4 ms·

moe, I don't see you arguing against ars's thesis in any way except insinuating about the motives that led to his/her words. I have just downvoted you and upvot

moe, I don't see you arguing against ars's thesis in any way except insinuating about the motives that led to his/her words. I have just downvoted you and upvoted him/her specifically to discourage this style of argument.

ggruschow 17y ago
I think this is the proper argument: ars is saying society's view makes sense "Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public." The public/private split, if it were true, would be due to said society's views. That's circular reasoning. Also, the split isn't valid. It'd be great if privacy wholly prevented violence. That's not much fun though... I prefer funny: Taking life? OK! Making life? Oh No!
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Waking Life? Interesting idea, Ok movie.
moe 17y ago
Well, I'm sorry, I somehow figured the problems with his "thesis" were obvious. The votes (his thesis is at +5 currently) scare me a bit because at least those 4 people either agree with or voted without understanding his nonsensical assertions. So, let's go through his points one by one. Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public. So one is OK to show (public), and the other is not (it's private). Our every day life is equally driven by sexual and violent influences on many levels. Declaring one to be public and the other to be private just makes no sense. And if you insisted on making this nonsensical distinction then you'd much rather come to the opposite conclusion: sex is more public than violence, at least here in the western world. Just compare how often you are exposed to visible violence versus how often you are exposed to sexual stimulation (consider how many half-naked girls are presented to you on billboards when you walk down a street). Because all kids experience violence, perhaps not at the same level as a tv show, but they experience it. Sex on the other hand is not that way. All kids expirience both, sex and violence. Those two are closely related and easily the two biggest psychological drivers that keep us human beings going. This paragraph is exemplary for why I originally refrained from replying indepth. How do you even counter such a statement? It's not just wrong on the factual level, it's also a very strange way to look at these things. How does real-life violence justify showing it on TV (apart from the news)? How does the claimed lack of real-life sexual influences justify "banning" it from TV? It's just meaningless to argue at this level - either way. And related to above kids may not experience, but they do see "stronger" levels of violence in the world - because it's public. Again, not so with sex. Same thing here. I still hope that he was playing devil's advocate and not seriously trying to imply that the display of graphic violence is somehow better or more acceptable than the graphic display of sex.
- mynameishere 17y ago
  I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent. There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own. By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
  - moe 17y ago
    I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent. The kind of violence that you see on TV is no more innate in children than the kind of sexuality that you see there. There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own. Invalid assertion. The abstract concepts of violence that are innate in us primates at early age have absolutely nothing to do with the message ("violence is okay and an accepted social tool") that you commonly get exposed to on mass media. By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be. So you're okay with exposing your 8-year old to violent media but not okay with exposing him to sexually explicit media? Let's look at this using your own observations: Violence is innate in children, sexuality is mostly absent. This means the child will mostly ignore the sexual content (it can't relate, is simpy not interested) but will process the violence in one way or another (because even a child has concepts of "power", "superiority", "fear" etc.). Maybe think again, maybe even pick up a book on the subject.

ggruschow 17y ago

I think this is the proper argument: ars is saying society's view makes sense "Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public." The public/private split, if it were true, would be due to said society's views. That's circular reasoning. Also, the split isn't valid. It'd be great if privacy wholly prevented violence. That's not much fun though... I prefer funny: Taking life? OK! Making life? Oh No!

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 17y ago
Waking Life? Interesting idea, Ok movie.

moe 17y ago

Well, I'm sorry, I somehow figured the problems with his "thesis" were obvious. The votes (his thesis is at +5 currently) scare me a bit because at least those 4 people either agree with or voted without understanding his nonsensical assertions. So, let's go through his points one by one. Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public. So one is OK to show (public), and the other is not (it's private). Our every day life is equally driven by sexual and violent influences on many levels. Declaring one to be public and the other to be private just makes no sense. And if you insisted on making this nonsensical distinction then you'd much rather come to the opposite conclusion: sex is more public than violence, at least here in the western world. Just compare how often you are exposed to visible violence versus how often you are exposed to sexual stimulation (consider how many half-naked girls are presented to you on billboards when you walk down a street). Because all kids experience violence, perhaps not at the same level as a tv show, but they experience it. Sex on the other hand is not that way. All kids expirience both, sex and violence. Those two are closely related and easily the two biggest psychological drivers that keep us human beings going. This paragraph is exemplary for why I originally refrained from replying indepth. How do you even counter such a statement? It's not just wrong on the factual level, it's also a very strange way to look at these things. How does real-life violence justify showing it on TV (apart from the news)? How does the claimed lack of real-life sexual influences justify "banning" it from TV? It's just meaningless to argue at this level - either way. And related to above kids may not experience, but they do see "stronger" levels of violence in the world - because it's public. Again, not so with sex. Same thing here. I still hope that he was playing devil's advocate and not seriously trying to imply that the display of graphic violence is somehow better or more acceptable than the graphic display of sex.

mynameishere 17y ago
I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent. There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own. By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
- moe 17y ago
  I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent. The kind of violence that you see on TV is no more innate in children than the kind of sexuality that you see there. There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own. Invalid assertion. The abstract concepts of violence that are innate in us primates at early age have absolutely nothing to do with the message ("violence is okay and an accepted social tool") that you commonly get exposed to on mass media. By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be. So you're okay with exposing your 8-year old to violent media but not okay with exposing him to sexually explicit media? Let's look at this using your own observations: Violence is innate in children, sexuality is mostly absent. This means the child will mostly ignore the sexual content (it can't relate, is simpy not interested) but will process the violence in one way or another (because even a child has concepts of "power", "superiority", "fear" etc.). Maybe think again, maybe even pick up a book on the subject.