Do Americans Bring it on Themselves? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Do Americans Bring it on Themselves?

Debate Information

@Barnardot @Bogan
is really like an extension of there doolies because there so little any way because they didn’t get there moms milk and which is why they drive around in broncos that are mat black and have giant wheels and a heap of hunting lights on it so they can go around knocking off innocent animals because that’s what they get off on

You are right though.....despite your wording being a bit on the clumsy side I think it spells it out loud and clear for many Yanks. There is an inground belief that was cemented into the culture of America since the wild west days. Australia had a similar upbringing and making a folk hero out of Ned Kelly did not exactly help matters....we grew up as a nation. Americans went the way of idolising gun-slinging yahoos for decades of Western movies through the golden years of Hollywood. The only break the film industry got was getting into the craze of producing war movies by the dozen. They were more sophisticated and taught Americans how to blow-away forty people at a time with an automatic weapon. And when wars became unfashionable...lets start on the "conflicts" and "special operations" and make Sly Stallones smirk iconic whilst he blows away fifty people at a time and showing off the latest fashion of slinging a mega-round of ammo over each shoulder. When the heck will America grow up and stop promoting such a deadly culture?

piloteerexcon



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  

    The mid-60's saw the liberalisation of the censorship laws pertaining to the entertainment industries, throughout the western world, and there is a strong connection between this liberalisation, and our spiraling rates of violent crime.   According to the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Friday Nov. 1997 incidence of violent crime generally, has increased 400% since 1964, armed robbery 700% since 1964, and rapes 1400% since 1953.

     Between the years 1900 to 1970, England and Wales, achieved a significant milestone in the peaceful advancement of the human race.  They achieved the lowest murder rate ever recorded for any industrialised, urban society in the world.   This murder rate, 0.5 per 100,000, is even lower than the much vaunted (official) murder rate of gunless Japan, 0.6 per 100,000.

     This great achievement was attained, not because the English enacted strong firearms laws in 1930, because prior to 1930, England and Wales had  gun laws that were extremely liberal, and private citizens could legally possess handguns and even Vickers machine guns.   Citizens could even carry a handgun in public if they had bought a tax stamp at the post office.  The laws of 1930 were not enacted in response to any rising crime rate, but because the ruling class feared that British workers might embrace a Communist  revolution.   Similarly, the murder rate remained unchanged during the war years, when millions of servicemen and home guardsmen, openly carried around in public all manner of lethal military weapons, and even kept them at home.   It was achieved because of their culture.

     In all of their novels, radio plays, dramas, newspapers, songs, and movies of this period, violent criminals, especially murderers, were portrayed the way that any police officer or prison warder will tell you that they really are.   Weak, , impulsive, morally bankrupt, entirely selfish, immature, and objects of scorn and pity.   The media and entertainment industry exercised scrupulous social responsibility, providing the public, especially the young, with admirable and adventurous role models .

     Models like Robin Hood, King Arthur and his Knights, Biggles, Sherlock Holmes, Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Wellington, Baden Powell, Douglas Bader, and the pilots of Fighter Command.  These role models were esteemed as the quintessential Englishmen.   They were depicted as being unflappably cool in tight situations, loyal, adventurous, chivalrous, brave, and with impeccable manners    They were dismissive of mortal danger by means of an understated sense of humour and "a stiff upper lip."    Violence committed by these men, was never on a personnel level, but only on behalf of the King, the Parliament, or the Empire.   These role models, idolised by generations of adolescent boys, nurtured a national character of the English Gentleman, that was openly admired, not only by Great Britain's many friends, but oddly enough, even by their most bitter enemies.    The constant reinforcement of societies values and expectations by the entertainment and media industries of Great Britain, was so strong, that much to the amazement of other Western industrialised societies, the British police had no need to carry sidearms.   Even the criminal underclass had been conditioned to believe, that the use of violence was for "nutters", and a tacit "gentleman's agreement", between  professional criminals and police, limited violence to the criminals traditional cosh and the policeman's baton.

     But today this powerful social inhibiter has been turned on its head.   The Hollywood inspired culture of  today, portray armed robbers, hired murderers, gangsters, drug addicts, drug pushers, car thieves, street gang members, vigilante's, and loners bent on personnel revenge, as action movie heroes, admirable role models, and macho men.

    The most pitiful members of our society, those young men who are prone to criminal behaviour, who have generally low intelligence, poor social skills, poor self control, a minimal tolerance for boredom and frustration, an immature thrill seeking personality, who are poorly socialised, often fatherless, and a selfish, egocentric view of life, find these movies inspirational in their crimes.    They can identify  with the criminal heroes of these movies, who are invariably portrayed as societies outsiders, who are manly, tough, self  assured, decisive, and objects of female adulation.          These movies glamourise violence and reinforce the instincts of the socially inept, that violence and criminality, can be an  acceptable way to attain dominance, respect, success, sexually submissive beautiful girls, and public admiration.                   

     Even the non criminal heroes portray an aura of aggressive masculinity as their dominant characteristic, who successfully use violence as a first resort when solving their personnel problems.  These  movies validate violence as an appropriate and manly response to those problems causing anger, frustration, and humiliation, which  can be  a routine occurrence in every normal persons, everyday life

     


    Swolliw
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    The mid-60's saw the liberalisation of the censorship laws.......

    Well said.

  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 6
    i think you are generalizing. There are people like that and many who are not. As well, if you actually think people and america in general are what you observe in the movies then you better get an education. @Swolliw @Barnardot
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    i think you are generalizing. There are people like that and many who are not. As well, if you actually think people and america in general are what you observe in the movies then you better get an education.

    Hi Maxx.    You did not address your post to me, you have directed it at Mr Swallow and that low IQ troll, Barnadot.   I think that Mr Swallow has potential, but you are wasting your time with that Barnadot moron who is obviously intellectually challenged.

     Anyhoo, since this is my favourite subject, I am gong to barge in anyway.

     Australia's homicide rate has been 1.8 per 100,000 for a very long time.     The US homicide rate at the year 2000 was 9.8 per 100,000.   Therefore, the US homicide rate is five time Australia's.     Uninformed people put this all down to the fact that firearms in the USA are ridiculously easy for even the worst kinds of criminals to obtain, and they are partially correct.    But if all the people murdered with firearms are removed from the US homicide rate entirely, the US homicide rate would still be twice that of Australia's.     Obviously, something other than the mere presence of firearms makes some Americans think solving their personnel problems by killing the people who upset them, is the correct thing to do.

     My premise is, that the reason for the difference is culture.

     Australia was once the inheritors of British culture   Like British culture, our culture rejected the idea of personnel vengeance, and it usually denigrated criminal behaviour.       Our censorship laws were once ridiculously harsh because our forefathers knew that the messages transmitted and the images displayed by the media could affect people's behaviour.

     US censorship laws were far more liberal than either British and Australian laws, but US entertainment culture differed in two important ways.    In US entertainment culture, the cult of personnel vengeance was seen as a virtue while in British and Australian culture, it most certainly was not.    In addition, US movies seemed to be far more tolerant of criminal behaviour than in Australia and Britain.    US gangsters seemed to have almost rock star status among the US population.   This did generate some copycat behaviour in Australia, where bushrangers like Ned Kelly were portrayed as the Australian versions of Billy the Kid and Jesse James.

     What I am getting at is, that because of your culture, Americans seem to have much more tolerance for vengeance type behaviour than people from other advanced western nations, and this is one reason why your homicide rates are much higher than other comparable countries.   This is changing with time, as US Hollywood movies are now almost pre eminent in English speaking countries.   I submit that the rise of massacre type behaviour in many western countries, is the result of the cultural transmission of US cultural values, which glamourises mass killing vengeance behaviour by US on screen heroes.



  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 6
    there are people all over the world who kill, maim rob, etc.  statistics depends upon population.. lack of education compiled with technology, with drinking and drugs and poverty are the key reasons for the problems the world has as a whole.. I am sure that it is very easy to look at America and say "wow, all they do is rob and kill one another".  blame the media for that, for that is all they seem to post; doom, death, and destruction.  don't be so quick and easy to put an entire nation down because of the stupidity of some; and the desire of the media to post it constantly.  Case in point.  there are people like barnadot all over this world.  he spells like he does, for that is the way he talks. perhaps he is an American;  i do not know, yet would you rather see him on the road; give him a gun, the keys to the bomb, etc; or someone who has a high quality education/   the media and stereotypes about America only relates to the lower class of the population regardless of what the statistics may state..  My apologies for any spelling errors and the brevity of my answer for I am on the road and have little time.  @Bogan
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Well put. Taxi driver and apacolypse now were great movies, but the message of some kind of anti-hero moral warrior or a trained special operations fighter in Nam who cannot function in society any longer but can only be a trained killer forever is nothing less than shallow decadence for the purpose of shock value and ticket sales. They convey immoral messages of nihilism and decadence.   
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1444 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    Well put. Taxi driver and apacolypse now were great movies, but the message of some kind of anti-hero moral warrior

    I think that if we look at movies rationally we can get a more realistic picture (pun).

    Hollywood is a gigantic industry....you only need to look at the credits on any given offering to notice the extraordinary manpower alone that goes into making a movie; the average budget is 65 million dollars. It is run like pop culture and there are fashion trends dictated by what people like and changing society morals. Years ago, every movie had to have a steamy sex scene and action movies had to have a large-breasted, sweaty woman who gets knocked off by the star. Now, sex is definitely out and the interaction between the sexes is mostly platonic...there is hardly a square inch of flesh to be seen.

    My point is that psychopathic killers will be influenced by what they see and the video games they play...in a democratic, civilised society censorship can only go so far and quite rightly so. But for decades upon decades, Hollywood has continually portrayed weapons as being something that everyone keeps in the second drawer down in the kitchen and it is no wonder that there are now more guns than there are people in America....the situation is out of hand and I think Americans have become blasé about it.

