Another non-surprise by rue

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Back to a serious reply

The arguments people (RIP, this is YOU) have made for it NOT being the result of abstinence-only sex-ed are:

the culture has REALLY CHANGED ! since the start of the study 8 years ago (not that anyone else has noticed)

parents are suddenly just REALLY SCREWED UP !

the study MUST BE FLAWED in some way !

The argument FOR it being caused by abstinence only sex-ed:

It's the ONLY THING that's provably changed in the relevant time-frame.

I think that's a more convincing argument than all sorts of really, REALLY silly suppositions made by some (AHEM !) posters here.

If I were to teach sex-ed, considering the pressure on girls to be sexualized even at an early age, (via commercials and commercial television, which is ALL about selling an audience to advertisers), the first thing I would tell girls is: if you don't feel comfortable saying NO and following through - you're not ready for sex.

What I would tell boys is: if the girl says NO, anything else is rape.

But for those of you who really have made a free choice --- (factual information here)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

What are the figures for the past 50 years?

Too small a sample could mean anything.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:39 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
how exactly are they supposed to learn from OUR failures if we never dare ADMIT them to our kids ?

Right on, man. Another high point of my upbringing was that I was not often lied to. Didn't even get the standard lies about Santa and the Easter bunny, let alone things like, "I never screwed up, I was a good little vision of purity." Please. I was in my parents' wedding pictures, they couldn't have kept anything like that from me even if they'd tried. I heard about drug use and dropping out of college and all manner of other potentially bad choices. Hey, here's a shocker, it made me think about it. I had no need or desire to emulate my parents in their every choice, and I was given very little to rebel against. I think that actually made me smarter and maybe even wiser as I've gone through my own life. Not that I've never made a mistake, but I haven't done drugs and I haven't gotten pregnant. Because I was allowed to think. And that's the truth. So yay for that.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
if the girl says NO, anything else is rape.

I have to expand this to, "If they do not absolutely and unequivocally say YES, it is rape." BOTH parties absolutely need to say yes, with all their hearts, period. Anything else, in my experience, can be damaging.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think that's a more convincing argument than all sorts of really, REALLY silly suppositions made by some (AHEM !) posters here.

So your suppositions are somehow better than other's?
So you disappear from this thread for a spell when someone post's something counter to your argument only to re-appear later with the same rhetoric.
When did you change your rose tinted glasses to blinders?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:43 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What are the figures for the past 50 years?

Too small a sample could mean anything.

At last, critical thinking. Thank you AnthonyT.

Always place statistics in context of a larger time frame and larger place (other countries).

And of course, always remember CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION! I shout because it seems like I have to say this is every post about statistics.

--------------------------
Correlation does not equal causation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Back to a serious reply

Aw darn. And we were starting to have fun, too.

Quote:

The arguments people (RIP, this is YOU) have made for it NOT being the result of abstinence-only sex-ed are:

the culture has REALLY CHANGED ! since the start of the study 8 years ago (not that anyone else has noticed)

Yup. I think that has a distinct factor in it. But, again, I'm not claiming it's the SOLE reason . . . and neither are YOUR suppositions. Your source was distinctly biased, which you would have called me out on right away, btw, so I only threw more possibilities into the ring that the study may have overlooked.

Quote:

parents are suddenly just REALLY SCREWED UP!

Don't know about suddenly (nice way to twist words there), but more than likely gradual. A word I've used very frequently in this thread which you choose to ignore. Heck, I'll be the first to admit that I am really screwed up.

Quote:

the study MUST BE FLAWED in some way !

Um . . . not flawed, just not taking other things into consideration. Does that make it flawed?

Quote:

The argument FOR it being caused by abstinence only sex-ed:

It's the ONLY THING that's provably changed in the relevant time-frame.

Really? The ONLY THING? You sure about that?

Quote:

I think that's a more convincing argument than all sorts of really, REALLY silly suppositions made by some (AHEM !) posters here.

So, you're gonna keep chanting your mantra while calling all other theories "silly" and calling those who disagree with you names. BDN and I list a few other possibilities to your ONE possibility and we're the "silly" and "stupid" ones? To quote Malcolm Reynolds . . . "huh."

