violence, nudity, and morality

[Formless]

I have recently gotten into a debate by PM with another member of another board discussing whether or not the anime version of the show Neon Genesis Evangelion is better then its manga adaptation (a slightly boring topic that I am fairly certain of my ability to debate on my own), when the topic of sexuality and gory violence in the show came up, and now I am uncertain of where to go. His viewpoint on the issue is that depictions of violence, gore, and sexuality in a visual medium are somehow immoral. Normally I would blow this off as B.S., but he actually had some reasoning that I am finding difficult to deconstruct:

As for why I'm against sexuality and violence, it's a matter of morals. The media should not desensitize the populace to violence and sex. Now, I usually don't attack eva for it's violence---It was not intended to be "cool", but was intended to sicken the viewer, just as Shinji or one of the others would be. I would have preferred the extremely gory scenes done a little differently, but I'm not totally against the way they did it(except in EoE)

Now, he has not said anything about censorship, which would make this easier for me, and this reminds me of arguments against violent video games. But I don't know where to take this. Is it a moral issue? Is desensitization really ethically wrong? Does the impact of the media on the public make depictions of sexuality and violence immoral? Or is he really just as full of shit as I think he is?

Right now I plan on making reference to studies about violent video games and how they have been shown to not have as negative an impact as some other parts of the media have portrayed. Is this a good angle to come from? And if there are better ways to deconstruct this claim that I have not thought of, what might they be?

The part on sexuality is a little harder for me since I have never had to debate the subject. Should I go about defending it the way you would defend pornography, or should I defend it from an artistic viewpoint i.e. bringing up classical art and nudes? If the former, I am not sure how to construct a good defense, since again, I have never trodden down this road in a debate before. If the latter, what kind of historical precedents would be best for debunking his morality claims?

And lastly, would arguing from a cultural standpoint be a good way to go, remembering that the franchise under discussion is a Japanese creation, and the social values there are different on these issues? Would arguing that his viewpoint is biased by his own cultural upbringing help my cause?

The overall debate is something only a few members of this board would find interesting, and I am pretty sure I can hold my own without trouble. He likes to make some pretty bold claims about human behavior that he won't back up with evidence, mainly appealing to his personal opinion as if opinions are infalliable things. If people are interested in his arguments (once I can get him to back them up, that is) I might post them if people think they can help. However, the moral issues about violence and sexuality are the ones I need the most help on at this point.

BTW, some of his behavior suggests to me that this a slightly religous person, but I cannot tell for sure. That might effect the way this debate moves. If he is, he has yet to show just how much he is.

[Thanas]

You do not have to do anything at all. It is up to him to provide proof that something is amoral, you do not have to prove it is not.

[Formless]

So he is just B.S.ing again? I figured as much, considering his previous behavior.

Ok, I'll update this if he comes back with something of substance, then.

[Samuel]

The media should not desensitize the populace to violence and sex.

Desensitize people to sex?

He is implying that these things, when shown, desensitize people to them and that is bad. He needs to show how and why it is bad as Thanas pointed out.

He needs to prove that the activities are not just amoral, but actually immoral. Until he provides an actual argument we can't really rebut it

[Kanastrous]

The near-reflexive association of sex and violence has always bothered me.

[Oskuro]

^I'd guess both behaviours are hard-coded in a similar fashion in our brains, probably "sharing resources". After all, in nature, violence is an important tool in reproduction (aganist competition). But I'm no biologist, just a programmer that likes to speculate.

[Formless]

Okay, I am waiting for him to respond now. I think I figured out what my problem was: I got caught by cognitive dissonance. Normally I am pretty good at spotting unsupported B.S. and calling it for what it is, but this guy bullshits so much that it can be hard to keep track of it all. It is the overriding theme of his responses So once that was clear, my responses were clear.

The funniest thing he has said so far is that opinions are somehow not up for scrutiny, even when they are based on faulty or non-existent logic! I just can't wait to see what he will say next! [/sarcasm]

I don't think anyone but him has connected violence to sex, here. The franchise we are discussing keeps the two largely separate, not including Freudian/phallic symbols used as weapons. And most of those are a stretch anyway.

[Darth Wong]

In every morality-related debate, you must first ask your opponent several questions:

1) Is your moral code based on real-world benefit and harm, or religious values? Gut feeling? Or have you never even asked yourself this question?

