A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
And until we see the Principle of Double Effect applied – all 5 points – including remote and proximal objects – discretion is a relative term.
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
This is not about posters. This is about cognitive distortions and boundaries. The family doctor can help you from here.
K
KarenNC
Guest
And everyone had a choice about whether they did so or not. “Everyone” watches TV today, too. That doesn’t absolve me of my responsibility to be aware of what is presented to my children and choose what to view with discretion, nor does it give license to show anything on any channel at any time without discretion or warning.
If such images were shown before specific children’s programming at which children under the age of 7 were likely to be, then they showed poor judgement in my opinion, and their poor judgement or actions based on lack of information about effects is not a justification to continue such today. There are a very, very great many things that were commonly done in the 1940s and 50s that we realize are not appropriate.
“Everyone” smoked everywhere in the 1950s.
Therefore, exposure to smoke and smoking is good for young children.
No cars had three point seatbelts in the 1950s.
Therefore there is no benefit to using three point seatbelts in cars today.
That sort of argument doesn’t hold up.
K
KarenNC
Guest
It’s been applied, by me, several times. If you disagree with the information I have been able to find on proximal and remote objects, then supply me with a link to something that explains them to your satisfaction. Just as stating the words “affective strategy” over and over conveyed no new information, simply repeating the words “proximal and remote objects” adds nothing to the conversation.
As I recall, when you first posted this, the formulation you prefer required that all of the 5 points had to be met for an action to be licit. I have shown you on which point I believe that the action of knowingly showing graphic images of mutilated babies in venues where it can be reasonably foreseen that children ages 2-7 will have access to them fails that test. It fails because it has not been shown that there is no other option available to achieve the same result. To deliberately choose an action which is known to be detrimental to young children over other options available in the absence of evidence showing those other options do not work to achieve the end of reducing abortions makes the exposure to children no longer an unintended consequence of choosing that particular strategy.
Now if, as it appears, the source you are using for the principle of double effect differs substantially from the one I have been able to find in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which in turn pulls from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, please link your source for your preferred formulation. If you provided such a link in your original post, then please give us the post number (as I have done in answer to your accusations that no one has addressed this issue) and I will go back to it and look again.
B
boppaid
Guest
Honestly, we talk all the time on this board about people looking to ‘get off on technicalities’. i.e., fasting 1 hour before comminion “if I need gum because of a medical reason like my mouth drying up, is it a sin?” Or “how much of mass can I miss by being late with it still counting?”
Yet, your post above uses the same “technicality logic”.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Sorry, but children just aren’t sooo sensitive to violence that they would be traumatized by seeing a realistic corpus upon a crucifix or a picture of an aborted baby.
Children are exposed to seeing trauma all the time. Ever driven down the street and seen a dead squirrel that had been run over? Or see a dead bird? Or a dead mouse? Or a dead goldfish? Do young children step on ants or caterpillars and squish them, and don’t know they just killed some living thing?
Of course children see these “violent” things… all the time. We can’t cover their eyes when we drive or take them for walks or let them play outside.
We can’t sequester every newspaper or magazine or every television news program promo.
Kids see those things all the time and they are not traumatized … unless their parents overreact and the children learn to overreact by observing their parents overreact.
Children are exposed to seeing trauma all the time. Ever driven down the street and seen a dead squirrel that had been run over? Or see a dead bird? Or a dead mouse? Or a dead goldfish? Do young children step on ants or caterpillars and squish them, and don’t know they just killed some living thing?
Of course children see these “violent” things… all the time. We can’t cover their eyes when we drive or take them for walks or let them play outside.
We can’t sequester every newspaper or magazine or every television news program promo.
Kids see those things all the time and they are not traumatized … unless their parents overreact and the children learn to overreact by observing their parents overreact.
S
seekerz
Guest
Even if for argument’s sake I agree that all you say is true, you still don’t have the right to tell people what they should be offended by or what their children should be exposed to.
The reason God gave children to parents is so that they be the ones responsible for raising them. You can argue forever that it’s okay to expose kids to graphic images, but you do not have the right to make that decision for me or my children - ever!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, that’s not true – there was nothing on the marque about Movietone News. You went in without knowing what you would see on the newsreel.
I note this is the first time you have said you have a responsibility.
Your opinion – not fact, just opinion.
Actually, their judgement was very good – the effect was beneficial in many ways.
And your analogies are all bogus.
Finish the assignment I gave you and we will go on with lessons on how to select valid reasearch and how to apply it.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Your OPINION. Your UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion.
PDE is not a technicality for getting someone off.
PDE is a tool for weighing two practices both of which cause some degree of harm. PDE is a tool for choosing which of two practices is the morally licit one.
