ken collins wrote in message <3723BB16.6E3F25A5 at banet.net>...
>John W. Maly wrote:
>>> While this is definitely a recent invention, I would posit that it simply
>> allows children to bring their fantasies closer to reality. The root of
>> the problem would seem to be that children are confusing fantasy with
>> and even having murderous fantasies to begin with. Violent TV has been
>> longer than the 1990's; the "Faces of Death" movies, and the violent
>> thrillers in the theaters today are not exclusively a product of this
>>one more thing... it should be possible, to sort some of this out
>by cross correlating quantity of media violence per year with
>birth dates... the thought being that the "current generation" of
>Children has increased vulnerability because they've matured
>completely within the established violence-as-"entertainment"
>culture, while folks born earlier (including most of those who
>develop such "entertainment") had acquired "imunity", to a
>degree, because their development was not contained entirely
>within the violence-as-"entertainment" culture... the point being
>that such total immersion might be a key thing, in that it
>disallows alternative, healthy, development. (remember, the early
>years of Life are critical years in development... it might be
>that what we're seeing is due to the "current generation's" being
>the first to be exposed to violence-as-"entertainment" during
>those critical years.
>>add to this, the culture shock of a move from one part of the
>country to another, where familiar stablizing factors are lost,
>and a Child might view the "anxiety" that naturally accompanies
>such lost of familiar stuff as being in the same "class" as the
>violence-as-"entertainment" stuff the Child experienced,
>inadvertently, during the Child's critical development years...
>in other words, the early exposure to violence-as-"entertainment"
>would act as a predisposing factor which, when coupled with later
>"normal" trauma, might tip the balance.
>>other point: i might be wrong because i've not kept rigorous
>"accounts", but it does seem to me that, for the past 3-4 years,
>there's been a trend away from violenceas-"entertainment? anyone
>else notice the same?
>>at any rate, the thing that's unacceptable to me is that the
>violence-as-"entertainment" stuff was done in a
>calculated-to-win-"profits" way. as such, there's victimization
>for "profit" in-there, and such is unacceptable.
>>these are important considerations that academia should sort out.
>there're grounds for understanding because, since the
>violence-as-"entertainment" folks were not within the
>total-immersion "generation", for them, it's True that they've
>grounds for discernment and differentiation that can account for
>their "confusion" about the effects of the stuff they've done for
>"profit". but for the total-immersion groups there's no such
>grounds for discernment and differentiation(?).
>>if this's tested, and holds up, then Society must Choose to take
>action to assure that Children are not immersed in
>violence-as-"entertainment" during their critical years of
>>K. P. Collins
Your insight on this topic is both impressive and refreshing.