4 ms·

> What's your point? The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Does

> What's your point? The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen. Hell, if you have a younger looking 12 year old and let them walk to school by themselves expect a busy body to call the cops on you.

grkvlt 10y ago
You spoiled your point with the hyperbole in the last sentence. The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. It certainly isn't normal behaviour to call law enforcement about this; a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  hy·per·bo·le: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. My example is not in any way exaggerated and it is meant to be taken literary. >The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. People have been convicted of crimes for leaving their 8 year olds "unsupervised" because of busy bodies with cell phones. Not charged, convicted! The reason its rare to hear about a case is because its a socially unacceptable for children to be left alone now. [1] Its a rare thing to do so its a rare thing to get in trouble for doing. >a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time. Absolutely! I sure did when I was a kid! I couldn't imagine being so suffocated by my parents that I wasn't allowed to be away from them to walk to the corner store by myself or ride my bike to the park. My dad sent me to the hardware store on my bike to buy propane, nobody batted an eye. Now if an unaccompanied 10 year old showed up trying to buy propane the parents would be arrested. This is madness, I agree, but the "protect the kids" mantra is terrible, but it is also the reality. [1] http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-explains-why-we-arrest-parents-for-putting-kids-in-nearly-non-existent-danger/ http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-expla...
omginternets 10y ago
And it's completely and utterly beside the point. We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much everyone agrees with age restrictions in theaters, nobody is protesting in the streets to remove them. Where the hell do you live?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity. Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence! This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen. Yes, it does, and the fact that you think that we don't let them see R-rated movies (which contain more sex but not more violence than PG-13 [0]) means that we don't let them see violence illustrates, rather than contradicts, that point. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13-movies-match-r-rating-for-violence-study-says/2013/11/10/4e6b3f8c-4893-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...
- gozur88 10y ago
  That study is designed to find what they wanted to find. There's a big difference between the "gun violence" you find in PG-13 movies and what you find in R movies. The A-Team is not Saving Private Ryan.

grkvlt 10y ago

You spoiled your point with the hyperbole in the last sentence. The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. It certainly isn't normal behaviour to call law enforcement about this; a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
hy·per·bo·le: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. My example is not in any way exaggerated and it is meant to be taken literary. >The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. People have been convicted of crimes for leaving their 8 year olds "unsupervised" because of busy bodies with cell phones. Not charged, convicted! The reason its rare to hear about a case is because its a socially unacceptable for children to be left alone now. [1] Its a rare thing to do so its a rare thing to get in trouble for doing. >a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time. Absolutely! I sure did when I was a kid! I couldn't imagine being so suffocated by my parents that I wasn't allowed to be away from them to walk to the corner store by myself or ride my bike to the park. My dad sent me to the hardware store on my bike to buy propane, nobody batted an eye. Now if an unaccompanied 10 year old showed up trying to buy propane the parents would be arrested. This is madness, I agree, but the "protect the kids" mantra is terrible, but it is also the reality. [1] http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-explains-why-we-arrest-parents-for-putting-kids-in-nearly-non-existent-danger/ http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-expla...

omginternets 10y ago

And it's completely and utterly beside the point. We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much everyone agrees with age restrictions in theaters, nobody is protesting in the streets to remove them. Where the hell do you live?
- omginternets 10y ago
  >we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity. Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence! This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen. Yes, it does, and the fact that you think that we don't let them see R-rated movies (which contain more sex but not more violence than PG-13 [0]) means that we don't let them see violence illustrates, rather than contradicts, that point. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13-movies-match-r-rating-for-violence-study-says/2013/11/10/4e6b3f8c-4893-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...

gozur88 10y ago
That study is designed to find what they wanted to find. There's a big difference between the "gun violence" you find in PG-13 movies and what you find in R movies. The A-Team is not Saving Private Ryan.