2) If your moral code is based on religion or gut feeling, why should anyone but you follow it?

3) If your moral code is based on real-world benefit or harm, can you explain and justify any claim of harm that you are attaching to that which you call "immoral"?

I think you will find that the vast majority of people out there have never sat down and given their moral code any serious thought. It is typically a hodge podge of real-world benefit and harm, religious values, and gut feeling, more properly expressed as "morality is whatever my peer group considers acceptable behaviour".

As for why I'm against sexuality and violence, it's a matter of morals. The media should not desensitize the populace to violence and sex.

There is no argument at all here. He merely states his opinion with no attempt whatsoever to justify it. Why is it immoral to "desensitize" the population to fake violence and sex? Why are violence and sex even treated as a conjoined entity at all? Shouldn't they be considered separately? What real-world harm is caused by the population seeing people having sex? Or fake movie violence?

The person later complains about "gore"; is he suggesting that sanitized violence is somehow better, even though it promotes the dangerous idea that violence does not have ugly consequences?

Don't accept any claims of harm which do not come backed up with real evidence. Don't accept any assumption that movie violence is equivalent to real violence, or that desensitization to one equals desensitization to the other.

[Formless]

This response is so full of shit, I just have to post the whole thing!

For reference, this is the portion of my PM that he is responding to. The rest of the thing he ignored outright:

As for the fapping scene, I may have written my post in the wrong way. I attack this scene on the basis that media should not contain such things. If it were removed, it would not have hurt Shinji's character at all---After all, was Shinji's character hurt, when the only ending to Eva was episode 25 and 26? No. And, in the end, it doesn't even change his character much, besides make a lot of people hate him just a little bit more. Again, the two characters do not HAVE to act the way they would in the Anime, this is Sadamoto's vision, not Anno's.

As for why I'm against sexuality and violence, it's a matter of morals. The media should not desensitize the populace to violence and sex. Now, I usually don't attack eva for it's violence---It was not intended to be "cool", but was intended to sicken the viewer, just as Shinji or one of the others would be. I would have preferred the extremely gory scenes done a little differently, but I'm not totally against the way they did it(except in EoE)

As for sex, I only have certain gripes on Eva, concerning sex. Certain scenes, such as where shinji lands on Rei(main thing I had against the Anime's interpretation was Shinji's hand placement), the Magmadiver episode, and a few others, that didn't have much purpose(do we really need to hear about shinji's erection, or does shinji HAVE to land on Rei's breast?), I think should have been removed.

And the penultimate question remains: can you prove it? Can you prove that sex and violence in the media and in art is immoral? Can you prove that sex and violence in the media and in art "desensitizes" people to it? Can you even prove that that is a bad thing in the first place? Can you show me that the sexual scenes in Eva are unnecessary to the plot or theme? Can you prove that it does not change Shinji's character IMMENSELY to remove or change a scene to make it less sexual?

I would think that you would understand at this point that in order to actually persuade people to your viewpoint, you actually have to make an effort to logically show that it is so. You cannot say, "but that is just my opinion!!!" Well MY opinion is that that is stupid, and that you have not taken the time to actually look at yourself in the mirror and ask, "why do I believe what I believe?" How lazy. MY opinion is that violence and sex in the media and art have no moral weight in the world. It is MY opinion that sensitizing the population to sex and violence has no negative effect on society, if it happens at all. I play video games casually: I rejoiced when Jack Thomson got disbarred for being a dishonest cockbag, because I KNOW that there is no effect on society from violence in that media. Why would there be an effect from anime, a medium that is much more obscure?

I know that this might be alien to you, but I think that art should be free of moral judgments so that aesthetics can have a chance. The classic nude is no more offensive then Giant Naked Rei, in my mind. I don't just believe this because I really like Eva and would defend it to the death: there are other shows and stories that could not be told if sex and violence should not be in the media. Take for example Elfen Lied, a show I love just as much as Eva. Good lord is there a lot of sexuality and gore in that show! Eva is tame. And yet, I do not see why it would be immoral to make such a show, let alone enjoy it. Or any number of the video games I have enjoyed.

So. Why exactly are some of my favorite shows, stories, games, and works of art immoral all of a sudden?

