Blaming what Cho did...on media?

[ToshX]

For the sake of not causing a misunderstanding.

[devonin]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

I'm pretty sure that murder, mass murder, assault, rape, and theft predate the existance of video games and movies...

I think it is complete and utter nonsense for anyone to ever claim that media can "make you violent"

I will absolutely agree that violent media can potentially be an "enabler" (Like, in the psychological sense of the word enabler) to already violent people.

If you are already prone to acts of violence, are a violent person and want to do violence, I submit that exposure to violent media can in fact encourage you to go over that edge, but that requires you to have already been in a shape that should be easily detectable by anyone who knows you or cares about your welfare.

But to imply that media is capable of turning otherwise non-violent people into killers, that's just complete and utter hogwash.

Now: to respond to the video specifically: I'm at an utter loss to even comprehend the depth and breadth if ignorance that went into the making of that video. Some of the biggest straw men I've ever seen, red herring conclusions, ad hominem reasoning, if that kind of logic was put into a paper for a philosophy class, they would fail, probably fail the course, and need a very stern talking to about how you can't just make **** up because you feel like making a point....

If you want to see someone misinterpret evidence, present things in a way so misleading as to be utter falsity, and then use that nonsense to make a spurious claim that doesn't actually have any support, then that is the video for you.

[ToshX]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

Well, media does have a noticeable effect on people, especially in middle school and such. I'm sure some things DO make people think about killing/doing drugs/etc. as "cool", maybe even enough to inspire someone to do such a thing. But I don't think it's any more to blame than crappy parenting. Parents have all sorts of ways to protect their kids, they just don't use them. I mean, there's already a freakin' label on the back of video games telling you EXACTLY what the heck is in the game, as rated by an official company. There are ALREADY warnings before "mature" or "graphic" content(like people shooting one another). There are ALREADY ratings on every movie shown in theaters. People just need to pay attention to them.

As for it inspiring violence in the older groups, that is complete nonsense. As you said, it'd only "encourage" them to do what they already feel inside them.

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

....That video...was just...wow. At the end of the movie they should have put. "Some people decided that we should blame everything our children do on outside influences and the media as opposed to keeping parents accountable and responsible for their offspring. And we said....damn straight." Because, that's exactly what that video is suggesting.

I never ONCE heard them blame parents for anything.

If an elementary school student is watching movies like "Die Hard" then the parent is simply not doing their job, because those are the years when a child is starting to pick up more on the outside world. In middle school is when children try and find out who they are and start getting into music and video games and movies and things like that, and this is a time where parenting is crucial, because if they listen to music saying "Chop up your mom, chop up your dad, it will be the best time you ever had!" They'll think "Well, they know best! *chops up*" and then we blame the music. That's a load of ****. Parents need to monitor their children. Not cover them in an umbrella, but monitor what they listen to, what websites they visit, the movies they watch, etc.

As soon as high school comes along you are smart enough to know what's what and you have that common sense. If at that time or beyond you go slaughtering people then that's your fault and no one else's.

Yes, media has an impact, but parents are still the main influence on children.

[Chrissi]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

The video is so ridiculous it almost makes me think that it's a sort of satire. I mean, I can't imagine anybody reaching these conclusions except for the high-and-mighty christian seeking to have their beliefs confirmed.

If it is serious, I would be very surprised... and disappointed.

