08-16-2012, 08:30 PM | #91 |
Philosopher
Posts: 2,034
Karma: 18736532
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch
|
No, that's not been the gist of the thread. The gist of it is that if your going to claim that certain things have certain effects, there needs to be evidence for that claim. There's plenty of evidence for the effect advertising has, but that doesn't mean that other effects must be real.
|
08-16-2012, 08:42 PM | #92 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
Do not confuse the advertising of a harmless product with the depiction of dangerous and immoral behavior. Last edited by Steven Lyle Jordan; 08-17-2012 at 11:01 AM. |
|
Advert | |
|
08-16-2012, 08:56 PM | #93 | ||
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
Quote:
Quote:
Erotica and horror, by the very way they are presented, are often more in nature of cartoons - to a large extent they are very obviously not real, and the behaviour often shown as specifically anomalous. What message may be taken from such media is not necessarily obvious. It may be that worse messages come from more general media, where the "right" way to act and present yourself is shown (often) without deliberate forethought; it's just "the way it is". Such influences are often subliminal and may be quite effective. |
||
08-16-2012, 09:32 PM | #94 | |
Evangelist
Posts: 408
Karma: 1786912
Join Date: Nov 2010
Device: Kindle Voyage
|
Quote:
Today is it is very difficult for two people today to come to a mutually acceptable definition of "negative effect." For instance, a person who thinks of long-term exposure to pornography or erotica as extremely damaging may consider certain mindsets to be negative, whereas a person who regularly views/reads erotica or pornography may not consider those mindsets to be so negative. In this case, it would not be possible for people to agree on the question as to whether or not pornography has a negative effect on those who regularly consume it. The question centers, after all, on whether people who frequently consume erotic/pornographic content continue to think of sex the same way as people who don't. I believe they do not continue to think the same way--what they consume affects them, and that after viewing pornography on a regular basis, they think about sex differently than before. If I'm right, then those people would likely reject my claims--they don't think that their thoughts on sex have changed or been affected in any negative way. They're just fine with the effects. Last edited by djulian; 08-16-2012 at 09:35 PM. |
|
08-17-2012, 01:01 AM | #95 | |
cacoethes scribendi
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
Quote:
|
|
Advert | |
|
08-17-2012, 11:39 AM | #96 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
It sounds as if many people in this thread are suggesting that most people cannot overcome negative or violent messages, or for that matter any messages, nor can they separate them from real life. I say this is not the case, and further, that most of those who embrace negative and violent messages, or incorporate them into real life, do so consciously and voluntarily; they are perfectly capable of avoiding that behavior, but they choose not to. These people are proof of the fact that it is irrelevant to censor media at their level; such people will do bad things regardless of the media, the most media may do is offer them new ideas and encouragement for bad behavior they already intend to do. Most rational people have perfectly functioning moral filters in place, originally created by exposure to family and friends and further refined by exposure to society. Those moral filters automatically kick in when thoughts of actions enter violent or anti-social territory, temper people's decisions and attitudes, and mediate actions to an acceptable-to-society level. In the case of, say, pornography, those moral filters allow a person to be titillated by a racy or dangerous sex scene, but will prevent them from trying to act out the same scene in reality. It is clear to them the difference between erotic entertainment and real life. Censorship is often applied at a societal level, when all parties could agree on a Universal Sameness that dictated what should be censored. But this was always a false premise; everyone isn't the same, because if they were, no one would have been creating censorable material in the first place. Today, we much better recognize that there is no Universal Sameness, so there is no reason for censorship, except for protecting children whose moral filters have not yet been fully developed by family, friends and society. For those adults whose moral filters either haven't developed due to sickness or mental deficiency, or who actively ignore those filters, there are better tools than censorship to deal with them (including medical support and, in some cases, institutions). For the rest of us, we can be left to make decisions and follow our internal moral filters on our own. Censorship is an outmoded tool in the 21st century. (Wow... did I just say all that?) |
|
08-17-2012, 05:02 PM | #97 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,418
Karma: 35207650
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: iPad
|
Quote:
Actually I intentionally used the word INFLUENCE, not BRAINWASH or MIND CONTROL. The responsibility for any action still belongs to the person doing the action. My personal contention is.. 1) Censorship is bad 2) What you read/watch influences you 3) Parents should be parents and take responsibility for their own kids 4) I desire that stores provide a way to filter/block stuff I do not want to see so that I can better find what I want. 5) In the end personal responsibility needs to be resurrected |
|
08-17-2012, 09:15 PM | #98 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,812
Karma: 26912940
Join Date: Apr 2010
Device: sony PRS-T1 and T3, Kobo Mini and Aura HD, Tablet
|
There are things I have read that I wish I could scrub totally from my mind. There are also things I have actually witnessed that are every bit as bad.
