Titanic and kids

[twh...@commonlink.net]

Could not find an appropriate thread to string this comment on. Thanks to
all those who advised earlier that perhaps Titanic was indeed NOT suitable
for the younger viewer. After seeing the film last night, I am glad I did
not take my 10 year-old kids to see it, (even though they both wanted to see
it!) There will be plenty of time in the future for them to see it!

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Richard Gaines]

I wouldn't want to take my kids to see crap overhyped movies no matter HOW old
they were...

Ric

[Tiger Cook]

I took my 5YO twice. She loved it. One night in the bathtub she
had me cut out a big hole in one of her boats so it would sink like the
Titanic.
Tiger

[Mike Kohary]

Not trying to be judgemental (and I'm sure she did love it), but did you
think all of the content was appropriate for a 5-year-old? Nudity, some
language, numerous scenes of death and extreme disaster; all sorts of
nightmarish material. Were (are) you ok with this?

Mike
--
From Seattle, WA - Seahawks, cinema, science
and more at http://kohary.simplenet.com
---------------------------------------
Seahawks: http://kohary.simplenet.com/hawks.htm
Cinema: http://kohary.simplenet.com/movies.htm
Science: http://kohary.simplenet.com/science.htm

[M&D]

"Not trying to be judgmental (and I'm sure she did love it), but did you

think all of the content was appropriate for a 5-year-old? Nudity, some
language, numerous scenes of death and extreme disaster; all sorts of
nightmarish material. Were (are) you ok with this?
Mike"
--

I AGREE 100% with the above. Just because it won awards doesn't mean it's
appropriate for a 5 yr old. I wouldn't even take my 8 year old to see it.
Parents are in such a hurry to have their kids be exposed to
death,.destruction and violence. They're only innocent once...why cut it
short?

M&D

[M&D]

[Rooozie]

>Not trying to be judgemental (and I'm sure she did love it), but did you

>think all of the content was appropriate for a 5-year-old? Nudity, some
>language, numerous scenes of death and extreme disaster; all sorts of
>nightmarish material.

I do not like to be Judgemental either, but I have a very hard time
understanding why any "good" parent would think this appropiate for any child
under 13 (at least) Enlighting me please, tell me how movies like this can do
anything but hurt our childs innocence!! And yes I did the see the movie and
my 7 year old will not until he is at least 13. As sad as it is though you are
not alone. half my son's class saw it too!!!

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Tiger Cook]

Mike Kohary,
The Nudity bothered me more than it did her. She didn't appear to
notice as we watched the movie. 5 year olds see the world differently
than we do. Sometimes they don't notice things we do.
She did notice the adult language. But then adult language is
everywhere. She knows there are certain words she's not allowed to say.
And she does not say them because she doesn't want to go into the
corner. She hasn't figured out the double standard yet; that it is OK
for adults to say them and children can't. I'm sure she will soon.
We don't have cable in our house so we don't watch TV. But we do
rent movies. A lot of the movies have lots of scenes of death in them.
She's used to it. She's also used to movies with extreme disaster.
She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time
in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. When we came out
she called the twister a monster wind. Lately she's been watching night
of the twisters. She likes that even better than twister, even though
its monster winds aren't as good, because it has a baby in it.
If she didn't like these movies I wouldn't take her in. But she
handles them OK. I don't know if she is unusual that she can handle and
likes grownup movies or if other parents just assume kids get scared
easily and don't give their kids a chance.
Tiger

[M&D]

Tiger wrote:
"She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time
in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. "

-----------
The above speaks volumes about your parenting choices.

M&D

[John and Stephanie Nicholls]

M&D wrote in message <6gs68b$m...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>...

Good to see someone *does* want to be judgmental in the name of good
parenting choices--especially someone who elsewhere on this NG advocates
chocolate on demand as a reward for sitting still for a haircut...

[Jme0924]

> I don't know if she is unusual that she can handle and
>likes grownup movies or if other parents just assume kids get scared
>easily and don't give their kids a chance.
> Tiger
>

I finally saw Titanic last weekend. I didn't like it. I feel that I would
have have a decent account of history without so much of the movie devoted to
watching everyone suffer and die.

For me, I would not let my 9 yr old nor my 3 1/2 yr old see it for two reasons.
One, I wouldn't want them effected severely by it at their age (it's very
intense) and two, I wouldn't want them *not* effected. I don't think I could
take it if my son saw it and thought "Wow, cool!" as kids can do. For me, I
wouldn't want my son having a good time in the bathtub sinking boats like they
are the Titanic.

Linda C.

[Hamilton]

In article <6gs1ck$r...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, "M&D" <M...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Not trying to be judgmental (and I'm sure she did love it), but did you

> think all of the content was appropriate for a 5-year-old? Nudity, some
> language, numerous scenes of death and extreme disaster; all sorts of

> nightmarish material. Were (are) you ok with this?
> Mike"
> --
> I AGREE 100% with the above. Just because it won awards doesn't mean it's
> appropriate for a 5 yr old. I wouldn't even take my 8 year old to see it.
> Parents are in such a hurry to have their kids be exposed to
> death,.destruction and violence. They're only innocent once...why cut it
> short?
>
> M&D

What is wrong with being 'judgmental'. Does anyone really think that
ANYTHING a parent does is by definition right, good, useful? There is
no point in seeking parental advice or sharing parental opinions if
we really think that nothing we do makes any difference -- Every time
we give thought to what to teach our children or expose them to, or
how to discipline them we are making judgments -- and when we see poor
parenting, perhaps we should not intrude unasked with our judgments --
but there is nothing wrong with making those judgments. And when
parenting opinions are posted in newsgroups as guides to others, we
OUGHT to be judgmental about them -- this doesn't force anyone to
accept our judgments.

To judge a parent's choice as inadequate, misguided or evil does not
prevent that parent from exercising their parental right to do the
wrong thing -- I think that exposing young children to brutality
on the screen helps desensitize them and contributes to the general
level of insensitivity to human suffering that characterizes our culture.
I don't think our society has made progress when kids no longer cry
when Bambi's mother dies -- and 'enjoy' watching corpses of babies
floating around the Titanic -- but this certainly isn't going to
stop parents who take pride in the fact that their pre schoolers
'can handle' realistic carnage without emotion. They aren't going to
convince me -- I am not going to convince them -- but others who
read the dialogue can weigh the points of view and make their own
judgment.

I can certainly think of many things I did as a young parent that
were misguided -- I judge them wrong now -- and there is nothing
wrong with anyone who judged them wrong back when I blithly and
stupidly forged ahead with them. Seeing different points of view
may pull someone up short before they forge ahead with a thoughtless
plan for their child -- competing points of view help us all make
more thoughtful choices for our own kids.

[Rooozie]

I am fed up with parents making very obvious BAD choices, what is wrong with
this world don't parents undersrand all we are doing by allowing these movies
is desensatizing our children to violence, sex, and disaster. Parents say my
kids can handle it, well of course they can they are DESENSATIZED to
everything. We need as parents to set a better example for our children. They
are a future and the way wea re going it will not be much of a future!

!> She did notice the adult language. But then adult language is
>everywhere.

>A lot of the movies have lots of scenes of death in them.

>She's used to it. She's also used to movies with extreme disaster.

