Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is truly the age of information. We're aware of so much in fact I wonder whether or not we have some of the worst cases of denial ever. It takes strong denial to continue along some paths. Cigarette smokers keep smoking despite mountains of info. Racists cling to the idea that they are superior despite DNA evidence that we're the same. The worst cases of denial though are happening in the home. So many of us are in denial about our being media slaves that I think it is becoming an epidemic.

The evidence is obvious. Advertisers have spent billions and billions researching the best ways to manipulate our choices. TV shows are tested before airing to make sure that they appeal to a "targeted" audience. We're aware that our best interests are not the concern of the TV broadcasters but we watch anyway. Our home life can center around the cell phone, laptop, and TV set almost entirely. How many of us have cancelled dinner at the table with TV's and cell phones off? Even families with kids have dinner in front of the screen or all over the house as the norm.

What I'd like to know is this...Is our increased knowledge lending itself to a stronger, more widespread denial in the world? Do we believe that this indulgence in available media is just the new norm or are we in denial about an obvious epidemic of media addiction that has the potential to harm our families?

Discuss

I think that the 2011 family is being torn apart by too much media. Most people far exceed viewing time that is considered healthy and Single parents many times have to rely on the TV to occupy kids while they rest. And this ain't 1970's programming we're talking about.

I'm going to take the unpopular point of view.

the break up of the family as a centre of power only makes the world a better place

Rich are getting richer. Poor are getting poorer. Crime is rampant. Injustice is omnipresent. The man keeps you down. The government are corrupt liars only interested in money. Fluoride controls shopping habits. The media is destroying civilization. War is evil. Evil is everywhere. The time we live in now is the worst ever. People now are dumber than ever before. The time we live in now is the most important ever. Humility is non-existent. And this confession has meant nothing.


But yeah, we're all in denial.

How much does denial play a role in difficulty of breaking a bad habit like smoking cigarettes? I probably spend too much time watching shows and playing games too. The thing is I wonder if denial can be overcome at all sometimes. I've heard that a person can have a seizure if pressed too hard about something that they did and swear they didn't do, like drink too much every time they visit. What can you do to combat extra strength denial?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Rich are getting richer. Poor are getting poorer. Crime is rampant. Injustice is omnipresent. The man keeps you down. The government are corrupt liars only interested in money. Fluoride controls shopping habits. The media is destroying civilization. War is evil. Evil is everywhere. The time we live in now is the worst ever. People now are dumber than ever before. The time we live in now is the most important ever. Humility is non-existent. And this confession has meant nothing.


But yeah, we're all in denial.

Don't forget the "Happy Pills" that keep you in denial. If everyone takes those,, then you don't care.

Can anyone say, "Prozac Nation?" Lets Dopamine ourselves to death.

That's pretty sad.

I doubt of anything you say will ever change.It is how people are.The more people are told not to do something.The more people are going to do it anyway.
Reather it is againist the law or not.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Don't forget the "Happy Pills" that keep you in denial. If everyone takes those,, then you don't care.

Can anyone say, "Prozac Nation?" Lets Dopamine ourselves to death.

That's pretty sad. You have a good point. It would seem that recommending someone to a mental health professional for extreme cases of denial would be helpful but the doctor only seems interested in making a profit some how, whether through pills or sessions that never end. An extremely Bi-polar person may need medication, but they also need to be taught coping methods. I feel like we're forgetting/not being taught how to cope with all of the options that we have, because they all make someone money. Addiction is promoted even in things that are not inherently addictive. If a person becomes addicted to an "acceptable" drug/thing they become a walking talking advertisement that is free for the company.

e.g. A child in a full spongebob outfit. A man with a leather Marlboro jacket. A woman who raves about how her anti-depressant chantix also helped her quit smoking after 20 years of smoking. A man that eats 20 Big Macs a day. A guy that blasts his favorite artists' music for miles to hear. A kid that cries if he's fed anything but skippy peanut butter and smuckers jam sandwiches.

