TexasCHLforum.com

It is more graphic, agreed.

ShootDontTalk

You stated "but it does injure everyone to one extent or another"

Perhaps, you're correct, but I'm not at all certain.

I've watched many brutal movies from Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" made in 1969 to all of Quentin Tarantino's and many a horror/zombie movie and I don't feel desensitized to brutality or feel in any way that watching them has forged me into someone violent.

Frankly, your blanket statement about being everyone being injured sounds to some extent like a liberal lament.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Mmmm...its just good common sense regulation...right? After all, its just a reasonable compromise. I think you should pass it. You should pass it now.

No. The First Amendment is even more inviolate then the Second.

Exact same argument pornographers use. Like any right, there are limits to the first amendment too. The first amendment protects you from governmental oppression for political speech. It does not grant you the right to offend every Tom, Dick and Harry in the public square.

Its not in the public square.

That's laughable. Try telling the federal government that what is broadcast over the airwaves isn't public. They charge large fees for the use of those airwaves you claim aren't public.

Abraham wrote:ShootDontTalk

You stated "but it does injure everyone to one extent or another"

Perhaps, you're correct, but I'm not at all certain.

I've watched many brutal movies from Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" made in 1969 to all of Quentin Tarantino's and many a horror/zombie movie and I don't feel desensitized to brutality or feel in any way that watching them has forged me into someone violent.

Frankly, your blanket statement about being everyone being injured sounds to some extent like a liberal lament.

I'll be honest. I'm pretty desensitized to killing zombies.

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Mmmm...its just good common sense regulation...right? After all, its just a reasonable compromise. I think you should pass it. You should pass it now.

No. The First Amendment is even more inviolate then the Second.

Exact same argument pornographers use. Like any right, there are limits to the first amendment too. The first amendment protects you from governmental oppression for political speech. It does not grant you the right to offend every Tom, Dick and Harry in the public square.

Its not in the public square.

That's laughable. Try telling the federal government that what is broadcast over the airwaves isn't public. They charge large fees for the use of those airwaves you claim aren't public.

Its still not public. You don't have to watch.
Still trying to figure out your assertion that there should be limitations on the First Amendment.

nightmare69 wrote:Video games and movies may be a small part of the problem but it's not the root. I've played and still play first person shooter video games and enjoy movies like Rambo. To lay all the blame on movies and games as the cause of violence is just as bad as the anti gunners blaming guns or assault weapons as the cause.

Scientifically, it is easily proven that movies and video games are not the cause. All you have to do is point to one person that has not gone on a killing rampage from watching violent movies and playing violent video games. There are in fact millions of people that don't commit crimes that do so. Of course nobody wants to talk about them, it's not sensational enough.

A cause is universal or it is not the cause.

Now you could also try to point out that A + B + C + D = violent behavior, but I bet for every A, B, C & D, I could also point out somebody that was exposed to those factors and still did not commit violent acts.

The problems are with the actor, not the outside influences.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Still trying to figure out your assertion that there should be limitations on the First Amendment.

Seriously? You have heard of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, right?

android wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Video games and movies may be a small part of the problem but it's not the root. I've played and still play first person shooter video games and enjoy movies like Rambo. To lay all the blame on movies and games as the cause of violence is just as bad as the anti gunners blaming guns or assault weapons as the cause.

Scientifically, it is easily proven that movies and video games are not the cause. All you have to do is point to one person that has not gone on a killing rampage from watching violent movies and playing violent video games. There are in fact millions of people that don't commit crimes that do so. Of course nobody wants to talk about them, it's not sensational enough.

A cause is universal or it is not the cause.

Now you could also try to point out that A + B + C + D = violent behavior, but I bet for every A, B, C & D, I could also point out somebody that was exposed to those factors and still did not commit violent acts.

The problems are with the actor, not the outside influences.

Oh come on. Humans don't live in a vacuum. Your surroundings influence your actions. It's ludicrous to think that you act completely independently of the influences that surround you on a daily basis.

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Still trying to figure out your assertion that there should be limitations on the First Amendment.

Seriously? You have heard of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, right?

Seriously? You have heard of reasonable gun restrictions right?

baldeagle wrote:

android wrote:

Scientifically, it is easily proven that movies and video games are not the cause. All you have to do is point to one person that has not gone on a killing rampage from watching violent movies and playing violent video games. There are in fact millions of people that don't commit crimes that do so. Of course nobody wants to talk about them, it's not sensational enough.

A cause is universal or it is not the cause.

Now you could also try to point out that A + B + C + D = violent behavior, but I bet for every A, B, C & D, I could also point out somebody that was exposed to those factors and still did not commit violent acts.

The problems are with the actor, not the outside influences.

Oh come on. Humans don't live in a vacuum. Your surroundings influence your actions. It's ludicrous to think that you act completely independently of the influences that surround you on a daily basis.

Then please explain how people that are not exposed to any of these influences end up being serial killers and other people that are exposed to all of them do not.

Did violent killers not exist prior to the invention of video games and the cinema? That is news to me. Perhaps you'll offer up that they were desensitized to violence by the traveling Punch & Judy puppet show? That still doesn't explain violent behavior prior to the 1600s.

How many generations condemn those ahead of them for their poor taste in music or entertainment certain the next generation or the one after can't measure up to theirs?

How many?

ALL

It's called Geezerhood syndrome...

Now, get off my lawn!

Abraham wrote:How many generations condemn those ahead of them for their poor taste in music or entertainment certain the next generation or the one after can't measure up to theirs?

How many?

ALL

It's called Geezerhood syndrome...

Now, get off my lawn!

Agreed. On the positive part of the fun of life is complaining about the youngins and their hep cat music. Back in my day we had Patsy Cline, and glad we had it (when we weren't crying in our beers of course).

Abraham wrote:ShootDontTalk

You stated "but it does injure everyone to one extent or another"

Perhaps, you're correct, but I'm not at all certain.

I've watched many brutal movies from Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" made in 1969 to all of Quentin Tarantino's and many a horror/zombie movie and I don't feel desensitized to brutality or feel in any way that watching them has forged me into someone violent.

Frankly, your blanket statement about being everyone being injured sounds to some extent like a liberal lament.

How do you figure I made a blanket statement such as you imply? You need to go re-read, carefully this time, what I wrote. You do understand that not all injuries are equally visible? Some are, some are not. Not every soldier comes home with PTSD, understand? Not everyone reacts the same way. Does everyone who smokes come down with cancer? No. Some react badly to graphic violence. Some do not. But to say that you are unaffected in no way guarantees that others are not affected. And because subtle changes to our minds (psyche) are extremely difficult to self-detect, that in no way guarantees that we are unaffected. That is about as simple as I can make it.

BTW I can't resist it. Do you know how many generations complained that young generation Romans were destroying Rome? I have no idea. But when the barbarians destroyed Rome it marked a sad end to a once great civilization and historians marked that destruction with a book entitled "The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire." What the older generations warned of came true. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

You the parent should know and be in control of what your child watches and plays. You should raise your child, not the government. We can get into the "what if" scenarios but I still believe that if you raise your child right then he will continue to do right even though you are not around.

nightmare69 wrote:You the parent should know and be in control of what your child watches and plays. You should raise your child, not the government. We can get into the "what if" scenarios but I still believe that if you raise your child right then he will continue to do right even though you are not around.

I agree 100% but with one caveat: It must be do as I do and not just do as I say. Kids are smart. They see through that in an instant.

Good discussion. It probably goes without saying to those of you so inclined that we need to pray for America and all those who lead and protect her.