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[M&D]

"Good to see someone *does* want to be judgmental in the name of good
parenting choices--especially someone who elsewhere on this NG advocates
chocolate on demand as a reward for sitting still for a haircut..."

------
I don't advocate chocolate for a haircut, it's a last resort for the someone
like myself who is totally challenged with a scissors. I've slaughtered my
son's hair on a number of occassions in trying to avoid the dreaded barber
shop. He won't be a terrible two forever, I expect he'll eventually be able
to tolerate a haircut without a chocolate bribe some day in the future.
Besides if giving my child some chocolate once in 2 months is the worst
thing I ever do as a parent, I think I'm in pretty good shape.

M&D

[Enid Y. Karr]

Hamilton wrote:
>
> What is wrong with being 'judgmental'. Does anyone really think that
> ANYTHING a parent does is by definition right, good, useful? There is
> no point in seeking parental advice or sharing parental opinions if
> we really think that nothing we do makes any difference -- Every time
> we give thought to what to teach our children or expose them to, or
> how to discipline them we are making judgments -- and when we see poor
> parenting, perhaps we should not intrude unasked with our judgments --
> but there is nothing wrong with making those judgments.

(rest of excellent post which I admire but disagree with snipped)

Here's where I part company with a large sector of the a.p.s (and
misc.kids hierarchy)
posters. I am very against making judgements about other parents, their
parenting styles,
and their choices, except in extreme cases. Unless you know all the
details of a person's
life, it is very hard to second guess someone else's decisions. The
facts of their family
lives upon which they make decisions may be radically different from
one's own life. Financial,
health, support system, legal and other constraints may limit their
choices, or make certain
options which would be unthinkable in MY family, necessary and/or
reasonable in theirs. I
just don't KNOW, and judging people is unlikely to benefit anyone.

Clearly, abuse and neglect are separate issues, I'm not discussing them
(except in that certain members
of these ngs choose to call anything which differs from their own narrow
concept of good parenting
abuse or neglect).

I am very judgemental towards MYSELF, sometimes I'm not willing to give
myself the lattitude I allow
others ;). And I find judgementalism directed towsrds me by others one
of the very hardest parts
of being a parent, a pure negative, which does my family NO benefit, but
only introduces unnecessary
bad feeling and sadness and anger into our home. (Perhaps my feelings
about this are skewed because so
much of the judgementalism that came my way during my early days as a
mom was unjustified and erroneous,
but again, no-one knows all the details of your life....).

I don't equate advice with judgementalism, btw. That's not to say that
much of the (un asked for) advice I
recieved was not totally ludicrous....

Enid

[jahow...@webtv.net]

Some people do not actually think that the naked body is a horrible
thing if they teach this to their child then the kid is probably mature
enough to see the movie. Of course if you teach the kid that nudity is
a horrible thing then the kid is nowhere near mature enough to see the
movie..

Do paranoid schizophrenic agnostic dyslexic insomniacs lie awake at
night wondering if they might BE the dog that's out to get them?

[Bill]

It is an interesting characteristic of the 20th century that we think of
children as "innocent" and needing protection from the grim, frightening,
and violent. I guess it has something to do with our culture's
generalized discomforts about death, nature, etc. .... but enough of the
philosophy.

The truth is that kids seem to need to face things that are monsterous and
firghtening. They like it. Why? I don't know. What I do know is that
kids like Grimm's fairy tales. I also know that as a camp counsellor my
kids' (5-9 year olds) favorite song was "The Titanic", with such memorable
lines as "husbands and wives, little children lost their lives"! Kids
like ghost stories. Kids like monsters.

So, I think a competent and understanding parents can be justified in
taking a five-year-old to see Titanic. Yes, it is monsterous and
frightening. Will this hurt the child? Probably not. It depends a lot
on how the parent deals with it. I also count on parents to know what
their kids can handle.

Bill

[Rooozie]

>The truth is that kids seem to need to face things that are monsterous and
>firghtening. They like it.

The truth is the Parents like it! Kids like it because th it is all they
know!!!

> a competent and understanding parents can be justified in
>taking a five-year-old to see Titanic.

I my opinion NO competent Parent would allow this!!! If this is being
Judgemental then so be it, if they don't want opinions then they can stop
posting to this MB. If they the movie industry thought it appropriate for 5
and 6 year olds why then is not rated G or even PG. It is rated PG 13 for a
reason. What part of this don't you understand.

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[M&D]

"So, I think a competent and understanding parents can be justified in
taking a five-year-old to see Titanic. Yes, it is monsterous and
frightening. Will this hurt the child? Probably not. "

----------
You can say that about any movie inlcuding an X-rated one. The point is to
be clued into your child's level of development at every age. Kids respond
to Barney when they're in preschool because it REACHES their level of
understanding at THAT age. Sure you can take a preschooler to sit thru 3
hours of Titanic and they won't be harmed neccessarily but they won't get
much out of it either. This is also something to consider.

Why not take your children to something that they can absorb and respond to
rather than pretending that they "like" to see things like Titanic and
Twister when in actuality it's their parents who like it? Make an attempt to
gauge your child's level of understanding and don't assume they are very
mature for their age just because they can sit through an adult movie.

Frankly, I thought there wasn't much to the movie of benefit no matter what
your child's age. It was an over dramatized special effects moovie with a
soap opera story to guide you through it. Just my opinion.

M&D

[Hamilton]

In article <6gtd66$2k4$1...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
jahow...@webtv.net wrote:

> Some people do not actually think that the naked body is a horrible
> thing if they teach this to their child then the kid is probably mature
> enough to see the movie. Of course if you teach the kid that nudity is
> a horrible thing then the kid is nowhere near mature enough to see the
> movie..

I have no problem with kids seeing naked women -- as in Winslett's
art scene. I do have a problem with them seeing small children
abandoned and drowning in suddenly swamped passageways, the corpses
of men, women and babies floating frozen in the ocean, [including
the closeup of the mother and baby we saw earlier] and people
being locked below decks to drown. It would give me the creeps if
my small child took that in stride and I wouldn't call a small child
who saw that with equanimity 'mature'.

[Bill]

In article <199804131934...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
roo...@aol.com (Rooozie) wrote:

> >The truth is that kids seem to need to face things that are monsterous and
> >firghtening. They like it.
>
> The truth is the Parents like it! Kids like it because th it is all they
> know!!!

So you claim.

> > a competent and understanding parents can be justified in
> >taking a five-year-old to see Titanic.
>

> I my opinion NO competent Parent would allow this!!! If this is being
> Judgemental then so be it, if they don't want opinions then they can stop
> posting to this MB. If they the movie industry thought it appropriate for 5
> and 6 year olds why then is not rated G or even PG. It is rated PG 13 for a
> reason. What part of this don't you understand.
>
> Hakuna Matata (no worries)

You can be as judgmental as you like. Some of us will judge right back.

Bill

[Rooozie]

>You can be as judgmental as you like. Some of us will judge right back.

Go for it!!!!

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Tiger Cook]

M&D wrote "They're only innocent once, why cut it short?"

Do you think watching a movie cuts their innocence short? They lose
their innocence the first time they hit someone because they didn't get
their way.
Tiger

[Tiger Cook]

Hakuna Matata wrote 'In my opinion no competent parent would allow this
(take a 5YO to see Titanic) if this is being judgemental then so be it.

