Poll: Do you feel television influences teen behavior?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Absolutely - it is way too loose and carefree
27.27%
3 27.27%
Sometimes but not in all cases
27.27%
3 27.27%
I have no opinion on this topic
9.09%
1 9.09%
I think we need more research
27.27%
3 27.27%
This study is bogus, dude!
9.09%
1 9.09%
Total 11 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

New study alleges teen pregnancy tied to television
#41
Michael Wrote:Since they don't conflict, what reconciliation is required? People in our society choose not to accept responsibility for their choices. They find other people to blame or accuse for whatever is wrong:



But you make others responsible for what is wrong in society, accepting no blame for yourself. That's the point. It's always someone else who is morallyl wrong. There is no personal responsibility in that kind of position: the responsibility is always shifted to others.

I make no one responsible for my actions. I take no responsibility for theirs.

You are shifting blame for teen pregnancy away from horny kids too dumb to wear a condom to the entertainment industry.

Maybe I have an old fashioned notion of responsibility, but when pregnancy is the issue, I tend to want to blame the people who had sex.


Michael Wrote:If that really solved the problem, we wouldn't have news stories about kids harming themselves by trying to duplicate or emulate Jackass stunts. It's not sufficient to demand that other people change their behavior. Personal responsibility only extends to our own behavior, and does not afford any opportunity to hold other people responsible for what hurts society.

We don't even agree on what hurts society.

Suspending the rights of habeus corpus and sneering at the Geneva convention hurts society a lot more than airing The Hills, IMHO, but we can't get a consensus on that.

Michael Wrote:The creators of Jackass COULD have chosen to create a show to inspire people to be useful and helpful, while still being entertaining.

Which would not have been the same show, the show that was their, for lack of a better word, vision.

Picaso could have scrapped Guernica and painted some cute kittens, but that's not his message.

Michael Wrote:They chose to create a show that in no way advances our society either morally or intellectually.

It's entertainment. It exists to amuse and kill time. How does The Hobbit advance society? A bunch of short guys, conned by a wizard, shanghai a peaceful layabout into helping them steal some treasure. And they all smoke like chimneys, as well as being ok with robbing and shanking those of different species with fairly loose justification.

Michael Wrote:If the creators of entertainment held themselves to a higher standard, directed their energies toward stimulating thought in directions that don't challenge the fabric of society (while avoiding the mindless repetition of prudent, sterile entertainment), they might inspire kids to be more responsible and well-balanced.

Sometimes the fabric of society needs challenging. And kids almost universally look to challenge norms.


Michael Wrote:At the very least, they would not be identified by studies on behavior as sources of influence that build bad judgement.

Studies, especially socialogical ones, are notoriously subject to reinterpretation. See Eugenics, White Man's Burden, Racial Preference Theory, Anything cited by Marx or Nietzche, or such examples of fairness as Homosexuality being classified as a mental disorder in the DSM not all that long ago.


Michael Wrote:One can only take responsibility by saying, "Whatever I do certainly influences others, and I cannot blame others for the influence that I have upon society."

Whatever I do, I take responsibility for. I don't blame my influences. I don't try to blame Joe Strummer of the Clash when I get fired for not conforming at work, since he said "no man born with a living soul can be working for the Clampdown"

If I act out, I accept punishment. I do not accept any blame for things other people do. If you read this and get angry and snap at your wife, am I supposed to accept blame?


Michael Wrote:There are no scapegoats in personal responsibility. There is no one else to blame or to hold to task for undesired social effects.

Exactly. It's not TV's fault, it's your fault when you screw up.

I don't see how I can agree so completely with your last sentence and disagree so vehemently with everything else you've said. I really think you are arguing against personal responsibility for individuals unless they are in the entertainment industry, in which case they must accept the consequences of everyone's sins.

I call Shennanigans.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#42
Placing the entire blame with the individual who makes the choices is just as wrong as placing the entire blame with TV or society or whatever.

Humans interact with society, they are influenced by society and in turn influence others within society. It's not a one way street and not even a two way street. It's a massive spaghetti junction and you never know from where the next truck is coming and which way it's going and what it's going to do to you.

Maybe there are people whose personaity is so strong that they can resist and reject influences. But most people are not in that category.
Reply
#43
Then, Shadowfax, corporately we should exercise care over the influences?

I would reply affirmatively.

How to so do?:book:
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#44
inked Wrote:Then, Shadowfax, corporately we should exercise care over the influences?

I would reply affirmatively.