All these people have in common is that they are doing companies a big favor by advertising immersion in a PARTICULAR product. There are safe levels of immersion (collecting) and then there is addiction but the companies probably could care less which category you fall in. Actually like you said they will sell you cures if you do become addicted.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm going to take the unpopular point of view.

the break up of the family as a centre of power only makes the world a better place

That's interesting but how could it? Who can influence a child/the future better than their parent? Nobody else could care for them in the same way and have it mean the same thing. As parents we could be setting our kids up to believe that excessive indulgence in what you like is ok as long as it's legal. Then they turn 18 (yes 18)and indulge in alcohol and partying as an adult. We then try to intervene in what we consider self-destructive behavior. If we believe that something IS negative then we should at least attempt to make whatever changes for the better that we can. We shouldn't let denial let us walk into obvious pitfalls. We have the potential today to enjoy all sorts of unique social activities with friends and family but this is becoming more forced than fun and overall less popular.

Originally posted by The MISTER
This is truly the age of information. We're aware of so much in fact I wonder whether or not we have some of the worst cases of denial ever. It takes strong denial to continue along some paths. Cigarette smokers keep smoking despite mountains of info. Racists cling to the idea that they are superior despite DNA evidence that we're the same. The worst cases of denial though are happening in the home. So many of us are in denial about our being media slaves that I think it is becoming an epidemic.

The evidence is obvious. Advertisers have spent billions and billions researching the best ways to manipulate our choices. TV shows are tested before airing to make sure that they appeal to a "targeted" audience. We're aware that our best interests are not the concern of the TV broadcasters but we watch anyway. Our home life can center around the cell phone, laptop, and TV set almost entirely. How many of us have cancelled dinner at the table with TV's and cell phones off? Even families with kids have dinner in front of the screen or all over the house as the norm.

What I'd like to know is this...Is our increased knowledge lending itself to a stronger, more widespread denial in the world? Do we believe that this indulgence in available media is just the new norm or are we in denial about an obvious epidemic of media addiction that has the potential to harm our families?

Discuss

I think your ideas of what motivates racism and what keeps smokers from quitting are pretty naive.

As for the media addiction point...If people want to watch programmes aimed at the lowest common denominator then so be it. I think it has more to do with denial of their boring and detatched lives and disfunctional relationships that drives them to escapism media rather than the media they consume which is causing the disfunctional family units.

Or something.

Originally posted by jaden101
I think your ideas of what motivates racism and what keeps smokers from quitting are pretty naive.

As for the media addiction point...If people want to watch programmes aimed at the lowest common denominator then so be it. I think it has more to do with denial of their boring and detatched lives and disfunctional relationships that drives them to escapism media rather than the media they consume which is causing the disfunctional family units.

Or something. Naive? Cigarette smokers are physically addicted. Denial is part of convincing yourself that you like what you're addicted to and what it's doing to you. I don't think denial motivates racism but I think it helps keep it strong.

If crack were legal I think it would be better to deter people from trying it rather than saying try it if you like. I'm not saying that media is as destructive as crack but it has the potential to be as much of family destroyer. A youtube video of a mans wife at the club might make him leave her faster than if she started smoking crack. I agree with your point about people being in denial about their boring and detached lives and their dysfunctional relationships driving them to escapism.

The concern I have is how the media has warped their minds even further. A parent that doesn't care what their kids watch on TV has to be either oblivious to what TV has on it these days or in denial about the damage certain shows can do to their kids' perception. A teenage boy who watches a girls gone wild commercial can't help but to be intrigued by the idea of sexy wild girls that will strip just to get on camera. A teenage girl watching the "Bad Girls Club" is being taught that it's cool to get drunk, fight, and have sex with any guy she thinks is cute. And that's only talking about shows on TV. A ten year old with a laptop or a high end phone can view the most explicit porn available in 2011. When they get pregnant at 12 we then act as though we can't connect the dots. Teen pregnancy is up and so are the messages that they are missing out if they're not f!@king somebody. Can you see the potential damage media can do if we deny that there is any real danger in it?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Naive? Cigarette smokers are physically addicted. Denial is part of convincing yourself that you like what you're addicted to and what it's doing to you. I don't think denial motivates racism but I think it helps keep it strong.

If crack were legal I think it would be better to deter people from trying it rather than saying try it if you like. I'm not saying that media is as destructive as crack but it has the potential to be as much of family destroyer. A youtube video of a mans wife at the club might make him leave her faster than if she started smoking crack. I agree with your point about people being in denial about their boring and detached lives and their dysfunctional relationships driving them to escapism.

The concern I have is how the media has warped their minds even further. A parent that doesn't care what their kids watch on TV has to be either oblivious to what TV has on it these days or in denial about the damage certain shows can do to their kids' perception. A teenage boy who watches a girls gone wild commercial can't help but to be intrigued by the idea of sexy wild girls that will strip just to get on camera. A teenage girl watching the "Bad Girls Club" is being taught that it's cool to get drunk, fight, and have sex with any guy she thinks is cute. And that's only talking about shows on TV. A ten year old with a laptop or a high end phone can view the most explicit porn available in 2011. When they get pregnant at 12 we then act as though we can't connect the dots. Teen pregnancy is up and so are the messages that they are missing out if they're not f!@king somebody. Can you see the potential damage media can do if we deny that there is any real danger in it?

Well then it's not the media that's causing the problem because you yourself stated that media is targeted at certain audiences...Obviously the extreme example of porn is targetted at an adult audience who have the maturity to cope with viewing it merely as a form of entertainment and not aimed at kids...So when they do get access to it then it's not the producers of that media that are to blame but the parents who haven't bothered using the abundant and free content blockers that are there specifically to stop kids from being able to consume media that isn't targetted at them.

It's the same argument as saying that fast food retailers are to blame because people are fat when the simple fact is that it's the fat people's fault that they are fat and noone elses.

It disgusts me the level of bullshit people will stoop to in order to alleviate personal responsibility and that's the only part where denial comes in to it.

Clearly people smoking is not simply a matter of self denial about the harmful affects of smoking because you've stated that it is actually physically/chemically addictive which is the reason most people find it difficult to stop.

Originally posted by The MISTER
This is truly the age of information. We're aware of so much in fact I wonder whether or not we have some of the worst cases of denial ever. It takes strong denial to continue along some paths. Cigarette smokers keep smoking despite mountains of info. Racists cling to the idea that they are superior despite DNA evidence that we're the same. The worst cases of denial though are happening in the home. So many of us are in denial about our being media slaves that I think it is becoming an epidemic.

The evidence is obvious. Advertisers have spent billions and billions researching the best ways to manipulate our choices. TV shows are tested before airing to make sure that they appeal to a "targeted" audience. We're aware that our best interests are not the concern of the TV broadcasters but we watch anyway. Our home life can center around the cell phone, laptop, and TV set almost entirely. How many of us have cancelled dinner at the table with TV's and cell phones off? Even families with kids have dinner in front of the screen or all over the house as the norm.

What I'd like to know is this...Is our increased knowledge lending itself to a stronger, more widespread denial in the world? Do we believe that this indulgence in available media is just the new norm or are we in denial about an obvious epidemic of media addiction that has the potential to harm our families?

Discuss

Don't think much/most of what you stated is linked to "denial" as the cause/problem. Ignorance and/or not caring are likely bigger factors than "denial", but that's still too narrow a scope.

I don't understand the "denial" concept in relation to cigarettes. Most people who smoke cigarettes are well aware of the fact that they're toxic and do horrendous damage to your body and health. They just don't give a shit. Doesn't mean they're pretending the problem doesn't exist, though, which is what denial is.

edit- Ninja'd

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm going to take the unpopular point of view.

the break up of the family as a centre of power only makes the world a better place


I agree!