Hakuna I love opinions. I think opinions are great. Even the ones
I don't agree with. I have lots of opinions myself. But your post
didn't say much to support your opinion.
Did you think I wasn't suppose to take her because it was rated
PG13? I'm going to let the movie industry tell me what I think is
suitable for my child to watch about as much as I'm going to let the
automobile insurance company tell me what kind of car I'm going to
drive.
BTW do you think she should be watching cartoons? Cartoons are a
lot more violent than Titanic and a whole lot stupider. Total waste of
time. I don't allow them in my house.
And oh yes, when she starts school next year she will probably be
the only one in her class who doesn't know what a cartoon is.
Tiger

[Tiger Cook]

Hamilton wrote, 'I think exposing young children to brutality on the

screen helps desensitize them and contributes to the general level of
insensitivity to human suffering that characterizes our culture.'

I disagree. I think there are a lot of reasons for the increasing
levels of violence in this country. I'm not going to go into them all.
Some of them I think originate at home. In too many households both
parents work. No one is paying attention to the kids. No one is
noticing what is going on in their heads. Some of the reasons I think
originate in the schools. Too many teachers turn a blind eye to
interstudent relationships. Sure if the kids get into a fist fight they
go to the principals office. But what about teasing? What is teasing
if not insensitivity to human suffering? How often does a student get
sent to the principals office for teasing? Never in any of schools I
attended and there was a lot of teasing. What about the school bus?
How many bus drives maintain law and order? They don't.
When my daughter starts school in the fall she is not going to
attend a public school because I don't want her to be exposed to that
crap. If I can come up with the money for a private school, that is
where she will go. If I don't have the money I will home school her.
Tiger

[Tiger Cook]

M&D, my daughter did not watch Twister 150 times because her
parents liked it. She has tons of toys. She could have been playing
instead. She didn't have to watch Titanic twice. My husband didn't go
the second time. She could have stayed home with him. Actually she
didn't have to watch it the first time. I didn't think she would be
able to sit thru a 3 hour movie and that one of us would have to leave
with her. But she was glue eyed the whole time.
As for how much she got out of it. I'm sure she didn't get half
what you and I got out of it. But that's not the point. She enjoyed
it. What's wrong with being entertained?
Different kids are different. It's wrong to treat them like they
are all the same.
Tiger

[Enid Y. Karr]

Tiger Cook wrote:
>
> M&D, my daughter did not watch Twister 150 times because her
> parents liked it. She has tons of toys. She could have been playing
> instead. She didn't have to watch Titanic twice. My husband didn't go
> the second time. She could have stayed home with him. Actually she
> didn't have to watch it the first time. I didn't think she would be
> able to sit thru a 3 hour movie and that one of us would have to leave
> with her. But she was glue eyed the whole time.
> As for how much she got out of it. I'm sure she didn't get half
> what you and I got out of it. But that's not the point. She enjoyed
> it. What's wrong with being entertained?

Tiger> And oh yes, when she starts school next year she will

probably be
> the only one in her class who doesn't know what a cartoon is.
> Tiger

Just a minor point here... these two statements are not consistent...
TWISTER starts
with a cartoon. So if she's seen TWISTER , she has seen a cartoon.

Enid

[Hamilton]

In article <6gv5nj$c7j$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, tgc...@webtv.net
(Tiger Cook) wrote:

> M&D, my daughter did not watch Twister 150 times because her
> parents liked it. She has tons of toys. She could have been playing
> instead. She didn't have to watch Titanic twice. My husband didn't go
> the second time. She could have stayed home with him. Actually she
> didn't have to watch it the first time. I didn't think she would be
> able to sit thru a 3 hour movie and that one of us would have to leave
> with her. But she was glue eyed the whole time.
> As for how much she got out of it. I'm sure she didn't get half
> what you and I got out of it. But that's not the point. She enjoyed
> it. What's wrong with being entertained?

> Different kids are different. It's wrong to treat them like they
> are all the same.
> Tiger

Hey, if your daughter enjoys and is entertained by frozen floating
baby corpses, you must be doing something right.

k

[M&D]

tiger wrote:
M&D, my daughter did not watch Twister 150 times because her

parents liked it. She has tons of toys....(snip)..
----------
Well then you obviously *bought* the video (which means you thought it was
important enough to own it!) and allowed her to watch it 150 times. It's
your prerogative. No pun intended but to me it's *twisted.*

M&D

[M&D]

Hamilton wrote:
Hey, if your daughter enjoys and is entertained by frozen floating
baby corpses, you must be doing something right.

-------
ROTFLOL!
M&D

[Jme0924]

>Frankly, I thought there wasn't much to the movie of benefit no matter what
>your child's age. It was an over dramatized special effects moovie with a
>soap opera story to guide you through it. Just my opinion.
>
>M&D

This was my feeling also. I guess, in all the debate over whether or not
children should see Titanic, I'm still confused about one thing. Why is there
a need for someone to take their children to see it? I don't get it. I have
no idea if my son could handle it or not. I don't know if there would be any
long term effects. I know only two things.

One: My son might be very negatively effected by seeing it. He might not be.

Two: There's no reason at all why he *has* to see it so I don't really need to
worry about whether or not he can handle it.
Linda C.

[mc...@provide.net]

In article <6gs68b$m...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,

"M&D" <M...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Tiger wrote:
> "She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time
> in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. "
> -----------
> The above speaks volumes about your parenting choices.
>
> M&D
>
>

Gotta agree with you M&D. When this thread was active last month I posted
to say if my own children (8,6,&3)could *handle* Titanic I certainly
would not be proud.
Hamilton where are you. I recall you had much to say regarding this
subject.

Scout

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[mc...@provide.net]

In article <6gtd66$2k4$1...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
jahow...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Some people do not actually think that the naked body is a horrible
> thing if they teach this to their child then the kid is probably mature
> enough to see the movie. Of course if you teach the kid that nudity is
> a horrible thing then the kid is nowhere near mature enough to see the
> movie..
>

> Do paranoid schizophrenic agnostic dyslexic insomniacs lie awake at
> night wondering if they might BE the dog that's out to get them?
>

PLEEEASE!!!! Your comments are rather simplistic don't you think?
I have not let my children see Titanic because of the violence, death,
and mature subject matter. I can only speak for myself when I say I don't
have a problem with naked breasts in and of themselves. It's the movie
as a whole. Why do you think it was rated PG-13?

[Rooozie]

> Why is there
>a need for someone to take their children to see it?

This is my question, so far no one has been able to answer it.

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Tiger Cook]

Hamilton, if all you got out of the movie was frozen floating baby
corpses, then my daughter got more out of it than you did.
Tiger

[Tiger Cook]

Enid, that cartoon at the beginning of Twister was very short. I
had forgotton it was there. Still it was so short it couldn't have done
too much damage.
Tiger

[Enid Y. Karr]

My guess would be 'because they (the children) want to'. Now if you
have a compelling reason
why they shouldn't, fine. If you don't, I suppose you might chose to
take them
if they asked. It's not a NEED, it's clearly a WANT, but most parents
do occassionally
give their children something they want but don't need.

Clearly many kids in my children's elementary school have seen titanic,
it gets talked about
a lot among the 9 year olds (who giggle incessantly but that's another
issue). So I could
see that possibly a kid might come home and ask if he could see Titanic
'sometime...'.

Consistant with the rules of our household, my kids know that answer
would be a polite form
of 'when hell freezes over'. But that's my household. I know we do
things that appall other people,
too.

Enid

[Rooozie]

>I'm going to let the movie industry tell me what I think is
>suitable for my child to watch

Tiger, I agree with you here, you should not let the movie industry dictate
what you children watch, I don't! Hercules was rated G, but son will not see
it, however I generaly think you can use these ratings as a guide. I saw the
movie and I can't understand why you think that this is a kids movie, there was
nudity (which in and of itself is not bad) but you add tradegy, violence,
language and you have a movie that IMO is not meant for little children. My 7
year old wanted to see this movie, but I said No instead I rented "A night to
remember" A great movie basically the same thing that is in the theaters
without the sex, violence, and dead bodies floating in the water. Don't get me
wrong my son knows knows how tragic it was, but I think there is a big
difference between a documentary and a Media fanfare to exploit tradegy.

>BTW do you think she should be watching cartoons?

I also agree with you here, Cartoons are too violent and my child does not
watch them and yes he is also the only child in school that does not watch
them, but I am responsible for him and if other parents allow that stuff then
that is there choice.
I have a question for you You seem very concerned about what she watches on
T.V., but you think the Titantic is O.K. Why?

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Tiger Cook]

Hakuna, I think the Titanic is OK for children for two reasons.
One, they like it. (Assuming all those other children who saw it also
liked it.) Nothing wrong with having fun.
Two, it was a good movie.
Now my question. Why do some people think it is not OK for
children? Why don't they want their children watching a movie just
because it happens to have some sex, nudity, violence, adult language,
and a whole lot of tagedy. You can't hide the adult language from them.
It's everywhere. The only thing you can do is teach them not to use it.
Unless they have learned about sex, they won't figure it out from that
movie. Unless the child has been taught that nudity is wrong that
nudity won't bother them. I have taught my daughter that unless she is
in the bathroom or in her room she has to have clothes on. So there was
Rose laying on the sofa with no clothes on. Wasn't the bathroom or her
bedroom. My daughter didn't notice. If she had, I would have said Rose
was being bad.
Is this what is bothering you: Do you think that if the kids see
something that is bad they will do it also? Kids aren't stupid. They
can learn to follow whatever set of values you wish to instill in them.
Why would parents want to shield their children from death? Is it
because the parents are themselves bothered by it? Have you ever
noticed when there is a death in the family, who is it that gets the
most upset by it? It's the adults. Sure the children cry, then they go
on. But it's the adults who cry for days and might even get depressed.
The children bounce back. I think people underestimate their children.
I was surprised by Hercules. I never expected a children's movie
to be racey. I don't see how a child could even understand it. So who
did they make that movie for?
Tiger

[Jme0924]

>> > Why is there
>> >a need for someone to take their children to see it?

>My guess would be 'because they (the children) want to'. Now if you

>have a compelling reason
>why they shouldn't, fine.

Most of the debate has been about the possible bad side effects a child might
experience from seeing The Titanic. I would rather err on the side of caution
in this case.

But I'm not one of those who judges parents who take their children to see this
movie as terrible parents. I disagree with them in this issue, no doubt, and I
don't understand their decision to let their children see Titanic but there's a
big difference between disagreeing about an issue and thinking them a terrible
parent. Geez, does that mean that everytime someone thinks I'm making an
unwise choice, that they also they I'm scum?
Linda C.

[KorysMa]

From Tiger:

>I was surprised by Hercules. I never expected a children's movie
>to be racey. I don't see how a child could even understand it. So who
>did they make that movie for?

Uh, I don't remember anything "racey" about Hercules. Maybe I just saw it
through a child's eyes. Meg was a pretty strong female character, not wimpy
like the early "princess" types (Snow White, etc.) But racey .... I don't get
it.

Kerrie (ma to Kory)
kor...@aol.com
...................................................
Way down deep, we're all motivated by the same urges.
Cats have the courage to live by them.
-- Jim Davis, American Cartoonist
..............................

[Hamilton]

>
> My guess would be 'because they (the children) want to'. Now if you
> have a compelling reason

> why they shouldn't, fine. If you don't, I suppose you might chose to
> take them
> if they asked. It's not a NEED, it's clearly a WANT, but most parents
> do occassionally
> give their children something they want but don't need.

My daughter at 12 and my foster daughter who was 11 really really WANTED
to see Pretty Woman. I thought is was inappropriate subject matter
for young girls -- and so in spite of the fact that most of their
friends got to see it, they didn't. If a 5 year old WANTED to see
Titanic, they would suffer the same mean fate in our household. IMHO
there is never a reason to take a child to a movie unless there is
reason to think it would be a positive developmental experience.

Somebody in the family needs to be the grownup.

[Enid Y. Karr]

Hamilton wrote:

IMHO
> there is never a reason to take a child to a movie unless there is
> reason to think it would be a positive developmental experience.
>
> Somebody in the family needs to be the grownup.

Well, what movie would you consider to be 'a positive developmental
experience'? That's a mouthful, and I doubt I'd classify ANY movie
that way. I see movies primarily as a form of recreation, not
education. I take my kids to 1-3 movies per year (after the age of
5... we stayed out of theaters until then), but I doubt that, even given
they
were all G rated, any of them are really 'a positive developmental
experience'.
They were fun, harmless movies. Am I being less than grownup because
sometimes
I want my kids to have fun, even if it is not educational? I doubt
it.

Enid

[Rooozie]

>Somebody in the family needs to be the grownup.

I agree 100%!

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[DeanneP]

Kerrie, since Tiger has to defend her position on not letting her child watch
cartoons (but she lets the child watch movies meant for adults), she has to find
something wrong with Hercules or any other cartoon for that matter. Disney films
will always be picked on no matter how innocent the content.
Deanne;p

[Jme0924]

>Well, what movie would you consider to be 'a positive developmental
>experience'?

>Am I being less than grownup because

>sometimes
>I want my kids to have fun, even if it is not educational?

>Enid

LOL! I don't think there are many movies out that I would consider a positive
developemental experience. I agree with you, Enid, about sometimes just
wanting one's children to have fun. Actually, that's the only reason, so far,
that I've ever taken my children to a movie.

You know, this topic has caused me to realize what a hyprocrite I've been in
this area. I let my 9 yr old see Twister. I also let him watch Power Rangers
when he was younger. I felt like that was different because it isn't real like
Titanic. My opinion for Titanic was "Why take a chance with it?". The same
question can be posed to me in regards to Power Rangers and Twister. I looked
at these as harmless, not something that I wanted to make a big issue over.
Certainly not something that I wanted to make my son feel like an outcast for.
He would have been the only one among his friends who couldn't see them if I
had not let him.

There are just so many times that I feel like I'm telling my son that I don't
care how many other children are doing something - he still can't. I like to
choose my battles very carefully.

I guess I need to think and be more careful about what movies I let my children
see in the future. I still think Titanic is not suitable for children just like
other's think that Twister and Power Rangers aren't suitable for children. I
suppose I've entered the "bad parent" side. :(
Linda C.