How to so do?:book:

Inked, even the Lord's Prayer says "lead us not into temptation", it doesn't say "let us remember that we are responsible for our own choices and therefore we choose not to let temptation have influence over our decisions". So on the one hand we are responsible for resisting temptation when it come to us, but on the other we are also responsible for keeping temptation away from us and those we are responsible for. The Gospels are full of examples of people taking responsibility for others, such as friends of sick and lame people coming to Jesus to ask for help on their behalf. So arguments such as "I am only responsible for my only doings and not those of others" don't tally with Christian ideology. Of course we may not force people against their will, that is another matter, but that is no excuse for doing nothing at all.
Reply
#45
We are agreed, SF. If society is to be held responsible in some degree for bad outcomes, it would seem incumbent upon society to promote good outcomes. I have no problem with guidelines for limiting exposure to sexually provocative materials in public airwaves, but how are we to do so?

MoQM has his line of reasoning with which to disagree is to invoke the ogre of censorship on his part. I think he goes a ways towards the answer but not far enough. Having grown up in the time when guidelines were actually enforced, I don't think it too terrible that 14 year olds are turned away from R and X rated movies. They'll live without their precious little psyches being scarred for life that someone other than their parents said "no". And they might as well get used to it for when they go to the banks, eh?

I think promoting such guidelines is the best alternative, if enforced. But society is so unlikely to restrain the "defecated individuality" (lovely phrase from 1974 that I just read, by the way) that passes for self-expression and has been elevated into an intrusive and obscene intrusion into every day life by claims to "expression" that I doubt we will have the will to do so.

So really, what would you suggest?
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#46
shadowfax Wrote:"I am only responsible for my only doings and not those of others" don't tally with Christian ideology.


Lucky for me I'm not a Christian.

And doubly lucky that I have the Establishment Clause to protect me (for now).

inked Wrote:MoQM has his line of reasoning with which to disagree is to invoke the ogre of censorship on his part.

I still wait with bated breath fro anyone to explain how we restrict entertainment to that which "elevates society" and doesn't "challenge the fabric of society" in a way that is not censorship.

I have watched with deep concern as a lot of civil liberties have been rolled back. I am unwilling to sign off on more.

inked Wrote:I think he goes a ways towards the answer but not far enough. Having grown up in the time when guidelines were actually enforced, I don't think it too terrible that 14 year olds are turned away from R and X rated movies. They'll live without their precious little psyches being scarred for life that someone other than their parents said "no".

I think the issue is that their parents don't say "no," but expect the government to keep their kids safe for them.



inked Wrote:I think promoting such guidelines is the best alternative, if enforced. But society is so unlikely to restrain the "defecated individuality" (lovely phrase from 1974 that I just read, by the way) that passes for self-expression and has been elevated into an intrusive and obscene intrusion into every day life by claims to "expression" that I doubt we will have the will to do so.

So really, what would you suggest?

So we have the old anti Gun Control argument: Just enforce the existing laws.


I really don't want some Nanny State, whose values are based on a faith I do not share, making these calls for me.

I'm not being naive and dismissing the problems we have. I work as a Paramedic in an impoverished city. I see a lot of kids gone astray, and many struggling parents. I believe in working for the betterment of society, and serving the nation. I enlisted in the Marines and went to boot camp the day after high school graduation. I hope to pass the values of public service, of of decency to his fellow humans to my son.

I just think that too harsh a restricting of free expression, sneer at the term as you may, to be too steep a price.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#47
Free expression is fine for those who are able to handle it responsibly. I have no problem with adults watching porn or extreme violence or hanging around lapjoints or visiting prostitutes. And I do hate to say this as I strongly disapprove of drugs, but at the end of the day I have to concede that there may well be a fair argument that a free person who is fully aware of what he is doing may even have the right to damage or even kill himself with drugs.

However, the law implies that minors are not to be held fully accountable for their actions. This is why they often get away with lighter punishments when they perform criminal actions. Likewise, persons who are severely mentally challenged can sometimes use this to good defence in court and so get away with reduced punishment. This is why such people often have another person assigned to look after them and take decisons on their behalf. Children are similar. Going to school is not an option for example. Kids go to the school that their parents want them to go to and they have to accept it whether they like it or not. For the same reason children don't vote.

So if a big lump of rock breaks off a mountain side and kills somebody who is passing by on a road that passes beneath. Can you take that lump of rock to court and have it sentenced and executed? No, that is ridiculous. The incident would be treated as an accident and the only consequence might be that engineers are sent to inspect the rockface to remove or secure any further dangerous bits. This is not a punishment for the moungtain but just a security measure.

Now if a stray dog kills somebody, the dog would doubtlessly be killed. But not as a punishment for what it has done but to protect others from the risk of a repeat occurrence. In this respect the dog isn't legally too different from the lump of rock because it is not considered to be responsible for what it has done.

