4 ms·

> but it is almost always of the fictional variety. And does that distinction make it ok?

cobrausn 15y ago
Why is it that every time this 'violence vs. sex' shtick is brought out, the people who are upset about violence often react to it in the same way the people they are criticizing act about sex (i.e., ban this sick filth!) ? Death is just as natural as sex. Arguably more so - everything dies, and nature seems to have no aversions to violent death. Why would fictional death bother you?
- gurkendoktor 15y ago
  Naturalistic fallacy. I have no hard statistics to back up either side, though.
  - javert 15y ago
    Pointing out that something occurs in nature does not mean that a naturalistic fallacy has taken place.
    - gurkendoktor 15y ago
      No - but pointing out that something happens in nature, and _for_that_reason_ shouldn't be bothering people. Nature being full of violent deaths does not have anything to do with whether fictional deaths on TV are good or bad, yet this was (IMHO) implied.
- vacri 15y ago
  Because having sex with people is normal and commonplace, but murdering people isn't.
  - cobrausn 15y ago
    Currently, yes. For more of human history than not, both were common.
    - jarofgreen 15y ago
      In some human societies, violent assault and murder are common. In others, they are not because we have they agreed to work to stop them. I know where I would rather live. Also, there is a difference between acknowledging that unpleasant things happen sometimes, and making it look standard, routine or even glorifying it, and arguably many TV and Movie productions cross that line. (& Don't assume I want it banned - I never said that.)
      - cobrausn 15y ago
        Yet despite the rapid rate at which media is getting more and more violent, violent crime rates continue to decline. Of course, correlation != causation and all that, but it is certainly appearing that exposure to violence in media, glorified or otherwise, isn't really a big deal. No credible study has ever really been done that links violent media with violent behavior. I'd rather live in a free society that deals with fake violence in media but does not tolerate it in real life than one that does the opposite, of course, but I never see the point of this 'sex vs. violence in media' thing, because they really aren't equivalent and allowing one but not the other really isn't 'hypocrisy', it's just a difference in cultural norms.
    - vacri 15y ago
      Murdering people was never common, certainly nowhere near as common as having sex. Don't forget that the histories you look at highlight the murders and wars just like modern-day journalism does - because it's "interesting and different". For example, the vikings are burned into our collective memory as vicious raiders - but they were traders that got on well with their neighbours. Murder has always been something out of the ordinary, right back to the bloke who jotted down "Thou shalt not kill"
  - noarchy 15y ago
jasonlotito 15y ago
No, the distinction does not make it okay. Other things make it okay.

Why is it that every time this 'violence vs. sex' shtick is brought out, the people who are upset about violence often react to it in the same way the people they are criticizing act about sex (i.e., ban this sick filth!) ? Death is just as natural as sex. Arguably more so - everything dies, and nature seems to have no aversions to violent death. Why would fictional death bother you?

gurkendoktor 15y ago
Naturalistic fallacy. I have no hard statistics to back up either side, though.
- javert 15y ago
  Pointing out that something occurs in nature does not mean that a naturalistic fallacy has taken place.
  - gurkendoktor 15y ago
    No - but pointing out that something happens in nature, and _for_that_reason_ shouldn't be bothering people. Nature being full of violent deaths does not have anything to do with whether fictional deaths on TV are good or bad, yet this was (IMHO) implied.
vacri 15y ago
Because having sex with people is normal and commonplace, but murdering people isn't.
- cobrausn 15y ago
  Currently, yes. For more of human history than not, both were common.
  - jarofgreen 15y ago
    In some human societies, violent assault and murder are common. In others, they are not because we have they agreed to work to stop them. I know where I would rather live. Also, there is a difference between acknowledging that unpleasant things happen sometimes, and making it look standard, routine or even glorifying it, and arguably many TV and Movie productions cross that line. (& Don't assume I want it banned - I never said that.)
    - cobrausn 15y ago
      Yet despite the rapid rate at which media is getting more and more violent, violent crime rates continue to decline. Of course, correlation != causation and all that, but it is certainly appearing that exposure to violence in media, glorified or otherwise, isn't really a big deal. No credible study has ever really been done that links violent media with violent behavior. I'd rather live in a free society that deals with fake violence in media but does not tolerate it in real life than one that does the opposite, of course, but I never see the point of this 'sex vs. violence in media' thing, because they really aren't equivalent and allowing one but not the other really isn't 'hypocrisy', it's just a difference in cultural norms.
  - vacri 15y ago
    Murdering people was never common, certainly nowhere near as common as having sex. Don't forget that the histories you look at highlight the murders and wars just like modern-day journalism does - because it's "interesting and different". For example, the vikings are burned into our collective memory as vicious raiders - but they were traders that got on well with their neighbours. Murder has always been something out of the ordinary, right back to the bloke who jotted down "Thou shalt not kill"
- noarchy 15y ago

jasonlotito 15y ago

No, the distinction does not make it okay. Other things make it okay.