he's gonna be with us for the rest of my ranting career._/_/_/
It's that time of the week again: pigknight's rantin' time
.Nowadays I have 9999 channels, and at 11:30 am-5:00 pm on Saturdays there is nothing to watch, and that is just Saturday, most days there is a large portion of time where I have nothing to watch. Normally I just do something else, but when I eat lunch I wanna watch something interesting.
When I was a kid I only had 99 channels, but I would be damned if I couldn't watch something interesting at all times.[/rant]
This week I have a special guest. His name is Mr. Smilyrant
_/_/_/
It's that time of the week again: pigknight's rantin' time
Nowadays I have 9999 channels, and at 11:30 am-5:00 pm on Saturdays there is nothing to watch, and that is just Saturday, most days there is a large portion of time where I have nothing to watch. Normally I just do something else, but when I eat lunch I wanna watch something interesting.
When I was a kid I only had 99 channels, but I would be damned if I couldn't watch something interesting at all times.[/rant]
Yeah TV sucks.
Nowadays I have 9999 channels, and at 11:30 am-5:00 pm on Saturdays there is nothing to watch, and that is just Saturday, most days there is a large portion of time where I have nothing to watch. Normally I just do something else, but when I eat lunch I wanna watch something interesting.
When I was a kid I only had 99 channels, but I would be damned if I couldn't watch something interesting at all times.[/rant]
I think the sheer number of channels available is half the problem right there. The fact is when there were fewer channels available, the quality was forced to be higher as there were limited openings for shows, so only the premier shows were chosen from the vast majority. Now that there are so many channels available for new shows to apply to, and so many channels dedicated to only showing one genre of show, it tends to dilute the talent pool a bit so to speak. It's much easier to bring a new show to airtime than it used to be 20 years ago due to the more stations being available to air them.
There are some shows that are far above grade in terms of pure enjoyment, but the wide majority are unfortunately below average. Plus, with the amount of history that television has nowadays, it's also harder for shows to be completely original. There aren't too many episodes of shows where you can't find something similar that was produced previously.
But I know what you mean. Even watching a network dedicated to shows formats you enjoy, (Teletoon, Space Channel), it's sometimes hard to find a consistent stream of decent original programs.
Ah well...that's why I try to collect a large amount of DVD's I suppose. :D
I think I get more use out of my television through my PlayStation 2 than anything else. I mean I can only watch Law & Order so many times...
Back in the day, people paid attention to the detail necessary for entertainment of the animated genre. People were human and had noticeable features. Everything from Fred’s ascot to Cheetara’s tatas, they were drawn realistically with attention to detail.
Today, if you turn on a cartoon, you will see blocky hands, poorly drawn backgrounds, and laughable animation sequences for combat. The male characters are about as human as an inverted triangle. The female characters should be drawn complete with back braces and “wasping” girdles. The children all seem to be poster-children for some strange cross between an abortion clinic and a Ritalin commercial.
The humor is crude and tasteless, reinventing new ways to tell the fart joke or just portraying little children cursing in ways that would have left me with the aftertaste of Irish Spring for a week. The violence is graphic and very bloody (unlike G.I.Joe in which no normal Cobra soldier or Joe ever got shot). It has no moral setting to it and just seems random or, unfortunately, selfishly influenced.
What happened to the old Knights in Chining Armor-style cartoons? Yes, some of the 80s and early 90s cartons were cheesy, but that was part of their draw. Who can remember the animation evolution of the female form? Lisa Hayes from Robotech to Lady Jay from G.I.Joe, to Cheetara from Thundercats to Rogue from X-Men. After that, though, it seems that things went more Animaniacs and less realistic. Same thing wit hthe guys. Rick Hunter, Duke, Lion-O, Cyclops did the same thing, but then came Johnny Bravo and things went down hill from there.
I think one of the best television programs from the 80s (live action) was Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. Why? Because it had great graphics, cool battle scenes, and it spoke to kids as if they were adults. Well, it was too violent and was yanked off the air quicker than one of “dad’s magazines” was yanked off the table. Air Wolf, MacGuyver, and other similar shows were the same way.
Now, there are shows like The Shield… a dirty cop doing his dirty job. CSI… showing kids how to be better criminals. Reality TV… as if real life weren’t depressing enough, we get to hear a bunch of over-privileged whiners talking about how much their life sucks.
In all, television has taken a first class suite on the turd boat as it circles the drain. This coming from a child of the 80s as well as the 90s. Not to mention a survivor of both the animated and live-action Tick.
But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
What is the big problem with TV nowadays? I’ll put it in one word: Cartoons.
Interesting.
Back in the day, people paid attention to the detail necessary for entertainment of the animated genre. People were human and had noticeable features. Everything from Fred’s ascot to Cheetara’s tatas, they were drawn realistically with attention to detail.