[Tiger Cook]

DeanneP, the Hercules film I was talking about is not a cartoon. It's a
Disney film. Disney films are not perfect but they are acceptable.
Tiger

[Christopher Robin Perkins]

Ohh yes, lets keep people ashamed of bodies, i mean we cant let our
puritan ancestors down can we...

>
>Not trying to be judgemental (and I'm sure she did love it), but did you
>think all of the content was appropriate for a 5-year-old? Nudity, some
>language, numerous scenes of death and extreme disaster; all sorts of
>nightmarish material. Were (are) you ok with this?
>
>Mike

-----------
Cameron
Left Field Brigade

[Christopher Robin Perkins]

what is so lofty about making sex bad, evil and nasty?

it has 2 results
1: people who dont have sex and consider it a chore only to be
done as a part of marriage

2: people who have sex often and with no one they particularly
care about precisely because its something their
parents said was wrong

i know i am over generalizing, and that overexposure can have teh same
results for opposite reasons

[Christopher Robin Perkins]

and i thought i was the only one...

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 11:06:30 -0500, jahow...@webtv.net wrote:

>Some people do not actually think that the naked body is a horrible
>thing if they teach this to their child then the kid is probably mature
>enough to see the movie. Of course if you teach the kid that nudity is
>a horrible thing then the kid is nowhere near mature enough to see the
>movie..
>
>Do paranoid schizophrenic agnostic dyslexic insomniacs lie awake at
>night wondering if they might BE the dog that's out to get them?

-----------
Cameron
Left Field Brigade

[Christopher Robin Perkins]

one Question...
Do you allow your children to read what they want or do you limate it
only to text books, history books and encyclopedia's

if you limate the childs reading, which books do you limate and why?

On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:04:05 -0400, hami...@DNVN.com (Hamilton)
wrote:

> IMHO
>there is never a reason to take a child to a movie unless there is
>reason to think it would be a positive developmental experience.
>

>Somebody in the family needs to be the grownup.

-----------
Cameron
Left Field Brigade

[Turtle]

I thought that the Disney film "Hercules" was a cartoon. The one we bought
to watch at home (we have bought all of the Disney Classics) is a cartoon
film.

Tiger Cook wrote in message <6h3ngb$jii$1...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...

[DeanneP]

I also would classify Hercules as a cartoon. Are we missing something Tiger?
Deanne;p

[Dennis & Karen Eichorst]

I believe there is a distinction being made here between an animated
feature and a cartoon. Many people consider anything animated to be a
cartoon, while some others save that term for short animated features
such as Bugs Bunny, etc.

Karen

Turtle wrote:
>
> I thought that the Disney film "Hercules" was a cartoon. The one we bought
> to watch at home (we have bought all of the Disney Classics) is a cartoon
> film.
>
> Tiger Cook wrote in message <6h3ngb$jii$1...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
> DeanneP, the Hercules film I was talking about is not a cartoon. It's a
> Disney film. Disney films are not perfect but they are acceptable.
> Tiger

--

"We did _not_ survive a NUCULAR war! It was a NUCLEAR war! A NUCLEAR
war!"
_____________________________________________
Please remove ".chlorine" from e-mail address to reply

[janelaw]

Hamilton wrote:
>
>
> >I think that exposing young children to brutality
> on the screen helps desensitize them and contributes to the general
> level of insensitivity to human suffering that characterizes our culture.
>

I completely agree with this premise. I never let my child
watch violent Bruce Willis type movies. No guns, no explosions,
no martial arts. In our circle, I am by far the "strictest"
about movie content for the kids.

Also, I have not seen Titanic.

That being said, I think that children crave a certain level of
violence in their stories. Somehow, they seem to need to
confront human suffering. Just within my personal experience,
this seems to happen when kids hit 4 or so. They want the
wicked witch, the evil queen, the big bad wolf.

[janelaw]

Tiger Cook wrote:
>snip

>
> She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time

> in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. When we came out
> she called the twister a monster wind. Lately she's been watching night
> of the twisters. She likes that even better than twister, even though
> its monster winds aren't as good, because it has a baby in it.
>

This is exactly what I meant about kids hitting an age where
they really seem to need to confront their fears through
stories. They seem to want the same story over and over until
they work something out.

[janelaw]

You're both right. I mean you're both wrong. No, I mean you're
both right AND wrong.

Sitting through a haircut is absolute torture for a two year
old. And there is NOTHING in it for him. You get a kid you can
stand looking at out of the deal. Why SHOULDN'T he get a
reward?

Twister is not Lethal Weapon. Life is violent. Kids know it.
You can't keep them in your womb forever.

John and Stephanie Nicholls wrote:
>
> M&D wrote in message <6gs68b$m...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>...

> >Tiger wrote:
> >"She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time
> >in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. "

> >-----------
> >The above speaks volumes about your parenting choices.
> >
> >M&D
>

> Good to see someone *does* want to be judgmental in the name of good
> parenting choices--especially someone who elsewhere on this NG advocates
> chocolate on demand as a reward for sitting still for a haircut...

[Mike Kohary]

Tiger Cook wrote:
>
> We don't have cable in our house so we don't watch TV. But we do
> rent movies. A lot of the movies have lots of scenes of death in them.
> She's used to it.

Ok, but think about what you just said for a moment. "She's used to it
(death)".....?

> She's also used to movies with extreme disaster.

Ditto.

> She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time

> in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. When we came out
> she called the twister a monster wind. Lately she's been watching night
> of the twisters. She likes that even better than twister, even though
> its monster winds aren't as good, because it has a baby in it.

> If she didn't like these movies I wouldn't take her in. But she
> handles them OK. I don't know if she is unusual that she can handle and
> likes grownup movies or if other parents just assume kids get scared
> easily and don't give their kids a chance.

LOL! Look, when I was a kid I'd sneak out to the living room late at
night at try to catch "The Omen" or something on Showtime. I understand
that kids see things differently than adults, and I suppose that in the
end there's nothing that's going to scar them for life if they see some
of that stuff. What I'm questioning is the purposeful exposure by a
parent to some very violent material. "Twister" at 3? I guess I'm
getting judgemental after all, but that she "likes" it is immaterial; of
course she likes it! Are you going to give her everything that she
likes?

In another post, you mention how you won't be sending your kid to public
school, because you don't want to expose her to teasing. But violence
and death are ok. ??? I guess I'm just not following this line of
reasoning.....

Mike

--
From Seattle, WA - Seahawks, cinema, science
and more at http://kohary.simplenet.com
---------------------------------------
Seahawks: http://kohary.simplenet.com/hawks.htm
Cinema: http://kohary.simplenet.com/movies.htm
Science: http://kohary.simplenet.com/science.htm

[Mike Kohary]

jahow...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Some people do not actually think that the naked body is a horrible
> thing if they teach this to their child then the kid is probably mature
> enough to see the movie. Of course if you teach the kid that nudity is
> a horrible thing then the kid is nowhere near mature enough to see the
> movie..

Very simple. Who said anything about it being "horrible"? Not I,
that's for sure, because it's not. Appropriate for a 5-year-old?
That's another question, don't you think?

Appropriate, not horrible.

[Nyoka Koleda]

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:30:15 -0700, Mike Kohary <mko...@serv.net>
wrote:

>LOL! Look, when I was a kid I'd sneak out to the living room late at
>night at try to catch "The Omen" or something on Showtime. I understand
>that kids see things differently than adults, and I suppose that in the
>end there's nothing that's going to scar them for life if they see some
>of that stuff. What I'm questioning is the purposeful exposure by a
>parent to some very violent material. "Twister" at 3? I guess I'm
>getting judgemental after all, but that she "likes" it is immaterial; of
>course she likes it! Are you going to give her everything that she
>likes?

I really can't say that I find Twister all that violent. For some
reason its easier for me to watch natural phenomonan than people with
knives and guns.

That said I still would not let my kids watch Twister because it is so
incredibly unrealistic. I've lived through tornados. I lived in Ark.
as a child and remember one tornado that killed 8 people in a nearby
town. You do not come out of this unscathed as did the characters in
this movie did. My dad was never home during these tornados. He
drove an ambulance at the time and was always out picking people up
out of fields where the mud caked on them was the only thing keeping
them from bleeding to death. Yes, you can survive a tornado with
little to no injury, but not when the building around you disolves in
a million pieces.

Twister gives an unrealistic view of what a tornado does. This gives
a false sense of security. People with a false sense of security may
do stupid things.

that's just my opinion, YMMV.

Nyoka (mom to Trevor (b 8/8/95 and #2 due 10/12/98)
(reply to Nyo...@aol.com)

[Rooozie]

> but that she "likes" it is immaterial; of
>course she likes it! Are you going to give her everything that she
>likes?

This is a great point. If she said she really liked "Rambo" would you allow
her to see it??

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Les...@yahoo.com]

Deanne,

I also found some momments of Hercules questionable--if you ask me now I
coldn't tell you what they were--it's been some time since we saw it, but I
was really quite surprised by some of Meg's comments to Herc.

Movies which are PG or PG-13 which my kids ask to see I go and see first.
That way I know if its just a couple of seconds which I need to divert their
attentoin, or if its a movie which we need to wait until its on video--so
that I can fast forward or stop and disucss some moments, or if its one
they'll never see.

There were moments in Hercules which I wish I had known about in advance.

Lesa

BTW--if you don't agree with Tiger's view that some cartoons are too much for
kids (an opinoin which I share, much to my son's chagrin) that's her view,
and thre's no reason for you to be insulting to her simply becuase your view
is different. Thre is ntohing wrong with two people having oppposing
viewpoints--we can still remain civil to one anther.

In article <35352C26...@i-55.com>,

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[elvis]

i'd rather my child see two people in bed { not porno}
than any type of violence in afilm/t.v show
i can't get past why you would take a 3 year old to see
titanic in the first place!! because she wanted to??
my children want to do alot of things that are not appropriate,
but i choose to be a parent...........

Christopher Robin Perkins <hhm-c...@erols.com> wrote in article
<353ba3a6...@news.erols.com>...

[Rooozie]

>my children want to do alot of things that are not appropriate,
>but i choose to be a parent...........
>
>

AMEN!

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Special Agent Orange]

Let's not get too prudish here. The Titanic was a moving, edifying,
touching drama about 1500 people drowning after getting hyperthermia
in the icy Atlantic.

My ancestors swung by their necks, not their tails.
I suport publick skool

[Tiger Cook]

Christopher Robin Perkins and Hakuna Matata, I hate to rain on your
parade, but PARENTS always have and always will decide what is best for
their OWN children.
Tiger

[M&D]

-------
We know that and we see the results of the parents exposing their kids to
rifles from day one with regard to those 2 boys that shot up their
classmates. We can't control parents choices but sometimes they sure do make
dumb ones. Parents have no sense when they give kids toy guns and real guns
and the lines are blurred in childhood. They don't REALLY understand it's a
deadly weapon. Knowing and REALLY understanding it are very different.
Again, moronic parents assuming their kids understand grown up concepts.
Pathetic.

M&D

[Hamilton]

> Tiger wrote:
> Christopher Robin Perkins and Hakuna Matata, I hate to rain on your
> parade, but PARENTS always have and always will decide what is best for
> their OWN children.
> Tiger

Your RIGHT to do stupid things to your children doesn't make those
things the right thing to do. The world is full of monstrous
adults raised by parents many of whom were very techy about 'their'
rights as parents to do what they see fit. No one is likely to
arrest you for your parental misjudgments -- that doesn't mean
they don't affect the way your kids grow up.

[Rooozie]

>We know that and we see the results of the parents exposing their kids to
>rifles from day one with regard to those 2 boys that shot up their
>classmates. We can't control parents choices but sometimes they sure do make
>dumb ones. Parents have no sense when they give kids toy guns and real guns
>and the lines are blurred in childhood. They don't REALLY understand it's a
>deadly weapon. Knowing and REALLY understanding it are very different.
>Again, moronic parents assuming their kids understand grown up concepts.
>Pathetic.
>
>M&D
>
>

M & D You are so right; I am glad there are other parents who seem to know
what is Best for our children.

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Rooozie]

>Hakuna Matata, I hate to rain on your
>parade, but PARENTS always have and always will decide what is best for
>their OWN children.
> Tiger

Tiger, Don't worry you are NOT raining on my Parade! It is bright and Sunny
here. I am 100% sure of what I am doing is right .My only problem with your
comment is that yes PARENTS do decide what is best for their OWN chidren, but
YOUR children are growing up with MY children

Hakuna Matata (no worries)

[Tiger Cook]

Hamilton, you obviously don't know what is best for my child.
Tiger

[Tiger Cook]

M&D, what's really pathetic is people who can't tell the difference
between a movie (or a gun) and real life. My child can why can't you?

BTW your children and my child will NOT be growing up together because
while my child will be out doing thing yours will be under your cloak.

Also BTW one of my neices first shot a gun (only pulled the trigger, not
hold the gun) when she was five. I bet a lot of children start that
young. Not too many of them go on bloody rampages.

Tiger

[Tiger Cook]

Hamilton wrote "The world is full of monstrous adults raised by parents
many of whom were very techy about 'their'rights as parents to do as
they see fit."

So you think you know what causes monsters. Would you please post some
supporting evidence for your opinion.

BTW do you know that some children who were raised in the absolute worst
conditions you can imagine grow up to be loving caring adults? Did you
know that some children raised with a silver spoon in their mouths grow
up into monsters?

Tiger

[marcie rekenn]

Tiger Cook wrote:

I'm afraid now you've lost me. I'd support your right to take your child
to movies you deem suitable, although I can't imagine why you would deem
such things as Twister or Titanic suitable for a young child. But using
guns? Teaching your young children or older ones how to use guns is like
teaching them how to smoke. Since guns have no purpose and no effect
except pain, misery, destruction or death to someone or something, I
can't imagine why you would want your child to even go near one.

[Enid Y. Karr]

marcie rekenn wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm afraid now you've lost me. I'd support your right to take your child
> to movies you deem suitable, although I can't imagine why you would deem
> such things as Twister or Titanic suitable for a young child. But using
> guns? Teaching your young children or older ones how to use guns is like
> teaching them how to smoke. Since guns have no purpose and no effect
> except pain, misery, destruction or death to someone or something, I
> can't imagine why you would want your child to even go near one.

And now you've lost me.

Yes, of course guns can be used to inflict pain, misery, destruction and
death
to someone or something..... but how does that make it their only
purpose?

Let's see, my husband is an avid member of a pistol team. Except for
the equipment
used, the difference between target shooting and bowling does not seem
great (they are
both awfully dull to watch, too). The purpose is not to hurt or destroy
anything, nor to inflict
misery or pain, unless you are one of those very tender-hearted types
who weeps over poor
shot paper targets.

Do I want my young children doing target practice? No, the equipment is
too dangerous for them
to handle right now..... along with the stove, the car, and other things
I think they could handle
when they are older.

Enid

[marcie rekenn]

Enid Y. Karr wrote:

Now let's see. Your husband shoots at paper taregets. I assume the paper
targets do not emerge from this exercise unscathed - i.e. they are
destroyed. But because they are only inanimate silly little paper things
we'll bend the meaning of destruction and say we haven't destroyed
anything? Sorry, the logic escapes me. I put destruction in my post on
purpose to answer the objections of the target-shooting/skeet shooting
crowd, who claim that their desire to destroy these silly little things
is not destructive - merely a way to show their skill at... oops there's
no way around it, ...accurately destroying things with guns.

Guns, like cigarettes, when used as intended, leave destruction in their
wake.

> Do I want my young children doing target practice? No, the equipment
> is
> too dangerous for them
> to handle right now..... along with the stove, the car, and other
> things
> I think they could handle
> when they are older.
>

To put guns into the same sentence as stoves and cars is illogical.
Childeen need to learn how to use those things which will be important
to them in their adult lives - stoves are certainly necessary and cars
probably so. But guns?

> Enid

[Turtle]

Why do we want our children to know the difference at such an early age.
Why are we all so eager to make them grow up so fast. They have a lifetime
of grown-up stuff in front of them which will include pain, tears and even
death. Why show it to them so early. Let them have their innocence because
once it is gone you can never give it back to them. And, I know what you
are going to say - your child still has their innocence. Each child is
different. But, I don't think that is true. Every time something bad
happens for the first time, whether you are an adult or a child, you lose
that innocent part of you that has never dealt with that kind of "bad"
before. What is wrong with putting a "cloak" around our children for a
little bit. They grow so fast we should protect them while they are young.

>Tiger Cook wrote in message <6hh3sp$a95$1...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>...

>M&D, what's really pathetic is people who can't tell the difference
>between a movie (or a gun) and real life. My child can why can't you?

>BTW your children and my child will NOT be growing up together because
>while my child will be out doing thing yours will be under your cloak.

>Also BTW one of my nieces first shot a gun (only pulled the trigger, not

[Enid Y. Karr]

marcie rekenn wrote:
>
> >
>
> Now let's see. Your husband shoots at paper taregets. I assume the paper
> targets do not emerge from this exercise unscathed - i.e. they are
> destroyed. But because they are only inanimate silly little paper things
> we'll bend the meaning of destruction and say we haven't destroyed
> anything? Sorry, the logic escapes me. I put destruction in my post on
> purpose to answer the objections of the target-shooting/skeet shooting
> crowd, who claim that their desire to destroy these silly little things
> is not destructive - merely a way to show their skill at... oops there's
> no way around it, ...accurately destroying things with guns.
>
> Guns, like cigarettes, when used as intended, leave destruction in their
> wake.
>

I'm aware that it would disturb the members of 'Save the Paper Target
Society' but I was
not aware there was a large segment of society who felt that putting
holes in pieces
of paper was 'destruction'. In fact, since it is a precision sport, it
is almost
art.... the arrangement of holes on the paper.... Furthermore, as he
pointed out,
the targets are recycled, so using them no more 'destroys' them than
writing on them would.

>
> To put guns into the same sentence as stoves and cars is illogical.
> Childeen need to learn how to use those things

a large segment of society can't use stoves and many others can't use
cars.

>which will be important
> to them in their adult lives - stoves are certainly necessary and cars
> probably so. But guns?
>

Again, it is a sport. Most sports come with some risk. You weigh the
risk when you
take up the sport. I will not ski, for instance. I am clumsy and the
risk of broken bones
seems too high. Unfortunately, I chose for my major sport in life,
swimming, which seemed
very benign, especially if you only swim while sober, in a guarded
facility, and don't dive
into the shallow end. Oh well. Here I am recovering from spinal surgery
last week because
I got a major disk rupture in my neck. The odds were with me, but oh
well. Now with target
shooting (which I don't favor as a sport since it is limited in what it
does for your body...
it certainly tunes your aim and eye-hand stuff, but no aerobics, no
weight bearing, or not much)
the major risks, if you are not an idiot, are associated with the
inhalation of lead. To minimize
that risk, shooting outdoors when possible is better, shooting someplace
with decent ventilation
is a good idea, and smoking (which greatly magnifies the uptake of lead)
is real dumb. As I say, it
isn't a sport I would chose myself, but then, neither is tennis or
bocce. I have no problem
with other people pursueing it if they do it sensibly.

I waa forced to take riflery as a sport at summer camp when I was 12. I
hated it and I was lousy at it
(and it took time away from swimming, which is what summer is made
for). But many of the girls in
my bunk adored riflery, and it was considered a wholesome, desireable
activity. This was in a
very mainstream Catskill, NY camp , circa 1974.

Enid

[Turtle]

marcie rekenn wrote in message <353C97C2...@yahoo.com>...

>To put guns into the same sentence as stoves and cars is illogical.

>Children need to learn how to use those things which will be important

>to them in their adult lives - stoves are certainly necessary and cars
>probably so. But guns?

Not too illogical. Say you have two children (older children in their
teens). One wants to be a cook, so they learn to use a stove. Okay... one
wants to be a policeman, so they learn to shoot a gun. I don't think that
small children should be around guns or be allowed to shoot them. But, I
don't have a problem with older children.

[Hamilton]

In article <6hh259$8r5$1...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>, tgc...@webtv.net
(Tiger Cook) wrote:

> Hamilton, you obviously don't know what is best for my child.
> Tiger

Yeah a lot of macho bluster and posturing is always the first
clue of having a clue.

[10044...@compuserve.com]

tgc...@webtv.net (Tiger Cook) wrote:

>Hamilton wrote, 'I think exposing young children to brutality on the
>screen helps desensitize them and contributes to the general level of
>insensitivity to human suffering that characterizes our culture.'

>
> I disagree. I think there are a lot of reasons for the increasing
>levels of violence in this country. I'm not going to go into them all.
>Some of them I think originate at home. In too many households both
>parents work. No one is paying attention to the kids. No one is
>noticing what is going on in their heads. Some of the reasons I think
>originate in the schools. Too many teachers turn a blind eye to
>interstudent relationships. Sure if the kids get into a fist fight they
>go to the principals office. But what about teasing? What is teasing
>if not insensitivity to human suffering? How often does a student get
>sent to the principals office for teasing? Never in any of schools I
>attended and there was a lot of teasing. What about the school bus?
>How many bus drives maintain law and order? They don't.
> When my daughter starts school in the fall she is not going to
>attend a public school because I don't want her to be exposed to that
>crap. If I can come up with the money for a private school, that is
>where she will go. If I don't have the money I will home school her.
> Tiger
Sorry Tiger, I have to reply here. For too long, people have said
that violence on TV does not translate itself back into a more violent
society.

I DISAGREE and have seen it first hand. In the UK we had a series
called "Power Rangers" which was about a group of kids who could turn
themselves into "Martial Art" experts and beat up all sorts of people.

It was shown to 5-10 yr olds. I watched with fascination as more and
more 5 yr olds in this country suddenly started doing karate kicks and
punches on their fellow age groups WITHOUT any clue as to the likely
effect.

I AM a martial arts expert and have been practising Karate since I was
12, I am now 34. The first thing that is taught is discipline of the
mind, when to hit, but more importantly when to let it all flow over
your head and walk away.

The series did not teach this, it was not designed to it was
entertainment.

Further the other day two children in the US shot and killed their
fellow pupils. They had been handling guns since they were 5 or 6.
Our films show guns as things that go BANG, not instuments of death.
They are shown as exciting things, not dangerous things.

I will never forget watching the film "Platoon" for the first time,
the audience reaction was amazing. the girls all came out chatting
away, but the men/boys, ie 18 upwards as it was an 18 film overhere,
all came out totally stunned and silent. The power of the film in
showing what War is, was very real and the men picked this up and
realised that they too could have been there.

There is a saying "A picture paints a thousand words". It is Oh so
VERY true.

Sorry to go on, but I am young, have a 4 yr old child, who I want to
grow up in the kind of society I grew up in, not the one that Hollywod
would like to create for us.

Andrew C Hyett

[Turtle]

>tgc...@webtv.net (Tiger Cook) wrote:

>> When my daughter starts school in the fall she is not going to
>>attend a public school because I don't want her to be exposed to that
>>crap. If I can come up with the money for a private school, that is
>>where she will go. If I don't have the money I will home school her.
>> Tiger

Tiger,

I was raised in 3 different private schools & one public school. Hate to
tell you this, but teasing goes on just as much there as it does in public
school (same as lot of other things i.e. drinking, smoking, sex, etc.,
etc.). I have nothing against public schools or private schools (I will
send my daughter to the school I think has the best track record on their
aptitude scores). Children tease other children. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it
going to stop? Probably not. As long as there are kids who look down on
other kids there will be teasing.

One private school I went to had this "great" idea. It was this: If we
make all the kids wear uniforms than everyone will look the same and there
will be nothing to make fun of. NOT! It didn't change a thing. The kids
with $$ still looked down their nose at the kids without - uniforms didn't
change a thing.

I just hope you realize that no matter where you place your child she is
going to more than likely encounter teasing by someone who feels that they
are in some way better than her. I suggest that you place your daughter in
the school that has the best scores education wise. Isn't that why we send
our kids to school anyways?

[Kynvelyn]

>marcie rekenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid now you've lost me. I'd support your right to take your child
>> to movies you deem suitable, although I can't imagine why you would deem
>> such things as Twister or Titanic suitable for a young child. But using
>> guns? Teaching your young children or older ones how to use guns is like
>> teaching them how to smoke. Since guns have no purpose and no effect
>> except pain, misery, destruction or death to someone or something, I
>> can't imagine why you would want your child to even go near one.
>
>

And, of course, we wouldn't want to teach our children how to smoke, or,
say, do drugs would we???

Wait a minute, .... isn't that exactly what the DARE program teaches
them... how to do drugs so that they can say no to them????

I used to have that kind of attitude when it came to guns, and then I had
cause to wish I had one for my self defense. (I never thought it would
happen to me, and it never will again). Never in a million years did I
think I would make my husband happy by purchasing my very own gun and my
very own ammo.

Everything is stored away, nice and safe, never fear. In this house, guns
*do* have a purpose.... self preservation.

Kyn

[Enid Y. Karr]

Kynvelyn wrote:
>
> I used to have that kind of attitude when it came to guns, and then I had
> cause to wish I had one for my self defense. (I never thought it would
> happen to me, and it never will again). Never in a million years did I
> think I would make my husband happy by purchasing my very own gun and my
> very own ammo.
>
> Everything is stored away, nice and safe, never fear. In this house, guns
> *do* have a purpose.... self preservation.
>

How do you keep a gun stored safely, but also use it for self
preservation?
I'm not being snotty, I've always wondered how people cover safety and
accessability
at the same time (we only need the safety, since they're for target
practice.... if
it takes twenty minutes to access the gun and the ammo, no problem....
but if
you have an intruder and you have to say 'hey, just stand there a minute
while I unlock
the ammo and load.."). Aside from trigger locks (which I don't trust)
how can you
have the gun safe and accessible?

Enid

[marcie rekenn]

Kynvelyn wrote:

> >marcie rekenn wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm afraid now you've lost me. I'd support your right to take your
> child
> >> to movies you deem suitable, although I can't imagine why you would
> deem
> >> such things as Twister or Titanic suitable for a young child. But
> using
> >> guns? Teaching your young children or older ones how to use guns is
> like
> >> teaching them how to smoke. Since guns have no purpose and no
> effect
> >> except pain, misery, destruction or death to someone or something,
> I
> >> can't imagine why you would want your child to even go near one.
> >
> >
>
> And, of course, we wouldn't want to teach our children how to smoke,
> or,
> say, do drugs would we???
>
> Wait a minute, .... isn't that exactly what the DARE program teaches
> them... how to do drugs so that they can say no to them????
>

Excuse me? This is something I've never heard of. There is a drug
program called DARE which teaches kids to use drugs? Tell me more about
this program. I have honestly never heard of a drug program that
encourages drug use to teach kids how to say no.

> I used to have that kind of attitude when it came to guns, and then I
> had
> cause to wish I had one for my self defense. (I never thought it would
>
> happen to me, and it never will again). Never in a million years did
> I
> think I would make my husband happy by purchasing my very own gun and
> my
> very own ammo.
>
> Everything is stored away, nice and safe, never fear. In this house,
> guns
> *do* have a purpose.... self preservation.
>

Two questions. How do you use a gun for self-preservation? And if you
*can* use it for self-preservation how do you get it when you need it if
it's stored away safely?

I think this discussion about guns highlights a problem that's far more
significant than whether or not your child sees Titanic or or other R
rated moveis. When my kids were little, they were never allowed to visit
anyone who had a gun in the house - packed and locked away or not. I
would phone and ask before I allowed them to go over and play. Also why
I preferred to have everyone come to my house and feed them all if
necessary. At least I didn't have to worry about some kid pulling out
mommy or daddy's gun and shooting my kid.

> Kyn

[M&D]

Kynvelyn wrote:
Everything is stored away, nice and safe, never fear. In this house, guns
*do* have a purpose.... self preservation.

-------
Ahh. there's the rub. If it's stored nice and safe you'll never get to it in
time to defend yourself. The criminal uses element of surprise to gain the
upper hand and on that score he's always way ahead of you.

M&D

[mc...@provide.net]

In article <6hljdc$b...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,

How true. Also if the guns are used they are more likely to be used on a
family member than a criminal.

Scout

[Tracy L. Howard]

Hi. After reading this post I wanted to respond that while there are many
factors which contribute to societal violence, the relationship between
violence on television and violent behavior in children is one of the most
widely studied in the field of psychology. There are literally THOUSANDS
of studies which show statistically significant differences in the behavior
of children who watched violent versus non-violent programming. Children
who watch violent programs exhibit more violent behavior.

Having written the above, I also think Tiger makes some valid points.