(Yes, there are a few paragraphs of his that I left out in my initial post here, but as you can see, they have no more substance then the one I did post)

And here is what he wrote back, responding to my WHOLE post:

Ahh, so now we hit the crux of the issue. You don't believe that sexuality and violence in media is an issue? What about the fact that young girls that watch Sex in the City regularly are more likely to get pregnant at an early age? Here's proof:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 073047.ece

The fact of the matter is, you're wrong. Sexuality and violence in the media does have an impact, a VERY moral one. Obviously, our morals are not the same, thus why you seem to think it's realistic to have the things that the anime has. Morals are impossible to prove, so I suppose the discussion is over. You're ideas about these things, such as the scenes in the anime, are quite different from mine, and each of our opinions are based off of our own moral compass.

But, I'd like to ask you a question. I've put forth my reasons for liking the Manga. Those reasons are impossible to prove, or disprove. That doesn't make them stupid, or anything else. So, I'd like to ask you, can you prove to me, the reasons for your love of the anime? And if you cannot prove them to me, is it ok for me to call them stupid? After all, the underlying reason for your liking them will be completely unfounded. I seriously doubt it. Racism is capable of being proven or disproven. A concept as vague as reality in a fictional work, is not.

So, let's hear it.

I'm pretty sure that his "source" is bullshit.

Note that this was spurred by him making the blanket claim that the fans of this show are amoral for defending the importance of having gore and sexuality in the film End of Evangelion. Like so:

As for fans of Eva being rude, you're not the first, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. Most diehard fans of the anime I have met are ammoral, pretentious, stupid, rude, crude, or all of the above.

He apparently cannot understand what is so infuriating about dealing with a dishonest piece of shit like him, so he tried to Ad Hominim attack me for calling his opinion stupid and without basis. He is not even the most polite person either, so I do not know why he complains.

I have more shit from him for you to enjoy, but I suspect that this argument is over.

The full story is that this started in a sticky in the main forum where he made the claim that the manga version was more realistic. He made claims about the characters behavior, claiming that no human being, even a depressed human being (like most of the important characters of the show), would do some of the things that they do in the show. Unsurprisingly, in hindsight, most of the things he objected to had something to do with the characters sexual behavior. I called him on his B.S., and he got all butthurt that I would consider an unsupported opinion stupid. I responded by telling him that I would not give him the dignity of a response until he could back SOMETHING up. At that point a mod locked the thread before it could blow up into a flamewar, anticipating no doubt the fact that this turd is a militant fanwhore for the manga version and I flame like an SDnetizen.

Anyway, I was done at that point, but he decided to PM me even though I told him I was done with him until he could back up his B.S. Which he promptly reposted. I told him to fuck off. He kept coming for more, making me continue to tell him to fuck off. Finally I responded and opened up with a stock of molotovs, hard logic, and the threat of going to the mods for harrassing me and he calmed down and acted fax reasonable. And then we come to the present.

I would have liked to have had DW's advice before hand, but frankly a bullshitter like this is hardly worth the time it takes to tap at the keyboard.

Edit:I intend at this point to tell him to fuck off if he refuses to back up his claims, although following through with DW's advice might be a good idea too.

[Darth Wong]

That's his evidence? A study showing that teens who watch sitcoms "with sexual content" like Friends and Sex in the City are more likely to get pregnant? You've gotta be kidding me. OK, where to start:

1) It does not show direction of causality, ie- it says nothing about whether A causes B, or B causes A, or both are correlated to a third factor C.

2) None of those shows actually incorporate explicit sex scenes. They only contain sexual innuendo. That is not an example of "desensitization" since they aren't even seeing the act which they are supposedly becoming desensitized to. That's an example of ThoughtCrime: TV shows which discuss sex or mention sex. Is he saying that it's bad to even mention sex now?

3) My wife and I have had sex thousands of times, but lo and behold, we only have two children. Guess why: that's right, we have this thing called "contraceptive methods". High teen pregnancy is best correlated to poor socio-economic conditions and a lack of proper education, not watching sexually suggestive sitcoms.

This guy is obviously a retard. I'm sure he could have come up with a more interesting study than that, if he wanted to try and back up his bullshit. I know there have been studies performed directly on desensitization, although even those studies do not prove what he wants to prove.

[Formless]

Well, he came back, and with five times the links this time!

Rofls hard. Ahh, just like a liberal!

"For starters, that study only shows a correlation. But correlation != causation. For all we know based on that study, the reverse is true, that the target audience could happen to be the kinds of kids who would be getting pregnant anyway. It also does not rule out the possibility that there is a third factor at work that is correlated to both pregnant teens and sitcoms like Sex in the City. "

Prove it. Prove your statement. I posted a study, showing an OBVIOUS relation between sexuality, and teen pregnancy. Your reply is nothing but nonsensical. Can you prove that there's some third reason? Can you prove your statement that teen pregnancy is being caused by social status?

Can you prove that I'm wrong, and the media has nothing to do with it? Nope, didn't think so. And my links prove my side.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/i ... en_sex.cfm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_58459534

http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/ ... &id=531862

Oh, and some on violence.

http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html

http://www.ppu.org.uk/education/media_v ... vey-c.html

I'm posting these in the hopes you'll open your eyes to what's going on. You won't, but it's a hope. Don't reply, unless you actually get what's being posted.

You have no idea what the word opinion means, otherwise this discussion would have been over some time ago. As for proof, you don't understand that concept, either. Whoever you turned to your side must have been a complete fool, because you don't have a grasp on the very basics here. I wasn't making a claim that one was more realistic. I was saying that one is, IN MY OWN GOD-DAMN OPINION. Not "Fuck the anime, the manga is more realistic!" But, you're such a fanboy, with such a hard on for Anno and his work, that you simply hate the idea that I think that.

You prove your own hypocrisy, when you refuse to do what you keep screaming for me to do. Can you DISPROVE the reasons for my opinion? No? Then you cannot call my own opinion stupid. If I cannot prove, and you cannot disprove, then it's a moot point, now, isn't it?

Have a good day.

That was in response to this:

Jesus Christ you aren't getting it. First of all, ignoring more then 50% of my points? Fucking arrogant, you dickwad! Why is it I must always debate morons?

Ahh, so now we hit the crux of the issue. You don't believe that sexuality and violence in media is an issue? What about the fact that young girls that watch Sex in the City regularly are more likely to get pregnant at an early age? Here's proof:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 073047.ece

The fact of the matter is, you're wrong. Sexuality and violence in the media does have an impact, a VERY moral one. Obviously, our morals are not the same, thus why you seem to think it's realistic to have the things that the anime has. Morals are impossible to prove, so I suppose the discussion is over. You're ideas about these things, such as the scenes in the anime, are quite different from mine, and each of our opinions are based off of our own moral compass.

Looking at your study... Yup, it is as I suspected: only a portion of the story.

For starters, that study only shows a correlation. But correlation != causation. For all we know based on that study, the reverse is true, that the target audience could happen to be the kinds of kids who would be getting pregnant anyway. It also does not rule out the possibility that there is a third factor at work that is correlated to both pregnant teens and sitcoms like Sex in the City.

Also, unlike Eva, none of the shows mentioned in that study actually depict nudity or sexuality. They have sexual innuendo and mention sex, but it is not like they are showing people in the act or full-frontal like Rei. How can a show that does not depict actual sexuality desensitize someone to sex? Is it simply wrong to even bring up the topic now? Wow is that old fashioned. Puritanical, even.

It also does not address the more commonly accepted and logical view that the bigger contributing causes of teen pregnancy are poor education and low social status. Poor people and poorly educated people are not as likely to use birth control or safe sex practices, leading to more pregnancies among them. Where does this study fall in that interpretation?

Oh, and you did not back up your opinion on gory violence, just your opinion on sex. The two are not the same, you know. Just like the two are not the same as real life sex and violence, in case you forgot.

May I ask you what kind of moral system you apply to? Is it religious? Is it based on thought out ethics? Or is it based on your first reactions to what you see? And why should I subscribe to your viewpoint? If it is ethics, fine, what then is your logic?

But, I'd like to ask you a question. I've put forth my reasons for liking the Manga. Those reasons are impossible to prove, or disprove.

Good gravy, it is like talking to a wall! A wall made of shit! You said that the reason you like the manga more was because you said that it was more realistic then the anime, something that I could show to be true or not. I didn't have to, because you never showed how that was true in the first place! You are a dishonest, arrogant, pretentious, stubborn pile of shit who is barely worth talking to because you won't even recognize the basic principal of Burden of Proof. Opinions CAN be proven or disproven, even with fictional works, and this site is based on that principal. What the fuck. No wonder people keep getting rude or angry with you, you fail at logic at the most basic level possible!