[TS_Supra_Drifter]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

wow this blog sort of helped me with my current events....thanks
-supraman

[u84]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

Wow, not one person is for this video. Time for another debate. I say the video makes many valid points and that there is a lot of truth to it. It did start when we took God out of the schools. My Mom, even today, goes on when she sees stuff like kids killing people, themselves, etc. that in her day, this was all VERY rare. She could pretty much go anywhere and not have to worry about this abducting crap.
Now, I agree that a lot of this has to do with parenting. But still, I think the problem stems from not having God in the schools. After the "No God in school" act, things have been spiraling downhill. It used to be that if your kid was misbehaving, he would get spanked. Not just by his/her parents, if you were somewhere else and a neighbor saw you misbehaving, then they not only would spank you, they'd call your parents and tell them about it and you'd get it again when you got home. Both my parents went through this and they aren't off decapitating people for fun. Now you have these liberal bastards (excuse my language) telling people that you can't spank your kids. Instead, and here's where the "no God" and the media come into play, you have to send them to their room, or take away their phone for a day. What do you think they're doing in their room? Playing these violet video games and watching all kind of crap on the internet.
Yes, I agree that a lot of this is the parent's fault, but we've taken away their original rights to discipline children.

EDIT: I'm up for a debate here and I'm pretty sure devonin will make me think.

[Chrissi]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

You see this as being about physical discipline?

I am vehemently against physical discipline, just to clarify my stance here. The only lesson children learn from it is obedience. They do not learn to internalize their morals - they learn that if something is bad, they'll be punished for it, so avoid doing "bad" things so you can avoid the punishment.

So what happens to these individuals when they get older? If they have internalized this "If something is bad i'll be punished" attitude, they won't have internalized morals. Their motivation for not doing bad things will be that they won't get caught. IMO, this is completely backwards- if you don't spank your children, and instead teach them compassion and the meaning of what they do, they internalize a set of values that correspond to "I should not harm others beacuse I would not like to be harmed either" - instead of the backwards set of morals, which are "I should not harm others because I will get in trouble". The problem with that is, what must follow is, "I can harm others if I am not going to get in trouble".

The problem is not the discipline, but the learning methods used on children. Just because you don't spank them doesn't mean you don't punish or teach them right from wrong.

I think we can all agree life was simpler the further back in time we go. Our modern world is very complicated and confusing. But I think it's for a good cause. We're evolving (I don't mean this in the literal sense, as in, evolution of a species, but evolution of our capacities and technology). This obviously means some things are going to happen.

God isn't the answer. Proper knowledge of how to make people internalize a good moral set IS. And in my opinion, religion does not give you a good moral set. I'm not saying all religious people are immoral. Not at all. I'm just talking about the teachings. What you learn is "I shouldn't do this because God said I shouldn't". That is the main teaching of the bible - the main reason you should not hurt others is because God says it's bad. Not because you would not like to be hurt, or because hurting others is inherently immoral. Which I think it is. Not because of God, but because harm is the only universal sin.

[u84]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

You see this as being about physical discipline?

I am vehemently against physical discipline, just to clarify my stance here. The only lesson children learn from it is obedience. They do not learn to internalize their morals - they learn that if something is bad, they'll be punished for it, so avoid doing "bad" things so you can avoid the punishment.

So what happens to these individuals when they get older? If they have internalized this "If something is bad i'll be punished" attitude, they won't have internalized morals. Their motivation for not doing bad things will be that they won't get caught. IMO, this is completely backwards- if you don't spank your children, and instead teach them compassion and the meaning of what they do, they internalize a set of values that correspond to "I should not harm others beacuse I would not like to be harmed either" - instead of the backwards set of morals, which are "I should not harm others because I will get in trouble". The problem with that is, what must follow is, "I can harm others if I am not going to get in trouble".

The problem is not the discipline, but the learning methods used on children. Just because you don't spank them doesn't mean you don't punish or teach them right from wrong.

I think we can all agree life was simpler the further back in time we go. Our modern world is very complicated and confusing. But I think it's for a good cause. We're evolving (I don't mean this in the literal sense, as in, evolution of a species, but evolution of our capacities and technology). This obviously means some things are going to happen.

God isn't the answer. Proper knowledge of how to make people internalize a good moral set IS. And in my opinion, religion does not give you a good moral set. I'm not saying all religious people are immoral. Not at all. I'm just talking about the teachings. What you learn is "I shouldn't do this because God said I shouldn't". That is the main teaching of the bible - the main reason you should not hurt others is because God says it's bad. Not because you would not like to be hurt, or because hurting others is inherently immoral. Which I think it is. Not because of God, but because harm is the only universal sin.

