Thread: Sex & Violence
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2007, 10:56 PM   #43
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Re: Sex & Violence

Precisely. The problem **is** the few that don't get the difference. In most cases, that can often be traced back to parents that don't let the kids imagine in the first place, trying to make them mini grown up, or who don't explain things, just tell them its bad, or well, I think you get the point. If you don't provide a framework to understand something, kids won't just miraculously learn to understand it. If you teach them to think about it in a way that inadvertantly, or intentionally, promotes the idea that hurting people is OK, then they are not going to just wake up one morning and suddenly think that its bad to hurt people. Not without a long internal struggle and lots of other input that suggests that their learned preconceptions are wrong. Isolation produces isolationists, who lack the knowledge and broad exposure to idea that **allow** them to form rational opinions about other people and things, let alone form well developed moral codes. This is imho, why you are more likely to find someone who spent the first 20 years of their life inside a cultish environment telling you, "If the FSM didn't exist, the first thing I would do is kill you for annoying me, then I would find some things to steal and some women to rape.", while you wouldn't *ever* find anyone else making such a statement. To anyone any with breadth of ideas, exposure to differences of opinion and who has has the chance to form a moral code, without referring "only" to some groups dogma, such a statement isn't just bizzare, its scary, irrational and one strongly wonders why the person stating it isn't in a padded room.

The problem is, we have two sort of "over protectors". One group would like to shield kids from all bad stuff, because they don't want the risk of any of them getting hurt. This is completely unrealistic, even if it is an understandable impulse. The others... Think they have an "edge" over everyone else on what the real risks are, can't or won't see that they are wrong, and are only "partially" interested in limiting risk. They are more dangerous because they are not wrong for the right reasons, they are wrong for self interested reasons, believing that somehow, by putting as many road blocks in the path of kids, to limit risks, both real and imaginary, they will ***personally*** gain something from doing it. That they are usually the first ones to tell you that its not their own selfish need to gain something is beside the point (if not a blatent lie). And it really doesn't matter what the source of this nonsense is, be it unsupported enviro-lunacy, religious craziness, economic wackoism, UFO abduction risks, or what ever else you can name. Its all based on some fringe group coming up with some real, but overblown, or completely made up, risk, then working to convince everyone else to "make changes" to "fix" it.

But yeah, Disney movies are a good example. Tell me why again alligators trying to eat some kids is more socially acceptable than the coincidental inclusion of a famous nude painting in The Rescuers? Wish I still had the originals of those, or Disney would release a, "For non-prudes.", version with original art, including things like original cover art. You know, like the Lion King version that some idiot found the word "sex" in, or the supposed phalic image on the cover of the Little Mermaid.
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote