You know, I do appreciate the link – good intel, as they say. I have read analysis that says the opposite, (no, I don’t have it in front of me right now.) But I’ll consider whether I’m one of those who have a skewed perception of the actual trends, based on hyper-media reports or otherwise. A few comments, though:

I note immediately a few difficulties with the report you’ve linked to: First, the noted tendency, (in _many_ categories of national reporting – not just this one,) for individual statistics to be under-reported at the Federal level.

2) Trouble with graph headings: The very first graph: “Serious Violent Crime Rate…” Some interesting qualifiers there, and I think legitimate questions could be raised about what makes it to this list and what gets left off – and does that definition change with time? Has it crept from decade to decade? This problematic wording repeats itself a few time down the report.

In fact, the first graph further limits its data collection with a qualifier at the bottom: “Rates Per 1000 Students Age 12-18.” Why that age range? Do some Seniors not make it into these statistics?

3) A pretty easy brush-off of ‘copycat shootings’ as something that messes up a nice clean slope on the second graph. A question that I think is germane to the topic – are the ‘first’ shootings at all a ‘copycat’ shooting of sorts – of violent movies?

4) The usual questions with the x-axis: For example, the first graph runs from 92′ -2007′ (and only highlights the decrease from 94′ onward.) The second graph goes to 2009. Then the third graph only goes to 2007 again. Look at that second graph and see if you can figure out why someone might want to include those extra two years. Another graph halfway down the page inexplicably only cites data from 2003-2004, freely noting, (in this 2009 report,) that this is the most up-to-date data, and that the study is itself two years old (2007)! I think this graph should never have made it into the report at all, and it would be instructive to plot all graphs in a report such as this for the same x-axis range.

5) The usual questions with the y-axis: Let’s just take the very first graph here. To me, it looks about flat from 2000 onward. How about we just plot total number of students per year.

I’ll just share one more thought on this rather lengthy post: Though we can have some questions about rates of incidence, it seems to me that the intensity of the ‘peak’ crimes has continued to rise over time. In other words, when there’s a major event, it’s getting more and more horrific. Have you noticed that a kid with a knife doesn’t always make the national news anymore? So have the youth. I don’t know if you remember exactly what it was like in 1999 with the Columbine shooting – but to me it was a jump to a whole other level of tragedy – and I think it was for the entire country as well. Have you noticed that it – along with 911 – has ushered in a whole new age of reporting, where such an event that once merited months of reporting and analysis now only merits weeks?

By the way, here’s a link you may find interesting:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx

“Not because I think they are doing something bad that harms society. Because they aren’t pursuing uplifting or enhancing things.”

So then your position is that you object to brutal violence and rape in movies and video games, purely based on the fact that the movie-goer is being unproductive to society, *not at all based on content* ? Then indeed wouldn’t this apply to *all* movies watched for entertainment?

Please understand the point I’m making – I’m pointing out that since you’ve reduced your objection to exclude a judgement on the *content*, you’re going to have to start being critical of any human activity that doesn’t meet your – or someone else’s – definition of pursuing uplifting or enhancing things.

And the question arises, why do you feel contempt?

Not because I think they are doing something bad that harms society. Because they aren’t pursuing uplifting or enhancing things.

I can understand the motivation; youngsters often try to ‘show off’ their traits, such as resilience to disturbing stimuli, as a component of socializing (try reading this book for a full argument). I just think there are better ways to ‘show off’ such traits.

First of all, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. By what metric?

Wait, have you seriously been to a bear-baiting recently? Or helped your kid torch a cat? Can you even find reports of such things that aren’t in the single digits per year?

Heck, these days movies are compelled by public insistence to seek third-party auditing to ensure that “no animals were harmed during the filming”.

Simulated cruelty certainly exists. Actual cruelty is pretty much universally deplored.

Are you saying that since Vick, dogfighting is a dead industry?

No, but it’s evidence that it is widely regarded as ‘beyond the pale’, and people exposed as engaging in it draw (IMHO, merited) opprobrium.

So now we have Saw. And its sequels. And Dead Island, and videos posted to the web of gangs beating up random strangers.

One of these things is not like the other. In nature, and in prevalence, and in popularity. Can you identify the one I’m talking about?

Then there’s increasing violence in the public school systems

Wait. Increasing? Where are you getting your numbers from?