Quote:

If I were to teach sex-ed, considering the pressure on girls to be sexualized even at an early age, (via commercials and commercial television, which is ALL about selling an audience to advertisers), the first thing I would tell girls is: if you don't feel comfortable saying NO and following through - you're not ready for sex.

What I would tell boys is: if the girl says NO, anything else is rape.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you here for the most part. Both very valid points.

Quote:

But for those of you who really have made a free choice --- (factual information here)

Um . . . what?

But really . . . your initial statements seem to indicate that you don't read half the stuff in the thread said after you left for a bit before responding with belittling comments. You saw people getting along and decided to rip into the ol' Ripper again. If you feel you have to, go ahead. I've been a scapegoat all my life.

You insist on saying that I'm completely and totally disagreeing with you when I've only said that I don't think YOUR suppositions are the SOLE reason for the increase in your statistical information and that my "silly suppositions" are a result of gradual change in our culture in addition to said statistical information. Kwick and I even came to an agreement on some things because he listened to what I had to say and vice versa with no condescending remarks being traded. That's how you have a reasonable discussion.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

What are the figures for the past 50 years?

Too small a sample could mean anything.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Thanks for that, Anthony. I think that's kinda the gist of what BDN and I been trying to get across to some people.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 6:18 AM

Bumping this one back to the top, because I just have to ask...

Ripper, BDN - So are you saying that what people are exposed to in the media has a profound effect on how they act and think? Am I correct in inferring that from your posts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 6:46 AM

I really don't know how to make myself more clear. I've done it several, several times throughout this thread.

Rue's original post and her comments thereafter intoned that it was the policy of the Bush administration alone that caused the increase in the statistics shown in that article. It was only my opinion (and I think we agreed on this) that while the policy may have had a part in it, it was probably not the sole cause. I was merely stating that there could well have been more to it than the policies of a President - i.e. the culture in which youth are being brought up in. That's it. And I got attacked by Rue for that.

In answer to your question, though. Yes. I think the media and culture have an effect on how people think and act, though that effect is not the sole reason for the rise in the stated statistics either. Add on to this that parents today seem to be getting less protective of what they expose their children to. Then the whole sex education thing (or lack thereof) and a whole plethora of other possibilities).

Case in point (of the media having an effect) from just this weekend. We were watching "Harry and the Hendersons". Pretty harmless little flick, right? Well, right at the beginning, when the family hits Harry with their car and they discover he's Bigfoot, the little boy exclaims, "Holy S@%T!" My little 4 year old sees/hears this and immediately says the same thing. She thought it was okay to say because the little boy on the tv said it. We talked to her and told her it wasn't a nice thing to say even though that little boy said it (a conversation I've had with all of my kids at some point or another). Do all parents have that type of conversation with their kids? This scenario was just about language, sure. But if parents don't talk to their kids about the do's and don'ts of what the kids see on tv, then heck yes, I think it has an impact.

I hope that makes sense. I rambled more than I intended to.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 7:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You insist on saying that I'm completely and totally disagreeing with you when I've only said that I don't think YOUR suppositions are the SOLE reason for the increase in your statistical information and that my "silly suppositions" are a result of gradual change in our culture in addition to said statistical information."

Your comments were silly.

The change happened RECENTLY - from about 2002 on. For a doubling of HIV in males and reversal in many trends from decrease to 30% or more increase you'd have to have a significant change in society over roughly 6 years. That would amount to a uniform national revolution in behavior - something SO drastic it couldn't fly under the radar. Not gradually. Not over the last 40 years. RECENTLY. QUICKLY. EXTREMELY.

You posted nothing particularly valid. You proposed that the study was flawed (it could be, but then, you post no indications on how it could be so), that parents all across the country suddenly got worse over 6 years, and that there was SUCH a significant change in society that, despite that fact no one noticed, it made extreme statistical changes in outcomes.

What do you expect ? That I discuss something that on the face of it is simply silly ?

Put up a good argument, and it'll get a good response.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 8:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now, here's an idea to try to figure this out:

Some states (no, I don't know which ones, but California may have been one of them) refused federal funding for sex education b/c they thought 'abstinence only' education was abysmally assinine. Find out which states refused the money. Find out which states had full-on sex-ed. (It's possible some states refused federal funds b/c they thought the federal sex-ed program was too liberal.) Dig down into the statistics and see if the national trends hold up for the states with full-on sex-ed.

