[Robbert L]

hy,

Well I wanted to try a more informal topic, hopefully this one draws more attention, well the poll it selve is clear enough I hope, well if you have voted, and you would like to reply why you made that choice you would do me a great favour!

After everyone voted I'll make a conclusion and make my own vote (Steve )

[dart_hearna]

I think that violence should not be taken off tv because people have the option whether to watch it or not. If they decide that they do not want to watch the violence then they can turn over the channel or turn off the tv. They are not forced to watch it. Also i think that the violence on tv is good in way because it means that people can learn and understand why it happens and to what extents it can go , not to learn how to do it.

Therefore i'd say that people should just turn the channel over because they are not forced to watch it, they make their own choices!!

[dart_wattsk]

People are not forced to watch crime on tv's that is why there is like 5 channels to choose from in Englandplus sky now, there is such a variety of channels, if producers were to film something other than crime what would it be a bout? Little girls making daisy chains every day!
This is not reality, some of us are lucky that we dont have to see crime in reality but I feel we should at least watch some, so we can understand just how some people live. Im not sure about anyone else, but after I have watched a programme with crime in, I take a moment to think, it makes me feel better about my life!

[Devin T]

The problem with violence on TV and the argument of "just turn off the TV" is that people lack the maturity to do that. Many parents use the television as a third parent for their children. The children do not know to turn off the TV when violent acts occur.
If we are to allow violence (and other "bad" stuff on TV), we must accept the blame for creating a culture of children where violence is the norm.

[Robbert L]

hey all,

Quote

Also i think that the violence on tv is good in way because it means that people can learn and understand why it happens and to what extents it can go , not to learn how to do it.

Well this point itself isn't so bad, but if you let children watch a lot of violance they begin to think it is something normal, and when they get older and get in that kinda situation they think back on how it was on tv and act like they saw it, so if anyone was begin attacked with a knife, they try to steal it from the attacker by a karate-kick they saw Jacky Chan doing it.

Devin:

Quote

The problem with violence on TV and the argument of "just turn off the TV" is that people lack the maturity to do that. Many parents use the television as a third parent for their children. The children do not know to turn off the TV when violent acts occur.
If we are to allow violence (and other "bad" stuff on TV), we must accept the blame for creating a culture of children where violence is the norm.

Hey don't know if in Canada in the Tv-guide some symbols occur, but in the dutch one we have parental advisory symbols, which warn the parents what their child is watching, so I think that a parent should know what his/her kid is watching and judging if that program is suitable for his/her kid

[Devin T]

Quote

Hey don't know if in Canada in the Tv-guide some symbols occur, but in the dutch one we have parental advisory symbols, which warn the parents what their child is watching, so I think that a parent should know what his/her kid is watching and judging if that program is suitable for his/her kid

Of course lots of parents are responsible, but I am arguing on behalf of the neglectful parents who raise the deviants in our society. It is disappointing that we must restrict the entertainment for the "good" people, but it is not preventable.

Every law deals not with the morally correct people, but with the minority group who cannot act in a way conducive to the operation of our society.
We wouldn't need jails if people didn't kill, drug centers if people didn't do drugs, etc. Our society must allow a small sacrifice to prevent much larger disasters.

[Lia K]

There's a reason why on the power rangers and such shows say "do not attempt any of these stunts at home, we're professionals". Something along those lines. The only problem, is who actually reads those?

It starts with a violent tv show, moves on to dolls based upon that tv show, with which kids reinact the violence, then moves onto Halloween costumes where the kids and their friends can become the violent characters on tv.

Robbert said:

Hey don't know if in Canada in the Tv-guide some symbols occur, but in the dutch one we have parental advisory symbols, which warn the parents what their child is watching, so I think that a parent should know what his/her kid is watching and judging if that program is suitable for his/her kid

My parents nor I ever look at the tv guide. I don't even think we have one. I think that's also the case with a lot of people, so no one will know the rating of a tv show. Don't they off have ratings on public television stations, right before they begin and throughout in the corners of the screen?

My point to the above, is that many people don't look at the tv guides. So, they just plop their child down in front of the tv set walk off, and the child may end up watching what was thought to be wholesome, but really turns out to be violent.

