AZ Congresswoman...12 others, shot

It does raise a general question. Does the majority of the population get affected by advertisements? By beautiful skinny women? Violence and sex in TV/movies/video games? The heavy political bias/tensions from the government? And so on.

If not, then what is the MPAA for? Why bother with movie ratings? Maybe Loughner was our Manchurian Candidate. Why are there so many anorexic women? Etc, etc.

Personally, I don't think media and political "debates" (which really are subtext name calling) affect the population much, but sometimes I do wonder if it affects us in subtle ways. And perhaps it does affect the screwed up ones to a much greater degree.
 
Daredevel7 said:
It does raise a general question. Does the majority of the population get affected by advertisements? By beautiful skinny women? Violence and sex in TV/movies/video games? The heavy political bias/tensions from the government? And so on.

If not, then what is the MPAA for? Why bother with movie ratings? Maybe Loughner was our Manchurian Candidate. Why are there so many anorexic women? Etc, etc.

Personally, I don't think media and political "debates" (which really are subtext name calling) affect the population much, but sometimes I do wonder if it affects us in subtle ways. And perhaps it does affect the screwed up ones to a much greater degree.
Click to expand...

I had to laugh at this post, sorry. It is such a sad question. Maybe the advertisements are just for those screwed up to greater degrees. :lol:
 
saywhatkid said:
Agreed. Same feeling I had during the Columbine massacre, when Congress was targeting video games as the reason those two creeps gunned down their classmates. People need to look at the fat end of the gun to see the person to blame.
Click to expand...

So, environment has nothing to do with one's behavior? Societal attitudes have nothing to do with choices one makes? People do not have an influence on others?
 
Daredevel7 said:
It does raise a general question. Does the majority of the population get affected by advertisements? By beautiful skinny women? Violence and sex in TV/movies/video games? The heavy political bias/tensions from the government? And so on.

If not, then what is the MPAA for? Why bother with movie ratings? Maybe Loughner was our Manchurian Candidate. Why are there so many anorexic women? Etc, etc.

Personally, I don't think media and political "debates" (which really are subtext name calling) affect the population much, but sometimes I do wonder if it affects us in subtle ways. And perhaps it does affect the screwed up ones to a much greater degree.
Click to expand...

If those things did not influence, they would not continue to be used as advertising methods. Social psychology has done many studies regarding the way media affects the consumer. In fact, most ad agencies have a psychologist on staff to help them taylor their ads in the way that will have the greatest effect without being obvious.
 
jillio said:
So, environment has nothing to do with one's behavior? Societal attitudes have nothing to do with choices one makes? People do not have an influence on others?
Click to expand...

I think people with mental health issues are going to listen to whatever makes sense, even if the voices don't exist. It is hard to find a happy place where we protect the gulible while keeping these things available to the rest of us "normal" folks. Do you want video games censured? Music? Where do we draw the line?
 
saywhatkid said:
I think people with mental health issues are going to listen to whatever makes sense, even if the voices don't exist. It is hard to find a happy place where we protect the gulible while keeping these things available to the rest of us "normal" folks. Do you want video games censured? Music? Where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of censorship at all. But neither do I discount the fact that media, in all forms, has an effect on all of society, not just the vulnerable. When a vulnerable person reacts in an exaggerated way to media that has had an influence on him, it needs to be taken into consideration that it was his illness and exposure to that which could be misinterpreted that guided his actions and his decisions. That is not to say that the shooter is innocent. He is indeed guilty and must be held responsible. But to what degree was he responsible for his own actions in a delusional state? That most certainly needs to be considered, and society needs to understand that even the most educated and aware are, in some way they no doubt don't even recognize, are affected by media. That simple fact needs to be recognized, not excused.
 
jillio said:
I am not in favor of censorship at all. But neither do I discount the fact that media, in all forms, has an effect on all of society, not just the vulnerable. When a vulnerable person reacts in an exaggerated way to media that has had an influence on him, it needs to be taken into consideration that it was his illness and exposure to that which could be misinterpreted that guided his actions and his decisions. That is not to say that the shooter is innocent. He is indeed guilty and must be held responsible. But to what degree was he responsible for his own actions in a delusional state? That most certainly needs to be considered, and society needs to understand that even the most educated and aware are, in some way they no doubt don't even recognize, are affected by media. That simple fact needs to be recognized, not excused.
Click to expand...
OK, I agree with no censorship. I also find it difficult to pin blame on someone many miles away from events performed by deranged people. Remember Charles Manson? He was inspired by a Beatles song. Did we call for a ban to Helter Skelter on the airwaves? I don't think so.

When people are delusional, it is nearly impossible to predict what they will latch onto for guidance. Since he will quite likely be found insane, the law provides that he is not guilty. By the same measure, do we need to indict a media commentator from the Right because Loughner shot a Democrat?

As you know, I find these "rabble rousers" such as Olbermann and Limbaugh to be distasteful at best. Not sure they can be held accountable for delusional people that carry out missions they think are from the words of a radio broadcast. I would love to stuff a sock in their mouths, but in reality, all they are doing is trying to make money.
 
saywhatkid said:
OK, I agree with no censorship. I also find it difficult to pin blame on someone many miles away from events performed by deranged people. Remember Charles Manson? He was inspired by a Beatles song. Did we call for a ban to Helter Skelter on the airwaves? I don't think so.

When people are delusional, it is nearly impossible to predict what they will latch onto for guidance. Since he will quite likely be found insane, the law provides that he is not guilty. By the same measure, do we need to indict a media commentator from the Right because Loughner shot a Democrat?

As you know, I find these "rabble rousers" such as Olbermann and Limbaugh to be distasteful at best. Not sure they can be held accountable for delusional people that carry out missions they think are from the words of a radio broadcast. I would love to stuff a sock in their mouths, but in reality, all they are doing is trying to make money.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember quite a stir re: Helter Skelter after Manson claimed their influence. There were many calls for banning the Beatles music. There were organized record burnings.

Being found insane, particularly in AZ, does not mean a not guilty finding. AZ does not even have the option of "not guilty by reason of insanity". And in states that do have the option, it is a very rare occurrance. Only a handful of people through out recent history have been found "not guilty by reason of insanity." And those are incarcerated in forensic hospitals. In most cases for the remainder of their lives.

What AZ does have is "guilty but insane." That results in the indvidual being remanded to a locked psychiatric unit until they are stabilized, and then being transferred to prison to begin serving their sentence.

The rabble rousers (and I consider Palin to fit in that category given her speeches both during the election and after) are not being held accountable for a delusional person's actions. They are being held accountable for the way in which they have expressed themselves that can possibly create a dangerous situation for innocent people.
 
jillio said:
I seem to remember quite a stir re: Helter Skelter after Manson claimed their influence. There were many calls for banning the Beatles music. There were organized record burnings.

Being found insane, particularly in AZ, does not mean a not guilty finding. AZ does not even have the option of "not guilty by reason of insanity". And in states that do have the option, it is a very rare occurrance. Only a handful of people through out recent history have been found "not guilty by reason of insanity." And those are incarcerated in forensic hospitals. In most cases for the remainder of their lives.

What AZ does have is "guilty but insane." That results in the indvidual being remanded to a locked psychiatric unit until they are stabilized, and then being transferred to prison to begin serving their sentence.

The rabble rousers (and I consider Palin to fit in that category given her speeches both during the election and after) are not being held accountable for a delusional person's actions. They are being held accountable for the way in which they have expressed themselves that can possibly create a dangerous situation for innocent people.
Click to expand...
I actually feel that anyone that can kill a human being is temporarily insane. That does not excuse them. I find the insanity defense is unfair to the victims.

Palin's speeches are politically motivated. If you want to hear some scary stuff, check out Michelle Bachmann:rl:

Fortunately, I believe in judgment that occurs after life ends. Those rabble rousers WILL be held accountable. :twisted:
 
saywhatkid said:
I actually feel that anyone that can kill a human being is temporarily insane. That does not excuse them. I find the insanity defense is unfair to the victims.

Palin's speeches are politically motivated. If you want to hear some scary stuff, check out Michelle Bachmann:rl:

Fortunately, I believe in judgment that occurs after life ends. Those rabble rousers WILL be held accountable. :twisted:
Click to expand...

Without the insanity defense, we victimize the mentally ill that are already victimized by their illness.

The vast majority of murders are what are called "crimes of passion." The person comitting the murder is reacting to what they consider a personal slight or threat of some kind, and they react in the moment.

The person who is technically insane and murders is really very rare. It is just that we hear more about them because media chooses to exploit them for a "good story".

And I agree. They will be held accountable one way or another.
 
saywhatkid said:
I actually feel that anyone that can kill a human being is temporarily insane. That does not excuse them. I find the insanity defense is unfair to the victims.

Palin's speeches are politically motivated. If you want to hear some scary stuff, check out Michelle Bachmann:rl:

Fortunately, I believe in judgment that occurs after life ends. Those rabble rousers WILL be held accountable. :twisted:
Click to expand...

She is my favorite! :) Really like Marsha Blackburn too
 
saywhatkid said:
Palin's speeches are politically motivated. If you want to hear some scary stuff, check out Michelle Bachmann:rl:

Fortunately, I believe in judgment that occurs after life ends. Those rabble rousers WILL be held accountable. :twisted:
Click to expand...
Dude, you're going back and forth like a ping-pong ball. What is your position on all this? Should the "rabble rousers" be held to account for this or not?
 
darkdog said:
Dude, you're going back and forth like a ping-pong ball. What is your position on all this? Should the "rabble rousers" be held to account for this or not?
Click to expand...
Just having some fun here. I am against censorship, but that does not mean I have to like all the results of not using it. Make sense?

Censorship = bad.

Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, and their ilk = bad.

Thinking we should bring indictment against a radio/TV commentator based on the actions of the killer = wrong.

Thinking these commentators do not have any influence on those borderline people, perhaps tripping the switch that makes them carry out agendas against the other side = naive.
 
David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) got his orders to kill from a dog. Should we blame the dog for inciting the killings?
 
Reba said:
David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) got his orders to kill from a dog. Should we blame the dog for inciting the killings?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No more table scraps for you.
 
Daredevel7 said:
It does raise a general question. Does the majority of the population get affected by advertisements? By beautiful skinny women? Violence and sex in TV/movies/video games? The heavy political bias/tensions from the government? And so on.

If not, then what is the MPAA for? Why bother with movie ratings? Maybe Loughner was our Manchurian Candidate. Why are there so many anorexic women? Etc, etc.

Personally, I don't think media and political "debates" (which really are subtext name calling) affect the population much, but sometimes I do wonder if it affects us in subtle ways. And perhaps it does affect the screwed up ones to a much greater degree.
Click to expand...

Its an old argument:

2 Families Sue Heavy-Metal Band As Having Driven Sons to Suicide - NYTimes.com
 
Wirelessly posted (Samsung Captivate (i897))

Damn, lot of shoot-happy people out there.
 
Back
Top