It won't prove anything, but it would be a place to start.

This is the kind of thing I used to do when I had more time.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You insist on saying that I'm completely and totally disagreeing with you when I've only said that I don't think YOUR suppositions are the SOLE reason for the increase in your statistical information and that my "silly suppositions" are a result of gradual change in our culture in addition to said statistical information."

Your comments were silly.

The change happened RECENTLY - from about 2002 on. For a doubling of HIV in males and reversal in many trends from decrease to 30% or more increase you'd have to have a significant change in society over roughly 6 years. That would amount to a uniform national revolution in behavior - something SO drastic it couldn't fly under the radar. Not gradually. Not over the last 40 years. RECENTLY. QUICKLY. EXTREMELY.

You posted nothing particularly valid. You proposed that the study was flawed (it could be, but then, you post no indications on how it could be so), that parents all across the country suddenly got worse over 6 years, and that there was SUCH a significant change in society that, despite that fact no one noticed, it made extreme statistical changes in outcomes.

What do you expect ? That I discuss something that on the face of it is simply silly ?

Put up a good argument, and it'll get a good response.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

What I expect is a civil response from someone such as yourself. To react as you did to the suggestions made by BDN and myself was petty and immature for someone of your age, IMHO. Read through the thread. You'll see that people came to agreements when being friendly and civil to each other, not by attacking.

And yes, I think the study is flawed if only for the same reasons you'd think a study conducted by The Heritage Foundation was flawed (and you said as much when I referenced a study from them in another thread long ago). The source you cited was a biased, left-leaning newspaper. And the fact that it took no other factors into account.

Like I said, though, if you insist on belittling others and calling them names just to make yourself feel better, go right ahead. But it doesn't reflect well on you.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, not up to doing the research, eh ?

I thought so.

Oh, here's a little tidbit of the stupid things you two have posted:

(Yeah, after all, things had been going hunky-dory for all those years but then all of the SUDDEN !, like WOW ! the parents just got really bad, all over the country ! They all musta' talked or somethin' ...)
BDN
Could be
Now, how about THAT for a piece of idiocy ?

RIP
Not too long ago, Rue, you told me that government sites couldn't be completely trusted due to Bush's meddling in the information.
This is the 'the study must be flawed' red herring.
So, the parents failed and it was probably a gradual thing.
This is the 'didn't read the report which indicated that 'changes took place over a SHORT 4-5 years', thing.

BDN
Does it have anything to do with the fact that society as a whole is becoming more sexualized?
This is the talking 'out of his ass' thing.

RIP
Good points, BDN.
This is the 'me too, I can agree with stupid posts' thing.
the entertainment industry can be considered mostly liberal
This is the 'I can spout stupid fallacies' thing'.

RIP
the statistics I used were from a government site AFTER Obama took office and you still claimed it was tainted by BUSH!
This is the 'straw-man' thing.

RIP
So, Government should be responsible for each and every decision we make as parents. Is that what you're saying.
This is another, and really stupid, 'straw-man' thing.

RIP
You make no mention of taking into consideration what BDM or I said about our culture that keeps pushing these ideas on the youth of today or the responsibilities of the parents
This is the 'didn't bother to read the report' thing.

RIP
when there are SO many more things involved in the equation
This is the 'talking out of my ass' thing, again. (Apparently all the parents have suddenly got really stupid really quickly and there's been a social revolution, and nobody noticed.)

RIP
And where did I say 5 years?
You didn't , which makes this a 'I don't know what I'm talking about' thing.

BBM
I believe Geezer and myself only ask SignyM and you for sources because you 'two' are the worst offenders
This is the 'I don't mind lying for everyone to see' thing.

BDM
Do try to keep up son. I believe the whole point of this thread was to postulate that teen pregnancies and std's have been on the rise for the last 8-9 years.
This another 'I don't know what I'm talking about' thing.

RIP
What I'm finding a little odd about this whole thread is that just because BDN and I are postulating that perhaps there's more to this study than the study is making it out to be ...
This is the 'I've completely misrepresented what I've posted earlier' thing: "To blame this on Bush is just ridiculous."

the progress of our culture to being MORE promiscuous has been a gradual thing
And yet another, 'I couldn't be freaking bothered to read a short little report' thing.

There's so much more, but as you can see - neither of you have anything of value to contribute.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:07 AM

**YAWN**

Doing some research right now, matter of fact.

But yer one to talk . . . stating quite frequently that you no longer have time to do research then harassing others for not having time. Again . . . huh.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The source you cited was a biased, left-leaning newspaper."

You --- $$$$. The STUDY was done by the CDC - not the Guardian.

Did that leeetle fact escape you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:09 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
For a doubling of HIV in males and reversal in many trends from decrease to 30% or more increase you'd have to have a significant change in society over roughly 6 years. That would amount to a uniform national revolution in behavior - something SO drastic it couldn't fly under the radar.

You're not listening to what he's saying. No one's claiming that changes in society are the only factor, only that they may be a contributing factor.

It doesn't have to be *all* Bush's fault.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NO - what he posted was that NONE of it was Bush's fault. No mistake there.

***************************************************************

And you are wrong - yet again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:11 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The source you cited was a biased, left-leaning newspaper."

You --- $$$$. The STUDY was done by the CDC - not the Guardian.

Did that leeetle fact escape you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Well then cite the actual report, not just your left wing analysis.

Otherwise you're asking for confusion.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The source you cited was a biased, left-leaning newspaper."

You --- $$$$. The STUDY was done by the CDC - not the Guardian.

Did that leeetle fact escape you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

You callin' me "money"? I've been called worse. The CDC issue was, again, addressed earlier in the thread also. In previous threads I used a government source and you shrugged it off as being tainted by Bush . . . . after he left office.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No after, before.

C'mon dude ! Man up ! Back your silly arguments ! Go to the mat for them ! Keep to the point you've been trying (and failing) to make !

***************************************************************

And you are once again wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
NO - what he posted was that NONE of it was Bush's fault. No mistake there.

***************************************************************

And you are wrong - yet again.

As you so delightfully told me earlier in this thread . . . read through things slowly and carefully and you might . . . just might . . . catch where I said ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS there may have been other factors. Not that NONE of it was the fault of Bush Administration policy.

Sheesh. Talking about plugging your ears and saying "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!"

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No after, before.

C'mon dude ! Man up ! Back your silly arguments ! Go to the mat for them ! Keep to the point you've been trying (and failing) to make !

***************************************************************

And you are once again wrong.

You seem to be one of the few on this thread . . . no, wait . . . the ONLY one on this thread to be completely misunderstanding anything I've been saying.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:16 AM

Another mysterious double post. Sorry about that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:17 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
NO - what he posted was that NONE of it was Bush's fault.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I never saw that, in fact I've seen him say the opposite a few times, that it could well be partly Bush's fault. Can you quote for me?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No after, before.

C'mon dude ! Man up ! Back your silly arguments ! Go to the mat for them ! Keep to the point you've been trying (and failing) to make !

***************************************************************

And you are once again wrong.

I'm looking into this a little further but I found this interesting:
Poverty, not sex ed, key factor in teen pregnancy

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/03/EDFG12NIUM
.DTL#ixzz0NL2fr8CV

An excerpt:

Quote:
Yet we still don't have any evidence that these explicit programs work, either. As University of Pennsylvania sociologist Frank Furstenberg confirmed last year, in an exhaustive review of the literature, efforts to prove the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education are "generally unimpressive, to say the least."

We know that these programs can enhance students' knowledge about risky sex behaviors and change their attitudes toward these same behaviors. But can sex education actually influence what kids do? As best we can tell, it can't.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 10:52 AM

Rue,

What about the study from the pediatrics website that I provided a link to? The one which stated that sexual images on t.v do have an affect on increased cases of teen pregnancies / std's.

How about the links provided by KPO which show increases in both teen pregnancies / std's in the U.K.?

What about my linked news story depicting teens doing what they see on t.v and movies? How about Rip's strong anecdotal evidence?

Not sure if you truly did miss these posts so I thought I would bring them up again.
Come on Rue, 'man-up' and address these factors and stop straw-manning other people's arguments.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:16 AM

I guess I'll "man up" some more...

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/04/04/17112.aspx

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 12:40 PM

So, Rip and BDN, since you're willing to admit that media play an integral role in behavior and how we think, are you willing to apply that same connective logic to the right-wing hatemongers on talk radio and Fox News, and the actions of their listeners and viewers when they go out and shoot up a "liberal" church or murder a doctor while he's in church?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Rip and BDN, since you're willing to admit that media play an integral role in behavior and how we think, are you willing to apply that same connective logic to the right-wing hatemongers on talk radio and Fox News, and the actions of their listeners and viewers when they go out and shoot up a "liberal" church or murder a doctor while he's in church?

Relevance?
I mean, weren't you the guy who said that t.v. / movies have no effect on today's youth? Are you now willing to admit that perhaps there may be a correlation?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Rip and BDN, since you're willing to admit that media play an integral role in behavior and how we think, are you willing to apply that same connective logic to the right-wing hatemongers on talk radio and Fox News, and the actions of their listeners and viewers when they go out and shoot up a "liberal" church or murder a doctor while he's in church?

Relevance?
I mean, weren't you the guy who said that t.v. / movies have no effect on today's youth? Are you now willing to admit that perhaps there may be a correlation?

Cite, please? Can you quote that back to me, where I said that?

And that's what I'm asking - if you think there IS a correlation. If internet porn is leading to teen pregnancy, is O'Reilly leading to murder? Is Savage inciting savagery? Is Rush fostering a rush to violence?

And if so, what can we do about it? What SHOULD we do about it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Rip and BDN, since you're willing to admit that media play an integral role in behavior and how we think, are you willing to apply that same connective logic to the right-wing hatemongers on talk radio and Fox News, and the actions of their listeners and viewers when they go out and shoot up a "liberal" church or murder a doctor while he's in church?

You say that like we've been denying it this whole time!

I think we've been postulating on the effect of media (sensual imagery, sex, whatever) on kids. What you're postulating is regarding adults who really should know better and may be just a little mentally unstable.

Are you trying to change the subject or something?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:27 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Rip and BDN, since you're willing to admit that media play an integral role in behavior and how we think, are you willing to apply that same connective logic to the right-wing hatemongers on talk radio and Fox News, and the actions of their listeners and viewers when they go out and shoot up a "liberal" church or murder a doctor while he's in church?

You say that like we've been denying it this whole time! I think we've been postulating on the effect of media (sensual imagery, sex, whatever) on kids. What you're postulating is regarding adults who really should know better and may be just a little mentally unstable.

Are you trying to change the subject or something?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

I think it's just as likely that kids could hear the hate speech of Rush or Bill while their parents watch and could be influenced to do violent things. After all, isn't there always some big debate about video game violence influencing children to be violent? Why couldn't they be getting influenced from Fox News or something?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, Rip and BDN, since you're willing to admit that media play an integral role in behavior and how we think, are you willing to apply that same connective logic to the right-wing hatemongers on talk radio and Fox News, and the actions of their listeners and viewers when they go out and shoot up a "liberal" church or murder a doctor while he's in church?

You say that like we've been denying it this whole time! I think we've been postulating on the effect of media (sensual imagery, sex, whatever) on kids. What you're postulating is regarding adults who really should know better and may be just a little mentally unstable.

Are you trying to change the subject or something?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Wait a minute - did you just say that right-wing listeners really should know better, and that they may be mentally unstable?

At last, we are in agreement!

Changing the subject? Are you suffering from memory loss? I was the one who brought this thread back to the top!

I'm not "changing" the subject; I'm EXPLORING it. You seem to be saying that the media is a stronger influence on teens and young adults than any other single influence in their lives. I'm trying to gauge if you think that's true of other people as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Relevance?
I mean, weren't you the guy who said that t.v. / movies have no effect on today's youth? Are you now willing to admit that perhaps there may be a correlation?

Cite, please? Can you quote that back to me, where I said that?

How about this,

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nope. I'm just holding you to the same standards that you want to hold others to. Guess you're not up to the challenge, though. Too hard for ya? Can't figure out the google? Can't find anything that backs up your ludicrous claims? I'm not surprised.

-------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And that's what I'm asking - if you think there IS a correlation. If internet porn is leading to teen pregnancy, is O'Reilly leading to murder? Is Savage inciting savagery? Is Rush fostering a rush to violence?

And if so, what can we do about it? What SHOULD we do about it?

Oh I don't know, how about we blame Bush.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nope. I'm just holding you to the same standards that you want to hold others to. Guess you're not up to the challenge, though. Too hard for ya? Can't figure out the google? Can't find anything that backs up your ludicrous claims? I'm not surprised.

Interesting. That has exactly 100% of nothing to do with what I asked, but thanks for taking the time...

Quote:
Posted by BigDamnNobuddy:
Oh I don't know, how about we blame Bush.

THAT'S the spirit!

Oh, wait - Does Bush have a talk show now?

And Ripper wants to know why you keep trying to change the subject.

Mike

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 3:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Bah, if TV can have that much influence on your childs behavior, you REALLY need to re-examine your parenting!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Interesting. That has exactly 100% of nothing to do with what I asked, but thanks for taking the time...

Ah ha, the root of the problem. You can not even keep track of your own shifting argument. How do you expect other's to?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And Ripper wants to know why you keep trying to change the subject.

Just my feeble attempt to keep up with you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Bah, if TV can have that much influence on your childs behavior, you REALLY need to re-examine your parenting!

-F

Kinda what I'm thinking.

And yes, Ripper, I realize you're talking about more than just TV. You're talking about the influences of TV, radio, music, movies, the internet, friends, peer pressure, etc.

Thing is, so am I. You ever know anyone who listens to Rush and watches O'Reilly and Beck? Aren't an awful lot of them the ones most likely to also be listening to stuff like Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Anne Coulter, and others like them? Don't they tend to surround themselves with exclusively hard-right propaganda as much as possible, and group together with those who share their viewpoints? As such, given such immersion, wouldn't they be subject to the same "peer pressure" to hate, demonize, dehumanize, and even violently attack and even kill "liberals", or at the very least, to empathize with those who do such things or condone such behavior?

So while they SHOULD know better, how would they if they're surrounded 24/7 by voices which are merely affirming their hatred?

I'm in no way accusing anyone here of such behavior. I'm merely asking if you can see the possibility of such behavioral influence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Interesting. That has exactly 100% of nothing to do with what I asked, but thanks for taking the time...

Ah ha, the root of the problem. You can not even keep track of your own shifting argument. How do you expect other's to?

In other words, you've got nothing. As usual.

I called your claims "ludicrous" because you just threw out there that it was pretty much anything BUT the Bush policies that was responsible, and you couldn't seem to find ANY sources to back those claims. Rue posited that the Bush policies had an effect, and posted results of a CDC study that seemed to show correlation.

I'm still waiting for you to point out to me where I ever claimed "that t.v. / movies have no effect on today's youth". I asked for that, and you came back with essentially nothing to do with that. I'd also appreciate it if you could show me where I claimed that it was 100% attributable to Bush-era policies, if you think that's what I said.

Hey, what I'm saying about the whackjobs influencing the righties might be seen as ludicrous, too. I've shown no more evidence of correlation than you have. Of course, I've shown no LESS evidence, either...

As for right-wing whackadoodles being responsible for the behavior of their rabid fans...

Quote:
Are you now willing to admit that perhaps there may be a correlation?

Quote:

Just my feeble attempt to keep up with you.

Feeble indeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Bah, if TV can have that much influence on your childs behavior, you REALLY need to re-examine your parenting!

-F

Which is kinda what I was saying earlier, Frem. It's the lack of parenting on certain levels that might be attributed to this whole subject. If a parent plops their kid down in front of the television and doesn't really pay attention to what that kid is watching, or really even care, for that matter (like I said, I've personally known folks to let their 10-11 year olds watch R-rated films and don't think twice about it), then I think that kid is going to get certain perceptions of how they should be acting. Can I prove that? No. Just my opinion.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yes, Ripper, I realize you're talking about more than just TV. You're talking about the influences of TV, radio, music, movies, the internet, friends, peer pressure, etc.

Thanks for that.

Quote:

Thing is, so am I. You ever know anyone who listens to Rush and watches O'Reilly and Beck? Aren't an awful lot of them the ones most likely to also be listening to stuff like Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Anne Coulter, and others like them? Don't they tend to surround themselves with exclusively hard-right propaganda as much as possible, and group together with those who share their viewpoints? As such, given such immersion, wouldn't they be subject to the same "peer pressure" to hate, demonize, dehumanize, and even violently attack and even kill "liberals", or at the very least, to empathize with those who do such things or condone such behavior?

So while they SHOULD know better, how would they if they're surrounded 24/7 by voices which are merely affirming their hatred?

I certainly think that media in general has permeated so deeply into American culture that it certainly is possible on all sides of the political spectrum. I will admit that there is a correlation to the extent that those who spew hatred have an effect on those who listen to them. I'll add a "but" however. I still maintain that those who act upon that supposed hatred in such a violent manner have something wrong in the brain pan to begin with. I played D&D when I was younger (still do on occasion), but I was constantly told by my elders about how evil it was and how people have been known to take those actions (killing and such) into their everyday lives. Heck, there was even a movie touting the dangers of RPGs way back when (Mazes and Monsters staring Tom Hanks). I said the same thing back then that I'm saying now. If a person thinks they can go out and do that kind of stuff and be justified in doing it, there's something wrong with them. There's more to it than, "I heard O'Reilly say "so-n-so" and I thought I should act on it by killing someone." Taking something that far, so violently, for an older person is a bit different than a teen acting out on their sexual urges with other, willing teens.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 7:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

RIPWASH

Quote:
Which is kinda what I was saying earlier, Frem. It's the lack of parenting on certain levels that might be attributed to this whole subject. If a parent plops their kid down in front of the television and doesn't really pay attention to what that kid is watching, or really even care, for that matter (like I said, I've personally known folks to let their 10-11 year olds watch R-rated films and don't think twice about it), then I think that kid is going to get certain perceptions of how they should be acting. Can I prove that? No. Just my opinion.

Problem with that is, while you do got folk that negligent - a lot of parents don't have TIME to do the job right cause they're too busy scratchin and scraping to survive, either shafted into workin seventy hours on a forty hour "salary" (common dodge to avoid actually PAYING folk full wage, much less overtime) and they don't dare do less cause everyone knows that working any less is gonna get you booted however the HR Dept can manage it and replaced with someone who will...

Or like my sister, trying to cover a disastrously failed marriage and her exploitive mortgage by working three shitty jobs while her health declines to the point where she looks like a freakin concentration camp refugee and with one of her kids dying from cervical cancer and GBS, who's only saving grace is the youngest niece being willing to take up the slack running the household, in an eerie parallel of the same bitter circumstances which created me.

She even goes to the same hellhole school, with the same damn problems with it I had, thanks be to whatever pantheon responsible she doesn't have my predisposition to violence, although alas, the eldest has that in spades, and is freakin out over her first two episodes of beserkerang, and her inability to control it.

Our society has to make time and space FOR parenting, instead of considering children a career liability - my ex's company has done fired everyone in her office who had kids for that very reason, although of course that ain't what they said on paper, everyone knows what the deal really is - and heaven help you if you get pregnant cause the minute your maternity leave is over, you're gone the instant they can concoct a reason to do so.

So you got THAT problem too, alas.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 8:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I played D&D when I was younger

Apropros of nothing, didnja know Vin Diesel is also fond of it, as is Judi Dench, and Karl Urban ?

I mean Judi plays a friggin air elemental in Chronicles (and does an AWESOME job) come on!

Bloody hell, *I* still have the original issue MELEE and WIZARD system stuff, not to mention a pile of old ICE sourcebooks and the friggin blue dragon cover first run D&D - sittin right on top of ALL of the original TSR Star Frontiers, Gamma World stuff, beside a ring binder containing Traveller, FNFF and various notes.

Note for the masses, when you find someone capable of thinking circles around the average joe, it's a damned good bet what you'll find on their bookshelf.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 7, 2009 1:54 AM