Originally posted by jaden101
Well then it's not the media that's causing the problem because you yourself stated that media is targeted at certain audiences...Obviously the extreme example of porn is targetted at an adult audience who have the maturity to cope with viewing it merely as a form of entertainment and not aimed at kids...So when they do get access to it then it's not the producers of that media that are to blame but the parents who haven't bothered using the abundant and free content blockers that are there specifically to stop kids from being able to consume media that isn't targetted at them.

It's the same argument as saying that fast food retailers are to blame because people are fat when the simple fact is that it's the fat people's fault that they are fat and noone elses.

It disgusts me the level of bullshit people will stoop to in order to alleviate personal responsibility and that's the only part where denial comes in to it.

Clearly people smoking is not simply a matter of self denial about the harmful affects of smoking because you've stated that it is actually physically/chemically addictive which is the reason most people find it difficult to stop.
I think you're right when you speak about the alleviation of personal responsibility, I just think that it's actually taught as part of the culture now. Being fat can be someone else's fault when you're six. By the time you're 30 you're to blame for not breaking the many bad habits that you've been taught but the denial that any of those habits ARE bad may have been reinforced by your peers' denial that any habit is bad. As for the idea that cigarettes are a bad example because people want to smoke and understand well what they are doing to themselves, I found this...

'Fear pushes many addicts into denial, a belief that their situation is really not that serious. People who are afraid to face their problems often start practicing denial even before they're addicted. They may get resentful, angry, or defensive when asked about their behavior. As addiction progresses, it causes its own problems. Then the idea of facing reality can be frightening and overwhelming.

Its Not My Fault

Addicted people work hard to convince themselves and others that they are not addicted. Some common excuses include:

"Most people (fill in the blank with any addictive behavior) this much."
"I only do it on weekends."
"Everyone I know does it."
"If my spouse were more pleasant, I wouldn't have to (fill in) "
"I'll stop as soon as the pressure lets up."
"A little bit of (fill in) is good for you."
"It helps me relax/concentrate/forget."
"I enjoy it too much to stop."
"It's not a problem, I just enjoy it." '

Most, not all, cigarette smokers don't want to die from a smoking related illness. The physical addiction creates one of the strongest literal cases of denial that can exist because your body has become addicted to poison. Smoking is just an example of how learning more about the dangers of something will not always deter extremely destructive behavior.

Absorbing trash is part of being an adult and we do have the maturity to take responsibility for our adult interests and their dangers. An adult that shares his martini with his 10 year old may be doing less permanent damage than one who puts a TV with full cable in their 10 year olds room. Both actions have dangers but the denial I've been referring to is that one of those actions is as innocent as getting a child a night-light. If a parent will feed a kid lard-cakes and buffalo burgers until they puke, why would we think that the media would show more concern for what potential damage they can do to the future generations?

Do we have the power to shake off the inclination to share inappropriate media with the children in 2011? Or are we going to get worse than we already?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Do we have the power to shake off the inclination to share inappropriate media with the children in 2011? Or are we going to get worse than we already?

You sound like Geraldo Rivera. Beware of flying chairs.

Originally posted by Robtard
You sound like Geraldo Rivera. Beware of flying chairs. haermm

Originally posted by The MISTER
That's interesting but how could it? Who can influence a child/the future better than their parent?

look not only at North America, but around the world. Biases, misinformation, racism, prejudice, all of those things, are essentially a product of the home environment.

In fact, when it comes to issues like racism, there is abundant evidence that the state has the most power to effect people's views in a positive way. While it is almost certain that a racist parent will have a racist child, the greatest way to prevent that child from coming to identify with that hate is through exposure to other cultures and working with people of different ethnicities in public school.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Nobody else could care for them in the same way and have it mean the same thing.

by about the age of... 8?, or maybe a little later, you, as a parent (if your child is developing normally) will have little if any influence over your kid. At this point, peer group becomes far more important.

You are a) overstimating the role that parents play in the development of the social persona of a child, and b) you wrongly have assumed that children learn racism someplace that isn't their home. Sure, there will be obvious examples of nazis who come from a good home, but 90% of the time, these ideas come from being isolated from the world around the child. So, it is the family that is most at risk of passing this hatred onto the child, and it is society at large that is able to give them real world experience necessary to overcome these biases they face at home.

Originally posted by The MISTER
As parents we could be setting our kids up to believe that excessive indulgence in what you like is ok as long as it's legal. Then they turn 18 (yes 18)and indulge in alcohol and partying as an adult. We then try to intervene in what we consider self-destructive behavior. If we believe that something IS negative then we should at least attempt to make whatever changes for the better that we can. We shouldn't let denial let us walk into obvious pitfalls.

that is hardly denial though. Do you think everyone who smokes or drinks is unaware of the consequences? Do you not think that free people may choose, in full knowledge of the consequences, to smoke or drink or do drugs (in fact, I present myself as evidence)?

It seems you are more trying to make a moralistic statement against certain behavious, and then claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with this stance is either ignorant or in denial of the consequences. Sure, we can agree that racism is bad, I hardly think people are racists because they just haven't heard the data about DNA. In fact, human psychology suggests that if you were to confront a racist with that data, they would become more assured of their position (counter-intuitive, i know, but it is the same phenomenon seen in legal arbitration or even just debate, just discussing your views with people tends to radicalize you further)

Originally posted by The MISTER
We have the potential today to enjoy all sorts of unique social activities with friends and family but this is becoming more forced than fun and overall less popular.

maybe you are in denial about how socially poisonous centering power on the family unit is?

EDIT: sort of related to what you were posting in response to other people, do you actually believe you, as a parent, have the ability to stop your child from watching porn if they want to? really? when you were a kid, did you have any problems hiding things from your parents?

imo if you're a parent, you're better off trying to redirect your kids into drinking/smoking/sex responsibly, rather than just trying to stop them from doing it.

Originally posted by inimalist
look not only at North America, but around the world. Biases, misinformation, racism, prejudice, all of those things, are essentially a product of the home environment. These things that you mention will arise anywhere, and actually are taught against best by parents. They can be strengthened by parents too but gangs prove that humans children seek out a sense of family even if they are deprived of it. Gangs made up of orphans have these negative ideals and they are not a product of the home environment. Child soldiers are also not a product of the home environment. I'm sure you'd agree that they contain extra strength versions of all those things that you spoke of. I know that many parents are not good to their children but there are many that want to teach their children how to behave with consideration for everything and everyone. Please share the name of the community where the children are raised by the state and given individual treatment that is based off of their individual personalities, likes and dislikes. This place must read to each child every night and make each child's favorite meal every now and then showing these children that they are worthy of special treatment, and boosting their self esteem. All while assuring the children that them having no parents is a good thing. If such a place were to exist what would keep the children that came out of it from feeling superior and teaching others that they are just that? The bias and racism would simply evolve into something controlled by the state.

Originally posted by inimalist
In fact, when it comes to issues like racism, there is abundant evidence that the state has the most power to effect people's views in a positive way. While it is almost certain that a racist parent will have a racist child, the greatest way to prevent that child from coming to identify with that hate is through exposure to other cultures and working with people of different ethnicities in public school. You're right here but wouldn't parental involvement strengthen the states ability to promote positive views and erase any negative views that the state MAY hold?

Originally posted by inimalist
by about the age of... 8?, or maybe a little later, you, as a parent (if your child is developing normally) will have little if any influence over your kid. At this point, peer group becomes far more important. Unless you're suggesting that a 10- 15 year old can whip an adults ass, I think you're mistaken. Not getting your ass whipped by your parent is more important than a peer group. If you're trying to go to the club with your kid, I can see how they would take you for a joke as an authority figure, and how your influence would be minute.

Originally posted by inimalist
You are a) overstimating the role that parents play in the development of the social persona of a child, and A caring parent: Cares for an infant with the utmost concern, making sure that their child is healthy AND happy. Spending time talking to baby and playing with baby stimulates a child's mind. Makes investments based on specific strengths and weaknesses. A parent will boost their child's confidence by celebrating their gifts (instruments and sports) and assist them in overcoming their weaknesses.( paying for tutors) Be a source of positive re-enforcement during stressful times. No matter what their age children seek guidance from adults that they know care greatly for them as they feel that this adult would not betray their trust.

I'm sorry but I think all these things are very important in developing a positive social persona. ( I just noticed that you didn't say a positive social persona.doh I hope that's what you meant)


Originally posted by inimalist
b) you wrongly have assumed that children learn racism someplace that isn't their home. Sure, there will be obvious examples of nazis who come from a good home, but 90% of the time, these ideas come from being isolated from the world around the child. So, it is the family that is most at risk of passing this hatred onto the child, and it is society at large that is able to give them real world experience necessary to overcome these biases they face at home. Racism is taught by peers, period. It's taught everywhere as well. A strong self-esteem is important to overcome racism more than exposure to "the real-world" A person with a low self-esteem is more likely to embrace an idea that they are superior to somebody by default no matter what their upbringing.

When you say 'Nazis that come from a good home' this is the type of thing that made me start this thread. Such a statement is an oxymoron. How is it that a home that produces Nazis could be defined as good? All we know about the home is that it produced Nazis. I could see if the home produced some hard workers that excelled in their field of interests. We would deny that a home that produced Nazi's isn't good.

You can thank the media for that because they always portray the homes of criminal children as good homes when NEGLECT is more likely when the parents are consumed with making their homes APPEAR good materialistically. Neglect is as damaging as abuse perhaps more so because have we not heard cases where children will misbehave just for the attention of punishment? The thing that made me start this thread is the growing idea that if our kids have a TV, cell phone, video game, or computer, and maybe even a nanny for meals, that they can NEVER be neglected. It's an outright lie as they are in more danger being allowed to regulate the media themselves, with no adult supervision.



Originally posted by inimalist
that is hardly denial though. Do you think everyone who smokes or drinks is unaware of the consequences? Do you not think that free people may choose, in full knowledge of the consequences, to smoke or drink or do drugs (in fact, I present myself as evidence)? A person that chooses to do things that MAY damage them can HOPE that they won't be damaged. That's gambling and not the same as denial. The denial about addiction is different. Nobody who is addicted to something has total control over themselves anymore as the thing that they are addicted to has ceased to be a want and is now a need. Now it is impossible to determine if this is what they really WANT anymore because the brain has been re-programed to want this new need fulfilled. A parent is in denial if they suggest to their kids that any kind of addiction is a GOOD thing. Addiction is BAD no matter what a person is addicted to.

Originally posted by inimalist
It seems you are more trying to make a moralistic statement against certain behavious, and then claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with this stance is either ignorant or in denial of the consequences. Sure, we can agree that racism is bad, I hardly think people are racists because they just haven't heard the data about DNA. In fact, human psychology suggests that if you were to confront a racist with that data, they would become more assured of their position (counter-intuitive, i know, but it is the same phenomenon seen in legal arbitration or even just debate, just discussing your views with people tends to radicalize you further) Actually I'd like to remove any moral implications and simply confront the rationality of accepting the idea that the media is something that is generally safe for children. The adults of this generation are extremely addicted to it and there's overwhelming evidence of that. It can give parents a chance to rest but if it's potentially addictive then isn't it dangerous to allow kids to indulge to their hearts content? Giving a child vodka would also give a parent a chance to rest, but the danger in that is obvious. How much denial is necessary to completely ignore the dangers of potentially addictive things?



Originally posted by inimalist
maybe you are in denial about how socially poisonous centering power on the family unit is? The family unit is poisonous to a child's social growth, huh? I'd agree about some families but cmon man, all family units are not about being a power center rather than a support center. You must be thinking about the Godfather or something.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: sort of related to what you were posting in response to other people, do you actually believe you, as a parent, have the ability to stop your child from watching porn if they want to? really? when you were a kid, did you have any problems hiding things from your parents? Yes I can keep things out of the reach of my child. As long as he's under my supervision I could keep him from many many things. If I was adamant we could become Amish or something. I personally have no intention of overprotecting my son from the world but I will protect him from things that aren't for children. For example I've explained to him that adults cuss and that children aren't supposed to. This way he does not believe that adults that cuss are bad and understands that as a child it's an inappropriate behavior. I've taught him that cursing is wrong for anyone to do though, (cursing at people maliciously) and I don't do that. I don't shelter him from reality but I also don't encourage him to believe that he is on equal grounds with adults in any way.

Also my Dad was very effective in finding and removing any magazines or flicks I tried to hide. He even talked to me (against my will) about the dangers in expecting women to behave or look like the women that appeared in fantasy media. I came to understand what he meant and I'm glad that he taught me that beauty fades away with age and that the women in pictures would never age. Today I respect women as individuals equal to men in value and potential, and I thank my Dad for teaching me with his words and actions. As an adult I watch porn fantasy, but I also enjoy married life reality.

He took them cos he wanted to wank.

Originally posted by Robtard
He took them cos he wanted to wank. No he'd actually throw the stuff away. Pissed me off too. When I got married I gave a collection of about 250 magazines to my brother. His girlfriend didn't approve so he told my dad to " take care of them " Dad took them to the dump and had them recycled.
Ahh f*@k it I'm married now.

That's a lot of wanking, son.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a lot of wanking, son.
Fact.

man, now I have two crazy essays to write for this forum...

if I put half that effort into my grant proposals...

Originally posted by The MISTER
Also my Dad was very effective in finding and removing any magazines or flicks I tried to hide. He even talked to me (against my will) about the dangers in expecting women to behave or look like the women that appeared in fantasy media. I came to understand what he meant and I'm glad that he taught me that beauty fades away with age and that the women in pictures would never age. Today I respect women as individuals equal to men in value and potential, and I thank my Dad for teaching me with his words and actions. As an adult I watch porn fantasy, but I also enjoy married life reality.
Sounds like you did a shitty job of hiding them. lol, now that we have the internet you don't have to hide anything, just delete history.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a lot of wanking, son. I'm the wank master! My libido could mutated or something. Whatever.. I guess it's just my lot in life to be a freeeeek. But my wife's cool with it.naughty

Originally posted by King Kandy
Sounds like you did a shitty job of hiding them. lol, now that we have the internet you don't have to hide anything, just delete history. He would "clean" our rooms while we were out of the house.

About the internet...
Right and right! Especially with google chrome...

Thus proving the internet was the great liberating invention of our time.

Originally posted by The MISTER
He would "clean" our rooms while we were out of the house.


I'll give you a proper response, but I think this might highlight where you and I disagree.

This and the idea of whupping you child, to me, is sort of wrong. If you use intimidation, fear, distrust and restriction of freedom to get your child to comply, regardless of anything else, the lessons you are teaching aren't "be responsible", they are "fear those who have authority over you and comply because they will hurt you".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Thus proving the internet was the great liberating invention of our time.

yes, yes indeed

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll give you a proper response, but I think this might highlight where you and I disagree.

This and the idea of whupping you child, to me, is sort of wrong. If you use intimidation, fear, distrust and restriction of freedom to get your child to comply, regardless of anything else, the lessons you are teaching aren't "be responsible", they are "fear those who have authority over you and comply because they will hurt you". Children can destroy themselves when treated as though they are adults. I understood that my Dad owned the room and had every right to everything in it. He had my best interests in mind and I knew that and trusted him even when he made me angry. I don't like to spank my son but the police will beat him if he disobeys them with far less regard for his safety. Why should I act as though explanation works with a three year old when it doesn't. I don't want my son to fear me but I do want him to fear certain consequences. A child that keeps playing with the electrical socket should have the danger explained and adding the consequence of a spanking for playing with it can create an awareness of danger associated with the outlet. Having no FEAR of the outlet might have a parent burying their child. The only things my son gets spanked for are direct disobedience, doing something that could get him killed more than once, and doing something illegal more than once. He's never spanked for anything that he didn't know better than to do. There are other punishments for offences that aren't life threatening like restriction for poor grades.... etc. etc. The other authority figures will beat my son and tazer him if he disobeys them. Then they will jail him like an out of control animal with the rest of the out of control animals and they may beat him more there. I'd rather be the one who disciplines my son with physical punishment than have him believe that there is no such thing. He's seven now, behaves wonderfully, and doesn't get spankings despite being very open an honest about what he thinks. He's never gotten a spanking for telling the truth about something he did even if it was bad. I agree with you though in the case of parents who beat their child for everything. I am against that entirely.

Edit: As a black man my Dad taught me when I was young to never talk back to the police because they can kill you and get away with it. He told me that his dad taught him that. As an adult I know there was some truth to that teaching that lasts even up to 2011. The authority WILL hurt you if you don't obey them. It's a fact. Otherwise how could they have any authority?



Originally posted by inimalist
yes, yes indeed
So true..

oh, dude, don't get me wrong...

saying the "state" might be a better parent is not my goal...

I actually don't really have a solution here other than to say parents can be, and in parts of the world, are much more damaging.

Seriously, when I get a chance (and I'm not just watching the venture bros) I will bring the science behind developmental psych into this debate, but anthoer main point I would make is that you are creating a huge strawman. I really don't think I need to prove my anti-state stance on these boards, but I will if you want. All I am saying is that, in a perfect situation, we could grow beyond not only state control, but also family control.

I do think you introduce a lot of false dicotomies in the argument you have made against mine. I agree with you entirely, the state, as it exists now, is in no better position to raise your kids than you are.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, dude, don't get me wrong...

saying the "state" might be a better parent is not my goal...

I actually don't really have a solution here other than to say parents can be, and in parts of the world, are much more damaging.

Seriously, when I get a chance (and I'm not just watching the venture bros) I will bring the science behind developmental psych into this debate, but anthoer main point I would make is that you are creating a huge strawman. I really don't think I need to prove my anti-state stance on these boards, but I will if you want. All I am saying is that, in a perfect situation, we could grow beyond not only state control, but also family control.

I do think you introduce a lot of false dicotomies in the argument you have made against mine. I agree with you entirely, the state, as it exists now, is in no better position to raise your kids than you are. My bad...I'm not trying to jump down your throat or twist what you were saying. I just wanted to show how you and others may have ideas that have been promoted by the media e.g. the "good home" example that you used. Also I agree that parents have been and can be very very damaging. I just want to bring attention to the more subtle dangers that our viewing habits and behaviors present. As of now I think people are in denial that there is ANY danger in something as harmless as a cell phone or TV set.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Thus proving the internet was the great liberating invention of our time. Excuse me? Three words for you:

Crest Dental Strips.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Discuss

Why should any one else discuss? This seems to be an issue you need to resolve for yourself.

Originally posted by skekUng
Why should any one else discuss? This seems to be an issue you need to resolve for yourself. If the only person I cared about was myself I wouldn't care what anyone else thought, and I'd take that advice.

Since I care about others happiness I want to see if this thing that I think might be dangerous, is. If it is, then I want to know if it's preventable. If I had cancer though I'm sure some person would say that it's an issue I should resolve for myself. People can have some pretty extreme stances on how much help they give others.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If the only person I cared about was myself I wouldn't care what anyone else thought, and I'd take that advice.

But, you don't. That's why you're asking others, so you can pick and choose.

Originally posted by skekUng
But, you don't. That's why you're asking others, so you can pick and choose. Not don't, won't. You're right I'll pick and choose good advice like people should. Someone could advise me to do something useless like ignore all advice or take all advice. You say pick and choose as if nobody gives bad advice.

Denial is not as important as in the days of the Pharoahs!