    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited August 7
    @Swolliw

    Right then. Got it. Less senseless violence and more soft porn for Swillow. I'm game!! 

    I do agree. It becomes tiresome living in a desensitized culture.  
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited August 7
    @Swolliw

    Games without frontiers by Peter Gabriel is a horrifyingly shocking message about how war is an institution that permeates through all levels of society. Bonkers awesome song and quite fitting for the topic at hand. It's sad when peace and brotherly love becomes taboo and unprofitable!! 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Maxx wrote

    there are people all over the world who kill, maim rob, etc.  statistics depends upon population.. lack of education compiled with technology, with drinking and drugs and poverty are the key reasons for the problems the world has as a whole.

     That is simply not correct, Maxx.    Take away from US homicide statistics all people killed through the use of firearms per 1000,000 people, and the US homicide rate is still twice that of Australia's.     The only possible explanation for such US homicide rates which do not involve firearms being twice that of Australia's using every method killing, must be culture.    Unless you can think up another contributing factor?

     The point I was trying to make in my previous post, was that US cultural values which endorse the use of even lethal violence, especially revenge type behaviour have been reinforced by the US entertainment medium for so long that it is affecting the general attitudes of all Americans.    

     If you allow the advertising media to glamourise cigarette smoking Maxx, people will smoke cigarettes.    That is why cigarette smoking is banned in most civilised countries.    I am certain that you can understand why that is so?     But then you seem to have trouble grasping the fact that if you allow the entertainment media to glamourise violent street gang behaviour, glamourise (or even normalise) drug ingestion. glamourise criminal behaviour, glamourise violence against women, glamourise revenge type behaviour, especially such behaviour involving on screen heroes getting revenge by mowing down their enemies by the dozen with automatic weapons, that you are going to get exactly the same results as glamourising tobacco.

     Maxx wrote

     I am sure that it is very easy to look at America and say "wow, all they do is rob and kill one another". 

     No Maxx, I don't.    Because I know why it is so.   But I am having trouble making you understand it.

     Maxx wrote

     Blame the media for that, for that is all they seem to post; doom, death, and destruction.  don't be so quick and easy to put an entire nation down because of the stupidity of some; and the desire of the media to post it constantly.  Case in point.  there are people like barnadot all over this world.  he spells like he does, for that is the way he talks. perhaps he is an American;  i do not know, yet would you rather see him on the road; give him a gun, the keys to the bomb, etc; or someone who has a high quality education/   the media and stereotypes about America only relates to the lower class of the population regardless of what the statistics may state..  My apologies for any spelling errors and the brevity of my answer for I am on the road and have little time. 

     People who have low IQ, are poorly socialised because they are living in one parent families with absent fathers, possibly having undiagnosed mental issues, are much more prone to the violence glamourising, criminal, drug endorsing, criminal street gang endorsing, and misogyny glamourised by the entertainment industries, than high IQ people from well socialised families.    While well socialised people would consider a violent movie as entertaining because the on screen heroes usually ignore every rule and law, thereby creating a fantasy world that is not real, a low IQ, poorly socialised young man may see it as a script for how to become what he most desperately wants to be.    A respected person who nobody messes with because he is feared, and this violent behaviour supposedly makes him extremely attractive to the most beautiful women of the opposite sex, who he thinks he can treat like dirt.

     Look Maxx.    You seem to be a student of Psychology?   That's good, so am I.    So how about we look at the psychological angle here?

     When President Clinton asked the US Surgeon- General, to have his department begin collecting data, to try and ascertain if there was link between violent entertainment and real life violence, he was told by the Attorney General that there was no need.    All of the studies had already been done.  40 years of scientific research had positively proven that link.    Psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists had conducted hundreds of studies, confirming that the increasing levels of violence in young people had a cultural link. 

     Between 1990 and 1996, the  American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,  the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Mental Health, and the American Academy of Paediatrics, issued a Joint Statement,( http://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-librar ... rt-surgeon) in which they unanimously concluded that violence in the media contributed to violence in the real world.

     The American Psychological Association (APA)  report began "The scientific debate is over."  The APA also testified before congress and stated " There is absolutely no doubt, that the increased level of TV viewing, is correlated to the increasing acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour........Children's exposure to violence in mass media, can have harmful lifelong effects."

     The American Medical Association (AMA) concluded in September 1996, "The link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science over and over again."

      Professor Leonard Eron, of the University of Illinois conducted a 22 year study which found a  direct correlation between middle class children between the amount of violent entertainment watched and subsequent violent and aggressive behaviour.    In a speech at the Harvard School of Public Health, he stated that literally hundreds of studies provide "convincing evidence that the observation of violence, as seen in standard evening television entertainment, does effect the aggressive behaviour of the viewer     We found that the more violent the programs that the kids watched at home, the more aggressive they were in school."

     Was professor Eron correct, Maxx?     Okay, let's look at that.   

     After the release of the violent cartoon series TEENAGE  MUTANT NINJA TURTLES, teachers all over the world were horrified to observe little children Karate kicking each other all over  school playgrounds.    When the teachers intervened and ordered the kids to stop, many teachers reported  that the children simply did not understand what they were doing wrong.    The kids believed that by imitating the TURTLES, they were engaging in normal, social interaction.

     


    piloteer
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 7
    there is over 330 million in america compared to about 26 million in Australia. This is why the statistics  are so much higher. our cities are also much more denser and closer to each other as a whole . Our murder and violent crime is higher  because of the population. Take a tribe of 100 people and one of 10.  There will be more violence within the group of 100 regardless of movies and media. There may be 1 or 2 in the smaller group who acts out a movie role compared to 30 in the larger group. culture plays a role in every country and it varies in each country so you simply can not blame culture as a whole. our larger population gives us various ethic groups . The highest concentration  of crime is over property.  Murders are not as wide spread through out the country as you would think, ; it is concentrated in the heavy populated areas. US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties | Fox News  it is not simply our culture, nor is it movie adulation .Culture of the United States - Wikipedia if you take the rate of crime in Australia and multiply it in regard to the size america has, there would not be much difference.  The majority of murders are caused by low income blacks, drugs, alcohol;, gangs, etc and these people do not idolize any movie characters or  way of life. Who Commits Murder in America? – The Occidental Observer   If you show something like the mutant turtles to a group of young children anywhere in the world, they will more-than-likely act parts of it out among themselves.  @Bogan @Bogan
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    I don't disagree with your claim that the people of the US have a sickness culturally, we do have a senseless propensity for violence. I just disagree that it is the fault of mass media. Mass media itself is a product of our social and cultural sickness. We influence our mass media. 
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Maxx quote

     there is over 330 million in America compared to about 26 million in Australia. This is why the statistics our cities are also much more denser and closer to each other as a whole are so much higher. yes our murder and violent crime is higher  because of the population.

     Well Maxx, I am surprised that you seem to be a student of psychology, and you even quote psychology to verify your position on other topics.    So when I submitted that the respected psychological and medical institutions of the USA had issued the historic Joint Statement declaring unequivocally that media violence affected real life violence, I though that you would quickly reach the tipping point and begin to realise you are wrong?     Okay, I will have to try harder to deprogram you.

     Homicide rates are not affected by population size because they are determined as homicides per 100,000.    Urban areas have higher rates of violent crime than rural areas because of "the crowded rat syndrome", and the fact that urban areas allow criminals to remain anonymous and free from the repercussions and scorn of their local communities, if they were to commit serious crimes in rural areas.   Despite overseas perceptions, Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world with the vast majority of the populations concentrated in coastal cities.

     Maxx quote

     Take a tribe of 100 people and one of 10.  There will be more violence within the group of 100 regardless of movies and media. There may be 1 or 2 in the smaller group who acts out a movie role compared to 30 in the larger group. culture plays a role in every country and it varies in each country so you simply can not blame culture as a whole. our larger population gives us various ethic groups .

     One of the basic principles of statistics is that you can not draw any statistical conclusions from a very small number of examples.     But one statistic should concern you.    Juvenile homicides are the fastest growing crime statistic in the USA.     When young people in your society are doing things that they never did before, Maxx, the smart people like yourself should ask ask themselves," Why is this happening now, and not before?"

     Maxx wrote

     The highest concentration  of crime is over property. 

     Which is why the entertainment industries should stop teaching kids it fashionable to steal and be a criminal.   Is shoplifting okay, Maxx?     If you say "no", then why do you allow your entertainment industries to tell kids the opposite?       The pop music industry, under the genre of "Gangsta Rap", openly endorses this behaviour. One group, rejoicing in the name of "The Lo Lifes", gave an interview in THE SOURCE music magazine, bragging about their shoplifting skills.       "Gangsta rap" artists openly boast  about their criminal activities and there is a suspicion, that  these characters deliberately engage in well publicised acts of low level criminal behaviour.  This is to enhance their careers by giving themselves a  mystique of "criminal credibility".   This is presumed  to impress their gullible young fans.   Please note, being a real life criminal is directly  pitched to vulnerable young people by the entertainment industry as someone to look up to.

     In Great Britain, the Triple A Multimedia Group  promoted the "rap" career of one Simone Locker, who was  serving a prison sentence for armed robbery.  It was presumed that she would be popular with young people who were fans of "gangsta rap", since she already possessed "criminal credibility".  She now sings under the singularly appropriate name of "Felon".

     Maxx quote

      Murders are not as wide spread through out the country; it is concentrated in the heavy populated areas. US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties | Fox News  it is not simply our culture, nor is it movie adulation

     The US homicide rate is horrendously high compared to other western countries.     The reason is, your culture of violence, which is a product of your entertainment industries telling American people for generations that Real Men are violent men, who don't get mad, they get even.   Preferably with a high magazine capacity self loading weapon, which in the USA is very easy to obtain.

     Maxx wrote

     .Culture of the United States - Wikipedia if you take the rate of crime in Australia and multiply it in regard to the size america has there would not be much difference. 

     Wrong, Maxx.    Australia's homicide rate is 1.8 per 100,000.   The US homicide rate is five times higher than that at 9.8 per 100,000.    Mexico's homicide rate is three times higher than the USA.    Why?    Because US culture, especially that of US Africans, is more violent than Australian culture.    And Mexican culture is even more violent than the USA's.     While young Americans are beginning to develop a taste for violent and gory movies that have been choreographed by Hollywood, and young US Africans are fascinated by violence endorsing rap video's,  Mexicans are fascinated by the  real thing. 

     Mexican culture is based upon the spiritual beliefs of it's pre Columbian  Aztec ancestors, who were convinced that the continuation of life was based upon the spillage of copious amounts of human blood.     This was blended with the Catholicism of their Spanish conquerors, who's tortured saints and crucified God, truly struck a cultural chord with the conquered.     Nowhere else in the world does blood flow more freely from crucified Christ's, and nowhere else does the crown of thorns cut more deeply into His head.    The idea of a vengeful God, who would damn unbelievers and sinners to everlasting torture, was a popular notion among the Aztecs, which prompted them to flock to this new religion in droves.

     Of course, the 16th century Spanish model of a vengeful God, has now been considerably moderated by the Church, into a God of love and forgiveness.    But this new model God has not gone over too well with the people of Mexico.  Despite the power and prestige of the Church, religious tenets like "Thou Shalt Not Kill", do not have much currency in this land.    In Mexico,  the much more powerful religious cults of machismo, blood feud, and revenge, sit much higher on the totem.    Naturally, this view is reflected in Mexican culture.

     What the people of Mexico want is real blood, and plenty of it.   To cater to this taste, there are many tabloid newspapers which display full colour, full page photographs of headless corpses, rotting bodies, machete chopped mothers, puffed up floating cadavers and morgue photo's with close up's of the faces of the deceased.    In a desperately poor and hideously overpopulated country like Mexico, it is always an uplifting experience to gaze at gruesome  pictures, and realise that someone else has got it a lot worse than you have.    The captions which accompany the photo's of raped and murdered young women, hanging suicides, strangled children, and bullet riddled criminals, are moral in tone and suggest religious retribution.   The deceased was entirely responsible for their own gory demise, and they got what they deserved.  The most popular of these newspapers is the much revered ALARMA!, which sells no less than 15,000,000 copies a week.   

     ALARMA! is a national institution and a high point in Mexican culture.  It is such a cultural icon and so very profitable, that it now has imitators like ALARDE!, ENLACE!, and PELLIGRO!

     Maxx quote

     The majority of murders are caused by low income blacks, drugs, alcohol;, gangs, etc and these people do not idolize any movie characters or way of life.

     Excuse me?     Like, you are kidding, Maxx?    

     Rap music in particular, is very popular with low income blacks and it noted for it's anti social themes.   Not only does it glorify criminality, drugs, and violence, in particular it glamourises violent youth gang membership.   Rap music video's, persistently show rap stars dancing with street gangs, holding sawn off shotguns, assault rifles and handguns.  The songs are full of violent lyrics which promote violence with guns.   Rap superstar Lil' Wayne threatens in one of his songs "I'll my Glock and spray ya"      Many of these video's contained images of overt violence, either physically directed at other people or  as venomous abuse. 

     Music video's with lyrics blatantly endorsing the use of weapons in settling disputes, are common and present this idea as an admirable, manly attribute.     Images of drive by shootings are accompanied by images focusing on the best weapons to achieve this aim.  Barretta's, Ingram's, TEK 9's Glock's, high magazine capacity self loading rifles, and sawn off shotguns.    Even the names of the record label, groups and songs, constantly refer to drugs and violence.    One group THE MURDERERS,  recorded a CD called MURDER INC. 

     Another recurring theme is the constant endorsement of illegal drugs  Many songs contain direct  references or indirect slang references, to drugs.  Songs are named ECSTASY, by Bone Thugs 'N' Harmony, LETS GET HIGH, by Dr Dre, HENNESY AND ECTASY, by B.G.    Ecstasy is commonly referred to as "E" or "X".    Youth music presenters and disk jockeys, constantly make casual references to illegal drugs and imply that drug abuse is fashionable.  Violent music video's, combining music and sexually explicit lyrics, contribute to fashioning the values of adolescents and teenagers.   They are bombarding them with ideas, that life revolves around drugs, guns, violence, money, and perverted forms of sexuality, to be achieved by rape if necessary.  

     Much of the violence in music video's is directed at women.   Women are depicted in a variety of degrading  ways that infer that they are nothing more than providers of sex and servitude.    Women in dog collars and on leashes, are led around by gun toting rappers who call them "hoes" or "bitches".  This treatment is presented to the viewer as a female sexual turn on.

     Women are depicted as  body parts, breasts or legs to be looked at, as well as nymphomaniacs.   Even female teachers and scientists are shown ripping off their clothes, at the merest suggestion by some strutting rapper, of sexual interest.     Poorly socialised, fatherless young boys, who's only window to the  world is a television set, are presented with a depiction of women that is utterly ridiculous. But it is presented to them as a social norm, at a time when they are beginning to reach for adulthood and resent the authority of their mothers.

     Research has shown that depicting women as lusting after sexual activity after first protesting vigorously, is idiotically dangerous.   It can make ignorant, poorly socialised men, believe that  protestations by a woman resisting his advances, is a normal female reaction that should be disregarded.    Combine this with lyrics promoting, justifying and even applauding sexual assault, contributes to attitudes promoting rape and other forms of sexual abuse.  Since music video's are a new phenomenon, nobody knows the results of raising a new generation on this sort of musical nourishment.       But rates of violent crime are already unacceptable and just keep rising.  Women's groups can not be certain if the rising numbers of women seeking AVO's are indicative of a general trend of increasing violence against women.   But the prognosis is not good, and some well publicised recent incidents indicate that there is a clear link.     Naturally, rap "music" does not appeal to women at all.  But it most definitely appeals to immature, low status young males, who harbour a deep and abiding resentment towards women.

     Maxx quote

      Who Commits Murder in America? – The Occidental Observer   If you show something like the mutant turtles to a group of young children anywhere in the world, they will more-than-likely act parts of it out among themselves.

     The example I gave to you about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was observed by teachers, all over the world, Maxx, where this "children's" show endorsing violent behaviour was shown.

     Want a few more examples?

     In the early seventies, the dangerous stunts of professional motorcycle stuntman EVEL KNEVEL were widely publicised.   For a short time, stuntmen, their work, and their lifestyles were glamourised in the media.    Many TV stations produced shows screening clips of spectacular movie stunts, complete with their behind the scenes preparations.   At  this time, emergency room, medical personnel, coined the phrase EVEL KNEVEL SYNDROME, to describe the phenomenon of emergency rooms being swamped by the smashed, broken bodies of teenagers and adolescents.   These kids had been seriously injured, imitating their role model hero on trail bikes and pushbikes.

     Emergency rooms were also seeing children being admitted with seriously burned faces, who had been imitating the dangerous "fire eating" stunts of the rock band KISS.    Television programs depicting dangerous practices began to advise kids "don't try this at home".

     In California, two adolescents were convicted of murdering a disabled man by kicking, beating, stabbing, and finally choking him to death.    Before he died, the young boys obtained a container of salt which they poured on the dying mans severe wounds.    When asked by investigating police why they had done that, one of the boys replied.   "I dunno. I just seen it on TV."

     TV was once hailed as "the greatest educational tool ever invented."    It is Maxx.    But we as a society had better be concerned about what values this media is educating our children with.


  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Maxx quote

     there is over 330 million in America compared to about 26 million in Australia. This is why the statistics our cities are also much more denser and closer to each other as a whole are so much higher. yes our murder and violent crime is higher  because of the population.

     Well Maxx, I am surprised that you seem to be a student of psychology, and you even quote psychology

    to verify your position on other topics.    So when I submitted that the respected psychological and medical institutions of the USA had issued the historic Joint Statement declaring unequivocally that media violence affected real life violence, I though that you would quickly reach the tipping point and begin to realise you are wrong?     Okay, I will have to try harder to deprogram you.

     Homicide rates are not affected by population size because they are determined as homicides per 100,000.    Urban areas have higher rates of violent crime than rural areas because of "the crowded rat syndrome", and the fact that urban areas allow criminals to remain anonymous and free from the repercussions and scorn of their local communities, if they were to commit serious crimes in rural areas.   Despite overseas perceptions, Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world with the vast majority of the populations concentrated in coastal cities.

     Maxx quote

     Take a tribe of 100 people and one of 10.  There will be more violence within the group of 100 regardless of movies and media. There may be 1 or 2 in the smaller group who acts out a movie role compared to 30 in the larger group. culture plays a role in every country and it varies in each country so you simply can not blame culture as a whole. our larger population gives us various ethic groups .

     One of the principles of statistics is that you can not draw any statistical conclusions from a very small number of examples.     But one statistic should concern you.    Juvenile homicides are the fastest growing crime statistic in the USA.     When young people in your society are doing things that they never did before, Maxx, the smart people ask themselves," Why is this happening now, and not before?"

     Maxx wrote

     The highest concentration  of crime is over property. 

     Which is why the entertainment industries should stop teaching kids it fashionable to steal and be a criminal.   Is shoplifting okay, Maxx?     If you say "no", then why do you allow your entertainment industries to tell kids the opposite?       The pop music industry, under the genre of "Gangsta Rap", openly endorses this behaviour. One group, rejoicing in the name of "The Lo Lifes", gave an interview in THE SOURCE music magazine, bragging about their shoplifting skills.

      "Gangsta rap" artists openly boast  about their criminal activities and there is a suspicion, that  these characters deliberately engage in well publicised acts of low level criminal behaviour.  This is to enhance their careers by giving themselves a  mystique of "criminal credibility".   This is presumed  to impress their gullible young fans.   Please note, being a real life criminal is directly  pitched to vulnerable young people by the entertainment industry as someone to look up to.

     In Great Britain, the Triple A Multimedia Group  promoted the career of one Simone Locker, who was  serving a prison sentence for armed robbery.  It was presumed that she would be popular with young people who were fans of "gangsta rap", since she already possessed "criminal credibility".  She now sings under the singularly appropriate name of "Felon".

     Maxx quote

      Murders are not as wide spread through out the country; it is concentrated in the heavy populated areas. US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties | Fox News  it is not simply our culture, nor is it movie adulation

     The US homicide rate is horrendously high compared to other western countries.     The reason is, your culture of violence, which is a product of your entertainment industries telling American people for generations that Real Men are violent men, who don't get mad, they get even.   Preferably with a high magazine capacity self loading weapon, which in the USA is very easy to obtain.

     Maxx wrote

     .Culture of the United States - Wikipedia if you take the rate of crime in Australia and multiply it in regard to the size america has there would not be much difference. 

     Wrong, Maxx.    Australia's homicide rate is 1.8 per 100,000.   The US homicide rate is five times higher than that at 9.8 per 100,000.    Mexico's homicide rate is three times higher than the USA.    Why?    Because Mexican culture is even more violent than the USA's.     While young Americans are beginning to develop a taste for violent and gory movies that have been choreographed by Hollywood, Mexicans are fascinated by the  real thing. 

     Mexican culture is based upon the spiritual beliefs of it's  pre Columbian and Aztec ancestors, who were convinced that the continuation of life was based upon the spillage of copius amounts of human blood.     This was blended with the Catholicism of their Spanish conquerors, who's tortured saints and crucified God, truly struck a cultural chord with the conquered.     Nowhere else in the world does blood flow more freely from crucified Christ's, and nowhere else does the crown of thorns cut more deeply into His head.    The idea of a vengeful God, who would damn unbelievers and sinners to everlasting torture, was a popular notion among the Aztecs, which prompted them to flock to this new religion in droves.

     Of course, the 16th century Spanish model of a vengeful God, has now been considerably moderated by the Church, into a God of love and forgiveness.    But this new model God has not gone over too well with the people of Mexico.  Despite the power and prestige of the Church, religious tenets like "Thou Shalt Not Kill", do not have much currency in this land.    In Mexico,  the much more powerful religious cults of machismo, blood feud, and revenge, sit much higher on the totem.    Naturally, this view is reflected in Mexican culture.

     What the people of Mexico want is real blood, and plenty of it.   To cater to this taste, there are many tabloid newspapers which display full colour, full page photographs of headless corpses, rotting bodies, machete chopped mothers, puffed up floating cadavers and morgue photo's with close up's of the faces of the deceased.    In a desperately poor and hideously overpopulated country like Mexico, it is always an uplifting experience to gaze at gruesome  pictures, and realise that someone else has got it a lot worse than you have.    The captions which accompany the photo's of raped and murdered young women, hanging suicides, strangled children, and bullet riddled criminals, are moral in tone and suggest religious retribution.   The deceased was entirely responsible for their own gory demise, and they got what they deserved.  The most popular of these newspapers is the much revered ALARMA!, which sells no less than 15,000,000 copies a week.   

     ALARMA! is a national institution and a high point in Mexican culture.  It is such a cultural icon that it is very profitable, and it now has imitators like ALARDE!, ENLACE!, and PELLIGRO!

     Maxx quote

     The majority of murders are caused by low income blacks, drugs, alcohol;, gangs, etc and these people do not idolize any movie characters or way of life.

     Excuse me?     Like, you are kidding, Maxx?    

     Rap music in particular, is very popular with low income blacks and it noted for it's anti social themes.   Not only does it glorify criminality, drugs, and violence, in particular it glamourises violent youth gang membership.   Rap music video's, persistently show rap stars dancing with street gangs, holding sawn off shotguns, assault rifles and handguns.  The songs are full of violent lyrics which promote violence with guns.   Rap superstar Lil' Wayne threatens in one of his songs "I'll my Glock and spray ya"      Many of these video's contained images of overt violence, either physically directed at other people or  as venomous abuse. 

     Music video's with lyrics blatantly endorsing the use of weapons in settling disputes, are common and present this idea as an admirable, manly attribute.     Images of drive by shootings are accompanied by images focussing on the best weapons to achieve this aim.  Baretta's, Ingram's, TEK 9's Glock's, high magazine capacity self loading rifles, and sawn off shotguns.    Even the names of the record label, groups and songs, constantly refer to drugs and violence.    One group THE MURDERERS,  recorded a CD called MURDER INC. 

     Another recurring theme is the constant endorsement of illegal drugs  Many songs contain direct  references or indirect slang references, to drugs.  Songs are named ECSTASY, by Bone Thugs 'N' Harmony, LETS GET HIGH, by Dr Dre, HENNESY AND ECTASY, by B.G.    Ecstasy is commonly refered to as "E" or "X".    Youth music presenters and disk jockeys, constantly make casual references to illegal drugs and imply that drug abuse is fashionable.  Violent music video's, combining music and sexually explicit lyrics, contribute to fashioning the values of adolescents and teenagers.   They are bombarding them with ideas, that life revolves around drugs, guns, violence, money, and perverted forms of sexuality, to be achieved by rape if necessary.  

     Much of the violence in music video's is directed at women.   Women are depicted in a variety of degrading  ways that infer that they are nothing more than providers of sex and servitude.    Women in dog collars and on leashes, are led around by gun toting rappers who call them "hoes" or "bitches".  This treatment is presented to the viewer as a female sexual turn on.    Women are depicted as  body parts, breasts or legs to be looked at, as well as nymphomaniacs.   Even female teachers and scientists are shown ripping off their clothes, at the merest suggestion by some strutting rapper, of sexual interest.     Poorly socialised, fatherless young boys, who's only window to the  world is a television set, are presented with a depiction of women that is utterly ridiculous. But it is presented to them as a social norm, at a time when they are beginning to reach for adulthood and resent the authority of their mothers.

     Research has shown that depicting women as lusting after sexual activity after first protesting vigorously, is idiotically dangerous.   It can make ignorant, poorly socialised men, believe that  protestations by a woman resisting his advances, is a normal female reaction that should be disregarded.    Combine this with lyrics promoting, justifying and even applauding sexual assault, contributes to attitudes promoting rape and other forms of sexual abuse.  Since music video's are a new phenomenon, nobody knows the results of raising a new generation on this sort of musical nourishment.       But rates of violent crime are already unacceptable and just keep rising.  Women's groups can not be certain if the rising numbers of women seeking AVO's are indicative of a general trend of increasing violence against women.   But the prognosis is not good, and some well publicised recent incidents indicate that there is a clear link.     Naturally, rap "music" does not appeal to women at all.  But it most definitely appeals to immature, low status young males, who harbour a deep and abiding resentment towards women.

     Maxx quote

      Who Commits Murder in America? – The Occidental Observer   If you show something like the mutant turtles to a group of young children anywhere in the world, they will more-than-likely act parts of it out among themselves.

     The example I gave to you about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was observed by teachers, all over the world, Maxx, where this "children's" show endorsing violent behaviour was shown.

     Want a few more examples?

     In the early seventies, the dangerous stunts of professional motorcycle stuntman EVEL KNEVEL were widely publicised.   For a short time, stuntmen, their work, and their lifestyles were glamourised in the media.    Many TV stations produced shows screening clips of spectacular movie stunts, complete with their behind the scenes preparations.   At  this time, emergency room, medical personnel, coined the phrase EVEL KNEVEL SYNDROME, to describe the phenomenon of emergency rooms being swamped by the smashed, broken bodies of teenagers and adolescents.   These kids had been seriously injured, imitating their role model hero on trail bikes and pushbikes.

     Emergency rooms were also seeing children being admitted with seriously burned faces, who had been imitating the dangerous "fire eating" stunts of the rock band KISS.    Television programs depicting dangerous practices began to advise kids "don't try this at home".

     In California, two adolescents were convicted of murdering a disabled man by kicking, beating, stabbing, and finally choking him to death.    Before he died, the young boys obtained a container of salt which they poured on the dying mans severe wounds.    When asked by investigating police why they had done that, one of the boys replied.   "I dunno. I just seen it on TV."

     TV was once hailed as "the greatest educational tool ever invented."    It is Maxx.    But we as a society had better be concerned about what values this media is educating our children with.


  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

     Piloteer wrote

     I don't disagree with your claim that the people of the US have a sickness culturally, we do have a senseless propensity for violence. I just disagree that it is the fault of mass media. Mass media itself is a product of our social and cultural sickness. We influence our mass media. 

     It works both ways, Piloteer.    Our culture can be a reflection of real life behaviour,  or it can instruct people into believing that fantasy is reality.    This post to you is going to be lengthy, because I am trying to impart to you a concept which can be hard to grasp, and which requires a lengthy explanation.   Although, I hope you will consider it interesting, educational, and instructive.  

     Ready?    Okay, Piloteer, here goes.  

     People are not born with moral values, Piloteer.    Our ability to interact socially and repress our natural desire to be entirely selfish, are inculcated into us from childhood, as we strive for acceptance from our family, tribe, or peer group.   Unselfish or altruistic acts by individuals which benefit others, are universally applauded in every culture and society.  Conversely, ruthless selfishness and arrogant egotism, is universally despised as the personification of evil.   Throughout the ages, the heroes, martyrs and saints, that have been revered by civilisations, are those that risked, gave, or devoted their lives, for the common good of their group.    They were revered by their culture as role models for the young to emulate.

      Children draw inspiration for socially acceptable behaviour from their culture, and they absorb these beliefs through parents, family, peers and the role models provided by society.   They then invent social situations and act out different roles as play.  They then internalise them as their own, as absolute truths, wrapped in emotionally charged feelings of pride, duty, love,  respect, or conversely, shame and guilt, until they are considered "only natural"

     These truths provide a central core of values for each individual personality and provide unconscious moral boundaries through which individuals interact successfully in interpersonal relations, without resorting to the use of slow and ponderous logical thought.   Each mature adult has developed a library of emotionally conditioned responses to a range of social situations, either through previous experience, or by closely observing the successful social response of admired role models.  This allows us to react must faster than if we were to rely upon our ability to think logically.   Thinking logically, we must not only battle our preconceived biases, and also the muddling effects of our anxieties, but it also requires that we must first collate data, ponder its veracity, then upon slow and impartial examination, arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.    People who have developed a range of acceptable emotional responses to a range of social situations, are known as "emotionally mature."

     Emotionally mature individuals unconsciously exhibit acceptable behaviour, act responsibly, and moderate their self interest for the common welfare of the group.  For it is from the group that they know they receive protection and support.   To become a valued member of their group, each mature member has cultivated the virtues of sharing, co-operation, responsibility, courage, self sacrifice, patience and loyalty.  But these socialisation skills need to be understood and learnt. These socialisation skills are taught to children through their culture. 

     Culture is different in every society.   Culture does not cause behaviour.   Culture is a guide that teaches the individuals of each society, how they should unconsciously behave in different social situations.   Throughout the ages, storytellers, folk tales, shamans, religious leaders, ceremonies, and wise old people, nurtured the culture of their people, and passed on to the young, the skills that the younger generation would need, to propagate the continued existence of their society.    This culture may have represented thousands of years of accumulated wisdom that had slowly evolved over time.  The people who were the custodians of this culture, did not consider themselves mere entertainers, but if they were entertaining in passing on their vital knowledge, so much the better. 

     But we are living in a time of rapid technological and social change, and the values, attitudes, and social norms, which have defined the culture of Western society, is being radically redefined.  It is being redefined by intellectual elitists, who are only concerned with their own internationalist social theories, and their own financial self interest.   It is also being redefined by powerful multimedia institutions who are only concerned with their quarterly balance sheets.

     Today's  mass media, can no longer be considered as just a means of entertainment, or a medium for simply transmitting information.   It is now so influential in modern society that it is displacing the traditional institutions, which have long disseminated the traditional cultural conditioning that has always guided people's behaviour. 

     The notion that art, literature and filmatic creativity should not suffer the from heavy handed censorship is a noble one.      By giving creative people the freedom to explore social issues, our society can evolve by critically examining it's long accepted values, as changing times alters the  basic premises upon which current values and attitudes are built. 

       But this worthy idea has been perverted by cynical capitalists, who market a youth culture that does not make the slightest pretense to artistic merit.  It is merely a tool where young people have their culture dictated to them, by an industry that is only concerned with self aggrandisement.  Adolescents and young teenagers are encouraged to defy parental authority by highly paid media executives.  Well heeled artists, their polished promoters and marketing managers, are no longer pushing the boundaries of accepted taste, they have moved way beyond that boundary.   They are now busily digging away at the foundations of family values, upon which the whole of our society is built

     In feudal societies, foppish aristocrats maintained a stranglehold upon the wealth, and abrogated their responsibilities to share this wealth with all the people in their communities.   Like the aristocrats of yesterday, the entertainment media of today has too many wealthy media barons, too many self centered vulgarians, and too many drug addled fools, who claim to own the culture of their own people.    This culture they claim, is entirely their own property, a plaything which they, and only they, can interpret.     Not surprisingly,  their interpretations seem to be solely for their own benefit.     With all the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, they emphatically proclaim, that the people to whom this culture rightly belongs, have no right to define it's composition.   In making this assertion, they are usurping the authority of the Government, church, parents, and community leaders, to define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to our youngest generation.

     Never before has our society been so vulnerable to this cultural greed.   Only a hundred years ago, three or more generations lived together under the one roof.    Role model grandparents, uncles, aunties, and cousins, were only a room, or a farm, or a block away.    Somebody was always around to watch over the young ones, reinforce their  pro social views, and make sure that they were not being led astray.    Every child had a job to do, which reinforced the interdependent nature of the family, and made children understand that family values were essential to their own survival.    Unlike today, children usually spent long periods of time actively working with their fathers and mothers.    In the kitchen, on the farm, on the barrow, or on the dray.

     When families were under stress, either through unemployment, drunkenness, sickness, or some other catastrophe, the entire family support system  rallied around them, making certain that the family stayed together, no matter what.   Families were supported by related families within village clans, and clans by other clans, which taught children the interdependent nature of communities.     Here in Australia, many families were so poor that most children were barefoot, but criminal behaviour by adolescents was almost completely unknown.     The book "Rising Crime in Australia" displayed that in fact, Australians were at their most law abiding during the Great Depression, when we were at our poorest.

     The family is the most basic and ancient of all institutions, and it remains the primary socialisation unit in every society.    But never before has this essential institution been under such stress.  Families today are often separated by suburbs, cities, states, or even entire continents.     Children are increasingly being raised in one parent families.  This phenomenon is especially evident among the poorer social stratum, which often creates a cycle of welfare dependency, that leaves children vulnerable to the economic appeal of criminality.  Other children with two professional working parents, often find that their care is contracted out, to nurseries, nannies, day care centers, boarding schools, and psychiatric hospitals     Because of curses like drug addiction, some children have no parents.   Grandparents and foster homes have had to do the job.  

     The family unit of today is an entirely new social phenomenon, which has never been seen before in the entire history of the human race.  It is a social experiment that may even be doomed to failure. This is evidenced by the ever increasing levels of drug abuse and violent criminal behaviour being committed by children, in our divided, alienated, and affluent western societies. 

     At the present time, the political will to focus upon the negative effect that the media is having upon the social conditioning of our people, especially our children, does not exist.    Most people, like your good self, Piloteer,  have not made the connection between the media, and it's power to radically alter people's perceptions of what constitutes proper social conduct.   That is because the mass media that should be educating them in this problem, have a vested interest in keeping the public ignorant.

      Not only that, Piloteer, it has the power to suggest to people such as your good self, who I am sure wish to be seen as "smart", that "smart" people oppose the censorship of the entertainment industry.   I know you do not want to contemplate it, but you have been culturally conditioned by the media to think the way you do.   Another way of saying "cultural conditioning", is "brainwashing".   For this reason, most people today, especially those who are young and consider themselves smart and socially progressive, vehemently oppose tighter censorship rules and more severe classification standards.    This attitude is likely to persist, until the economic tides turn, surging levels of criminal behaviour become completely unacceptable, and we run out of excuses and scapegoats.


  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    "Our ability to interact socially and repress our natural desire to be entirely selfish" is a scam!!! We are only ever acting on motivations of greed. Even if we think we are working on "altruistic" motivations, like bravery, it is still a motivation to be considered a brave person among peers. A motivation to be considered a brave person is a selfish motivation, because it is for the purpose of yourself. The motivation is not for the purpose of ensuring everybody in your peer group, or culture, or society to be considered brave. It is for the purpose of you alone being considered brave.             
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    Looks like I wasted my effort at trying to teach you about life?   '"Socialisation" begins at age two, and is meant to teach infants that they are not the center of the universe. Socialisation teaches them that  they are a part of a family, a group,  a tribe, or a nation.     They must sublimate their natural desire to be selfish in order to become valued members of their social group.   For children, being "good" means you are not being selfish and you are considering the effect your behaviour has on others.  Being "bad" means you are being selfish.   People who never "grow up" and who are very selfish are not much use to anybody.    Such people do exist.   They are called "psychopaths", and it they are not too far gone in their selfish behaviour they are called "sociopaths."    Claiming that everybody only behaves in order to be selfish is not the opinion of a thinking person.    I would urge you to read "Tarawa" by Robert Sherrod and  "Guadalcanal" by Richard B. Frank to make you realise how wrong you are.

    Soldier heroes do not commit heroic acts to get medals.    They commit heroic acts unthinkingly.   Often they risk death or very serious injury to save their own comrades who are in mortal danger.   These heroic acts sometimes get witnessed by people with crediblity, and only later do the heroes discover that they have been awarded a high military honour for their bravery.


  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 8
    moviescrime07-12-20.pdf (berkeley.edu)   As well i can not agree about the statitics  in where if a small country were to be the size of ours there would be little difference..   The growth of any country produces more people who can be just as violently inclined as anyone. Low income blacks have little money to watch movies, Also the gansta rap is a product of a life style, not the other way around. the rateof crime due to juvenile activity is based upon lack of education.  Take away rap music, and i fail to see any other media outlet that teaches kids to commit crimes. Again if you read that link, in which i fail to see where it errs, the majority of crimes are concentrated in densely packed cities, and for the simple reason that there are more people; which in case of point, oif Australia were as large in population, i fail to see why if would not have as much crime as we do.  explain to me why . one can not blame culture for it is a diverse culture.  idealism yes, but again, the highest percentage of crimes are due to lack of education, and low income. property crimes aside from childish stealing of candy bars are due to either greed/want, or ac need such as food. The majority of  property crimes against households are based upon wanting to sell the items to buy drugs and other items to fit the gang lifestyle. Murder is mainly revenge, passion or again, related to drugs and alcohol.  I fail to see where anyone would watch a murder movie and go out and kill someone.  yes we have copy cat killers but the percentage is so low it is hardly negligible in the amount of killings. So far, all you have really shown is that rap glorifies crime, drugs and sex and that young children have hero worship over stars in movies and like to pretend that they can do as the same as the hero, in which is true of all children all over the world. I would like to see the actual statistics of what percentage of murders are committed by those acting out a movie role compared to the percentage of murders as a whole.    @Bogan
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    Yeah Maxx, heard that one before.   it is claiming that violent movies reduce crime because potential offenders are all sitting at home eating popcorn and watching movies, instead of mugging, raping, murdering, and committing armed robbery.     Well, given that violent crimes are increasing throughout the western world, then according to that bizarre logic, it must be because movies today are so woeful that the potential muggers, rapists, murderers, and armed robbers, would prefer to go about their normal business rather than watch these boring woke movies?

    C'mon Maxx.    You have a brain.   How could you fall for such a silly "explanation?"     The fact is that ALL of the most prestigious Psychological, Psychiatric, Pediatric, and Medical organisations in the USA UNANIMOUSLY issued a joint statement linking on screen violence to real life violence.    That indisputable fact should have got you to put aside your biases and preconceptions, turn on your critical analysis circuit, and start crunching data.       But you just don't want to believe it, do you?     Ma-a-a-a-te, the only position an intelligent person can take on any subject is, "may the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."    If you are an American, then your country appears to me to be suffering from a very serious wave of violent crime, the likes of which you have never seen before.   Kids are killing kids.   The fastest growing crime statistic in the USA is juvenile homicide.     The onus is upon you as an intelligent person, to look at the facts impartially and figure out why it is so.    Not to search the internet looking for something, anything, which might support your wishful thinking.  Then find something, and submit the wacky explanation written by some self interested fool, who probably is laughing at you for taking  his bizarre  "explanation" seriously.  

    If your culture, transmitted by the media,  glamourises the idea that dying for the emperor is the most heroic thing a young man can do, -then young men will get into old airplanes with 500Kg bombs bolted to them, and they will kill themselves by crashing that plane into a US warship.    If your culture glamourises suicide, then an unacceptably high number of people will commit suicide.    That is why it is illegal in every western country for the entertainment media to glamourise suicide.   If your culture, transmitted by the media, glamourises cigarette smoking, then a lot of people, especially young people, and children who want to act adult, will take up a seriously unhealthy and addictive smoking habit.    Which is why the media in most advanced societies ban cigarette advertising.      The images shown, and the messages transmitted, by the media can control people's behaviour.     Every totalitarian dictator knows it, which is why dictatorial regimes always take control of the media.

    If the media glamourises gun violence, and violent gang behaviour, and illegal drug use, and violence towards women, and vengeance behaviour, especially the notion that Real Men are violent men, who if they feel persecuted by other people in society, should pick up a high magazine capacity self loading weapon, and shoot people down by the dozen without mercy or pity, then society can hardly complain if the rates of gun violence, violent gang behaviour, illegal drug use, violence towards women, and vengeance massacre behaviour, increases.     Because, Maxx, old mate, they are going to increase until people like your good self run out of excuses and start thinking straight.
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 9
    again i ask you to show statistics that shows the over all percentage of crimes and murders in the states due to move adulation compared to the percentage of crimes and murders as a whole. 
    for unless I am mistaken, you seem to be stating that the majority of crimes and murders are because what we see in the movie, read in books, music; in other words the media. I have not located the latest statistics, but the last I heard, drugs and alcohol, and gang activity, were about one third  Now assuming you could break that down i seriously doubt that the majority of individuals in gangs  who robbed, killed, maimed and raped dis so  because of rap. No they do so because they live in conditions that leaves them little choice if they want any semblance of money, and the ability to get the drugs and other things they desire...  @Bogan The Facts on Media Violence - FactCheck.org  @Bogan
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    Bravery and risking death is only something someone does for something that matters to them as an individual. We only ever do things that matter to us as individuals. If we show bravery and heroic principles, it's only because we do it for things that matter to our self. If it doesn't matter to you as an individual, you are not going to willingly do it are you? We cannot love others without selfishness. We love people because of the happiness they bring to us, and we would risk our safety for them because of what they mean to US. Without selfishness, there is no self to link the people we care about to us. Greed is our main motivation.       
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    you are correct in more ways than one. If I were to give a homeless man a free meal, i may think that I am doing it for him, but the act in itself makes me feel good so am i feeding him for his or my sake. However what about those who act on what seems to be instincts in say saving a stranger from a burning house? @piloteer
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    It is good and righteous to help people who you do not even know. It means that you know you probably wouldn’t be able to live with yourself if you were to do nothing and watch another person die needlessly. It is still a selfish act to willfully help others who you don’t know anything about whatsoever. We do those things because we know we would probably not be able to live with the guilt of doing nothing. We help others we don’t know because it is we who will have to live with the guilt of not doing anything. The motivation is for YOU to not have to live with guilt for doing nothing. 
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    my problem with that reasoning is that one does not take time to think about the guilt nor how one may feel in such a situation. In a sudden situation where there is no time for thinking, it is automatic, almost instinctive. @piloteer
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Oh gawd, Maxx.      To begin with, could I point out that your premise is fundamentally dishonest?     You are assuming I am wrong, and that I need to prove by statistics that I am right.    While you think that your position is correct, and you have no need to prove with statistics your own positions validity.    And if I can not prove I am right, than this proves that you are right?     Please do not use MayCaesar or Dee tactics on me.   I thought that you were above such behaviour?

     Secondly.    The link between on screen violence and real life behaviour can not be examined statistically, but it sure as hell can be examined and proven by a lot of other compelling ways.   

     Look, I have submitted an avalanche of facts so far to both you and Piloteer which you both choose to ignore.   So how about I find another way to back you into a logical corner and make you think straight?

     Okay, now you and I both know that every civilised country in the world has put strict censorship on cigarette advertising.      Now Maxx, why do you think that this is so?    It is very important that you answer this question because it is a crucial question.


  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Same deal for you as with Maxx, Piloteer.     Cigarette advertising is banned throughout the civilised world.    Why do you think that this is so?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    my problem with that reasoning is that one does not take time to think about the guilt nor how one may feel in such a situation. In a sudden situation where there is no time for thinking, it is automatic, almost instinctive. @piloteer
    One would hope that we would all only ever do what we could to help another, but it's obviously unrealistic to expect it always, and it's down right immoral to try to impose moral sanctions to force morality on to others. It may seem downright wrong what some people do, but there's a difference between being overtly immoral to the point of violating the law and simply being immoral or amoral, but not being legally immoral. It's just as immoral to try to impose morality on to others as it is to be immoral in the first place. Making all "immoral" things illegal does not make all of a society saints.     
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited August 9
    Bogan said:
    @piloteer

    Same deal for you as with Maxx, Piloteer.     Cigarette advertising is banned throughout the civilised world.    Why do you think that this is so?
    Not sure what you're getting at here. Banning cigarette ads is an overarching government policy to try and sell health as a moral guidance. There is no need for US citizens to pay for government sanctioned public agendas. If you lead a horse that is entirely engulfed in flames to water, you cannot force the horse to go into the water. If people want to ruin their lungs, let them. They deserve the consequences.     
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

     People who have low IQ, are poorly socialised because they are living in one parent families with absent fathers, possibly having undiagnosed mental issues, are much more prone to the violence glamourising, criminal, drug endorsing, criminal street gang endorsing, and misogyny glamourised by the entertainment industries, than high IQ people from well socialised families.    While well socialised people would consider a violent movie as entertaining because the on screen heroes usually ignore every rule and law, thereby creating a fantasy world that is not real, a low IQ, poorly socialised young man may see it as a script for how to become what he most desperately wants to be.    A respected person who nobody messes with because he is feared, and this violent behaviour supposedly makes him extremely attractive to the most beautiful women of the opposite sex, who he thinks he can treat like dirt.

     Look Maxx.    You seem to be a student of Psychology?   That's good, so am I.    So how about we look at the psychological angle here?

     When President Clinton asked the US Surgeon- General, to have his department begin collecting data, to try and ascertain if there was link between violent entertainment and real life violence, he was told by the Attorney General that there was no need.    All of the studies had already been done.  40 years of scientific research had positively proven that link.    Psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists had conducted hundreds of studies, confirming that the increasing levels of violence in young people had a cultural link. 

     Between 1990 and 1996, the  American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,  the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Mental Health, and the American Academy of Paediatrics, issued a Joint Statement,( http://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-librar ... rt-surgeon) in which they unanimously concluded that violence in the media contributed to violence in the real world.

     The American Psychological Association (APA)  report began "The scientific debate is over."  The APA also testified before congress and stated " There is absolutely no doubt, that the increased level of TV viewing, is correlated to the increasing acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour........Children's exposure to violence in mass media, can have harmful lifelong effects."

     The American Medical Association (AMA) concluded in September 1996, "The link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science over and over again."

      Professor Leonard Eron, of the University of Illinois conducted a 22 year study which found a  direct correlation between middle class children between the amount of violent entertainment watched and subsequent violent and aggressive behaviour.    In a speech at the Harvard School of Public Health, he stated that literally hundreds of studies provide "convincing evidence that the observation of violence, as seen in standard evening television entertainment, does effect the aggressive behaviour of the viewer     We found that the more violent the programs that the kids watched at home, the more aggressive they were in school."

     Was professor Eron correct, Maxx?     Okay, let's look at that.   

     After the release of the violent cartoon series TEENAGE  MUTANT NINJA TURTLES, teachers all over the world were horrified to observe little children Karate kicking each other all over  school playgrounds.    When the teachers intervened and ordered the kids to stop, many teachers reported  that the children simply did not understand what they were doing wrong.    The kids believed that by imitating the TURTLES, they were engaging in normal, social interaction.

     



    Your studies are dated, which makes quite a difference in this instance.  The US violent crime rate and the homicide rate in 2019 was half of what it was in 1991.  If violence on TV/movies/video games is a significant influence on crime rates, then such violence in the media must have decreased markedly over the last 28 years.  If you believe that to be the case, then the media is correcting itself.  If you don't believe that to be the case and violence on TV/movies/video games has increased during that time period, than the theory falls apart.

    piloteer
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I think you know where I was heading, and you know I am about to box you in, so you are prevaricating.   If you think that governmet sanctions on cigarette advertising is government over reach, then I presume that you have no problem with tobacco companies advertising their wares in childrens magazines and comics?