So I am going to say this one last fucking time: give me evidence, or shut the fuck up. If you PM me one more time repeating the same broken record that you do not have to back your claims up, I will make you stop PMing me, even if I have to go to the moderators like I said I would before.

And BTW, moving the goalposts to say that that is not your reason for liking the manga more is NOT appreciated, skunk-breath. Back that one up, concede, or shut up.

That doesn't make them stupid, or anything else. So, I'd like to ask you, can you prove to me, the reasons for your love of the anime? And if you cannot prove them to me, is it ok for me to call them stupid? After all, the underlying reason for your liking them will be completely unfounded. I seriously doubt it. Racism is capable of being proven or disproven. A concept as vague as reality in a fictional work, is not.

So, let's hear it.

I am going to say the one thing that you could have said from the start that I would not have had any argument against: it is a matter of taste that I like the anime. It is a matter of which came first. It was the original, and the manga did not do as good a job relaying the themes to me, the viewer, as the anime did. It failed on a number of accounts that, if you had paid any attention to the bulk of my PM, I have already stated.

And If you had any notion of suspension of disbelief, you would never say something as ignorant as "fictional works are too vague to prove anything about them!!!" You need to go back to the brain shop and cash in your warranty, because your thinking skills are on par with most insects at this point. Some one scammed you there.

Formless One out -- go jump in a lake.

(I wouldn't mine if you guys could critique me as well, I want to be sure I am doing this right.)

I like how he says I don't know what the word "opinion" means when he does not understand that opinions have to be supported. They are not magically immune to criticism, especially when they make or are based on claims that can be proven or disproven. Or how he tries to copy the pattern of my signatures (which usually say some form of have a nice day-- or flame) as if it mocks me somehow.

I want to see if my own asessment of his sources is accurate before I reply, so here goes:

The first seems to me to be totally irrelavent to the discussion at hand because the article mainly targets sex in advertising, not shows, films, and anime. Further, he misunderstands the point of the article in the first place because it does not say that sex in the media is inherently bad, it says that the way it is being presented with women is bad and puts pruessure on women. Guess what? Completely irrelevant to a discussion on Evangelion, which does NOT overly sensualize the topic or present a negative sterotype of women. In fact, most of the sexual scenes are about how awkward it is, especially for the younger characters who are just hitting puberty.

I wonder if he even read the second one: the article even says that to understand teen pregnancy you have to take into context more then just the one variable (the media) and have to take into account the teens backgrounds. Plus, like before, it does not prove that sex in the media is inherently bad, just the way it is presented in our culture. And those issues of presentation do not apply to the franchise under discussion. Yup, clearly a moral problem! Oh, and the cherry on top is that the study was from 1994. I wonder if the sociological conditions are the same now as in 1994?

The last one on sex I am not even certain I can trust because I fear that the website is biased, but it also shows that the problem lies not with the media, it lies with the culture that does not educate their kids properly. Its own conclusion is not that sex in the media is immoral, as you can see:

[quote"the article"]Parents "need to start talking to their kids early," Brown said. "As soon as kids want to know what those parts of their bodies are. You need to be expressing your values about sexuality early and often. Be what we call an 'askable' parent, so your child can come to you, instead of the media, to learn about sex. If the teen perceives that their parents disapprove of early sexual intercourse, the teen is less likely to do it."[/quote]
yes, sex in the media is bad, mmmmkay.

And the problem with all three is that all three harp on teenagers watching sexually driven content, none of which actually contains sex but mere sexual innuendo or mention of sex thus making his claims of desensitization bogus and unsupported, but does not talk about if it is bad for adults or mature young adults to watch, thus making any claim of it being a moral problem and not a societal problem bullshit.

The two against violence:

The first is a study about young children exposed to media violence. Yet again, a societal problem, and not a moral problem. It does not apply to either of us because we are both mature (at least I know that I am, but I do not know if this guy is not just a kid himself) and thus are not part of that age group. The study also does not apply to the show, since the show is for teens and young adults, regardless of how many fans happen to have seen the show before they were really old enough. And I never said that age restrictions ddn't apply: indeed, I previously mentioned an even more violent show, Elfen Lied, but there is no way I would ever recommend it to someone who was not 18 at least and mature.

