's more than just intuition or speculation to back up that premise.
I wish I could locate the research study done years ago which actually found a significant increase of the threshholds of the level of outrage and disgust in a number of individuals who were monitored before and after having watched a certain number of horror films over an extended period of time (as measured by valid tests). Thus, there is a tendency to become somewhat more hardened, less and less sensitive, to horrible things with increased exposure. That kind of result can be seen as counter-productive for a person and probably for a society as well, not to mention a potential inflammatory risk for unstable individuals.

A respected writer/philosopher once remarked about the degree to which evil is influential:
"Evil is a monster; if too oft we see her face
First we endure, than tolerate, then embrace."

I think that about sums it up.

Sadly, there IS a potential (conditioned?) market for the gross stuff.
But that does not mean we as a society have to cater to it!
There doubtlessly is a niche for child pornography, too, but our nation has little difficulty in displaying the good sense of drawing the line in the sand there. . .

Oh, that reminds me, I've got a question about an issue for you, that, because of something you mentioned about child pornography, I'm wondering how you will answer it.
Okay: Child pornography is illegal, as you said (because there is real illegal action involved), but what would you say about cartoons showing only simulated (special-effect) youngsters engaged in sexual acts? Should that be legal porno or not? No real children involved, you know.
BTW, I have a valid reason for asking this question; once you answer it, I'll tell you.


Your somewhat disparaging assessment about the surprising popularity of the worst stuff is one of the reasons I am a pessimist. On the other hand, how much of the quantity of receptiveness can be chalked up to conditioning? Or, since the recent decades have allowed an incremental increase in the quantity of these types of films, along with the advent of gratituitous violence in video games, could it not be expected for many people's exposure to have worked as a kind of addiction to things brutal?
You even mentioned how we may have more sickos out there.
All the more reason to go to the effort to curtail the producing of sicko stuff.


"checking I.D.s good" -- a comment by someone else --
Did that person read what was written about how impressionable youth can often find ways to access horrible stuff, even though it's not supposed to be available to them? And that the most effective course of action to take would be to curtail the gross stuff at the source (production)?


I take note that goonoevil labored at length to make a case for progressive loss of liberties.
(i.e., the assumption that "Anything like this happens incrementally.")
I could make a case for loss of liberties coming about, too -- only with a scenario of it occurring rather dramatically as a potent backlash in response to an ongoing lack of reasonable control and prevention.

"We may just get pushed further down it [a slope] than we intend to go."
I submit that we have already been sliding further down a DIFFERENT slope, with an ultimate similar fate waiting, only perhaps without it happening incrementally.

Here's the bottom line:
Are we going to continue to kowtow to the wayward film and video game industry to let it spew out pretty much whatever its perverse little heart desires, or are we going to have the guts to say enough is enough and demand some reasonable accountabililty?
That's what all this stuff really boils down to.

This is how the following sentence should have been typed:
Or, since the recent decades have allowed an incremental increase in the quantity of these types of films, along with the advent of gratituitous violence in video games, could it not be expected for many people's exposure to have worked as a kind of tolerance if not acceptance of things brutal?

This is why I try to stay out of arguments like this.

In answer to your loaded question, of course I am against the exploitation of children in any way. Now go ahead and spring your trap…I’ve taken the bait. Jump on the “Save the children” bandwagon along with all the others who are pushing their unrelated agendas using this lame excuse.

Sure, some kids are going to get hold of some bad movies. Hell, we can’t even keep cigarettes, alcohol, drugs and weapons out of the hands of our youth – all of which is a heck of a lot worse than some slasher flick.

What about the gladiator type sporting events with which we are all so obsessed and which we push on our youth. The violence in football, hockey, boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and numerous other sports are just as bad. These athletes are physically attacking each other for no reason whatsoever other than to entertain the bloodthirsty crowds. The loudest cheers at a hockey game are during the fights. How about banning all contact sports?

You know what, I’m done. I concede. You win.

Ban it all. Ban the horror films. Ban Saw and Silence of the Lambs. Ban Jason, Freddie and Michael Myers. Ban every film based on a work by Stephen King, Dean Koontz, James Patterson and Edgar Allen Poe. Ban Hitchcock. Ban any film that is rated any worse than a soft PG. Ban it all.

Like you said…who needs it, but the sickos.