    I predict that this is another question that will get you squirming and you will do anything to not answer it.    
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 10
    you as well am presuming I am wrong. Did you not at least read that last link? As well, the majority of murders are committed over anger; either spur of the moment, or revenge. drugs are also close to the top. Then there are those who kill to keep from being caught, such as during a robbery. I fail to see any evidence in where the majority of killings are done out of sheer pleasure; simply because it is Americas way of life due to our culture. The same with property crimes. want/need/greed, not because the media portrays and shows it is ok. It is the low income, low intellect who are the ones who are affected by the media. Your psychological spread sheets differ from mine that i posted to you, however simple logic shows you are wrong.  Yes we are a violent nation, yet so is Afghanistan. People in America simply do not watch a murder movie and then go out and kill, nor do we think it is ok to do so simply because of what we see on the movie.  The only ones who would do so, would have a mental problem.  Anger, revenge, crimes of passion, drugs, alcohol are the reasons we kill and we do not do so simply because of our movie culture. I am addressing your points by explaining to you what the reasons are as to why we kill and steal, yet you have not put a correlation between the top reasons and the media. If i were to spend my life on drugs and alcohol and had a low intellect and hung out on the streets with others who do the same, then yes a movie like dirty harry may affect me like that; however the average person no.  @Bogan
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited August 10
    @Bogan

    I have no problem with cigarette companies advertising in children’s magazines. It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure kindergartners don’t smoke cigarettes, and it is not the duty of US citizens to pay for government policies that facilitate such a nonsensical duty. US citizens are not responsible for raising everyone else’s kids.

    I’m not sure which box you think you are getting me into here. I’m not answering these needless questions differently than I actually feel just for the sake of resisting a point you are trying to make, which I frankly am still not sure what point you think you are making. I actually do believe our motivations are based on greed and I still am no closer to believing the mass media controls society, or that society controls the decisions and personality of individuals.
  • I must want to point out that both abortion, politics, and alcohol started outside America, as so did the manufacturing and sale of guns...


  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    Piloteer quote

    I have no problem with cigarette companies advertising in children’s magazines. It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure kindergartners don’t smoke cigarettes, and it is not the duty of US citizens to pay for government policies that facilitate such a nonsensical duty. US citizens are not responsible for raising everyone else’s kids.

    If you think that, Piloteer, then I don't think that I can debate in a rational way with you at all.    I won't debate RickyD on whether Evolution is a commie plot, and I won't debate Pamela Johnson on whether the earth is flat.    If they are that far gone, I can't reason with them.   If you think that a government elected by the people has no right to prevent tobacco companies from inserting advertisements for cigarettes into children's magazines and comics, then you are down in the garden, dancing with  he fairies.   This will be my last post to you.








  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    Sorry, Cydfarta and Maxx, i have to run.   Be back in 4-6 hours.    Bye bye till then.
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 10
    on a side note for i have just now realized i missed the crucial bit about cigs in magazines, is youth is very impressionable.  yes I understand that ads are media, however it is not the ads that make them take up smoking anymore than an ad on deep sea fishing would make them run away to the sea.  kids take up smoking because they see others do it, mainly adults. No kid is going to smoke simply because of an ad. They see a picture in a magazine is all.  Yet when they see adults smoking and even their older peers then is when they assume it is ok.  Adding on to this; since you have not answered my other reply, is that your reasoning assumes if a kid sees an ad about an upcoming movie that features crime and murder, and goes out and somehow gets to see it, then he will suddenly be a wayward child that wants to grow up wicked. The lack of values and discipline in america today is responsible for our increase of crime, not the media. This begins at the parental level yet now days parents are afraid to give much discipline thanks to so many laws that can claim child abuse.    @Bogan
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
     This begins at the parental level yet now days parents are afraid to give much discipline thanks to so many laws that can claim child abuse.@maxx

    Well you know the Jessilnick guy who tells all the totally sick jokes he reckons that when he was a kid his parents abused him and made him sit down and smoke a hole packet of lucky stricks all in one after the after.

  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  

    Cydfarta quote

     Your studies are dated, which makes quite a difference in this instance. 

     I will admit that I initially studied this subject 20 years ago, but unless you can tell me how the way in which culture stops being a factor guiding people's behaviour changes over time, then your claim that my studies have no relevance today, is just a wishful thinking.

     Cydfarta quote

     The US violent crime rate and the homicide rate in 2019 was half of what it was in 1991.  If violence on TV/movies/video games is a significant influence on crime rates, then such violence in the media must have decreased markedly over the last 28 years.  If you believe that to be the case, then the media is correcting itself.  If you don't believe that to be the case and violence on TV/movies/video games has increased during that time period, than the theory falls apart.

     I must admit that I have not been abreast of crime rates in Australia or the USA after the year 2002.    But violent crime in Australia just keeps getting worse and worse.     This year alone, 13 people have been shot dead on the streets of Sydney.   That may not be any big deal in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Washington DC, but it is a very big deal in Sydney, NSW.     Almost all of these people killed come from imported crime gangs, mainly of Lebanese or Pacific Islander ethnicity.     The importation of these ethnic groups, and a few others, has seriously affected violent crime rates.    It has also affected car theft rates, especially car jackings, a crime which did not even exist in Australia prior to the turn of this century.

     But because the socialist luvvies in the public service and the Australian Labor Party have figured out that the more crime prone and welfare dependent immigrant Australia gets, the better for the Labor Party and the public service, the public service goes into overdrive pretending that the problem does not exist.    Since every member of the Australian public knows it does exist, that is a hard sell.

     But the bureaucrats do their best.     The Australian Institute of Criminology published a "white paper" claiming that ethnic related crime was a figment of the public's imagination.     This was after the police Commissioner in NSW Peter Ryan was sacked by the Minister when he produced crime statistics which claimed that the rate of crime in the crime awash Vietnamese suburb of Cabramatta, was lower than the crime rate in upper class Dover Heights.      With African youth gang behaviour in Melbourne Victoria so bad that it was impossible for people to buy baseball bats to protect their homes and family from African youth gang home invaders, the Commissioner of Police claimed that people from African had a crime rate no higher than for people from elsewhere.    She did this by mixing white Rhodesian and white South African crime statistics with black African statistics.     Ta Dahhhh!     See?     "Africans" are just like us!     Then the sundry spokesmen for the crime prone ethnicities successfully lobbied the Federal government to prevent the Australian Bureau of Statistics from keeping any data on ethnic related crime.    Add to that, the various "Human Rights" bureaucrats who have to power to prosecute anybody for a "hate crime" if they tell the truth about ethnic related crime.

  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    Whoops, sorry Cydfarta, I missed the conclusion.

    What I am trying to tell you, Cydfarta, is that I don't trust the crime statistics presented by people in government who have a selfish agenda, and who keep trying to tell an increasingly sceptical public that there is no elephant in the room.


  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    @Bogan So then you make up your own crime statitstics that says that guns are inanimate objects that dont kill and that blacks kill more people because they have more heads of the population.
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  

    Maxx wrote

     You as well am presuming I am wrong.

     No Maxx, I am not assuming you are wrong.   I know that you are wrong.    And I can submit lots of reasoned arguments showing why you are wrong.    All you have submitted so far is a link by a renegade psychologist which supports your view.

     Maxx wrote

      Did you not at least read that last link?

     

    I read several paragraphs Maxx, and I could easily demolish it.   I have heard it all before.  Do you want me to list a half dozen other lame "explanations?"    If you think it is relevant, than read it yourself and post up the points you think are significant.     I don't debate links, Maxx.    I have done it before, only to realise that my opponent did not even bother to read the link himself.   Or, if I have pointed out a fallacy in the link, only to have them retort,  "I didn't agree with that bit anyway."      I am not trying to dodge the issue, but I have valid reasons not to just accept links as your argument.

     Now, to counter you, did you read the historic Joint Statement by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Paediatric Association, the American Medical Association, the National Institute for Mental Health, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry?      Ma-a-a-a-ate.    Science is against you.     It's all there.

       Here it is again for your edification.

     TELEVISION AND GROWING UP - THE IMPACT OF TELEVISED VIOLENCE - REPORT TO THE SURGEON GENERAL, US PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FROM THE SURGEON GENERAL'S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR | Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov)

    If you want emerge from the dark pools of ignorance, and rise into the sunlit uplands of knowledge, read what the scientists say.    

     Maxx wrote

      As well, the majority of murders are committed over anger; either spur of the moment, or revenge. drugs are also close to the top. Then there are those who kill to keep from being caught, such as during a robbery. I fail to see any evidence in where the majority of killings are done out of sheer pleasure; simply because it is Americas way of life due to our culture.

     Australia's and Mexico's homicide rates do not bear your premise out.   The glaring differences in homicide rates are far more linked to differences in the degree of violent culture than firearm availability.

     In Australia, it is even illegal for anybody to kill.    This includes police officers.   Any person (including police officers) who kills another person, even with plain justification, will find themselves in Coroners Court with a lot of explaining to do.    One book I read on US crime claimed that in Texas, there are 14 valid reasons justifying the shooting of another person, including apprehending an escaped felon, "stand your ground", and finding another man in bed with your wife.    US culture is much more violent than Australian culture, but we are doing our best to catch up to you by watching Hollywood movies.

     Maxx wrote

      The same with property crimes. want/need/greed, not because the media portrays and shows it is ok. It is the low income, low intellect who are the ones who are affected by the media. Your psychological spread sheets differ from mine that i posted to you, however simple logic shows you are wrong.  Yes we are a violent nation, yet so is Afghanistan. People in America simply do not watch a murder movie and then go out and kill, nor do we think it is ok to do so simply because of what we see on the movie.  The only ones who would do so, would have a mental problem.  Anger, revenge, crimes of passion, drugs, alcohol are the reasons we kill and we do not do so simply because of our movie culture. I am addressing your points by explaining to you what the reasons are as to why we kill and steal, yet you have not put a correlation between the top reasons and the media. If i were to spend my life on drugs and alcohol and had a low intellect and hung out on the streets with others who do the same, then yes a movie like dirty harry may affect me like that; however the average person no. 

