movie and it will barely budge the thing to a PG rating. Show one hint of a
breast and you're almost already at an R rating. Yes the research is very
clear, modeling violence (i.e. showing violent movies etc) encourages
violence in the watchers. Showing sex doesn't nearly have the same effect.
Yet the continuation of the violence is far more likely to have very
negative consequences, both to the individual and to society. Even if the
depiction of sex produced the same sort of continuation of behavior as does
violence, what would be the consequences, aside from looks of bemused
semi-contentment etc. If anything it would not be a detrimental. Sometimes I
think that this society's values are really screwed over.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:04 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Rumsfeld's Wordplay
>
>
> >>Of course. Hypocrisy is required thinking for republicans.
>
> Well, I'd go with all politicians here, maybe even most
> people to some extent, myself included.
>
> >>Besides torture is ok, its not like hat messy un-American activity
> >>called
> sex.
>
> Damn, I know what you mean. I should've been of age in the
> swinging seventies.....that would have rocked.
>
> >>As for the latest piece of evidence, that an relatively low level
> >>para-military officer in Saddam's regime was at an Al-Queda
> strategy
> >>session. Apparently what that accusation hinged on the
> person having a
> >>similar name as an Al-Queda officer.
>
> >>I guess they've never heard of names like John Smith and Jon Smith.
>
> Yeah, I was laughing at this, this morning. Heard it on NPR.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
