3 ms·

Your comparison examples prove the points your arguing against. Both your examples are about fantastical violence and/or animal predator/prey violence - things

Your comparison examples prove the points your arguing against. Both your examples are about fantastical violence and/or animal predator/prey violence - things that have little or no connection to a kid's real life growing up. It's not hard to dissociate real life from a casino torture chamber and a skinned head. What influence could this have on a child - make him make his own casino torture chamber? Grandparent complained about normalization of heavy drinking, tattooing, casual sex, deviant sex, dangerous sex, and related forms of degenerate behavior. These are things that kids must deal with growing up, and which they will be tempted to participate in, to their own detriment. It's totally different and much more insidious than cartoon or animal predator/prey violence.

cthalupa 8y ago
There's suggestions of casual sex and outright sexual behavior in Nightmare Before Christmas, and misogyny/rape in Watership Down. Nightmare Before Christmas includes some suggestions of using alcohol or other drugs on some of the villains. What evidence is there that normalizing violence is less problematic to a child? >heavy drinking, Sure, that's not a great thing to normalize. >tattooing, What's wrong with tattoos? >casual sex, Again, something suggested in other PG movies from farther back. If your kids can handle it, they can watch it. If not, don't let them. That's what PG has always meant. It's not graphic, it doesn't show any of the foreplay, therefor it fits with the standard of PG that has existed forever. >deviant sex, Wait, what? Two men having sex is now deviant sex? Uh, yeah, not gonna agree there. >dangerous sex, Again, because it's two men? Where are you going with this? >and related forms of degenerate behavior. The only degenerate behavior on this list is the heavy drinking, and even that is being fairly generous to you - plenty of people have nights where they drink heavily and aren't degenerate and don't let it impact their life. >It's totally different and much more insidious than cartoon or animal predator/prey violence. You're making pretty huge statements here without any evidence to back it up. I don't know how much of an impact that the sort of scene in Alvin and the Chipmunk's would have on a child - I would guess probably not much, as much of the implications discussed are likely to fly right over their head - but we do know that violence, even cartoon violence, has an affect on children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/... PG movies have had this sort of content for decades. PG has never meant 'You can just show any of your young kids this.' - that is what the G rating is for. PG has always meant that there are things that you might find questionable for your child and that your parental discretion should be exercised. It's not insidious.
- jl6 8y ago
  Just on the tattoos point... tattoos are like starting smoking. Not morally wrong, but they have permanent consequences that children are ill-equipped to judge. (To be honest, I’d go further and claim that a lot of adults don’t grasp the consequences of tattoos either).
  - cthalupa 8y ago
    Sure - kids shouldn't get tattoos. But kids also shouldn't drive, and no one is calling for movies with people driving to receive a rating higher than PG ;) I'm being facetious here, but only a little - the point shouldn't be to eliminate any behavior we don't want kids to emulate from the media they consume. It's simply not possible.

cthalupa 8y ago

There's suggestions of casual sex and outright sexual behavior in Nightmare Before Christmas, and misogyny/rape in Watership Down. Nightmare Before Christmas includes some suggestions of using alcohol or other drugs on some of the villains. What evidence is there that normalizing violence is less problematic to a child? >heavy drinking, Sure, that's not a great thing to normalize. >tattooing, What's wrong with tattoos? >casual sex, Again, something suggested in other PG movies from farther back. If your kids can handle it, they can watch it. If not, don't let them. That's what PG has always meant. It's not graphic, it doesn't show any of the foreplay, therefor it fits with the standard of PG that has existed forever. >deviant sex, Wait, what? Two men having sex is now deviant sex? Uh, yeah, not gonna agree there. >dangerous sex, Again, because it's two men? Where are you going with this? >and related forms of degenerate behavior. The only degenerate behavior on this list is the heavy drinking, and even that is being fairly generous to you - plenty of people have nights where they drink heavily and aren't degenerate and don't let it impact their life. >It's totally different and much more insidious than cartoon or animal predator/prey violence. You're making pretty huge statements here without any evidence to back it up. I don't know how much of an impact that the sort of scene in Alvin and the Chipmunk's would have on a child - I would guess probably not much, as much of the implications discussed are likely to fly right over their head - but we do know that violence, even cartoon violence, has an affect on children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/... PG movies have had this sort of content for decades. PG has never meant 'You can just show any of your young kids this.' - that is what the G rating is for. PG has always meant that there are things that you might find questionable for your child and that your parental discretion should be exercised. It's not insidious.

jl6 8y ago
Just on the tattoos point... tattoos are like starting smoking. Not morally wrong, but they have permanent consequences that children are ill-equipped to judge. (To be honest, I’d go further and claim that a lot of adults don’t grasp the consequences of tattoos either).
- cthalupa 8y ago
  Sure - kids shouldn't get tattoos. But kids also shouldn't drive, and no one is calling for movies with people driving to receive a rating higher than PG ;) I'm being facetious here, but only a little - the point shouldn't be to eliminate any behavior we don't want kids to emulate from the media they consume. It's simply not possible.