     Maxx, we could argue out these points if you wish, but you are ignoring the big picture.    You say that you are interested in Psychology, and then I submit the historic Joint Statement on the effects of media on crime rates by America's Psychological, Psychiatric, Paediatric, and Medical associations and you don't even comment about it?  That is not very scientific of you.

     You have presented an article by a psychologist who supports your view with what I think is a cleverly crafted and idiotic argument.    Maxx.    The Tobacco companies could always find a few scientists who needed money for their research to do some "scientific" research for them, which always found that smoking did not cause cancer.    Nobody believed it and these "scientists" were pilloried by their own peers.

     Now, along comes a psychologist who goes against his own professional organisations and claims that they are all wrong.   Who do you think has the greater credibility?     My opinion, is that this guys "research" was bought by the entertainment industries themselves, or, he is an academic who puts his loyalty to his own class, which includes artists and directors in the entertainment industry, above the interests of his own community.

     Turn away from the Dark Side, Maxx.     You are supposed to be a far seeing progressive liberal.    Such people do not side with greedy corporations who know full well themselves that they are creating products which harm their own society, especially kids and vulnerable "adults", but who like the tobacco companies they resemble, are only concerned about mining the rivers of gold.

  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

     Got another post for me to dissect Maxx?    Oh goody, this is fun.

     Maxx quote

     on a side note for i have just now realized i missed the crucial bit about cigs in magazines, is youth is very impressionable.  yes I understand that ads are media, however it is not the ads that make them take up smoking anymore than an ad on deep sea fishing would make them run away to the sea.  kids take up smoking because they see others do it, mainly adults. No kid is going to smoke simply because of an ad. They see a picture in a magazine is all.  Yet when they see adults smoking and even their older peers then is when they assume it is ok.  Adding on to this; since you have not answered my other reply, is that your reasoning assumes if a kid sees an ad about an upcoming movie that features crime and murder, and goes out and somehow gets to see it, then he will suddenly be a wayward child that wants to grow up wicked. The lack of values and discipline in america today is responsible for our increase of crime, not the media. This begins at the parental level yet now days parents are afraid to give much discipline thanks to so many laws that can claim child abuse.    

     Wrong again, Maxx.   I suppose I could explain to you how modern advertisers use psychology and "Emotional Motivation" to sell their products, but explaining how psychology works in advertising might be a bit hard for you?   Okay, I will go without it.

     Tobacco companies were fully aware of the crucial importance of targeting children for their dangerous and addictive product.    This was revealed from confidential company documents which were made public by disgusted employees.   It was also revealed through admissions by one cigarette manufacturer, the Ligget Group Inc.    Tobacco company researchers had discovered that most people began smoking when they were in the 10 to 14 year age group.      Happily for the tobacco companies, this is the peak age of peer group conformity.   In addition, kids who began smoking a particular brand at an early age, usually continued smoking that brand for life.

     Legally prevented from pitching ads directly at children, cigarette manufacturer RJ  Reynolds, targeted them by using a modern advertising campaign using psychology.  This campaign indirectly appealed to the emotional needs and aspirations of adolescents.     By doing so they created the most successful, and most studied, advertising campaign in history.

     RJ Reynold's advertising agency created a cool cartoon character, Joe Camel, that adolescents and teenagers would identify with.   Joe Camel wore sunglasses, a white tee shirt, and a leather jacket, and he lounged around on motorbikes and convertibles.   The image suggested that Camel smokers were rebellious, non conformist young people who were self confident and possessed a cool attitude.    Exactly the image that many youngsters from low socio economic groups craved. 

      Cheap trinket products like tee shirts and lighters were sold which  had the Joe Camel logo.  Beach sandals were manufactured which appealed to children, with a tread pattern which left camel hoofprints in the sand.  Product give aways included Joe Camel posters, sunglasses and embroided jackets.    Rock concert promoters found that they had no trouble finding sponsors in the cigarette companies.

     During the first three years of this campaign of Joe Camel advertisements, Camel's share of the illegal, under 18's cigarette market jumped from ) 0.5% to 32.8% which represented an increase in sales of $470 million for RJR Nabisco.     Surveys showed that 91% of six year olds recognised Joe Camel, while only 60% recognised Ronald McDonald.

     Naturally RJ Reynolds spokesmen, indignantly denied that their company would target children as customers for their addictive product.    Joe Cool they argued, was meant to appeal to the 18 to 24 age group.   Such a statement is impossible to disprove.   Modern, indirect advertising campaigns simply create images.   These images subconsciously appealed to the targeted consumer groups, in this case children.    But they are subtle enough to deflect criticism through plausible deniability.  But the glib denials ignored the fact that adolescents and teenagers develop a fascination for the lifestyles of young adults.  Teenagers and adolescents sit glued to television sets watching a succession of  romantic soap opera's, with their endless sexual innuendo.   This is because they are awed by the freedom, independence and hedonism of the young adults shown in these shows.   They can not wait to be one themselves, try out the lifestyle and get in on the action.   Young stars in these soaps are role models.    They teach children how to deal with the asinine social situations that the programs writers dream up.   The attention of the children is riveted on every detail of their favourite stars dress, speech, bearing, mannerisms, behaviour and social attitudes.      Consciously and  unconsciously, they seek to emulate them. This was the reason for the spectacular success of Joe Camel.

    Maxx, by taking the side of the entertainment industries who are just as bad as the tobacco industries, you are not being a far seeing liberal.   You are a "useful fool" apologist for an industry which knows exactly what it is doing, and is laughing at your naivety.  


  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 11
    One has to even know what cigarettes are in the first place to even begin to want to smoke them. The ads are simple reinforcement. If a child has no concept of what a cigarette is, if he never seen anyone smoking, then all the ads in the world would not sway him to smoke.  "They begin smoking because they see others do so", not because of the ad! The ads are simply after the fact. Now in continuation, you still have not addressed my issues in my previous reply. @Bogan
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Oh, is that so, Maxx?      You are implying that it is okay for cigarette advertisers to advertise in children's magazines and comics, because cigarette advertising does not affect them.      Don't try and squirm out of it by saying "I didn't exactly say that."    Be a man and spit out exactly what you did mean mean if this is not so.        Like, are you crazy, like Piloteer?     I thought that you had some brains?    The very fact that the leading psychological and medical scientific organisations in the USA support me and oppose you,, should at least give you pause to think.     But so far, you have not even mentioned them or their historic Joint Statement.    Stop pretending that you are a supporter of a science like psychology if you refuse to even read what the USA's leading scientific organisations say about this issue. The very fact that the leading psychological and medical scientific organisations in the USA support me and oppose you, should at least give you pause to think.

    Or is it something else?    Do you think that this is an adversarial contest between you and me, and your need to protect your self esteem by not losing is more important than acknowledging self evident truth?    I am not treating you like an adversary Maxx, I am playing the role of tutor to a promising student.       By implying that children are not affected by advertising you have just lost all credibility with most reasonable people.   

    It is just amazing how far people will go to stop recognising self evident truth, if it contradicts their most cherished ideology.    Don't laugh at DickyD and Pamela Johnson for their amazing ability to deny reality when you are doing exactly the same thing, Maxx.    The images shown and the messages transmitted by the media affects people's behaviour.   That is a concept easy to prove to any person possessing normal intelligence who has an ability to think critically.      And the example I gave to you about kids and cigarette advertisers is the easiest concept to prove that.     But 20 years of debating on debate sites has shown me that no amount of proof will shift people who just do not want to know.      Ideologues utterly refuse to make the simplest of connections.  

    If like Piloteer you refuse to accept the most obvious connections between known facts, then you are either an id-iot or an ideological zealot.    Either way, you are not worth debating with.
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 11
    Well if you can quote me as to where i said it was ok for companies to insert such ads in Childrens magazines, then please do so; however and as well, companies do not place ads in Childrens magazines on cigarettes. They place them in magazines that simply are popular with youth, such as car magazines. Childrens magazines are free of such ads. now mr bogan, show me an american ad that portrays smoking in a CHILDRENS Magazine; not a magazine that was originally designed for adults that are just popular with youth. Now and as well mr bogan; if you ask any one who began smoking as a youth as to what reason; you will perhaps find 1 percent who said because of an ad.  everyone will say, because of others and peers doing so.  @Bogan
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Do you support the idea of cigarette companies advertising their wares in children's magazines, comics, and kid's TV?     If not, why not?    If so, why so?
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -  
    no i do not, yet you are incorrect in assuming that they do. I am in america and can easily pick up such magazines such as sixteen, or teen vouge or ranger rick and so on.  There are no ads for cigarettes in them.  There are cigarette ads in magazines that are deigned for adults that many teens find popular, such as car magazines, sport magazines. There is a big difference in this and your claim. These magazines are not targeting children, nor are the magazines designed for them in mind.  @Bogan
  • BoganBogan 157 Pts   -  
    I had a funny feeling that you would not give a straight answer, and instead that you would choose to misinterprete what I said, then give an answer based upon the misinterpretation.    Congratulations.   I love it when my opponents do exactly what I expect them to do.    I do not think you are a person capable of rational thought, and I can see I am wasting my time on you.  
  • maxxmaxx 954 Pts   -   edited August 13
    you made a claim that their are cigarette ads in Childrens magazines, did you not?? i simply told you that you were mistaken.  if you have proof then please show me.   As well, please show me which magazines that these ads are in. I agree that they are in many magazines; including ones that young people read, however these are not magazines for children, not were they designed for children. yet your claim is that such ads are in children and young teen magazines.   you are mistaken.  @Bogan
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch