Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
Yes, that is the 'very old debate' I was referencing...
Based on your reply, I'm not certain you ultimately understood what I was stating. I clearly stated it wasn't a film for me. I've never advocated banning films. I believe in the free market place of ideas. I never stated a film was the cause for violence. It should go without saying humans have that covered without art.
I stated it reminded me of one particular case were a film's torture was mimicked, which isn't the only recorded case of film torture mimicry. But the point is: voluminous and extensive studies have been completed on the relationship between violent imagery and violent behavior, since it was requested by the US Surgeon General in 2000. The findings were there's a significant correlation between violent image exposure and the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior -- immediacy, frequency, intensity and character of violence -- also surveyed participation in bullying and violence related attitudes.
If one thinks stating these findings is the same as advocating banning material, they would be incorrect and erroneously projecting. On the contrary, the findings are useful in deciding one's own consumption of material (and/or their own children). Personally, I didn't need to see the conclusions of the voluminous studies to know what one occupies their mind with has an effect on one’s thoughts, values and ultimately, to some degree, their behavior. Stories inspire; it’s not a new conclusion. Its obvious the effects are variable and individual. What I stated is it has an effect, that BSF (film) is not for me, and one’s time is limited. I don't see how that's debateable, but anyone can knock themselves out. I'm not demanding anyone do or not do anything. People hear others, but make their own choices.
|
I read Charles Dickens once, then wanted to go behead people.
It's too bad people still have the Tipper Gore mentality. I'm actually a little offended, but not really because I know it's asinine.
These "voluminous" studies are likely nonexistant or flawed. I have two engineering degrees from acclaimed universities, and in grad school we spent a great deal of time, with some of the top engineering professors in the country, debunking "studies" for failing to be technically sound. The ones that are truly attempting to be legitimate can be flawed due to an improperly-applied equation, or a flaw in a mathematical derivation. Other, less legitimate studies, are not really scientific at all, they just mask "data" in an attempt to prove a finding for a particular interest group.
Unless the research was published by an accredited journal of engineering or science, it hasn't undergone the scrutiny required to be considered actual science. And just because the news reports something scientific doesn't mean it's science. They just need it to be science-y so it supports their story. It really is one of the great ironies -- how many decisions are made every day based on "scientific studies" that don't actually conclude anything. I used to work as an engineer for a large company, representing the company at government hearings that influenced legislation. You wouldn't believe (well, I couldn't) how much non-science is quoted as science, from corporations, activist groups, and the government themselves. It's actually kinda sad.
However, if you're going to cite the voluminous studies, it might be worthwhile to actually care about the conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these studies that correlate violent actions to violent media actually "conclude" that the violent kids were already screwed up during their upbringing due to abuse, neglect or some traumatic experience,
before being exposed to the violent media. It's the whole Judas Priest song suicide case from the late 80s. Really? We really think those kids killed themselves because they listened to a Judas Priest song? Kinda idiotic isn't it?
I watch some of the most screwed up stuff imaginable and I've never even been in a fist fight my whole live, and I doubt I ever will. I have no pent up need to harm anybody. I watch the stuff because it's emotionally stimulating, and nothing more.
Granted, I certainly won't be exposing my children to most of the nasty stuff I watch, but that's not because I'm concerned they'll want to mimic the actions in the film. I just don't want them to be traumatized for no reason at an early age. That's just common sense, not due to any so-called "findings."