Protecting children from accidental exposure to prurient literature is probably good, but pretending that bad things don't happen can leave them unprepared for life. A 'normal healthy minded(by my definition only and feel free to differ)' child or adult will come across extreme depictions of violence and/or perversion and think gross and tend to avoid these things. If a child or adult is strongly attracted to these things (and some perfectly normal people are) it is not because they are available. That is IMO just the way they are. The availability of a type of literature does not make everyone want to read it. Lots of people have never read the bible and it is pretty available in most western countries. Over-protection can be as bad as no protection at all, leaving a young adult open to all kinds of predators because they are unaware such things exist. Leading by example and explaining why some things are just wrong is much more likely to have a positive effect than society/government censorship although it sometimes requires a small amount of personal effort. Helen Last edited by speakingtohe; 08-17-2012 at 09:17 PM. |
08-18-2012, 02:07 AM | #99 | |
Apprentice Curmudgeon.
Posts: 427
Karma: 3286968
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Runaway Bay, QLD, , Australia
Device: Kindle DX Graphite, Touch, Paperwhite, Sony, and Nook.
|
Quote:
You would be prepared to fill out a three or four page questionnaire at the entrance to every store? Then wait for the staff to re-arrange the stock? You have far more patience than I. |
|
08-18-2012, 03:42 AM | #100 | |
temp. out of service
Posts: 2,787
Karma: 24285242
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Duisburg (DE)
Device: PB 623
|
Quote:
|
|
08-18-2012, 10:55 AM | #101 |
Addict
Posts: 372
Karma: 1925568
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: England, UK
Device: Sony PRS-T1 and Cool-ER
|
You can do it to a certain extent, but putting keywords with a minus sign into the search box, so putting '-romance' should get rid of those. However, it would be more difficult to get rid of historical fiction. It would be a lot easier if there was a series of tickboxes to include/exclude categories.
|
08-18-2012, 12:01 PM | #102 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,418
Karma: 35207650
Join Date: Jun 2011
Device: iPad
|
Quote:
If stuff is tagged/categorized correctly (much much harder said then done) everyone can be happy. People look for <Stuff> can find it, people wanting to avoid <Stuff> can avoid it. It is not unreasonable for me as a paying consumer to expect a store to try and make it easy for me to buy what I want. That is why they exist, to make a profit by selling me stuff. Note, I am not saying laws forcing them, let the market forces drive that. |
|
08-18-2012, 04:31 PM | #103 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
Such a system would easily steer you away from all or selected types of adult material if so desired, and assuming the material was properly labeled. Crowd-source ahoy! |
|
08-18-2012, 04:56 PM | #104 | |
Philosopher
Posts: 2,034
Karma: 18736532
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch
|
Quote:
|
|
08-19-2012, 07:37 AM | #105 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seriously thoughtful Opinion Please! | kindlekitten | Lounge | 34 | 06-12-2011 02:04 PM |
Opinion of *** | Tom SKP | Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links) | 13 | 10-14-2010 06:38 AM |