This post has been edited by Lia K: 22 May 2004 - 05:40 PM

[Robbert L]

Lia:

Quote

My parents nor I ever look at the tv guide. I don't even think we have one. I think that's also the case with a lot of people, so no one will know the rating of a tv show. Don't they off have ratings on public television stations, right before they begin and throughout in the corners of the screen?

That's true but those figures are gone within a blink of an eye so they aren't very helpfull, the same is about those warnings "don't try this at home". These warnings are just for the insurance, because now the program makers aren't responsible because they warnt viewers (children)

Devin:

Quote

Every law deals not with the morally correct people, but with the minority group who cannot act in a way conducive to the operation of our society.
We wouldn't need jails if people didn't kill, drug centers if people didn't do drugs, etc. Our society must allow a small sacrifice to prevent much larger disasters.

Well Dvin what do you mean by small sacrifice, if some people use their car to run over pedestrians, why not abolish cars because a smal minority uses them for wrong and disatrous means!!

Maybe another though, you all know that when nudity comes on tv in the US censor blocks occur, why don't use them for violance also. Or as I mentioned before, but nobody used it, a special chip in your tv-set which filters the violance out, it turns your tv off when violance is on.??

[Devin T]

Quote

Well Dvin what do you mean by small sacrifice, if some people use their car to run over pedestrians, why not abolish cars because a smal minority uses them for wrong and disatrous means!!

We do have laws (ie. 10 year-olds can't drive, people can't walk in middle of road, etc)
What we must try to do is achieve balance. And that's what I am trying to prove, that the situation with violence on TV is imbalanced.

Quote

Maybe another though, you all know that when nudity comes on tv in the US censor blocks occur, why don't use them for violance also.

And that's basically what I'm arguing.

[Charlotte N]

Quote

Don't they off have ratings on public television stations, right before they begin and throughout in the corners of the screen?

They don't work. Simple as that. Even for parents who don't want their kids watching movies rated over their age kids watch them at their friends houses exc.

Lets take an example, not of violence but of a movie most of us have seen, American Pie. I know that most people my age (15) have seen this movie, and I'm pretty sure that most haven't seen it with their parents Heres what it's rated;

Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

Exactly. It's even worse for violence and children. People just don't listen to lables. When I went to see Troy, which warns of gory violence, there were people taking their 7 year old kids.

[Robbert L]

hey Charlotte,

Well you're right about :

Quote

Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations)

Because in the Netherlands it was restricted for under 12 years!!.
But still I think that parents themselves are responisble for their children, if they are parents which can restore (devin's) balance then they are good ones. These parents would take their children to a movie, but afterwards they have to make their children understand that the movie is not similar to reality!! Because if you don't (little) children think that the movie is a bit like reality, older ones less then younger ones, but still a child is easily to influence!

But I don't know for the rest of the world, but in the Netherlands we have only 4 catagories for ages:

* all ages
* parental supervision advise for children under 6
* ,, 12
* ,, 16
But not for under 17/18/21 as in some countries

Devin:
Well I wasn't talking about children driving a car, but adults could also react very weird in a weird situation, and of course youngsters 17-21 who saw a movie like 2 fast, 2 furious, and have a pretty fast car, would try to act like "those great dudes in the movie". You agree with that?

[Devin T]

Quote

Devin:
Well I wasn't talking about children driving a car, but adults could also react very weird in a weird situation, and of course youngsters 17-21 who saw a movie like 2 fast, 2 furious, and have a pretty fast car, would try to act like "those great dudes in the movie". You agree with that?

Yes.

Cars are necessary to many people and that is why they are allowed. I do not see why watching violence on TV is necessary.

[Robbert L]

hey Devin:

Well you're right about your last post, but still I think that you can draw a line between what's necessary or not. You have to draw a line between what is wrong for your children's education and what's not.

[Devin T]

Right.

However, it seems hypocritical of a society to, one, try to stop violence, and, two, allow violence to be shown in the media. (further: to make violence fun)

[Robbert L]

hey Devin:

Quote

However, it seems hypocritical of a society to, one, try to stop violence, and, two, allow violence to be shown in the media. (further: to make violence fun)

Well a society is formed by more groups then one, so I don't think that if the government legislate violance on tv that the whole society, the ones agianst violance, support this decision.