Patrick Wilken wrote:
> >If TV is a really great source of violence, then the natives of Rwanda must
> >really have been watching a LOT of TV before they went out with machettes
> >and killed several hundred thousands of their fellow citisens with
> >machettes.
>
> A bit of a strawman argument no? Do you really mean to say that if TV leads
> to violence then its the only cause of violence?
>
> More to the point: I don't think critics of TV violence are trying to say
> that TV leads naturally to more violence, but perhaps desensitization to
> it. Some argue that it is bad that we teach our children through television
> that violence is a game and that death is not important. There is some
> bizarre statistic that by the time a child reaches 15 they've seen upwards
> of 10000 deaths depicted on television.
>
>
> Note: I don't necessarily believe TV does any harm to a child, but its
> silly to misrepresent the argument.
>
> >Exposing the
> >biggest problems in society so that it is possible to act upon them before
> >they becomes reason of mass violence.
>
> I wasn't aware that most children's shows dealt with real problems. Did I
> miss that episode of Scooby Dooby Doo or Lost in Space? OK. So I'm showing
> my age, but I do not believe TV shows have become that much more socially
> relevant in the intervening years (nor perhaps should they).
Any show that glorifies the perpetrators of violence would obviously have a suggestive impact for the negative. However the perpetrators are almost always defeated by normal people meeting fire with fire, which is a rational, logical, real world solution to agressors like Saddam Hussein or the local gang banger.