Okay, where to start.

God IS the answer. If you truly are a Christian, God-loving person, then you understand that you don't not do something just because God said not to. The Bible does not tell you to blindly follow him like it's some cult. A true Christian does right because he/she knows it is wrong and that God also looks down upon it. Honestly, yes, there are people who say they're religous and just blindly follow God, but the true believers do right because of many reasons other than "God said it was wrong."

Now, unto the rest of what you said. When you don't spank your kid and you expect him to just do right because that it is right, then this is giving him the thought that he/she can do whatever they want because they won't get punished. Sure, you tell your kid not to do it because that's not what they would want. But what if, and I am using extreme circumstances (that are occuring much more often), this kid wants to die? Telling him to do what he wants done unto him, well you're teaching him that he can kill as many people as he wants because it is what he would want done unto him.

I am a kid and I know how one thinks. If you are a parent and you tell your kid he can do whatever he wants, but he will be spanked if it is wrong, especially when the parents aren't pansies, then you are MUCH less likely to misbehave. On the other hand, if my parents told me that I can do whatever I want and they won't phisically hurt me, then who cares about a phone lost for a week. Who cares if I don't get to come out of my room. I have everything in here anyways.

Spanking a kid and teaching him there will be punishments for all actions may give them the mindset that "I don't want to do this because I'm afraid I'll get caught," is a better mindset than "I can do whatever I want because even if I do get caught, the punishments won't be that bad anyways."

Honestly, I had a lot more to say as I was reading the quote I have, but as I wrote on, I kind of lost what I was going to say.

[devonin]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

God IS the answer.

Assuming the question is "Where can I get a convenient outside source to tell me what I should consider to be right and wrong, in the absence of my own strong moral compass.

When you don't spank your kid and you expect him to just do right because that it is right, then this is giving him the thought that he/she can do whatever they want because they won't get punished.

There are punishments that are effective as negative reenforcement that are not physical. As an aside to that, it's been proven that positively reenforcing good behavior works much better on animals than negatively reenforcing bad behavior, and in many ways, intellectually and mentally young children aren't that far off.

But what if, and I am using extreme circumstances (that are occuring much more often), this kid wants to die? Telling him to do what he wants done unto him, well you're teaching him that he can kill as many people as he wants because it is what he would want done unto him.

If you've taught your child that the defintion of the word "Suicide" is exactly the same as the definition of the word "Murder" except whether you do it to yourself or someone else, I think you've made a rather tragic error in raising your child. Further, last I checked it was "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" Not "As you would do unto yourself"

If you are a parent and you tell your kid he can do whatever he wants, but he will be spanked if it is wrong, especially when the parents aren't pansies, then you are MUCH less likely to misbehave.

Right...because motivating them out of fear of being physically harmed is a healthy attitude. I mean, sure, Napolean said that every human action is guided by either fear or greed, but not everyone is so cynical as to think that the only way to make your child behave is to put them in a position where they are too afraid of the consequences to risk punishment.

On the other hand, if my parents told me that I can do whatever I want and they won't phisically hurt me, then who cares about a phone lost for a week. Who cares if I don't get to come out of my room. I have everything in here anyways.

This is a common issue for many parents when trying to determine a punishment for a child, and at its root just shows how little involved parents are in the lives of their children. Obviously if all your stuff is in there, simply sending you to your room is no punishment at all. That's not proof that non-physical punishments are no good, that's proof that when it comes to knowing how to punish you in a way that will effect you, your parents are just idiots.

Spanking a kid and teaching him there will be punishments for all actions may give them the mindset that "I don't want to do this because I'm afraid I'll get caught," is a better mindset than "I can do whatever I want because even if I do get caught, the punishments won't be that bad anyways."

How are either of those better than "I don't want to do this because I've been taught that it is wrong, by having it be explained -why- it is wrong" Maybe my family is somehow some crazy, unique family of geniuses, but somehow I really really doubt that. My family is no different than any other, or at least is no different than what any other has the potential to be.

I recieved two spankings in my entire life. Both while I was under the age of 2, both while I was basically mentally unable to comprehend an explanation of why what I did was wrong. Once I tried to run directly into traffic, and once in a very large city, I ran away while my mother was momentarily distracted, and both spankings were as much a fear response from my mother as they were intended to punish me.

As soon as I was of an age to understand intellectual and abstract concepts, my family simply took the route of -explaining- why things that were "wrong" were wrong. Most children, if shown some basic respect for their own intellect are capable of drawing the connection between "I woudln't like it if someone took my toys" and "It's not a nice thing to take someone else's toys, because they won't like it either"

[u84]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

"There are punishments that are effective as negative reenforcement that are not physical. As an aside to that, it's been proven that positively reenforcing good behavior works much better on animals than negatively reenforcing bad behavior, and in many ways, intellectually and mentally young children aren't that far off."
Comparing children to animals.. I wasn't expecting this one. I taught my dog where to use the bathroom by beating him if he did it inside. He learned very quick. Now, are you going to keep comparing animals to children? Probably not.

"Maybe my family is somehow some crazy, unique family of geniuses, but somehow I really really doubt that. My family is no different than any other, or at least is no different than what any other has the potential to be."
It is becoming more and more obvious that you were not the product of spanking and, quite frankly, if that's true, then I believe even more in spanking. Wouldn't want MY kids to turn out like that.

"This is a common issue for many parents when trying to determine a punishment for a child, and at its root just shows how little involved parents are in the lives of their children. Obviously if all your stuff is in there, simply sending you to your room is no punishment at all. That's not proof that non-physical punishments are no good, that's proof that when it comes to knowing how to punish you in a way that will effect you, your parents are just idiots."

Do you really want to take this to an insulting each other level? The examples I give are not just my parents. I see it all the time. You and your parents seem like snobby assholes who think you're better than everyone. Just because you and I may believe in different opinions does not give you the right to be insulting my parents. I think you need to be spanked.

[Chrissi]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

Actually u47, devonin is right, at least about the positive reinforcement. There have been many studies showing positive reinforcement works much better than negative.

Where to start.... okay. Studies are done not just on animals, but people too, that show that negative discipline barely works and is more likely to cause harm than teach kids not to do something.

It is, however, counter-intuitive, because of regression. Parents often strongly believe that spanking their children leads to a good effect, and they tend to cease positive reinforcement because it seems to do nothing. Regression causes the immediate effect to disappear, so it can be confusing to see why positive reinforcement is more successful on the whole than negative.

What is regression, in this context? Well, regression means that things tend to return to the norm. In the case of children, we're talking about their behaviour. When a child does something extraordinarily good, a parent might feel inclined to reward the child. However, the parent might become disheartened at what happens next - the child's behaviour is most likely to return to the statistical norm. When you are high - it's very hard to get higher. If you get an A on a test, but you usually only get Cs, is it very likely that, on your next test, you get another A? No amount of rewarding will cause a child to immediately improve. So parents decide that it isn't working.

On the contrast, when a child does something extraordinarily bad, parents may feel inclined to punish the child. And because of regression, IT WILL ALWAYS SEEM LIKE IT IS WORKING, even if it isn't. If you don't understand, well here's the explanation. Again, regression means that it returns to the statistical norm. If the child normally gets Cs, and comes home with a failing mark, is it very likely that, on the next test, the child will fail again? No. They will probably improve. It's hard to get lower than low. If you fail... where else is there to go? Since the child normally gets Cs, it is extremely probable that on the child's next test, they will get a higher mark than they just got. This happens WHETHER YOU PUNISH THE CHILD OR NOT. When parents decide to discipline their child physically, and the child improves, the parent concludes that the discipline is working.

Basically, regression can account for most immediate effects of positive reinforcement (not working) and negative reinforcement (working). However, this says nothing about the long term effects. Say a child (who normally gets Cs) comes home with an extraordinary test mark of an A. The parents cheer and hooray and treat the child to a night out. On their next test, they get a C+. The child has improved! But will a parent see that? Probably not. They will wonder "What have we done wrong? Their mark went back down!" and will be discouraged from continuing positive reinforcement - unless they understand regression.

Regression effects and how they are perceived by people can easily explain the strong motivation to punish and the weak motivation to positively reinforce. It also explains why people "intuitively know" that punishment works and positive reinforcement doesn't, when in actuality, there is a lot of evidence going for positive reinforcement.

Many child therapists are reccomending for parents (not all the time - definitely not in certain extreme cases) to simply ignore their child's bad behaviour, and remember to always compliment them on their good behaviour. This creates a positive attitude in the child. Also, many children may misbehave for the sole purpose of attracting attention. Even if the attention is negative. (Much like interet trolls, and the same philosophy works for them: ) If you ignore negative behaviour, you won't be reinforcing this attention seeking. If you reinforce positive behaviour, you will be reinforcing the child's positive identity.

Long post. That's all I guess. I haven't read all of the replies, but I wanted to comment on how "easy" it is to tell that physical discipline works and positive reinforcemet doesn't.

[devonin]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

Comparing children to animals.. I wasn't expecting this one. I taught my dog where to use the bathroom by beating him if he did it inside. He learned very quick. Now, are you going to keep comparing animals to children? Probably not.

Did you -read- my comparison? I just finished explaining why there is evidence that positive re-enforcement works better than negative re-enforcement. All you've done in this response is say "But since -I- use negative re-enforcement with animals, saying that animals are comparable to young children means -I- should use negative re-enfocement to kids as well" which is drawing a completely faulty conclusion from my statements. My statements directly said "Positive re-enforcement works better on animals, I see no reason why a person, who has better cognitive function, wouldn't benefit even better from it"

It is becoming more and more obvious that you were not the product of spanking and, quite frankly, if that's true, then I believe even more in spanking. Wouldn't want MY kids to turn out like that.

Turn out like what? Positive moral actors who got that way through being treated like a responsible person with a working mind, instead of beaing physically punished into submission? Somehow I don't really view that as a bad thing.

Do you really want to take this to an insulting each other level? The examples I give are not just my parents. I see it all the time. You and your parents seem like snobby assholes who think you're better than everyone. Just because you and I may believe in different opinions does not give you the right to be insulting my parents. I think you need to be spanked.

I didn't "insult your parents" because you and I have differnet opinions. I said, quite distinctly: "If the only punishment your parents can up with other than hitting you is actually not a punishment at all, it says -more- that your parents don't know you very well, than it says punishments that aren't hitting you are no good." Further, I didn't say "Your parents are idiots" I said "when it comes to knowing how to punish you in a way that will effect you, your parents are just idiots." That's a very specific and limited situation in which I called your parents into question. That's a very far cry from "Your parents are idiots." Full stop. And also a far cry from your riposte of "You and your parents seem like snobby assholes who think you're better than everyone. " Which is just a full on ad hominem attack.

Don't you find it a little disheartening, other forum readers, that "Parents who treat their children as intelligent reasonable people, and actually discuss and explain themselves instead of just hitting you when you do something wrong" makes them "A snobby asshole who thinks they're better than everyone"?

[Verruckter]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

http://www.finnchan.fi/b/files/1176999718/1_lul.jpg

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

[devonin]

Re: Blaming what Cho did...on media?

You know, perhaps the title of this thread ought to be changed. The OP's video link didn't actually deal directly with the shooting at all, and the particular points of the video that the group seems to collectively hit on to discuss have even less to do with school shootings...