QUOTE(FlutePlayer @ Jan 4 2004, 04:29 PM)
Children learn violence and become conditioned to be violent. Violence desensitizes children - it makes them aggressive and mean.
In my experience, I've seen far more violent kids who participated in football programs than couch potatoes. These sentences, taken away from the context of television or music, are certainly true. And I do agree that seeing violence in any form, including on television, can have a negative effect on children - at the very least, it does
desensitize them to violent images. I have seen the results again and again - kids who think The Exorcist
is merely "cool," kids who think Hannibal Lecter is "funny." However, I don't think it is possible to conclude that this desensitization actually leads to increases in violent behaviours.
I'm sure that in some cases, it can be a determining factor, but I think there are other, far more prevalent, factors - namely, parental behaviour.
Also, and here I speak from my own experience, seeing the results of real violence is not
the same as seeing it on TV. I have seen countless splatter movies - from a fairly early age, but nothing could have prepared me for my first serious trauma case as an EMT - a man who shot himself in the face, missing his entire lower jaw, his breath coming in bloody gurgles. A person might think they are desensitized, but I guarantee you that seeing real gore is wholly different. Nothing prepares you for it.
Going back to my first point in this post, I really do think that football programs, in which children are encouraged and rewarded for actually being
violent, produce far more aggressive people than anything on the screen.
Movies that portray violence can condition children to believe that violence is the proper way to handle disputes.
But again, it comes down to the more influential factors - the parents. Parents who display violence raise violent children - there's hardly any question about that. Fathers who beat their wives are way more likely to raise future wife-beaters - or daughters far more likely to get involved in abusive relationships. On the other hand, parents who, by example, are peaceful, loving people, are going to overcome the influence of the media on their children. These parents are going to be more likely to place limits on what their children see, anyways.
The photonic movie substance (violent imagery) is optically consumed by children and then the substance (violent imagery) then brainwashes children to be violent. Movie violence is a form of photonic poison. All "entertainment" violence depicted is a form of photonic poison. "Entertainment" violence that is heard is audio poison.
Here, you're standing on shaky ground. You're drawing completely unprovable conclusions. Now, it's fine if you believe it, that's your opinion. But remember that's all it is. In my last post, I gave a solid reasoning as to why studies about this kind of stuff are never provable.
It all really comes down to the parents. So why should everyone else be censored because of the bad parents?
I think it would be naive to believe there are NO negative effects from watching violence, just as it would be naive to think that getting rid of violence in the media would be some sort of panacea for children. As for what that negative effect is, I don't think it really brainwashes kids to be violent. I think the negative effect is part of a negative effect produced by media in general. People (children or adults) who watch TV all the time are: more apathetic, less intelligent, less creative, more complacent, and worse readers.