The last source's bias is clearer then day: the Peace Pledge United? What the fuck? And its slogan is "education for peace"? And he thinks that I can trust this source? Is this guy for real? I am reading this thing and it has every flawed argument I have ever seen to date about violent video games, like assuming that a correlation between violence in the media and violence in real life means causation between the two. Or not backing up its own claim that youth violence is on the rise in the first place, when I have seen a consistent statistic that in America the youth crime rate has actually dropped over time, in the same time span as the rise of video gaming popularity. Or even where the study was conducted:

In the areas surveyed, from relatively peaceful environments like Canada or certain high-crime neighbourhoods in Brazil to war-zones in Angola or Tajikistan, the study confirmed the dominant role of television in the everyday lives of children around the globe: 93% of the students who attend school and live in electrified urban or rural areas have regular access to television and watch it for an average of three hours a day. This represents at least 50% more than the time spent on any other out of school activity, including homework, being with friends, or reading. The result justifies the assumption that television is the most powerful source of information and entertainment besides face-to-face interaction.

A study that does not even take America into account, and inflates its own numbers by studying war torn areas where you would expect violence to be high from warfare. It is a telling of his own dishonesty that he would gravitate to using dishonest, biased material as his proof.

But probably the biggest problem with his sources is that the just leaves them hanging there. He does not use them to construct an argument, he never tries to link them to proving that it is a moral problem, he does not even show that he read the material inside. It is the "I throw a magazine at you, what do you have to say about THAT!" style of evidence, showing once again that he completely lacks comprehension of the concept of evidence. Instead he thinks a google search bluff will fool me. And he wonders why no one wants to play with him!

[Formless]

No one has commented on my critique of his sources, so should I go ahead and respond to him? I am trying to get better at this, so I would like to hear what I can do better next time, since I expect this to end soon.

[Samuel]

He is asking you to prove a negative... which is sort of impossible.

[Formless]

Could you tell me where he tries to do this? Sounds right, though...

[avatarxprime]

No one has commented on my critique of his sources, so should I go ahead and respond to him? I am trying to get better at this, so I would like to hear what I can do better next time, since I expect this to end soon.

Here's some quick thoughts. I just skimmed the articles and then read your assessments.

I want to see if my own asessment of his sources is accurate before I reply, so here goes:

The first seems to me to be totally irrelavent to the discussion at hand because the article mainly targets sex in advertising, not shows, films, and anime. Further, he misunderstands the point of the article in the first place because it does not say that sex in the media is inherently bad, it says that the way it is being presented with women is bad and puts pruessure on women. Guess what? Completely irrelevant to a discussion on Evangelion, which does NOT overly sensualize the topic or present a negative sterotype of women. In fact, most of the sexual scenes are about how awkward it is, especially for the younger characters who are just hitting puberty.

That would be my assessment of it as well. It's a total non-sequitor about media advertising, the sexualization of females in modern culture, and its affect on young girls. If he has even watched the anime the sexual content there is hardly done in a way as to depict it as sexy and something to be done.

I wonder if he even read the second one: the article even says that to understand teen pregnancy you have to take into context more then just the one variable (the media) and have to take into account the teens backgrounds. Plus, like before, it does not prove that sex in the media is inherently bad, just the way it is presented in our culture. And those issues of presentation do not apply to the franchise under discussion. Yup, clearly a moral problem! Oh, and the cherry on top is that the study was from 1994. I wonder if the sociological conditions are the same now as in 1994?

Well there is also the fact that the study was done from a very subjective standpoint, the author's talk about "data triangulation" aside. It was also done with a "loaded deck" that she herself states. She wanted to focus on children that are considered "at-risk" without even taking into consideration anything other than their personal socio-economical issues. That hardly is a stellar argument for the media showing sex being immoral when the kids are shown to already be at-risk for a number of reasons. However that last bit about the study being old, that's hardly a big strike against it. In behavioral studies it's common to site even older material as something to talk about provided it was done well and especially if it has a large sample size (not saying that this qualifies under either) so I really wouldn't bother with that point.

The last one on sex I am not even certain I can trust because I fear that the website is biased, but it also shows that the problem lies not with the media, it lies with the culture that does not educate their kids properly. Its own conclusion is not that sex in the media is immoral, as you can see:

Parents "need to start talking to their kids early," Brown said. "As soon as kids want to know what those parts of their bodies are. You need to be expressing your values about sexuality early and often. Be what we call an 'askable' parent, so your child can come to you, instead of the media, to learn about sex. If the teen perceives that their parents disapprove of early sexual intercourse, the teen is less likely to do it."

yes, sex in the media is bad, mmmmkay.

I think the stronger quote to give from that article is

Another expert, Freya Sonenstein, a professor and director of the Center for Adolescent Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the study was "carefully executed" but "doesn't settle the question of whether sexy media produces, causes early sexual behavior. Is it the fact that they look at these shows that gets them active, or are they more curious about everything to begin with? Or are there other factors?"

The two against violence:

The first is a study about young children exposed to media violence. Yet again, a societal problem, and not a moral problem. It does not apply to either of us because we are both mature (at least I know that I am, but I do not know if this guy is not just a kid himself) and thus are not part of that age group. The study also does not apply to the show, since the show is for teens and young adults, regardless of how many fans happen to have seen the show before they were really old enough. And I never said that age restrictions ddn't apply: indeed, I previously mentioned an even more violent show, Elfen Lied, but there is no way I would ever recommend it to someone who was not 18 at least and mature.

Even then the article's core is this:

Violent films and programs that probably have the most deleterious effects on children are not always the ones that adults and critics believe are the most violent, the authors point out. "Violent scenes that children are most likely to model their behavior after are ones in which they identify with the perpetrator of the violence, the perpetrator is rewarded for the violence and in which children perceive the scene as telling about life like it really is," according to the researchers. "Thus, a violent act by someone like Dirty Harry that results in a criminal being eliminated and brings glory to Harry is of more concern than a bloodier murder by a despicable criminal who is brought to justice."

Thus, the article itself is again saying that it's about the portrayal of the violence. And yet again, Eva hardly shows that violence is a good thing. Shinji is horrified after almost every battle he fights. The characters become more and more emotionally damaged as they fight. The acts of violence and gruesome and viewed by other members of the cast as being horrible. Nothing about the violence, with a few exceptions (kill this person to save everyone else vein) being viewed genuninely positively by everyone involved. That's something that can be argued no matter what he says.

The last source's bias is clearer then day: the Peace Pledge United? What the fuck? And its slogan is "education for peace"? And he thinks that I can trust this source? Is this guy for real? I am reading this thing and it has every flawed argument I have ever seen to date about violent video games, like assuming that a correlation between violence in the media and violence in real life means causation between the two. Or not backing up its own claim that youth violence is on the rise in the first place, when I have seen a consistent statistic that in America the youth crime rate has actually dropped over time, in the same time span as the rise of video gaming popularity. Or even where the study was conducted:

In the areas surveyed, from relatively peaceful environments like Canada or certain high-crime neighbourhoods in Brazil to war-zones in Angola or Tajikistan, the study confirmed the dominant role of television in the everyday lives of children around the globe: 93% of the students who attend school and live in electrified urban or rural areas have regular access to television and watch it for an average of three hours a day. This represents at least 50% more than the time spent on any other out of school activity, including homework, being with friends, or reading. The result justifies the assumption that television is the most powerful source of information and entertainment besides face-to-face interaction.

A study that does not even take America into account, and inflates its own numbers by studying war torn areas where you would expect violence to be high from warfare. It is a telling of his own dishonesty that he would gravitate to using dishonest, biased material as his proof.

This article is just a super biased form of the other article. Its argument still boils down to the way violence is portrayed and that the portrayal tends to be positive more often than not. This is hardly the case in Eva and thus continues to not deal with the subject at hand!

He's just throwing generic "Violence is bad" "Sex is bad" papers at you without bothering to check if they in fact pertain to his argument.

[Samuel]

Could you tell me where he tries to do this? Sounds right, though...

Can you prove that I'm wrong, and the media has nothing to do with it? Nope, didn't think so. And my links prove my side.

He is asking you to prove the media does not cause violence or sex. This is a negative.

[Formless]

Thanks, guys. I would respond to him now, but its late. Oh well...

