Richie Ramos (
Mon, 11 Sep 2000 03:12:30 +0800

>How, then do you explain
> This is a seemingly good argument, yet I ask you: What image-based
>media was responsible for the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition,
>or the eating disorders of the ancient Egyptians and Romans?

back then, media was church and state, or some other institution,
technically. a different institution handled the flow of information, and
they still botched it up. But this leads to a whole new discussion on the
use of communication lines by institutional entities. let's stop here...

>Certainly, if a society has never come in contact with a concept,
>then it is hard for that concept to effect their society. However,
>when you are talking about concepts as old as eating disorders, sex
>appeal, violence, and body-image, it is hard to blame them on a
>medium as young as television, much less video games. If you are
>going to blame anyone for the transmission of these concepts, you
>should really be pointing your finger at the first hominid to draw a
>cave painting of a symbolic (meaning, by definition, idealized)
>hominid. If you are looking for a scapegoat for violence, talk to the
>first organism that fed on another organism. What you are saying, is
>that we should do away with any form of
>communication, for fear that what might be communicated is something

I think the proper way would be that individuals who are being introduced
to new methods of communiction should be guided by those who are already
familiar or at least have authority to guide these people -- like parents
to kids, teachers to students, etc. But never should communication be
filtered to the point of idiocy. How one filters information is a function
of many things in society, from the familial unit up to the Government.

>> We live in a society that is safer, less violent, less warlike, and
>generally less likely to slaughter everyone on the other side of the
>hill from us, than ever before in the history of mankind! Yet, you
>are saying that there *must* be *something* to the fact that the tiny
>handful of our youth that act violently, are all watching the exact
>same shows that our well behaved youth watch. You assert that the
>fact that 20 violent children played games that sold hundreds of
>thousands of copies, therefore *proves* that there is some

I think the kids aren't to blame for being violent. but we also have to
examine the social controls that went wrong with them. and even if only 20
kids went ballistic, we have to study why, so the cahnces of it happening
again can be rendered smaller through better methods of guidance and social

>The thing that really cracks me up is that if you look at how violent
>our society was before any of these "warping" media were present, you
>will find that there has been a dramatic drop in violence since these
>media presented themselves. I mean, exactly what TV show told us to
>slaughter the American Indians? Was there a first person shooter
>running on a Babbage Machine, that warped Hitler into thinking the
>Jews were a threat to him? For that matter, if I reverse all the
>pinouts on my joystick, so that I am playing Unreal backwards, do I
>receive secret messages from the devil?

anyone with a mouth and knows how to use it is a potential media point.
Media in the true sense has been around since animals learned how to
communicate with each other. But there should be a positive form of social
control to go with its usage. Censorship is NOT the answer, but Guidance is.

>There is no
>getting around it. Violence is part of the world. If you
>want to play ostrich and pretend it is not there, except on
>television and videogames, then be my guest, but if you don't expect
>your kid to stumble across it, you are deluding yourself. See, that
>is the part developmental psychologists neglect to tell you: Your kid
>can see reality much clearer than you can, because kids don't know
>enough to be delusional.

I don't mind if my kid knows about violence, but I would prefer it if he
could avoid using it unless inevitable. that's what guidance in the
correct way does: it teaches the child to examine all options, violence also will teach them how to respond to humor, be it violent
or sarcastic or what.

If I wanted to rage against the dying of the light, I would have brought a

Richard "Richie" Ramos, Associate Editor
Localvibe -- Changing the way you see your city!

ofc: (632) 4167486
fax: (632) 4167479
cel: 0917-4024780
hse: (632) 7231308 (emergency use)
ICQ#: 12914919

I am NOT a starving writer.

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Sep 11 2000 - 04:09:24 JST