Children and Violence
How far does violence extend, how do we determine exactly who is responsible for the violence that children are seeing on television and in music. What about video games, who is taking the responsibility for the violence and awful things that, are occurring right before the eyes of the youth today. Many politicians are looking to eagerly blame the media and entertainment industry. Is that the correct place to lay the blame? Perhaps parents are the people ultimately to blame.
More parents today than ever before are working longer hours just to stay afloat financially. This alone results in phenomenal numbers of children being left with a television as the babysitter in charge of teaching right from wrong. How does a child learn the difference between right and wrong, when their parents are nowhere to be found? Where does the parents' responsibility to parent a child and the governments' right to parent a child merge?
Does the government even have a right to parent children? Should the government be allowed to determine what is appropriate for all children to watch, or should that be ultimately left up to the parents to decide on their own? There have been television shows, movies, musical artists, and even books banned because the government does not approve.
Where is the line drawn in who controls what the children are watching? Is it really up to the parents, or is it left to the children to decide on their own? When did parents lose the ability to control what their child watches, and when did the parent become subject to the child's own opinion? While some advances in technology have been wonderful, there is also much effort by the government to control what a parent does with their own child, and it is this more than anything that has caused controversy on a civil liberties basis.
There have been several inventions and developments that are able to help parents monitor their children; from the v-chip to programs that log instant messenger programs.
These developments are great for the parents looking to monitor their child themselves, but what about the music industry. Most parents are constantly told that the violence their child is exposed to is the fault of the music industry. The blame is placed on the singers and producers for releasing the music.
Much blame is placed everywhere but the parents for taking responsibility for their own children and determining what is best for them. With politicians attempting to punish some area of the entertainment industry each time a national tragedy occurs, it puts a major crimp on the ability of parents to decide for themselves what is acceptable for their child and what is not. Many are left to allow their child to choose from the options that are left, once the government has omitted the choices that are bad.
Is this censorship, or helping raise children? Many seem to think it leans heavily towards censorship, a place the governments should not be treading. Many others tend to feel that it should be a high priority of the government to protect everyone from something that can potentially be bad, without even giving people the option to make their own decisions.
The issue as to what extent the government should intervene with the way in which we live our lives is hotly contested, and it works in a much larger circle than just the control of our children. Should the government take a step back, and allow society to use its freedoms and powers for self regulation, or is there a need for intervention to ensure the greater good and justice for the welfare of society as a whole? For the time being, it seems as though the most pragmatic approach relates somewhere in the middle, although it will be interesting to see developments in this area over the coming years.
How far does violence extend, how do we determine exactly who is responsible for the violence that children are seeing on television and in music. What about video games, who is taking the responsibility for the violence and awful things that, are occurring right before the eyes of the youth today. Many politicians are looking to eagerly blame the media and entertainment industry. Is that the correct place to lay the blame? Perhaps parents are the people ultimately to blame.
More parents today than ever before are working longer hours just to stay afloat financially. This alone results in phenomenal numbers of children being left with a television as the babysitter in charge of teaching right from wrong. How does a child learn the difference between right and wrong, when their parents are nowhere to be found? Where does the parents' responsibility to parent a child and the governments' right to parent a child merge?
Does the government even have a right to parent children? Should the government be allowed to determine what is appropriate for all children to watch, or should that be ultimately left up to the parents to decide on their own? There have been television shows, movies, musical artists, and even books banned because the government does not approve.
Where is the line drawn in who controls what the children are watching? Is it really up to the parents, or is it left to the children to decide on their own? When did parents lose the ability to control what their child watches, and when did the parent become subject to the child's own opinion? While some advances in technology have been wonderful, there is also much effort by the government to control what a parent does with their own child, and it is this more than anything that has caused controversy on a civil liberties basis.
There have been several inventions and developments that are able to help parents monitor their children; from the v-chip to programs that log instant messenger programs.
These developments are great for the parents looking to monitor their child themselves, but what about the music industry. Most parents are constantly told that the violence their child is exposed to is the fault of the music industry. The blame is placed on the singers and producers for releasing the music.
Much blame is placed everywhere but the parents for taking responsibility for their own children and determining what is best for them. With politicians attempting to punish some area of the entertainment industry each time a national tragedy occurs, it puts a major crimp on the ability of parents to decide for themselves what is acceptable for their child and what is not. Many are left to allow their child to choose from the options that are left, once the government has omitted the choices that are bad.
Is this censorship, or helping raise children? Many seem to think it leans heavily towards censorship, a place the governments should not be treading. Many others tend to feel that it should be a high priority of the government to protect everyone from something that can potentially be bad, without even giving people the option to make their own decisions.
The issue as to what extent the government should intervene with the way in which we live our lives is hotly contested, and it works in a much larger circle than just the control of our children. Should the government take a step back, and allow society to use its freedoms and powers for self regulation, or is there a need for intervention to ensure the greater good and justice for the welfare of society as a whole? For the time being, it seems as though the most pragmatic approach relates somewhere in the middle, although it will be interesting to see developments in this area over the coming years.
Conservative vs. Liberal
Many people do not really understand the difference between a conservative and a liberal. How do you really know which side of the spectrum you fall on? In this article, we are going to explain some of the differences, so that as political figures are discussing conservative and liberal ideals you know exactly what is going on.
The first side of the issue is the conservative side. The conservatives tends to want to preserve things they way they are, for example they dislike change, and do not want things to change in the way the country is run, how people come into power, and how civil rights are handed out. Conservatives appreciate in real terms the importance of building and maintaining the economy to the benefit of society as a whole. Many conservatives are also considered to appreciate having an exclusive inner circle that controls the entire country, although in mainstream politics this is rarely a salient feature.
Many conservatives also live by the ideals that institutions that have been successful rather than dwelling on mistakes. This has the effect of working towards improvement in efficiency, which is another key factor of Conservative thought. Many conservatives do not think technology is our friend; they feel that technology should not be a part of government standards and ideas based on the inefficiency it brings. Many conservatives are also very cautious people, which is reflected in the opinions and decisions of their politics.
Liberals on the other hand are very much different. Most liberals are very open to change, almost to a fault; they do not mind the ideas of change as long as it is for a perceived good cause, even where there is no practical utilitarian upshot. Liberals tend to be willing to take more risks than most conservatives are in the whimsical pursuit of change. Most liberals are also very tolerant of behavior different from their own, as well as they are willing to open their minds to new ideas and concepts easier than the conservative counterparts. Liberals also like to push for change without necessarily having a justification for their actions.
Liberals tend to be very progressively thinking people, whom are quite open to the new ideas of technology in terms of normal daily life, as well as in the role of assisting the government in managing the country to the best of our ability. However, their emphasis on extreme individual freedom means a more distant form of governance that leaves society to regulate itself without much intervention. This has led to numerous political and social problems for liberal governments across the world.
While there are some major differences in the two sides, there are also many people who fall somewhere in the middle. Many people are able to pull their comfort zone from taking pieces of each side. While some people are hesitant of change, they are able to accept change in order to make things better for everyone. For example, women's rights were the result of change. Many conservatives were against the ideals of women being allowed to vote. On the flip side, some liberals are in favor of the legalization of drugs, and are wholeheartedly against government regulation in the way we live our lives.
While there are many differences in the ideals of the two groups, there is also a bond that forges from each side being determined to make life the best possible for the people in the areas with which they are concerned. Neither side sets out to hurt the other side, nor the people they are responsible for helping. There are times when the goals of both sides do come together nicely and result in wonderful progress for our cities, nation, and country as a whole. Looking to the future, we can expect both sides to continue to change and progress as things change and the future becomes reality.
Related Post
No comments:
Post a Comment
please comment and share