But, once it’s all gone you will see that it won’t make the slightest difference. There are plenty of psychos out there who are more than willing to invent their own vicious acts. There are brutal individuals and groups out there who have never seen a single TV program or movie, yet will commit the most unspeakable acts against humanity for no other reason than they think it’s what (their) God wants.

The sad truth is that we are a brutal species. Some of us have learned to suppress our vicious instincts, but many of us have not. We have been wantonly killing each other since we have been in existence.

Even without your ban, I actually believe we are headed backwards to “1984” anyway, so what’s the difference. We are doomed to be ruled and suppressed, down to the minutest detail of our lives. Freedom is on it’s way out at a shockingly fast pace and I truly believe there is nothing we will be able to do about it. Fear mongers like you will, willingly or not, lead the way, playing right into the hands of those bringing us this oppression.

How’s that for pessimism?

Hey, leave Dean Koontz out of this. And if you can find a seven year old reading his books I want those parents phones numbers....I couldn't even get my kids at that age to read Lady Chatterley's Lover...go figure

Hey, I like Koontz' work. However, some of his books get made into films with violence and pessimist says they gotta go.

Aw, yes, that's right. I did say anything with even a twinge of violence has to go, didn't I. All violence, no exceptions.
Too bad I didn't give examples or degrees of some of the worst stuff, either. Shame on me.

Just to give a flavor of what a similar misrepresentation would be to have one bounced off yourself, I could say that since cartoons don't involve real people, there should be no limits of production and no censorship of anything involving cartoons as long as the X-rated cartoons are only accessible by adults. Let every person who has attained a certain chronological age decide for himself or herself whether they will rent a children-having-sex cartoon or not, for example.
After all, there is no proof that a pervert waching one of these disgusting films could be tipped over the edge and begin to act out his inflamed desires with real children, so what's the problem?
I mean, evil influence can't be that bad, can it?
Let each person have freedom of choice, damn it! That's the holy grail, people! Bow down to the holy grail . . . or, or, or be called names and be mischaracterized.


The French have a saying for an almost- anything-goes business practice.
"Let the customer beware."
That reminds me a little of the kind of philosophy that's way too common in our society, in certain arenas.

Unfortunately, most Americans are more oriented toward crisis reaction than prudent prevention -- and even an unbiased observation of our society for many decades can't help but notice that.

There's still an analogy that could be brought up, and this one involves a steam kettle. Let the increasing temperature of the water represent the incremental increase of worse and worse forms of brutal, anti-social media entertainment. Now, as the water starts to boil, use a method to block the opening where the steam could be released. That's right; no adjustment to the gradually rising temperature and pressure in the kettle of water, even when it boils.
Let it simmer unimpeded!

Hmm. What's likely to occur?

Yeah, I'm pessimistic about the U.S.'s chances of trying to turn things around and avoid an eventual blowing-up of the steam kettle. (When the big backlash does occur, it will be too late to modify anything.)
Americans are hesitant or reluctant to take minor precautions to release some of the steam now and then, so, yeah, I'm like you in expecting our freedoms to be swept away. You and I have different scenarios about how that event will happen, but the result will be much the same.

Think back to what I wrote earlier as to one of the main reasons I recommended we as a society try to take opportunities to modify or reduce some of the most blatant and horribly vicious material that even impressionable minds too often obtain access.
It has relevance.

Taking appropriate action is a decision.
Taking no action is a decision too.

No need to go on, pessimist. I already declared you the winner.

Now let's get to work.

Should we start with the petition to ban sports?

No, no, no, that was my idea. I should work on that. You had the problem with movies and video games.

Why don't you start with a new website:
www dot banstarwarsviolence dot com.

I think the Star Wars franchise is really at the root of this whole subversive plot to spoil the youth of America. Don't you agree? I mean, after all, Lucas used this vehicle to push his obviously sick fetish with amputations onto our kids and teens, to whom these movies were targetted. Heck there were probably over a dozen amputations and even a beheading in Episode 3. You can't get much more graphic and violent than amputations.

"No need to go on, pessimist. I already declared you the winner."

Okay. Thanks.

Seriously, though. I am having a hard time understanding exactly what you consider bad enough to make illegal. I need a frame of reference.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
Scream?
Silence of the Lambs?
Psycho (the original Hitchcock B&W)?
Dawn/Day/Night of the Dead (new or old)?

I can kind of see your point and find it difficult to find anything redeeming about gorefests with no plot...something made just for the gore. I don't, however, have a problem with most horror films. I think the problem is that I don't think I've ever seen any of the absolute worst (bloodiest, grossest) films.

Could you name some specifics of what you would like to see gone.

"I think the problem is that I don't think I've ever seen any of the absolute worst (bloodiest, grossest) films."

You see, half the problem in this day and age, is that people have become so desensitized with the violence..to a point that they don't even recognize it for what it is....

Censorship in any form is never the answer. People should be free to express themselves in any way they choose, short of actual harm to others.

Keeping the worst of the sex, violece and other rubbish from our children untill they are old enough to evaluate it on their own is our job as parents and as a society. When we allow others to educate and inform our children, we expect regulation and a basic community standard to guide them. Making it difficult for children to obtain or view questionable material is our resposibility.

Many of our school boards and other public institutions have failed us in this.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

There will always be someone out there trying to make a buck off our hesitancy.

end rant...

why doesn`t the question ask anything about rock music? people always want to accuse rap music of being so bad. i think that`s beacuse the rap industry is made up mostly of black people. if it was all white people... nobody would have a problem with it.

I wonder if this is a genre issue more than a racist issue.
One question to explore:
Song for song, has black rap music contained more sexist and other objectionable content than white rap music?

In response to why the question doesn't implicate rock music too:
Rock music certainly HAS had its share of "bad" content, alright, but the perception is that rap music has had more sexist lyrics than rock music.

J3ssica :


LOL

Dam nice try.
A for effort.

Once the bans are in place, what should
we DO with the older stuff that just happens to be ... unacceptable.

Burn it ?
Perhaps a public ' media burning ' ceremony in which
we purge the unacceptable from our lives

Nah, I propose we all just continue sitting on the fence (or setting on our rears) and simply keep tolerating practically everything until the big day of reckoning ultimately comes. It'll be more dramatic (and more compellilng, too) that way.

"compelling"

" Nah, I propose we all just continue sitting on the fence (or setting on our rears) and simply keep tolerating practically everything until the big day of reckoning ultimately comes. It'll be more dramatic (and more compellilng, too) that way. "

LOL, i love the bait .. it's tasty.
But, even veiled insult is not going
to make me angry.

Most of us have a very solid stance,
different from each others, but very
clear .. not fence sitting at all.

Me ?
I don't tolerate 'anything', not at all ...
If I don't like it, I ...
Don't look
Don't listen
Change the channel .. etc.

I pay attention to what my kids
listen to, watch , read , and discuss,
rather than ban.

We all learn a lot that way.

See,
I find gay midget porn horrbily disgusting, but it's not my right to tell
my neighbor he can't watch it.

I won't go see movies like 'Saw', 'Hostel'
etc .. because the violence IS the plot
rather than part of the story, entirely
gratuitious ... Is it my ( or anyone elses
right ) to saw others can't go see them ?

For a Pessimist, you seem oddly willing
to believe in the long term good intentions
of governing bodies.
A true pessimist would likely realize, or
fear, as a lot of us do, that no matter how
noble the thought, or good the intentions,
any such 'censorship' system would end
up being abused, a tool for politico/religio
advantage.

You ARE right about one thing though ...

People are running out of tolerance for
the way the wealthy and powerful walk
over the rest of us, use laws in ways
they were never intended for financial
gain etc ... increasing exponentially the
gap between the top few, and the many
cast offs. It's this that is ultimately bringing
the 'reckoning' of which you speak.

It WILL be compelling.
It will be spectacular.
And soo many will STILL not be able to
figure out why it's REALLY happening.

"It WILL be compelling.
It will be spectacular.
And soo many will STILL not be able to
figure out why it's REALLY happening."

So true.

Just remember, when we allow the balance scale to tip too far for too long in one extreme direction (excessive permissiveness) we bring on the day when it will swing dreastically the other way that much sooner.
But I don't think my warning is being heeded; so, as I said, just keep on doing (and letting be done) what has been and is being done . . . and hope history won't repeat itself.
Americans would rather cling to a thin hope without prudent course of action than take pro-active prevention. They prefer to wait until the crisis management and damage control mentality of reacting afterwards becomes the only alternative. I guess it's more fun that way; the compelling nature of adrenal rush is stimulating.
And perhaps another reason is they just aren't very wise.

" And perhaps another reason is they just aren't very wise. "

We ARE letting them do exactly what they want .
That's why we keep allowing our freedoms and rights to be stripped away,
a little at a time.

A return to prudery-by-law would be just one more group of rights restricted
in a long list.
Some americans would rather have
laws that attempt to force everyone to
accept and believe in the same things.
Enforced conformity is much easier than
education and tolerance. They prefer to
squeeze, litigate, and use laws to force
people to conform to their views, until
the 'squeezed' snap, fighting against those
that would rob them of their individuality.

Don't worry P, ths Government knows what's
best for us and you will get your wish ...
no matter how many americans are against it.

Remember though, on of the law of
pessimism .....

Be careful of what you wish for,
You just might get it.

"Be careful of what you wish for;
You just might get it."

I hope I do (get what I wish for); because my goal is just what I've been spilling those many posts about. You either didn't read all I wrote, or you've misjudged me.

Re: "prudery-by-law"

No; and that's not what I wish for (nor in any way a fair characterization of anything I had posted above for the past week, dear Dredd).

How about calling me a prude if I want to clean up the shit mess (of my yet-to-be-toilet-trained tot) on the floor of the bathroom. Why don't I just let it be there (and reek; that's full freedom)? I'll just go ultra-libertarian and allow hideous grossness TO JUST BE, to stay in view with hardly any control, and no concern about prevention much either (on that note, I'll just abandon the goal of the tot's toilet training, too; wouldn't want to risk stifling output tendencies). Oh, yeah, that'll keep on working well for good, won't it.

You know what? I'm tired of you kind of guys.
Just let's quit posting anything; you and I both stop.

Irreconcileable differences.
Nothing to be gained (or changed).

" Why don't I just let it be there (and reek; that's full freedom)? I'll just go ultra-libertarian and allow hideous grossness "

Therein lies the problem you won't address.

One man's gross, another man's delight.

Who decides on gross ??
You say that some things should be understood to be gross by everyone.
Sorry, that will never be true, and there
is never going to be anyone qualified (
or trustworthy ) enough to decide for
everyone on the 'gross' factor.

" How about calling me a prude if I want to clean up the shit mess (of my yet-to-be-toilet-trained tot) on the floor of the bathroom. Why don't I just let it be there (and reek; that's full freedom)? I'll just go ultra-libertarian and allow hideous grossness TO JUST BE, to stay in view with hardly any control, and no concern about prevention much either (on that note, I'll just abandon the goal of the tot's toilet training, too; wouldn't want to risk stifling output tendencies). Oh, yeah, that'll keep on working well for good, won't it. "

This is likewise not in anyway a fair characterization of anything I support.

I realize that prudery is not what YOU wish for,
That's what will result though.
As a 'pessimist' you would realize that.
Once the Gubmint starts, it won't stop.

I'm kind of tired of your kind of guy as
well. But, I realize your kind of guy
has just as much right to exist as my
kind of guy

Irreconcilable differences , yes, but so far we are both ALLOWED to speak about them .

An interesting article

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/05/03/news/top/news02_impeach_bush_plate.txt

My favorite quote ...

“Here, all we need is one lone citizen who is apparently invested with the complete authority to determine what is good taste and decency for all the rest of us,” he said. “It seems a little tyrannical to me.”

In regard to what you presented about "a lone individual invested with the complete authority to determine . . ."

I've never suggested or indicated that one person (some kind of czar?) should ever be vested with such a degree of power as that!

"Therein lies the problem you won't address:
One man's gross, another man's delight."

I can address it. Actually, I've already, by inference, communicated similarly to my other opponent last week.
There IS a problem with some media material being too gross for production to allow reveling in it for perverted delight -- because of some potential consequences that could accrue.
Let's revisit my earlier hypothetical.
Tell me why you wouldn't want to allow porno cartoons having characters engaging in child sex. You answer that, and then I'll promise to take the discussion to the next step from there.