What? The same could said about current day cartoons. More so. The animation in Scooby was pretty awful. Back int he dya it was impressive but it just does not cut it anymore.
Today, if you turn on a cartoon, you will see blocky hands, poorly drawn backgrounds, and laughable animation sequences for combat. The male characters are about as human as an inverted triangle. The female characters should be drawn complete with back braces and “wasping” girdles. The children all seem to be poster-children for some strange cross between an abortion clinic and a Ritalin commercial.
Again old shows had terrible action sequences. Sure plenty of chics in cartoons, read: everything, have big breasts. It doesn't detract from the personality.
The humor is crude and tasteless, reinventing new ways to tell the fart joke or just portraying little children cursing in ways that would have left me with the aftertaste of Irish Spring for a week. The violence is graphic and very bloody (unlike G.I.Joe in which no normal Cobra soldier or Joe ever got shot). It has no moral setting to it and just seems random or, unfortunately, selfishly influenced.
Tasteless != Not matching your taste. In addition morals in television shows are terrible. Morals should not be forced down the throuats of impressionable children. In addition anime != most animation in america. Most stuff in america is completely neutered in terms of swearing and violence. If youa re talking about Adult Swim stuff well what do you expect?
What happened to the old Knights in Chining Armor-style cartoons?
Kids grew up and realized it was silly?
Yes, some of the 80s and early 90s cartons were cheesy, but that was part of their draw.
To you.
Who can remember the animation evolution of the female form? Lisa Hayes from Robotech to Lady Jay from G.I.Joe, to Cheetara from Thundercats to Rogue from X-Men. After that, though, it seems that things went more Animaniacs and less realistic.
If bigger boobs bothers you then, well, I have little to say.
Same thing wit hthe guys. Rick Hunter, Duke, Lion-O, Cyclops did the same thing, but then came Johnny Bravo and things went down hill from there.
Eh. Johnny Bravo is old. You can hardly judge modern stuff with that.
I think one of the best television programs from the 80s (live action) was Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. Why? Because it had great graphics, cool battle scenes, and it spoke to kids as if they were adults.
NO. That was the most patronizing show I have ever watched. I watch it because of the corniness.
Well, it was too violent and was yanked off the air quicker than one of “dad’s magazines” was yanked off the table. Air Wolf, MacGuyver, and other similar shows were the same way.
Whatev.
Now, there are shows like The Shield… a dirty cop doing his dirty job. CSI… showing kids how to be better criminals. Reality TV… as if real life weren’t depressing enough, we get to hear a bunch of over-privileged whiners talking about how much their life sucks.
Not all shows are for kids. Don't be silly. None of those shows are aimed at children and I believe a few of them have disclaimers before they come on.
In all, television has taken a first class suite on the turd boat as it circles the drain. This coming from a child of the 80s as well as the 90s. Not to mention a survivor of both the animated and live-action Tick.
In my opinion old TV was absolutely awful.
But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Whatev.
Smurf's rock! I recently bought my niece's ALL 350+ episodes of the Smurfs and now they are addicted.
Today I was forced to sit through the abomination called Hannah Montana. Not only were the children spoiled, obnoxious, and inconsiderate, but the end story did nothing to point out how wrong these attributes were. THIS show is the most popular show for young girls?
He-man may have been corny and poorly scripted, but the message in each episode was clear to a young child and was positive overall.
Newer cartoon that I consider impressive is Avatar: The Last Airbender.
Tasteless != Not matching your taste.
Okay, you have a point. Tasteless is just a personal opinion. I am sure, though, that I am not along in my opinion.
In addition morals in television shows are terrible. Morals should not be forced down the throuats of impressionable children.
Actually, this is when children should be exposed to morals. They should not be exposed to shows where bratty pre-teens who show little or no respect to each other or their parents. They should not be exposed to shows where the slacker is glorified as the hero while skipping classes and ignoring authority figures, unless it is for a very good reason and even then the reason should be explained to said authority figures afterwards rather than just lipping off to them.
My goddaughter was born in 92. She was raised on my and her mothers VHS and DVD collections of 80s shows. She never liked any of the newer stuff when she was old enough to understand it. Like myself and many other children raised on the shows of those times, she is better for it. At the age of sixteen, she is going into her sophomore year of Harvard and has already forwarded her application to Harvard Medical. Her reason? She loved the show Doogie Hauser, M.D. and wants to be like that.
Before you say anything, though, she graduted from high school through a private school at 12 and spend three years being a "normal" girl with her friends while also attending a community college to get the GPA necessary to skip the ACT and SAT scores to apply to Harvard... by her own desire to do so. She is pulling a 4.3 gpa thanks to weighted classes in Harvard and still has time for friends she made there. Since graduation, her mother told her she can do anything she wants... and she believed it and is doing it.
In addition anime != most animation in america. Most stuff in america is completely neutered in terms of swearing and violence. If youa re talking about Adult Swim stuff well what do you expect?
Actually, anime is Japanese in origin... I'm still a fan of the Robotech/Macross series and my first anime was Star Blazers. As for adult swin being the only one, you forget Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy (more the crude and sexual humor than swearing). As for violence, pick one? Family Guy showed Stewie beating Brian multiple times for not paying back a twenty dollar loan. Simpsons shows Homer always choking Bart. South Park... KENNY, enough said.
Kids grew up and realized it was silly?
Knight in shining armor-style cartoons are silly, but they still had good morals and basis for character judgment. He-Man was silly, but it still imbued a moral with each episode.
If bigger boobs bothers you then, well, I have little to say.
Women are more than just their physical features. Yes, women have physical features, while I find some pleasing others may not. That is a personal choice. However, to focus strictly on those features, to the detriment of personality or even to make those features inhuman is insulting. By inhuman, I mean the "Jessica Rabbit" animation style with no waist and overly sized hips and bust. Women are more than their looks, they have personality, intelligence, and all the other things that make us all human.
My point was women were being animated, for the most part, as men with longer hair and different voices. Things changed up to X-Men where women had female figures and personalities. After that, though, things went down hill where female characters lost their personalities and their figures took over. This is just "sexifying" women; turning them into sexual objects to the viewers... both male and female. This is wrong.
NO. That was the most patronizing show I have ever watched. I watch it because of the corniness.
Could you please explain how Captain Power was a patronizing show? I watched it and liked it. Heck, I bought the DVD and still watch it. It was a good show that had action and serious plot points that showed honor over dishonor, right over wrong, and all the "silly" things from the 80s and early 90s television for children.
Whatev.
What language is this? I have never heard it before and am curious...
Not all shows are for kids. Don't be silly. None of those shows are aimed at children and I believe a few of them have disclaimers before they come on.
Parental Discretion Advised. Those are the words which are used. This is like PG-13. It means you should watch the show with your children and make sure the subject is appropriate for them. It is up to the discretion of the parents. However, how many parents use the television as a babysitter for children and are often not in the room while the child watches? How many children know how to use a remote?
I loved cartoons with morals as a kid.
Smurf's rock! I recently bought my niece's ALL 350+ episodes of the Smurfs and now they are addicted.
My goddaughter was the same way... she even wondered what was up with the Snorks, how they could rip off the Smurfs wit even some of the same dialect... and what the heck was up with Harpo Snork? :D
Today I was forced to sit through the abomination called Hannah Montana. Not only were the children spoiled, obnoxious, and inconsiderate, but the end story did nothing to point out how wrong these attributes were. THIS show is the most popular show for young girls?
Amen, Brother! This is my point exactly. And, have you ever seen that show Bratz? It is no wonder that the number of primadonnas in middle and high schools have increased. Not to mention the view of these children when it comes to authority figures...
The last time I was helping the recruiter at a local high school (I'm a Chaplain's Assistant and it was a Christian school), there was not one, not two, not three, but seven girls who openly disrespected me in front of others INCLUDING TEACHERS and just walked away when the teachers tried to discipline them. If this had happened back when I was young, the girls would have found themselves staying after school for at least one to two hours and in Saturday School (not the vacation that is suspension). But, I characters on television do the exact same thing, so I guess that makes it okay...
Amen, Brother! This is my point exactly. And, have you ever seen that show Bratz? It is no wonder that the number of primadonnas in middle and high schools have increased. Not to mention the view of these children when it comes to authority figures...
The last time I was helping the recruiter at a local high school (I'm a Chaplain's Assistant and it was a Christian school), there was not one, not two, not three, but seven girls who openly disrespected me in front of others INCLUDING TEACHERS and just walked away when the teachers tried to discipline them. If this had happened back when I was young, the girls would have found themselves staying after school for at least one to two hours and in Saturday School (not the vacation that is suspension). But, I characters on television do the exact same thing, so I guess that makes it okay...
Umm. Television programming is not responsible for the lack of respect today's children exhibit. Not in the least. It's parenting. Very few people do it. And, to some extent, we are not allowed to. You simply are not legally permitted to discipline children any longer. Time outs are what makes kids rebellious. Why? If the worst we can do to them is take away their iPod and make 'em sit in a corner, why the hell should they respect us? Their friends punish them in harsher ways than we do. Add in the fact that so many now want the government to make parenting decisions for them and we get even more hands-off in our parenting. The FCC is not a replacement for daddy/mommy saying "no, you can't watch that". But, it's far easier to cry to the FCC than it is to actually monitor and take responsibility for what our children watch, no? At any rate, the fact that plenty of people that grew up watching the wholesome programming of the '80s - be it Smurfs, GI Joe, Mr Belvedere, Doogie, etc - still disrespected their elders, became criminals, fell to drugs, killed themselves, etc and it becomes a pretty hollow argument. TV is no parent. And '80s TV is no exception.
Once we get past this passing the buck to TV BS and start to actually parent our children again - without the help of the government - I hazard to guess we'll see an improvement in the behavior of our children. If we continue to pass our failings onto media such as TV, film, video games, D&D (it's easy to forget that D&D was supposed to make us evil when it actually didn't, no? Same argument as the tired and inaccurate TV one we see here, btw), whateverthehellelseit'seasyandconvenienttoblameforourfailuresasparents, etc, we will never get the results we desire. It is our job to parent our children. In the end, if the child fails to learn respect or anything else, it's not Bratz and Hannah Montana at fault - it is the parent.
Okay, you have a point. Tasteless is just a personal opinion. I am sure, though, that I am not along in my opinion.
Yes. Thank you for being a rational person.
Actually, this is when children should be exposed to morals. They should not be exposed to shows where bratty pre-teens who show little or no respect to each other or their parents.
Why not? Its realistic. Sugar coating everything wont help. I know I don't get my morals from TV. I have parents and a mind for that. Not that I believe in morals anyway.
They should not be exposed to shows where the slacker is glorified as the hero while skipping classes and ignoring authority figures, unless it is for a very good reason and even then the reason should be explained to said authority figures afterwards rather than just lipping off to them.
Most of the time it is for saving the world but whatev.
My goddaughter was born in 92. She was raised on my and her mothers VHS and DVD collections of 80s shows. She never liked any of the newer stuff when she was old enough to understand it. Like myself and many other children raised on the shows of those times, she is better for it. At the age of sixteen, she is going into her sophomore year of Harvard and has already forwarded her application to Harvard Medical. Her reason? She loved the show Doogie Hauser, M.D. and wants to be like that.
Really? Good for her! Not everyone is the same though.
Before you say anything, though, she graduted from high school through a private school at 12 and spend three years being a "normal" girl with her friends while also attending a community college to get the GPA necessary to skip the ACT and SAT scores to apply to Harvard... by her own desire to do so. She is pulling a 4.3 gpa thanks to weighted classes in Harvard and still has time for friends she made there. Since graduation, her mother told her she can do anything she wants... and she believed it and is doing it.
Again Good for her.
Actually, anime is Japanese in origin...
? I know. That is what I meant . . . oh. I suppose I did word that poorly.
I'm still a fan of the Robotech/Macross series and my first anime was Star Blazers.
Heh. Pokemon was my first. Now that I i'm older I enjoy Death Note and Code Geass.
As for adult swin being the only one, you forget Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy (more the crude and sexual humor than swearing). As for violence, pick one? Family Guy showed Stewie beating Brian multiple times for not paying back a twenty dollar loan. Simpsons shows Homer always choking Bart. South Park... KENNY, enough said.
NOT FOR KIDS. Not all animation is for kids. Those are all either on adult swim or have disclaimers. Kids should not watch that **** unless they are ready for it.
Knight in shining armor-style cartoons are silly, but they still had good morals and basis for character judgment. He-Man was silly, but it still imbued a moral with each episode.
Which I don't like. I dislike morals altogether. I like good TV. Not TV that makes me good.
Women are more than just their physical features. Yes, women have physical features, while I find some pleasing others may not. That is a personal choice. However, to focus strictly on those features, to the detriment of personality or even to make those features inhuman is insulting. By inhuman, I mean the "Jessica Rabbit" animation style with no waist and overly sized hips and bust. Women are more than their looks, they have personality, intelligence, and all the other things that make us all human.
Then why are you focusing on their breasts? See. You are ignoring their personality because they have breasts. There are plenty of busty animated babes with deep personalities and stories. Just like muscle men and suave guys have.
My point was women were being animated, for the most part, as men with longer hair and different voices. Things changed up to X-Men where women had female figures and personalities. After that, though, things went down hill where female characters lost their personalities and their figures took over. This is just "sexifying" women; turning them into sexual objects to the viewers... both male and female. This is wrong.
Eh? I see as much personality in guys these days as in girls. How much that is is difficult to say but the fact that the have breasts shouldn't obscure that.
Could you please explain how Captain Power was a patronizing show? I watched it and liked it. Heck, I bought the DVD and still watch it. It was a good show that had action and serious plot points that showed honor over dishonor, right over wrong, and all the "silly" things from the 80s and early 90s television for children.