You’ve trusted his research, and accepted the conclusion of his paper. Ferguson’s conclusions are right, because Furguson conclusions are right?

I don’t accept it as proof, I accept it as evidence. His methodology, from what I can see, is sound. I’m looking forward to more studies to either replicate or disconfirm the result. If you’re so sure he’s wrong, perhaps you could help put together some grant money…

I wasn’t as clear as I could be: No, Ferguson doesn’t say only the mentally troubled go to these movies. He thinks only the mentally troubled are affected, and because they were affected before they even walked in. You quoted and favored that idea in your first post.

“I can feel pity and compassion for the small fraction of ‘mentally troubled’ people who watch such movies, while feeling contempt for those who go to them for a cheap thrill.”

The question arises, how do you know which is which? Nonetheless, that’s what we’re talking about – the population that goes to them for a ‘cheap thrill’ (though that phrase is too benign I think for what we’re talking about.) You cited Ferguson. Ferguson thinks that population that goes to the theater for a cheap thrill is nothing to worry about because he thinks that they exit the theater unaffected.

And the question arises, why do you feel contempt? What do you care, if these movie-goers will have no effect on society. What do you care what they enjoy or don’t enjoy; who are you to impose your values on them and call their values wrong, and ‘judge them’ and so forth. You’re sensing an absolute morality there; something which is disordered and wrong, detrimental to the human person, *below* the dignity of a human being, regardless of whether a person *thinks* it’s wrong or not.

“Contra Bertonneau, BTW, the popularity of actual cruelty in entertainment has decreased sharply.”

Where are you drawing this conclusion from? You’ve listed a few pastimes that are ‘on the wane’, as you say. First of all, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. By what metric? Are you saying that since Vick, dogfighting is a dead industry? Because…the membership of Dogfighters Association of America has gone down?

“Once we had bear-baiting, and kids setting cats on fire for fun. Nowadays even bullfighting in Spain is on the wane.”

And we got used to it. Televised it. So now we have Saw. And its sequels. And Dead Island, and videos posted to the web of gangs beating up random strangers. How are you coming to the conclusion that ‘actual cruelty’ has decreased?

“Except that no research has turned up evidence that’s happening – and some research indicates that doesn’t happen, and only certain personality types react pathologically to such things.”

Except for the evidence of what’s selling. Then there’s increasing violence in the public school systems, and what passes for civil interaction and discourse amongst our government. Which research are you accepting, and which are you dismissing? In any case, yes, I heard you – Ferguson already claimed that last part and you already quoted him. You’ve trusted his research, and accepted the conclusion of his paper. Ferguson’s conclusions are right, because Furguson conclusions are right?

As an aside, it’s pleasure to find areas of agreement with a atheist – particularly in the area of raising children.

I think you’ll find I’m quite unremarkable as an atheist.

Mr. Ferguson, in the article you cited, thinks that the number of people who fall into this movie-going category is relatively few, and that they were basically the same troubled individuals walking in as they are walking out.

Um… which article I cited? I can’t find that. If Ferguson does say that, then I disagree. I don’t think only the “mentally troubled” go to such movies. And therefore…

If we just thought they were mentally troubled, then we shouldn’t be feeling ‘no respect’, but rather pity and compassion – right?

…this is a non-starter. I can feel pity and compassion for the small fraction of ‘mentally troubled’ people who watch such movies, while feeling contempt for those who go to them for a cheap thrill.

Contra Bertonneau, BTW, the popularity of actual cruelty in entertainment has decreased sharply. Once we had bear-baiting, and kids setting cats on fire for fun. Nowadays even bullfighting in Spain is on the wane. Even celebrity is no protection from public outrage when they organize vicious entertainment like dog fights.

We can’t be *only* concerned that a masochistic movie might be watched by a mentally troubled adolescent; rather we should be concerned that we are creating one.

Except that no research has turned up evidence that’s happening – and some research indicates that doesn’t happen, and only certain personality types react pathologically to such things.

“Is the objection to violence or to the media used?”

No, neither. The objection is to the type and intent of violence – particularly its entertainment intent with little or no apparent regard for its effects – and the conversation concerns the reasons for its escalation.

“Of course maybe I am taking this to literally. It could be referring to video games I never even WANTED to play.”

I don’t know without a list, but my guess from your post is that we’re likely talking about the games you never wanted to play.

I’ve played video games before, and watched movies about war before. They aren’t all bad. But we all have to seriously ask the question of ourselves whether we are enjoying the shooting and simulated killing too much – not really thinking about what it represents – and we must be aware that with each gruesome scene, the next one often becomes just a little easier to watch.

You know I hear a lot of people talking about video games that simulate war, and defending them by saying that they represent a real event in human history and therefore are an homage to that event, show some respect for history, there’s war in the Bible, etc. But I’ve never once seen a person finish up their gaming session, put down the controller, and go off by themselves to contemplate the seriousness of war and the meaning of human suffering, go research their family tree, pen a letter to a relative who served in a war, or express remorse for the reality of conflict.

And judging by the nature of the commercials, that’s not what the makers of those games are aiming for, either – rather, get hooked and buy the next one.

As an aside, it’s pleasure to find areas of agreement with a atheist – particularly in the area of raising children. There’s hope for our society yet.

“I even disapprove of movies like the “Saw” series, and don’t watch them. Just hearing about “The Human Centipede” told me I had no interest in seeing it, and no respect for someone who would.”

That ‘no respect’, that disgust or revulsion, I think supports Bertonneau’s view that, in Mr. Cantirino’s words, “pins the blame for the outburst of simulated violence not on one recent traumatic event or series of events but instead on a more general breakdown of cultural inhibitions.”

Mr. Ferguson, in the article you cited, thinks that the number of people who fall into this movie-going category is relatively few, and that they were basically the same troubled individuals walking in as they are walking out. But this seems to be in conflict with your above statement; hence my questioning of your endorsement. If we just thought they were mentally troubled, then we shouldn’t be feeling ‘no respect’, but rather pity and compassion – right?

But we detect that there’s something *wrong* or *disordered* with the whole human person who gravitates towards that type of ‘entertainment’ – not just that they’re a victim of a disease or genetic condition and there’s nothing they can do about it, or even that they’re just ‘weird’ and ‘well, I wouldn’t watch that, but whatever floats their boat is okay with me.’ We sense that there is actually a decision before them which they are in control of, a clear decision that they *should* make, (to forgo such a movie,) as a mature, adult, responsible person, and that they instead have made a reprehensible choice to indulge in it – and, most troubling, in many cases purely out of a desire to be revulsed. That *desire to be revulsed* is in my opinion precisely a big red flashing warning sign of what Bertonneau is concerned about.

And unfortunately the pattern is cyclic. We can’t be *only* concerned that a masochistic movie might be watched by a mentally troubled adolescent; rather we should be concerned that we are creating one. Kids – and adults – with “pre-existing personality or mental health problems” are not the only ones who walk out of the theater changed.

Is the objection to violence or to the media used? Because logically we should also forbid Homer, Shakespeare, Victorian novels, and even Chronicles of Narnia.

Of course maybe I am taking this to literally. It could be referring to video games I never even WANTED to play.

“I’m not fine with a minor watching brutal murders, period. My kids don’t get to watch that stuff. Who’s getting murdered doesn’t enter into it. So that’s one reason I’m not happy about it. (Even without ‘child zombies’, my kids won’t be playing “Dead Island”. Nor will I, frankly.)”

Hear hear. Agreed.

From the original post: I presented two scenarios – not positions – and asked what is YOUR position?

All right, then. The scenarios you posit aren’t related to the topic under discussion, so my positions on them aren’t relevant.

This same person in one case brutally murders your adult son, and in the second case watches a movie where your adult son is brutally murdered.

Let’s note something here. This individual watching the movie is being evaluated by a “guidance counselor” – your words. I have to assume they are in middle school or high school, right? Hence, a minor. That’s a relevant fact.

Are you completely fine with the second case? Why not.

I’m not fine with a minor watching brutal murders, period. My kids don’t get to watch that stuff. Who’s getting murdered doesn’t enter into it. So that’s one reason I’m not happy about it. (Even without ‘child zombies’, my kids won’t be playing “Dead Island”. Nor will I, frankly.)

I even disapprove of movies like the “Saw” series, and don’t watch them. Just hearing about “The Human Centipede” told me I had no interest in seeing it, and no respect for someone who would. That doesn’t mean I think the movies would lead to actual, real-life murders to any significant extent.

Next, we have some followup questions. Who made the hypothetical movie? How upset with them should I be? Was my son paid to act in it, or was it done using special effects, without his consent?