However, if that dog has an owner, the owner can be held responsible. The owner is to blame for allowing the dog to roam loose although the dog is dangerous. But on the other hand the owner cannot supervise the dog all the time, so the punishment for the owner would obviously be less than if he had killed the person himself.

Now if a person who is totally and utterly mad and brain damaged kills somebody, what would happen? In contrast to my first and second example, the person, being a human, would be tried by court, but the person would probably be put into a high security mental institution. Again, this isn't a punishment for the person, who is not being held responsible, but to protect others from a recurrence.

So the real question here is, at what point do people start bearing full responsibility, and is there a sudden transition from no repsonsibility to full responsibility, or is there a grey area in between where there is some sort of reduced resposnibility.

I think children are in this grey cross-over area. They are not always aware of what they are doing, but to completely relieve them of responsibility is also wrong.
Reply
#48
Hey, it's done with seat belts and child-restraints and drivers' licensing and alcoholic beverages and contracts and so on and so forth, MoQM. Are you claiming that it's censorship there?

Frankly, on your line of reasoning, I don't see how you could oppose any restriction on anyone at any age by any other, including their biological progenitors.

You need to account for the way a member of society is responsible for other members of society and how that model might work for under-aged persons. Restrictions until a reasonable adulthood are hardly censorship.
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#49
inked Wrote:Hey, it's done with seat belts and child-restraints and drivers' licensing and alcoholic beverages and contracts and so on and so forth, MoQM. Are you claiming that it's censorship there?

I am already on record as supporting restrictions, or at least warnings for children, and for holding parents responsible. If a film is R rated, I can take my underaged child to see it, but then it fall on me. He can't (in theory) buy a ticket and go by himself. That's not censorship, since the movie can be made and shown as the director intended.

This is what I have repeatedly supported in this thread; guidelines for parents to monitor their children's exposure to media, but not my children's exposure to media, or my exposure. Those last categories are my call, and I accept any and all consequences of those decisions I make.

inked Wrote:Frankly, on your line of reasoning, I don't see how you could oppose any restriction on anyone at any age by any other, including their biological progenitors.

Ok, I read it three times and still, I have absolutely no clue what you are saying here. Are you implying that I support all restrictions on everybody? Because I think I said something very, very very different.


inked Wrote:You need to account for the way a member of society is responsible for other members of society and how that model might work for under-aged persons. Restrictions until a reasonable adulthood are hardly censorship.

And I support those.

I quote, from earlier in the thread.:

Mike of Quantum Muse Wrote:I support the rating system, the v-chip, warning labels, and other aids to parents. I do not support censorship.

What Michael is discussing is not airing Jackass late at night with a parental warning, but some kind of societal feeling of responsibility for the creators to make a show that "elevates society" in place of it.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#50
It is the culture that's why?
Don't insult the precious, my precious!:book:
Reply
#51
USA TODAY on culture and kids:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/new...st.art.htm

Parental controls, v-chips, ....
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#52
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#53
Here's an interesting series of remarks on self-control from a scientific study perspective with 80 years of data:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/scienc...ml?_r=1&em

A purely materialistic evaluation of spiritual phenomena?

What really amuses me -as a religious person- is the suggestion that technological means can substitute while the data tell the serious from the merely socially "religious".

A good paradox in the AM from a materialistic explanation of "spiritual" phenomena! :balloons: :muahaha:
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Evolution of My Television Viewing Options Michael 1 383 October 13th, 2021, 06:15 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  New Covid-19 study: Children more likely to spread virus than adults Michael 2 472 September 11th, 2020, 08:29 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Were Disney television cartoons and the Gobots cartoons cursed? badlands 1 799 April 9th, 2013, 05:42 PM
Last Post: august
  University of Saskatchewan geoscientist to study oilsands Michael 0 778 February 13th, 2012, 12:44 AM
Last Post: Michael
  German study concludes household robots may be deadly Michael 6 976 May 23rd, 2010, 06:33 AM
Last Post: Alvin Eriol
  Winners at Country Music Television awards missferal 0 1,044 June 18th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Last Post: missferal
  Texting teen sent 14,528 text messages in a month RobRoy 7 885 January 15th, 2009, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Dixieberry
  Dementia will become epidemic, study warns RobRoy 10 1,232 January 14th, 2009, 07:07 PM
Last Post: august
  Teen Sex-ting RobRoy 0 677 December 12th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Nicole Kidman credits Australian waters for pregnancy Michael 0 919 September 25th, 2008, 09:12 PM
Last Post: Michael

Forum Jump: