TexasCHLforum.com

ShootDontTalk wrote:It sounds to me like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Have a great day.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

baldeagle wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:So what are you wanting to do here? Ban violent games and movies? Just like guns, violent games and movies are here to stay. I will continue to play and watch them and I have no disire to commit acts of violence.

Well, one thing we can do is pass laws that forbid violent movies or shows during hours when children are likely to be home. We actually used to have standards for TV that didn't permit such crap. There's nothing wrong with having such laws except that people don't want the laws. We could pass laws that don't allow violent videos to be sold to children.

VoiceofReason wrote:When I was growing up, violence was to be used only as a last resort, for self defense. People now laugh at Roy Rogers and other older cowboy movies. Then movies started showing up with a revenge theme. “Death Wish” with Charles Bronson was one of the earliest one I can remember.

In a lot of movies now, killing someone for revenge is “OK” and with as much blood and screaming as possible.

I did not intend to say these are the sole cause of violence, just that they contribute to society to lower our humanity just a little. A steady stream of this every day is bound to have an effect on the adolescent mind whether people realize it or not.

I wonder what Roy Rogers would say about the movie “The Unforgiven” if he saw it now?

As I said “People think to themselves, “that’s only a movie or video game”. “I would never kill someone for revenge or go on a killing spree because I got fired from a job”. “Someone else might do that but I wouldn’t”. It never crosses their mind that “someone else” goes to the movies they do, “someone else” works where they do, “someone else” goes to the school their children do.

People who play video games are less able to control impulsive aggressive behaviour, a new study suggests.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/v ... tudy..html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Science has come to a general consensus that violent TV does have an effect on kids' behavior, although doesn't say it causes children to act out the violence they see on the screen.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/vi ... lence1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Violent movies can increase violent responses in real life.
Two recently published studies show that prolonged exposure to gratuitous violence in the media can escalate subsequent hostile behaviors and, among some viewers, foster greater acceptance of violence as a means of conflict resolution.
The two studies were conducted by James B. Weaver III, head of the Department of Communication at Virginia Tech, and Dolf Zillmann of the University of Alabama.
http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/scien ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;