6
   

Is 'liking children' wrong, if you don't harm kids?

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 08:15 am
Chai wrote:
ok, since this topic is all over the place anyway....

back to the young children getting married...

I agree with both dlowan and craven that this is not necessarily a good thing, particially (and note I say partically) for the fact it is too hard on a girls body to be having babies so early.

In this case, I'm wondering about the informed consent part.

Many little girls the world over, by the time they are of the age in question are having dreams and play acting getting married. Of course I know that it is all about the idea of wearing a fancy dress and being the center of attention, walking down the aisle and stuff.

They also may dream of after the wedding, in that they will be living in a house with a man and be having babies, etc. Even if these girls do have knowledge of what sex is, they are most likely not thinking of everything involved with making babies.

When I had throughts/dreams of this kind at that age, as for "when" this was going to happen, I was hazy. I knew it would be at sometime in the future, but since in play acting I couldn't really imagine the woman I'd become, I was always the person I was at that moment in my play.

Now, I guess this all points to the uniformed consent part, the not knowing the whole story of what marriage means.

But for a girl who from a much younger age knows that her time to be a wife will be much earlier, and IF she lived in a society that informed her of all that physically entailed, and she'd had time to think about this, talk to girls that were wives, could she not give informed consent?

Now the society I'm speaking of does not exist, as far as I know. One in which the girl has been informed long before, if able to ask questions, talk to her sisters who have gone through this, etc.....would she then be able to give informed consent?

dlowan, don't leave, you're providing us with good education.

Let the wind on the maelstrom just blow around you, best to just let them blow and not try to change their course. Eventually the wind will die down.


I didn't say I was leaving, I said I wasn't responding re the kill yourself part.


That being said, it's Sunday night, and I don't usually spend more than a couple of minutes on A2k during the week.

I'll respond if and when I see something I want to comment on...but it might be a few days.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 04:15 pm
Chumly wrote:
By that token any number of censorship endeavors can be rationalized from the violent acts in TV cartoons on up.


Quote:
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. [email protected]

This study aimed to determine whether media items about suicide were associated with differential increases in actual suicides. Data were available on 4,635 suicide-related items appearing in Australian newspapers and on radio and television news and current affairs shows between March 2000 and February 2001. These data were combined with national data on completed suicides occurring during the same period, by a process that involved identifying the date and geographical reach of the media items and determining the number of suicides occurring in the same location in selected weeks pre- and post-item. Regression analyses were conducted to determine whether the likelihood of an increase in post-item suicides could be explained by particular item characteristics. We found that 39% of media items were followed by an increase in male suicides, and 31% by an increase in female suicides. Media items were more likely to be associated with increases in both male and female suicides if they occurred in the context of multiple other reports on suicide (versus occurring in isolation), if they were broadcast on television (versus other media), and if they were about completed suicide (versus attempted suicide or suicidal ideation). Different item content appeared to be influential for males and females, with an increase in male suicides being associated with items about an individual's experience of suicide and opinion pieces, and an increase in female suicides being associated with items about mass- or murder-suicide. Item prominence and quality were not differentially associated with increases in male or female suicides. Further research on this topic is required, but in the meantime there is a need to remain vigilant about how suicide news is reported. Mental health professionals and suicide experts should collaborate with media professionals to try to balance 'public interest' against the risk of harm.


Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16387400&dopt=Books
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 04:22 pm
Actually, in counseling fields, the correlation of increased suicide attempts with widely broadcast reports of a notorious suicide has been for quite some time considered an established fact. The first study of this phenomenon of which i am aware occurred after the death of Marilyn Monroe in 1962, and that was only labeled "probable suicide." The contention made was that suicide attempts increased 10% across the United States after that event.

Eorl has a good point, and has provided a solid foundation.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 04:39 pm
With that in mind, actively promoting suicide as a solution to problems on a site where people may turn for all kinds of help, seems incredibly irresponsible to me.

(Occom Bill, you've inspired my new sig line)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 04:54 pm
Eorl wrote:
With that in mind, actively promoting suicide as a solution to problems on a site where people may turn for all kinds of help, seems incredibly irresponsible to me.

(Occom Bill, you've inspired my new sig line)
I have only promoted it as partial solution to one problem. A 10% increase among that group would be splendid.

Ps. I don't see anything in your sigline.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 05:07 pm
And the unstable 16 year-old I mentioned that dreams about his sister's 13 year old best friend...he fits into that category does he? Are you OK with any "colateral damage"?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 05:14 pm
No Eorl, your 16 year old doesn't fit the bill, nor do I believe he would misconstrue my intent the way many of you have intentionally done.(<-- the idiocy inherent in that insistence seems immune to the FACT that he'd have read that, from me, and all of my other clarifications as well Rolling Eyes).

On April 16th 2007, Seung-Hui Cho did one decent thing: At around 9:50am, he put a bullet in his own head. It is a pity he didn't do so 3 hours earlier. That would have been heroic.

While many of you would have thought it tragic that he didn't reach out for help instead; I'd have been more than willing to take his video word for its necessity.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 07:06 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No Eorl, your 16 year old doesn't fit the bill, nor do I believe he would misconstrue my intent


Oh good that's OK then. As long as you believe that, there's nothing for anyone to worry about.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 09:30 pm
Well perhaps not. Maybe they'll be dumb enough to just read half of what I write, and be oblivious to the other half... the way you seem to be. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Sun 6 May, 2007 10:09 pm
Eorl wrote:
Chumly wrote:
By that token any number of censorship endeavors can be rationalized from the violent acts in TV cartoons on up.


Quote:
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. [email protected]

This study aimed to determine whether media items about suicide were associated with differential increases in actual suicides. Data were available on 4,635 suicide-related items appearing in Australian newspapers and on radio and television news and current affairs shows between March 2000 and February 2001. These data were combined with national data on completed suicides occurring during the same period, by a process that involved identifying the date and geographical reach of the media items and determining the number of suicides occurring in the same location in selected weeks pre- and post-item. Regression analyses were conducted to determine whether the likelihood of an increase in post-item suicides could be explained by particular item characteristics. We found that 39% of media items were followed by an increase in male suicides, and 31% by an increase in female suicides. Media items were more likely to be associated with increases in both male and female suicides if they occurred in the context of multiple other reports on suicide (versus occurring in isolation), if they were broadcast on television (versus other media), and if they were about completed suicide (versus attempted suicide or suicidal ideation). Different item content appeared to be influential for males and females, with an increase in male suicides being associated with items about an individual's experience of suicide and opinion pieces, and an increase in female suicides being associated with items about mass- or murder-suicide. Item prominence and quality were not differentially associated with increases in male or female suicides. Further research on this topic is required, but in the meantime there is a need to remain vigilant about how suicide news is reported. Mental health professionals and suicide experts should collaborate with media professionals to try to balance 'public interest' against the risk of harm.


Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16387400&dopt=Books

Leaving aside the veracity of the claims as made in your quote (for the moment) I suggest the question at hand is not whether "Mental health professionals and suicide experts should collaborate with media professionals to try to balance public interest against the risk of harm".

Why?

Because I am not convinced that "mental health professionals and suicide experts" have the whereforeall to be able to rationally justify their balancing act versus the risks to freedom due to runaway censorship, especially when you add in the argument that even if the veracity of the claims as made in your quote can wholly stand up to disciplined third party unbiased scientific scrutiny, that does not mean the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively upped by the media in question.

Also the potentially suicidal people in question may well have simply found another rationale at some point, if not through the suspect media in question, and further as discussed, the value of these potentially suicidal people would need to measured against the risks to freedom due to runaway censorship, difficult though that may be.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Mon 7 May, 2007 05:08 am
Chumly, perhaps you'd like the check out this website and see if it looks like censorship to you.

http://www.mindframe-media.info/

Here's an excerpt.

Quote:
The media has an important role to play in influencing social attitudes towards and perceptions of suicide and mental illness. Most members of the media report suicide and mental illness responsibly, and the media industry has been actively involved in helping to reduce suicide rates and addressing stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness.

Generally suicides are not reported in the Australian media. Reports, when made, are usually presented with care to minimise the pain for relatives and friends. Most media try to ensure that suicide is not portrayed as a way to solve personal problems or glamorised in any way.
In general, the media takes a sensitive attitude to reporting mental illness, and to interviewing people who have, or have had, a mental disorder
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Mon 7 May, 2007 11:56 am
Consider the larger / longer term picture as to what is or is not censorship, if it is or is not a net benefit / net risk, and if that means the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively modulated by the media industry.
Quote:
The media has an important role to play in influencing social attitudes towards and perceptions of suicide and mental illness.
As to this claim, I would ask does the media have the whereforeall to be able to rationally justify their balancing act versus the risks to freedom due to runaway censorship, especially when you add in the argument that even if the veracity of the claims as made in your first quote can wholly stand up to disciplined, third party, unbiased, double blind, scientific scrutiny, that does not mean the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively modulated by the media industry because the potentially suicidal people in question may well have simply found another rationale at some point, if not through the suspect media.
Quote:
.....the media industry has been actively involved in helping to reduce suicide rates and addressing stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness.
As to this claim I would again suggest that does not mean the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively modulated by the media industry, and I would suggest again that the potentially suicidal people in question may well have simply found another rationale at some point, if not through the suspect media.

Also as mentioned I suggest the value of these potentially suicidal people would need to measured against the risks to freedom due to runaway censorship, difficult though that may be.