[The Yosemite Bear]

I stole porn from my grandpa, Ted Bundy Stole porn from his grandpa. Now the Meese commission tried to suggest that looking at porn will turn you into a serial killer like Ted Bundy. Not the case, a real fucked up childhood with lots of abuse, a damaged impulse control center in your brain and other things will turn you into a serial killer like Bundy. Do we see the difference?

[Formless]

Yeah, I've seen the difference for a while. My last reply has been sitting in my outbox for a while now, unread. I don't think the guy wanted to continue, and I know he was logged on to the site since I sent it to him. In other words, dead debate.

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, I've seen the difference for a while. My last reply has been sitting in my outbox for a while now, unread. I don't think the guy wanted to continue, and I know he was logged on to the site since I sent it to him. In other words, dead debate.

Course he doesn't continue. After reading most of it, he engaged you just because you were wrong in his eyes. In fact he had come to a conclusion and now provides you all the skewed results that support in his eyes his conclusion. The simple fact that you couldn't see it, is not his problem and thus he's simply given up in convincing you.

So really, he didn't want a debate. He wanted you to be proven wrong, and when you couldn't see the light, there was obviously no reason to continue.

It's why we call it a wall of ignorance .

[Formless]

It's why we call it a wall of ignorance .

If I had recognized this before hand, I doubt I would have ever ended up responding to his initial attack in the locked thread, let alone his PMs. Anyone got a better tactic for taking on a Wall of Ignorance, or is ignoring it like trolling really the best strategy? I usually take on mere bullshitters, so this particular form of idiocy is a bit newer to me. I know that in this case, it made me lose my cool a little bit-- otherwise, I doubt I would have created this thread (or flamed him to a crisp quite like that). I don't particularly want that to happen that often, so...

[Ghost Rider]

It's why we call it a wall of ignorance .

If I had recognized this before hand, I doubt I would have ever ended up responding to his initial attack in the locked thread, let alone his PMs. Anyone got a better tactic for taking on a Wall of Ignorance, or is ignoring it like trolling really the best strategy? I usually take on mere bullshitters, so this particular form of idiocy is a bit newer to me. I know that in this case, it made me lose my cool a little bit-- otherwise, I doubt I would have created this thread (or flamed him to a crisp quite like that). I don't particularly want that to happen that often, so...

With walls of ignorance, one of the better ways to spot it is see if the person simply states the conclusion as an opener or simply stating a conclusion as fact without prefacing any proof towards it.

As for what to do? You take it on because it amuses you. Sometimes if said wall is a very weak one, the person will learn and have it broken down, but there are many if not more that they will simply ignore it.

As for the stupidity of the next poster?

Prove to me that you can not prove a negative.

Which statement can you bring evidence to?

1. My mother exists.

2. My mother does not exist.

The rest of your yabbering has little to do with logic and more to do with personal thoughts that make little logical sense since they rely upon your personal supposition.

[Ghost Rider]

Prove to me that you can not prove a negative.

Which statement can you bring evidence to?

1. My mother exists.

2. My mother does not exist.

False generalization. There may be negatives that cannot be proven, but that doesn't mean all negatives cannot be proven.

So you're that you cannot even back up your own statement since your bit with math wasn't proving the negative at all except to go "it's not this variable, so there!"

Again, prove the statement if you want to make such a bold proclaimation. You provided a very skewed example and result to provide what you thought as evidence.

[salm]

Negatives sure can be proven. "The sky isn´t green" would be one of them.
The question isn´t if a statement is a negative the question is if it´s falsifiable. If a statement isn´t falsifiable it doesn´t make any sense. I think that´s what most people actually mean when they say "you can´t prove a negative" because a lot of negatives are not falsifiable.

[Darth Wong]

The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is overly simplistic, and therefore incorrect. I can easily prove certain negatives: for example, if you say there is a loaf of bread in the breadbox on your kitchen counter, I can prove that there isn't one by simply opening it up and looking inside.

When people say you can't prove a negative, that is a carelessly worded way of saying that you can't prove a certain kind of negatives, specifically a universal existential negative, where something is said to exist ... somewhere. It's too vague to be disproven because it cannot make any testable predictions, unlike the "bread in my kitchen breadbox" statement.

In the case of claims of social harm, the point is not that he is asking you to prove a negative. The point is that you should not HAVE to prove anything, since he is attempting to justify the use of coercion against society, hence HE must provide evidence for his supporting claim of harm which necessitates this coercion.