IN THE MEANTIME:
It's as I mentioned with the Bambi premier back in the '50s: Video has impact. It can inspire; it can inflame passions (including ones society would rather not have acted out from susceptible individuals). Yet you, and a significant number of others who seem to emanate from some sort of ultra-libertarian ivory tower of irresponsibility, typically abhor the notion of any media controls or lines in the sand at all (save actual exploitation of children).

" I've never suggested or indicated that one person (some kind of czar?) should ever be vested with such a degree of power as that! "

No, you didn't.
You know as well as I, that's where it
would end up.

" Tell me why you wouldn't want to allow porno cartoons having characters engaging in child sex. You answer that, and then I'll promise to take the discussion to the next step from there. "

They are cartoons.
No children were harmed in their creation.
I find them disgusting, and won't view
them.

What about Nabokov's 'Lolita' ?
Anne Rice' Mayfair Withces ?
( some very graphic sex with a 14 year
old protagonist )
Anne Rice Vampires ?

Thousands of literary examples.
What makes those different ?

Ahhhh .. someone considers those .. art
I guess.

You're example is deliberate bait, be able to point and shout ...

What about the Chillldreennnnnn !!!

It has a great deal of emotional merit.
It is an example of how disgusting
people can be.

It is also not necessarily criminal.

I don't look at it.
Perhaps you shouldn't either ?

There are already laws against Pedophilia.
You know, actually using real children in
sick ways.
The Internet has proven to be a VERY
effective resource in CATCHING many
of these sicko's.

Censor them from the net, make it tougher to
find them.
As it is, they are too sick/stupid to realize how
easy it is to catch them .. the false sense
of anonymity lulls them into complacence.


" I can address it. Actually, I've already, by inference, communicated similarly to my other opponent last week. "

Don't 'infer' .. come out and say, openly.
I think it took you a while to come up with an example that would create the proper
'emotional' stir.

Child pron would have been too easy
an example for everyone to agree with,
and there are already strict laws against
it, so that would not suit your purposes.

Movie Violence would not suit your purpose either as an example because the 'gross factor' is
too subjective, a perfect example of MY
argument

Nope,
You chose the example you did because
of it's deliberate 'shock' value, legal
ambiguity, and 'the chiiiiillllldreeddnnnnn !! ' factor.

This isn't a real debate anymore .
Now you're just trying to use knee jerk
emotionalism to make people angry, and not actually think ....

You know, the way the politicians do things.

But, you still won't acknowledge the
main point .....

Start banning, and it NEVER stops.
Ever.

Regardless of the original intent, it
WILL be usurped. The government
can NEVER be trusted to define
morality, decency.

We can ONLY decide for ourselves.

Clean your own kids ass, it's YOUR
responsibility.
Teach your kids what's immoral, indecent and shouldn't be viewed ..
YOU'RE right YOU'RE responsibility.

When more parents take that responsibility seriously, and STOP
making it the governments job to
decide for them, THEN things will get
better.

Besides ...
What has any of this to do with the VT
shooting ?

Nothing, and you know it.

" You know what? I'm tired of you kind of guys.
Just let's quit posting anything; you and I both stop. "

Go ahead .. you first

Heh,
I suppose I should clarify that, in case
anyone else is actually reading this anymore.

I won't end this on a negative note.
As my opponent gets closer and closer
to outright namecalling I point out ....

We don't necessarily disagree

It's apparent that we are disgusted by the same things.
We both find the excessive violence
horrifying, disgusting etc .. and
the overt sexuality aimed at younger
kids sick.

We disagree on the solution to these
problems.
Not only that, we disagree on whether
these CAUSE problems, or are reflections of already existing
problems.

I don't have that answer.
I likely never will.

My opponent believes that some form
of censorship is an answer.

I don't agree.
I likely never will.

We will never convince each other,
bring each other to a different point
of view.

That's ok.
My opponent is educated, intelligent
( we all know those two things DON'T
necessarily come as a set ), well spoken
and correct about many things.

So am I.

This is how I would like to end this.
Without the namecalling, libertarian this,
republicrat that, head in the sand in the sheep .. etc ...

We are both obviously above all that ..

aren't we ?


Thus I give you my ( probably ) ..

Closing Statement.

Please make yours, Pessimist.

// bows
// extends hand

"Thus, I give you my (probably) ...

Closing Statement.

Please make yours, Pessimist.

// bows
// extends hand."