"The power is yours"? The entire show talked down to kids as if they were idiots.
What language is this? I have never heard it before and am curious...
Slang? Shorthand? English what with it's evolving nature?
Parental Discretion Advised. Those are the words which are used. This is like PG-13. It means you should watch the show with your children and make sure the subject is appropriate for them. It is up to the discretion of the parents. However, how many parents use the television as a babysitter for children and are often not in the room while the child watches?
That has nothing to do with TV and its quality. That is just bad parenting. Are you suggesting that they stop making suggestive shows altogether?
How many children know how to use a remote?
In America? Most.
Amen, Brother! This is my point exactly. And, have you ever seen that show Bratz? It is no wonder that the number of primadonnas in middle and high schools have increased.
Evidence?
Not to mention the view of these children when it comes to authority figures...
This could not possibly have anything to do with the authority figures themselves? I have problems with people who assume they have earned my respect because their mom got pregnant before mine.
Umm. Television programming is not responsible for the lack of respect today's children exhibit. Not in the least. It's parenting. Very few people do it. And, to some extent, we are not allowed to. You simply are not legally permitted to discipline children any longer. Time outs are what makes kids rebellious. Why? If the worst we can do to them is take away their iPod and make 'em sit in a corner, why the hell should they respect us? Their friends punish them in harsher ways than we do. Add in the fact that so many now want the government to make parenting decisions for them and we get even more hands-off in our parenting. The FCC is not a replacement for daddy/mommy saying "no, you can't watch that". But, it's far easier to cry to the FCC than it is to actually monitor and take responsibility for what our children watch, no? At any rate, the fact that plenty of people that grew up watching the wholesome programming of the '80s - be it Smurfs, GI Joe, Mr Belvedere, Doogie, etc - still disrespected their elders, became criminals, fell to drugs, killed themselves, etc and it becomes a pretty hollow argument. TV is no parent. And '80s TV is no exception.
Once we get past this passing the buck to TV BS and start to actually parent our children again - without the help of the government - I hazard to guess we'll see an improvement in the behavior of our children. If we continue to pass our failings onto media such as TV, film, video games, D&D (it's easy to forget that D&D was supposed to make us evil when it actually didn't, no? Same argument as the tired and inaccurate TV one we see here, btw), whateverthehellelseit'seasyandconvenienttoblameforourfailuresasparents, etc, we will never get the results we desire. It is our job to parent our children. In the end, if the child fails to learn respect or anything else, it's not Bratz and Hannah Montana at fault - it is the parent.
You make the rather frightening assumption that beaten kids make better adults. I disagree. Anything more than a spanking and you are a bad parent.
You make the rather frightening assumption that beaten kids make better adults. I disagree. Anything more than a spanking and you are a bad parent.
Wow. I re-read my post and found nothing of the sort. I don't even mention spanking, actually. Could you please point out where I make this assumption? Or maybe it's not me doing the assuming? ;)
Find it? Nope? Oh well, that's ok. Why? Because I happen to agree with you. Any more than spanking is going pretty well overboard. Though the occasional wooden spoon whuppin' or soap in the mouth never killed anyone, either. But even a spanking is too far for some today so it makes it difficult to even get that much done. Honestly, I also believe that kids today are too spoiled. Too many have - in their bedrooms - TVs, DVDs, Gamecube (or whatever), Nerf guns, stuffies, iPODs, radios, CDs, computers, etc, etc. So, we put them in time out or send them to their rooms where they have more stuff than we do. When I got sent to my room I had books or magazines. That's it. No kid needs all that crap. It gives them a feeling of entitlement which goes into the whole no respect issue. It also prevents the allowable types of punishment from being effective. No TV. Ok, I gots me a iPOD! We can't effectively punish them without moving them out of their rooms. It's pitiful, really. Oh well, just another issue that's not TV. Unless there's some program out there that's doing all this, too. ;)
Honestly, I also believe that kids today are too spoiled. Too many have - in their bedrooms - TVs, DVDs, Gamecube (or whatever), Nerf guns, stuffies, iPODs, radios, CDs, computers, etc, etc. So, we put them in time out or send them to their rooms where they have more stuff than we do.
There's a simple solution that solves most of these problems in one go:
Go all Amish on them.
First, take away portable items like their iPods & PSPs. Then find the fusebox, & if it's possible to do so without shutting off something important like the refrigerator, flip off the breaker that controls the power supply in their room. For added effect, if you can time it perfectly so that they're right before a save point in their favorite video game, all the better. :D
Television programming is not responsible for the lack of respect today's children exhibit.
It is not completely responsible, but it does have a share in the responsibility. The popular television are what most children associate with in the lives. If they are exposed to bratty pre-teens not showing respect, and get no adjustment from their parents, then they will assume that is the right way to act. It is not just television, but it does share in the responsibility.
Not in the least. It's parenting. Very few people do it. And, to some extent, we are not allowed to. You simply are not legally permitted to discipline children any longer.
My goddaughter turned out pretty well. I read the law very carefully and was given it in parenting classes when her mother was still pregnant. The way she was punished was exactly the way I was punished as a child....
"Removal of privileges, assignment of extra duty, remedial punishment, and explanation of behavioral change."
You can look it up, that is what the U.S. Military NCO handbook says about punishment of soldiers under your authority. My dad raised me by it (Commander in the Navy) and I raised my goddaughter by it. She lost the privileges she enjoyed (such as television, phone, radio, friends, etc.), she was assigned extra duties beyond her normal chores (such as dishes, lawn work, cleaning areas other than those she was responsible for, etc.), she had to perform physical actions as a punishment (such as push-ups, crunches, side-straddle hops, running, etc.), and she got a lecture while standing and maintaining eye contact (pointing out what she did wrong, what she could have done instead, and what would happen in the future should she do it again).
When she got old enough to know right from wrong (5 or 6, if I remember correctly), she had to choose her own punishments. She had to choose how long and what privileges she lost, she had to choose what the appropriate extra duties she was assigned and for how long, and she choose her own workout. If she didn't choose the right amount, trying to get off easy, then the amount of time she choose was multiplied by 5.
I never raised a hand to her except in martial arts practice (padded and supervised) and she turned out to be a great kid and in extremely good shape.
Why not? Its realistic. Sugar coating everything wont help. I know I don't get my morals from TV. I have parents and a mind for that. Not that I believe in morals anyway.
Morally ambiguous television will help to foster that attitude in impressionable minds. When you are older, you know right from wrong. When you are a child, you learn your moral compass from the experiences around you. If those experiences include television which show things that are morally ambiguous then it sticks with you.
Most of the time it is for saving the world but whatev.
Watch Japanime, they are still respectful to their elders and authority figures... even if they save the world. Otherwise, all you are doing is telling children it is okay to do what you want with no consequences.
Which I don't like. I dislike morals altogether. I like good TV. Not TV that makes me good.
That is your opinion. If you do not like morals, then do not watch shows that have them. However, what you like and dislike are not the point of this debate. The point is that morals on television, or the lack thereof, are responsible for a portion of the way children show respect and learn the difference between right and wrong.
Then why are you focusing on their breasts?
To illustrate a point, nothing more.
"The power is yours"? The entire show talked down to kids as if they were idiots.
How many five year olds are in ecological studies? How many eight year olds are botanists or environmentalists? That show was about environmental preservation. The snappy catch-phrase was made simply to allow it to sink into the minds of the children and watch it. It is no different than the older catch-phrase "Now I know, and knowing is half the battle."
The phrase was typically given after the bad guys were stopped and things were saved. This was the action element which associated the phrase with action and fun. It was then given in the end of the program after the moral message to further associate it with doing the right thing that is told in the message.
Other shows have done the same thing which was just as popular (my reference to G.I.Joe and Transformers above). He-Man, She-Ra, Thundercats, all of the old american-based television shows had these in them. Ask a child psychologist, they will say the same thing I did.
Slang? Shorthand? English what with it's evolving nature?
It's not English, it's American. Ask someone from England and they will probably tell you the same thing.
Evidence?
Sure, I posted a personal encounter which I had. Beyond that, try volunteering at a HS sporting event and listen to the way the girls talk to each other and to the teachers. Try asking teachers about the general attitude of their female students. Try asking a female university student what the girls in their high school were like to her when her grades were good enough to get into university.
This could not possibly have anything to do with the authority figures themselves? I have problems with people who assume they have earned my respect because their mom got pregnant before mine.
So, if you are a student and a teacher is talking to you, you ignore them? If a police officer is asking you questions, you lie to them about everything? If a soldier is speaking to a group of your peers, you insult them in front of those same peers?
An authority figure is not just someone who is older than you. A teacher has gone through at least 8 years of schooling to get to their position. They deserve respect as not everyone has what it takes to be an educator. A soldier or veteran has put their lives on the line to keep you and the rest of the nation safe, they deserve respect for their service.
Mind you, they deserve respect until they prove that the respect is no longer deserved. If a teacher is disrespectful to the students, then the loss of respect is deserved. If a soldier is "waving their medals around" and generally being an *ssh*l*, then the loss of respect is deserved.
That is another problem with today's youth, they believe that initial respect should be earned by everyone. If you begin by showing no respect, then you will most likely get the same in return, which will mean you will expect not to respect anyone.
Respect should be earned by deeds, but that does not mean that you must disrespect a person before they earn more of your respect.
...if you can time it perfectly so that they're right before a save point in their favorite video game, all the better. :D
Actually, one better. They know they will get their video game back. To really punish them, just erase the saved game. One of my friends messed up REALLY bad during his senior year in high school. Then he thought he could talk back to his father about having his World of Warcraft taken away. So, his father turned the game on, logged in, and erased all of his characters.
He shaped up.
Wow. I re-read my post and found nothing of the sort. I don't even mention spanking, actually. Could you please point out where I make this assumption? Or maybe it's not me doing the assuming? ;)
Find it? Nope? Oh well, that's ok. Why? Because I happen to agree with you. Any more than spanking is going pretty well overboard. Though the occasional wooden spoon whuppin' or soap in the mouth never killed anyone, either. But even a spanking is too far for some today so it makes it difficult to even get that much done. Honestly, I also believe that kids today are too spoiled. Too many have - in their bedrooms - TVs, DVDs, Gamecube (or whatever), Nerf guns, stuffies, iPODs, radios, CDs, computers, etc, etc. So, we put them in time out or send them to their rooms where they have more stuff than we do. When I got sent to my room I had books or magazines. That's it. No kid needs all that crap. It gives them a feeling of entitlement which goes into the whole no respect issue. It also prevents the allowable types of punishment from being effective. No TV. Ok, I gots me a iPOD! We can't effectively punish them without moving them out of their rooms. It's pitiful, really. Oh well, just another issue that's not TV. Unless there's some program out there that's doing all this, too. ;)
I am pretty sure it is legal to spank kids as long as you don't leave bruises. Also, spoiling = stupid. The concept of spoiling has manifested from the old people mentality that young people should not have more than they had. Silly and juvenile. This is not to say that children should get everything they want. No. It is to say that children are allowed to get what they want even if they don't NEED it. It should also be noted that you don't need books or sports either.
If you want to punish the kid with everything I think the answer is simple. Take away everything. I remember the one time I got really in trouble. Me and my step-bro were playing ball in the house. Of course we ended up breaking ancient Chinese dolls that were priceless and then, of course, lied about it. Got hundreds of dollars taken out of my allowance for repairs and got groudned for two weeks. Which really meant that I could not use any non-practical electricity for that time. My ipod, gameboy, nintendo, TV, computer and even cellphone were unusable. I learned. Haven't gotten in trouble since.
It is not completely responsible, but it does have a share in the responsibility. The popular television are what most children associate with in the lives. If they are exposed to bratty pre-teens not showing respect, and get no adjustment from their parents, then they will assume that is the right way to act. It is not just television, but it does share in the responsibility.
Which is why parents should do that.
*Snippet about Goddaughtr*
A bit strict for my tastes but sounds like good parenting to me. It has to do with the kid though. I wouldn't have been able to take that.
Morally ambiguous television will help to foster that attitude in impressionable minds. When you are older, you know right from wrong. When you are a child, you learn your moral compass from the experiences around you. If those experiences include television which show things that are morally ambiguous then it sticks with you.
Morally ambiguous != not fitting with your morals
Morally ambiguous != Amoral.
I like to be amoral and so I like my TV to match. Pandering to morals is to clost to pandering to religion for my taste. Teaching laws and scientific facts is better. In this regard Captain P is very good.
Watch Japanime, they are still respectful to their elders and authority figures... even if they save the world. Otherwise, all you are doing is telling children it is okay to do what you want with no consequences.
I agree. However I don't see that much disrespect in todays cartoons. Adult ones don't count.
That is your opinion. If you do not like morals, then do not watch shows that have them.
He says while asking to put morals in shows again. If you don't like shows without morals don't watch them.
However, what you like and dislike are not the point of this debate. The point is that morals on television, or the lack thereof, are responsible for a portion of the way children show respect and learn the difference between right and wrong.
Right and wrong are not set in stone. Moral relativism is a very useful view point for one to have.
How many five year olds are in ecological studies? How many eight year olds are botanists or environmentalists? That show was about environmental preservation. The snappy catch-phrase was made simply to allow it to sink into the minds of the children and watch it. It is no different than the older catch-phrase "Now I know, and knowing is half the battle."
Which is also patronizing. I think both are nice shows for kids but I would hardly call them quality television.
The phrase was typically given after the bad guys were stopped and things were saved. This was the action element which associated the phrase with action and fun. It was then given in the end of the program after the moral message to further associate it with doing the right thing that is told in the message.
Whatev.
Other shows have done the same thing which was just as popular (my reference to G.I.Joe and Transformers above). He-Man, She-Ra, Thundercats, all of the old american-based television shows had these in them. Ask a child psychologist, they will say the same thing I did.
Does not mean they aren't patronizing.
It's not English, it's American. Ask someone from England and they will probably tell you the same thing.
English is the bastard child of so many languages it isn't even funny. It('s speakers) is/are simply not allowed to complain about being altered.
Sure, I posted a personal encounter which I had. Beyond that, try volunteering at a HS sporting event and listen to the way the girls talk to each other and to the teachers. Try asking teachers about the general attitude of their female students. Try asking a female university student what the girls in their high school were like to her when her grades were good enough to get into university.
Teenagers have a dismal, and fairly accurate apparantly, of what adults think of them. Little point in showing respect when they are clearly already perceived as disrespectful.
So, if you are a student and a teacher is talking to you, you ignore them? If a police officer is asking you questions, you lie to them about everything? If a soldier is speaking to a group of your peers, you insult them in front of those same peers?
None of those are questions of respect. Al are of practicality. I need to know what she is talking about. Or alternatively I just don't care. The second is of practicality as well. I don't want to get arrested. The third less so. But still I feel no need to insult that man as he has done nothing to me, I assume.
An authority figure is not just someone who is older than you. A teacher has gone through at least 8 years of schooling to get to their position. They deserve respect as not everyone has what it takes to be an educator. A soldier or veteran has put their lives on the line to keep you and the rest of the nation safe, they deserve respect for their service.
Not to me. I give people respect when they have earned it in my eyes. Usually the first impression weighs the most. If someone isn't nice their accomplisments mean jack.
Mind you, they deserve respect until they prove that the respect is no longer deserved. If a teacher is disrespectful to the students, then the loss of respect is deserved. If a soldier is "waving their medals around" and generally being an *ssh*l*, then the loss of respect is deserved.
Yes.
That is another problem with today's youth, they believe that initial respect should be earned by everyone. If you begin by showing no respect, then you will most likely get the same in return, which will mean you will expect not to respect anyone.
Only if the first impression doesn't matter. How they shake my hand, how they are dressed, what I know of them It all matters.
Respect should be earned by deeds, but that does not mean that you must disrespect a person before they earn more of your respect.
Deeds yes. Past deeds? Not in my opinion. I do not respect people for things that have little to do with me.
Actually, one better. They know they will get their video game back. To really punish them, just erase the saved game. One of my friends messed up REALLY bad during his senior year in high school. Then he thought he could talk back to his father about having his World of Warcraft taken away. So, his father turned the game on, logged in, and erased all of his characters.
He shaped up.
Heh. Make sure you know your kid. I would have burnt any trophy or prized possession of yours in return. Do not mess with memories and work. In fact teaching a kid to work harder by erasing past work is slightly counter-intuitive.
It is not completely responsible, but it does have a share in the responsibility. The popular television are what most children associate with in the lives. If they are exposed to bratty pre-teens not showing respect, and get no adjustment from their parents, then they will assume that is the right way to act. It is not just television, but it does share in the responsibility.
I really have a hard time assigning even partial blame to television and do find it a cop out for failures of parenting. Kids have misbehaved since there were kids. Plenty of awful adults watched "good" TV when they were children. It really doesn't deserve any share in responsibility at all, IMO. Not to mention the D&D example I used before (and one everyone seems to forget). D&D was supposed to be evil, no? And lead to all sorts of character faults. Has it? Why is there a separation between D&D and TV? Unless you believe that D&D - a game that encourages problem resolution through extreme violence - also teaches children to behave poorly, I find it hard to believe that you can assign blame to TV or video games or anything else. Kids get bratty because they are allowed by their parents to be so. That's why there are kids that listen to adults and respect them (your goddaughter) and there are others that do not. Oh well, it's still only my opinion. One gained through my experiences, but still only an opinion.
I am pretty sure it is legal to spank kids as long as you don't leave bruises.
It is, of course. The issue is that you can find yourself in a whole lot of trouble if you do spank kids. See, it's easy for me to say what level of spanking is appropriate. You, however, may have a completely different opinion on the matter. People do get reported nowadays for spanking their kids. I remember when I was a kid (everyone else is using personal experience, what? ;)) and I misbehaved in K-Mart or wherever. My mom or dad would spank me right then and there. In our current time, I cannot honestly recall the last time I saw a kid get spanked in public. Hell, on a trip to Amish country a couple years ago, my fiancee's son was acting up in the restarant we chose to get lunch at. She wanted to spank him at the table and did not. She took him into the restroom. I asked her why. Her response? So that no one would mistake her as being abusive and call the cops or report her to children's services. Well, that was a long way to go to simply say that it may be legal but it's dangerous, huh? Oh well.
I also want to add that I would never spank her son. If the child is not related by blood you do not have any right to lay hands on them, IMO. Hmm. I should amend that a bit. If the child is not your own you have no right to lay hands on him, IMO.