I think we are all familiar with the risks of good intentions (let alone ill intentions) and the "law" of unintended / unexpected consequences from an historical media / censorship perspective.

I would prefer to err on the side of freedom, for the above given reasons even if some can argue a casualty exists in some shorter term sense, between media presentations and suicides.

However I am not suggesting that the media industry (at least the relevant sectors) does not (or at the least should not) have an obligation for being factual and accurate, as does our various governments, militaries, courts, police forces etc. As to how well these obligations have translated into pragmatic real world efficacy over say the last 100 years worldwide I am not overly impressed.

I can fully see why the media industry does not want to be painted as an instigator of suicides, and I can fully see why the media industry would take great pains to present an image of responsibility in that regard, as may well various governments, militaries, courts, police forces, etc.

Consider: I suggest it's fair to say that the reason the media industry wishes to (at the least) give the impression of not being an instigator of suicide is that suicide is not considered moral. Thus I present to you again, given you have not responded in kind as of yet: by that token any number of censorship endeavors can be rationalized from the violent acts in TV cartoons on up.

If we agree that violence is not moral (at least of the gratuitous type), then what of the violent acts in TV cartoons? Do they not deserve the same considerations as do the claims made by the media industry, as per suicide?

Does the media industry have an important role to play in influencing social attitudes towards and perceptions of violence? From your sources they make the claim they do as far as suicide is concerned, thus why would it not apply to violence (at least of the gratuitous type)?

I for one am not convinced that the media industry presents violence "responsibly" in as much as they do not appear to give violence (at least of the gratuitous type) the same considerations as they appear to give suicide. Do you think they should?

I for one am not convinced that the media industry presents sexuality "responsibly" in as much as they do not appear to give sexuality the same considerations as they appear to give suicide. Do you think they should?

Consider: oftentimes you can watch on television the killing or hurting of another human being in quite gory detail, and oftentimes in the context of questionable regard to the moral / ethic considerations. However the presentation of human secondary sexual characteristics is much rarer (let alone primary sexual characteristics) and when these sexual characteristics are presented it's not unusual for it to be done in such a fashion as to infer immorally. Is this a good example of the media industry acting so-called "responsibly"?

To get back OT (if that is even possible with such a wacky thread) I would add that I for one do not necessarily consider suicide to be an act that must / should always be prevented nor do I necessarily consider suicide to be negatively moral.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Mon 7 May, 2007 06:39 pm
Chumly I don't want to derail this thread into a "freedom of speech" discussion either, but I will post the following as it is very relevant:

"Reporting and portrayal of suicidal behaviour in the media may have potentially negative influences and facilitate suicidal acts by people exposed to such stimuli. Recent systematic reviews by others and ourselves (unpublished) have found overwhelming evidence for such effects.1 Evidence for the influence of media on suicidal behaviour has been shown for newspaper and television reports of actual suicides, film and television portrayals of suicides, and suicide in literature, especially suicide manuals. The potential for "suicide sites" on the internet influencing suicidal behaviour remains to be proved, but anecdotal evidence of negative influences is accumulating"

Keith Hawton, director.
Kathryn Williams, researcher.

Centre for Suicide Research, University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX



Here is the source , I'd really like you to read it in full (it isn't long). They discuss the issue of media censorship therein, I don't want to debate it here.
(No, the science has not yet been done to the extent that you demand, but my guess is people stopped taking thalidomide before the 50 year study had been done.)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7377/1374

As for media responsibility, it varies between countries. I have a freind who makes documentaries for USA and Europe. He cuts out any hint of sex and fills it with violence for the USA version, and the complete opposite for the European version.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Mon 7 May, 2007 06:56 pm
..and if that's not enough, try this....from WHO;

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/426.pdf

It seems the "Werther Effect" has been understood since the late 1700's.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Mon 7 May, 2007 10:57 pm
Thanks!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Mon 7 May, 2007 11:05 pm
Watching as this thread goes to Chumliness and allied concerns.

I'm not antagonistic against hearing about those, would like them to be explored.

Not now, on this thread. Sure, a link.

Start your own, Chumly, don't hijack this one.

Give links, at least some of us will engage.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 04:14 pm
I heard part of this broadcast on the way to work yesterday morning, and thought some who were in this thread might be interested in listening.


It relates to people who like to view child porn, and contains an interview with such a man who is in treatment, and interviews with people who treat such folk.


I haven't been able to find a transcript, but you can listen to it here:


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2007/1938373.htm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 04:19 pm
I go along with W. C. Fields on this one:

I like children. If they're properly cooked.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 04:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
I go along with W. C. Fields on this one:

I like children. If they're properly cooked.



And I like puppy chow mein.....
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Thu 31 May, 2007 04:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
I go along with W. C. Fields on this one:

I like children. If they're properly cooked.
A modest proposal, I might add.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 02:45:31