Dredd:

You're a gracious and worthy opponent.
// waving olive branch
// shaking your hand


"We will never convince each other, bring each other to a different point of view."

True.

"It's apparent that we are disgusted by the same things.
We both find the excessive violence horrifying, disgusting etc .. and the overt sexual materials, aimed at younger kids, sick."

Common ground, with the exception that kids are impressionable and there should be grounds for exercising caution about what awful things influencing them could lead to.


"We disagree on the solution to these
problems."

And, as you alluded to, we disagree as to potential causes of them.


"You know as well as I, that's where it would end up [excessive restrictions."

I'm not granting that.
That's assuming.


"Besides ...
What has any of this to do with the VT shooting?
Nothing, and you know it."

Huh? The original title of this very thread was about infammatory lyrics; specifically, rap lyrics, not the VT massacre.


"Teach your kids what's immoral, indecent and shouldn't be viewed ...
YOUR right; YOUR responsibility."

True and crucial. However, I don't know about you, but I refuse to discount the impact of unnecessary forms of flagrant evil being tempted about; they are not going to do ANYone (let alone society at large) any good. It's a little like, okay, where I live, what if there were no restrictions on drug availability, perhaps even if they were cheap AND easily available AND legal. I'd be against it; crack cocaine and other heavy stuff all around! Most of society has the common sense to demand reasonable control and some basic restrictions in that arena. It's not as if we as parents would be content to rely on the fairly good way we bring up our kids, and then say: "Oh, the government shouldn't decide for them; let the kids use their good judgment and resist the bad stuff the way we trained them to. Yeah, it's all around, sure, but that's the price to pay for freedom of choice and all that."
I submit that society would not be content with that line of reasoning. Nor should it.

"The government can NEVER be trusted to define morality, decency."

Hey:
We already trust them in various ways in areas of morality.
We have laws against hurting people.
We have laws against pestering people (stalking).
We have laws against hardcore drugs being peddled on the streets.
We have laws against public acts of immorality.
We have laws against child pornography.

"You chose the example you did [cartoon characters having child sex] because of its 'shock' value, legal ambiguity."
". . . you're just trying to use knee-jerk emotionalism to make people angry without them actually thinking ...."

Oh, my example should cause thinking. That's because:
it is legal limbo; it doesn't use real children for exploitation; most people view it as disgusting and taboo; yet, some will say let each person decide what they want to see (so, in other words, don't stop the production of that kind of crap).
Others (myself included) might say society is not served by anti-social activity that could tip an unbalanced individual over the edge and actually go out and do to a real child the perverse stuff he views on porno cartoons.
Did you ever read about the interviews two serial killers (Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer) gave before dying? They volunteered telling about how their watching twisted (violent pornography) movies was one of the main reasons they decided to take things to the level of acting out some of the gross stuff that they were viewing and sadistically enjoying similarly gruesome acts they then committed as to what was on film.

I know; you're apt to try to counteract these kinds of things. I don't care; they make a certain amount of sense that most people can understand.


"We can ONLY decide for ourselves."

Well, you know what; okay, I've decided this: America shouldn't have started laws against hate (hate crimes). Let every person decide for himself what is hate or not. So, if some weirdo wants to construct a cross and burn it on his lawn, let him. If some anti-gay guy wants to speak inflammatory words against homosexuals on the street, let him. If some envelope-pushing minister wants to walk into a gay bar and start reading out loud the passages from the Bible condemning homosexuality and then even tell the gays they might go to hell if they don't change, let him.
Let all of them do their thang, with impunity!
How about this train of thought:
We really shouldn't make a law against hate (hate crime), because that's censorship of free speech in a way. And once censorship begins, it won't stop until, my God, one day they'll take away all the Bibles and burn them because of some things in there that MIGHT antagonize homosexuals, for example.
Surely, somebody who might get infuriated from hate speech and do actually something violent back at the protagonist probably would have done something bad, anyway, in time, even without being set off. Anyhow, who knows for sure? That's all speculation!
So, no, don't even allow any hate crime to begin to become law at all.
(Wait, it already did!)
Well, then, by thunder, we need to all protest to our lawmakers and get every one of them thar laws repealed! Zounds! How did they dare do anything like that and compromise the first amendment??? Shame, for shame.

I rest my case.

In fact, let everything rest.

(exhaling)

Peace, brother. . .