Cheers, ken collins
>> 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.