Which would be worse for a kid?

[Der Teutoniker]

Neither one is actually bad for a kid I'd say, but violence is worse because sex isn't inherently harmful.

I've asked someone else - no answer yet. Why is violence inherently harmful?

[Bosiu]

Pervert goes on Facebook. Serial killer goes on death row. Did I make it simple enough?

Pervert stalks then kills people he meets on facebook. Yep, that's simple enough!

Come on... Everyone knows you don't do it over Facebook. You do it on craigslist.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Neither one is actually bad for a kid I'd say, but violence is worse because sex isn't inherently harmful.

I've asked someone else - no answer yet. Why is violence inherently harmful?

Perhaps it is best to say that violence and sex are natural aspects of humanity. What is not ok is if the violence is wanton and without justification.

I mean, is violence justified? Why the heck to I go on these tangents. >.<

Don't mind me, please.

[Der Teutoniker]

Perhaps it is best to say that violence and sex are natural aspects of humanity. What is not ok is if the violence is wanton and without justification.

I mean, is violence justified? Why the heck to I go on these tangents. >.<

Don't mind me, please.

I can dig the "violence without justification is wrong" line. Though to me, they are both natural aspects of humanity, and in that regard, neither are inherently harmful. A viewpoint I know I don't share with many people here.

[Maurepas]

I think it's just a matter of balance, Richie.

Just let them know that mass violence is not good. Same with pervy sex (and Gods I didn't want to use that term because what is pervy to me may be ok for you). Depraved? No, not good either.

Ok, lets just say that anything in excess and without an explanation is not good. Do you get my meaning?

I'm not doing too good tonight, damn it.

I think teaching kids about sex is harder when they "already know all about it".

By the time I was 7, I put two and two together.

And balance is certainly the answer... Problem is that not everyone will be capable of finding it. Some parents simply don't have time, or just aren't good parents.

Parental licensing programs are a good idea, I suppose.

I don't really see the point to this balance stuff, tbqh. Put it this way, a child doesn't obtain the muscular coordination required to play a game like Mortal Kombat until they reach a certain age. By the time they reach that age(between 5 and 7 or so) I think they're capable of understanding and differentiating between fictional and non-fictional material.

Before that age they're as a general rule both uninterested and incapable of enjoying or understanding said medium at all. It's just not a real issue, except for people who need to find something to blame for whatever made their kid insane, when it was only themselves and their environment.

[The Rich Port]

Neither one is actually bad for a kid I'd say, but violence is worse because sex isn't inherently harmful.

I've asked someone else - no answer yet. Why is violence inherently harmful?

Are you going to argue violence ISN'T inherently harmful?

Certainly, it's NECESSARY sometimes to DEFEND yourself... But you're still harming someone defending yourself.

I'll teach my kids violence is a last resort, when you know the other person is an a-hol who sees it the other way around.

[Havaco]

Violence isn't inherently bad.

Aggression (see Murray A. Rothbard if confused) is though.

And if you get the ideas that just because you can hurt pixels without consequence, you can hurt non-pixels without consequence means that you need more training in discrimination. Video games and dreams occur in your mind. You can do whatever you want in them (and I've done terrible things in both knowing this--yeah solipsistic worlds), but once you enter real life, you are dealing with others who are just like you, and your thoughts will not affect them, your actions will.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Perhaps it is best to say that violence and sex are natural aspects of humanity. What is not ok is if the violence is wanton and without justification.

I mean, is violence justified? Why the heck to I go on these tangents. >.<

Don't mind me, please.

I can dig the "violence without justification is wrong" line. Though to me, they are both natural aspects of humanity, and in that regard, neither are inherently harmful. A viewpoint I know I don't share with many people here.

I understand your point, Der. I think I am just trying the frame of mind of someone who, in the future, plans to become a parent.

[Katonazag]

Either one is a result of bad parenting, because it's a parent's responsibility to know their child and to make decisions for their wellbeing. Parents: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THE KID THE GAME OR MOVIE. Chances are, if you even have an inkling that it might not be ok for your child, it probably isn't. And that's my next point, is know what your kids are watching, playing, and doing - and get involved with it. Not only does that give you time with them doing something they enjoy and strengthen the relationship, but it gives you the opportunity to put a stop to activities that are outside of the values you want them to live by; or at the very least have a mature discussion about it to make sure they understand.

That being said, and back on topic, I'd have to say that the sexual situations are less damaging and easier to explain to them. All you have to do to get your point across about violence is take them to the nearest "level 1" emergency room trauma bay or critical care unit and you can show them their fill of the evil that mankind does to itself with violence. You just can't explain that kind of stuff to a child, it's just too... wrong. Most sexual situations in movies and such can at least be explained within whatever views you want your child to have - not that I recommend exposing them to that at all, I'm just saying... It's a lot harder to explain to a child why someone, much less a parent, relative, or another child, has such a grievous injury like an open head or chest wound.

[Der Teutoniker]

I understand your point, Der. I think I am just trying the frame of mind of someone who, in the future, plans to become a parent.

I plan to have children too. Funding provided I'd like to have 4-5 I think.

[Havaco]

I've asked someone else - no answer yet. Why is violence inherently harmful?

Are you going to argue violence ISN'T inherently harmful?

Certainly, it's NECESSARY sometimes to DEFEND yourself... But you're still harming someone defending yourself.

I'll teach my kids violence is a last resort, when you know the other person is an a-hol who sees it the other way around.

Make sure to teach them that walking away from a confrontation is an option (usually). It's possible that the other person is in the wrong, and has done something aggressive. Escalating the aggression means that you are no better.

[Der Teutoniker]

Are you going to argue violence ISN'T inherently harmful?

Certainly, it's NECESSARY sometimes to DEFEND yourself... But you're still harming someone defending yourself.

I'll teach my kids violence is a last resort, when you know the other person is an a-hol who sees it the other way around.

I am, and am going to, yes. Violence often involves harming, or attempting to harm someone else. Children being exposed to violence isn't harmful to their psyche - in fact, sheltering them from violence in the real world would be more traumatizing I imagine. And since we are discussing harm as it relates to the societal perspective of children, and not an absolute definition involving any kind of harm whatsoever, my point is much more relevant while yours is entirely unrelated.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I understand your point, Der. I think I am just trying the frame of mind of someone who, in the future, plans to become a parent.

I plan to have children too. Funding provided I'd like to have 4-5 I think.

Wow, you want a lot of offspring. I just want one, at most two. If I have twins, even better since I would only have to go through the pregnancy and birth once. (twice, yes, but in one sitting)

[Der Teutoniker]

Make sure to teach them that walking away from a confrontation is an option (usually). It's possible that the other person is in the wrong, and has done something aggressive. Escalating the aggression means that you are no better.

The destruction of evil, or the pursuance of justice, and righteousness are always worthy causes, and there is no cost to great in their implementation. Escalating aggression can, when done righteously, elevate your soul.

[Der Teutoniker]

Wow, you want a lot of offspring. I just want one, at most two. If I have twins, even better since I would only have to go through the pregnancy and birth once. (twice, yes, but in one sitting)

I hear that a lot. Thankfully I married a woman who seems relatively on board. Such an amount of kids would likely require a pretty high standard of living, though.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Wow, you want a lot of offspring. I just want one, at most two. If I have twins, even better since I would only have to go through the pregnancy and birth once. (twice, yes, but in one sitting)

I hear that a lot. Thankfully I married a woman who seems relatively on board. Such an amount of kids would likely require a pretty high standard of living, though.

Indeed it does.

If I may, and to go back on topic: why do you think violence, wanton or not, is ok? I am curious. I know our points of view are shaped by different factors, I would like to understand yours. (aside from human nature)

I understand that sheltering your children too much is bad. But isn't overexposure equally bad?

[Havaco]

Make sure to teach them that walking away from a confrontation is an option (usually). It's possible that the other person is in the wrong, and has done something aggressive. Escalating the aggression means that you are no better.

The destruction of evil, or the pursuance of justice, and righteousness are always worthy causes, and there is no cost to great in their implementation. Escalating aggression can, when done righteously, elevate your soul.

One does not pursue justice through aggression. Escalating aggression can, when done righteously, make you bigoted. As I have seen, there is no evil, there is only violations of property rights (including the inalienable property right to one's self). Restitution, not retaliation leads to justice. But that is off topic. And really, you expect children to understand what is evil? There is a debate on whether they should be trusted in evaluating something as simple as a video game!

[Meryuma]

Neither one is actually bad for a kid I'd say, but violence is worse because sex isn't inherently harmful.

I've asked someone else - no answer yet. Why is violence inherently harmful?

Well, obviously it hurts the person being violence'd against. That doesn't mean it's always wrong, though.

[The Rich Port]

Make sure to teach them that walking away from a confrontation is an option (usually). It's possible that the other person is in the wrong, and has done something aggressive. Escalating the aggression means that you are no better.

The destruction of evil, or the pursuance of justice, and righteousness are always worthy causes, and there is no cost to great in their implementation. Escalating aggression can, when done righteously, elevate your soul.

... Gee, I wasn't going to subscribe to the whole Viking stereotype... But just... Wow.

Needless to say, I'm NOT going to glorify violence to my children.

[New Korongo]

"Oh my god, Shepard is sleeping with Miranda"
"Oh my god, Niko is beating the crap out of that man"
IT IS JUST A DAMN VIDEO GAME

[The Rich Port]

"Oh my god, Shepard is sleeping with Miranda"
"Oh my god, Niko is beating the crap out of that man"
IT IS JUST A DAMN VIDEO GAME

Says you, but you're hopefully not a serial killer.

[New Korongo]

Says you, but you're hopefully not a serial killer.

I am not a serial killer, at least not officially

[Der Teutoniker]

If I may, and to go back on topic: why do you think violence, wanton or not, is ok? I am curious. I know our points of view are shaped by different factors, I would like to understand yours. (aside from human nature)

I understand that sheltering your children too much is bad. But isn't overexposure equally bad?

I honestly think that violence is a core tenet of what is human. By not giving children a realistic expectation of violence, it would breed pushovers. I also understand that his appeal won't be popular here, but I look to the cultural traditions of my forefathers - famous for their warriors.

It's more that I don't think violence is necessarily wrong. Violence can be extraordinarily wrong, when used unjustly. When used against the innocent. I just don't think that violence is always wrong.

[The Rich Port]

Says you, but you're hopefully not a serial killer.

I am not a serial killer, at least not officially

Well, the Union says scabs are dead to them, so... Get a degree or something.

[Der Teutoniker]

Well, obviously it hurts the person being violence'd against. That doesn't mean it's always wrong, though.

Right. And to more closely follow the scope of the thread, it's the subjection of children to violence.