If you had clicked the link I provided (twice) and gone to the website to which I referred (twice) and read the material there (once) you wouldn’t have to endure the embarrassment of posting a completely off-the-mark comment.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Then I believe it’s an improvement that we now have a standard that requires full disclosure.
If I did not think that I had a responsibility both to my child and other children to do my best to advocate for their appropriate protection, what the heck do you think I have been doing on this thread for the last 37 pages?
The only thing that anyone has ever asked is that you and others like you allow parents the opportunity to exercise their responsibility to protect their children as they deem best by exercising reasonable care that these images are not easily accessible to small children without their parents’ consent as you pursue your goal.
That might be why I chose the words “in my opinion” rather than misrepresenting an opinion as a hard, evidence-supported fact.
In your opinion. The evidence you have offered for the beneficial effects of these on young children is that you saw these at age 3 1/2 and you believe they did you good by keeping you from desiring to follow a dictator, IIRC.
This does not take into account any subsequent information that you received or experiences you have had that might have also helped form your judgement on such regimes. It does not take into account any data on numbers of children in the 2-7 age range who actually saw these images (it is entirely possible that your parents were unusual in taking a 3 1/2 year old to the movies–without data, one does not know). It doesn’t show any correlation, much less causation, between seeing these images at that age and the formation of the desired opinion among those who saw these images at 2-7 years old vs. the formation of the desired opinion among those who received the same information in other ways or at other ages.
That is equivalent to
I rode in the open back of a station wagon when I was 5 and it was good because I got to stretch out, play and have fun.
Therefore, it is beneficial for children to ride without safety seats, regardless of any evidence that has been gathered in the meantime showing that the use of safety seats improves the odds of a child surviving a crash.
These were neither analogies nor research. They were examples of fallacies in constructing a logical argument similar to the one you made. You might find studying the following beneficial:
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
logicalfallacies.info/
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
look particularly at “irrelevant appeals”
logicalfallacies.info/irrelevantappeals.html
Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant appeal, many different ways of influencing what people think without using evidence. Each is a different type of fallacy of relevance.
And more specifically:
“appeals to antiquity”—that simply because something is old or has been done that way it must be right.
logicalfallacies.info/appealtoantiquity.html
Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, we don’t. We have a sort of rough-and-ready rating on feature films – nothing approaching “full disclosure” if that has any meaning in this context – but not on ancillery films.
You have not been using the word “responsibility” – or if you have, I haven’t seen it.
No, you’ve gone far beyond that and attacked the people who use the images.
And your opinion, being unsupported by evidence, is worth as much as anyone else’s unsupported opinion.
Actually, I’ve shown how affective learning works, and shown that this is a genuine affective strategy.
You’ll know more about that when you finish the assignment I gave you.
And you have such data?
Nope. That’s another bogus arhgument.
Look up analogy in a dictionary. Or do a seach on “argument by analogy.”
I see you have rooted out many of your fallacies, and I hope to see a better quality of argument from you in the future.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Please provide either the link again or the number of the post in which you provided such a link because I certainly do not recall seeing such a link. However, I admit the possibility that I just might be incorrect and welcome evidence that supports your statement, at which point I will be glad to admit that I was mistaken.
That way we can then continue the discussion of why no-one has bothered to try to address and justify their actions in using these photos in this specific manner as morally licit based on evidence that it is not possible to take reasonable precautions to avoid showing graphic photos of bloody dismembered corpses of babies to preschoolers without their parents’ permission because there is no other way to reduce abortions, either using or not using these photos, and so such methods could not be avoided.
It is my understanding of the “intention” portion that ill effects are tolerated as unintended only if there is no other option of action that will be proportionately likely to produce the desired good result that does not include the action that resulted in the ill effects.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
By the way, in the discussion of images from WWII, does anybody know the image that inspired outrage in that war, and know why?
K
KarenNC
Guest
So you are basing your justification for these actions on the equivalency between an ant and a fellow human being? That if I am okay with swatting a fly or putting a very old extermely sick cat to sleep that there is no difference in being willing to do those same things to a human? Based on experience, I would say that, no, children who step on ants and caterpillars do not understand and view them as fully “living creatures” in exactly the same way that they view their pet dog or baby sister.
There is also, I would hope, an acknowledgement of the difference between teaching children that death is part of life and the appropriateness of discussing murder of human beings at a young age.
Like it or not, and irregardless of my belief that all forms of life are sacred, people do react more strongly to things that happen to other people rather than to insects or animals.
No one has suggested “sequestering every newspaper or magazine or every television news program promo” to an extent that is not already done. Those media do make judgement calls on whether something is too graphic for the front page or the promo that airs during a child’s cartoon and are taken to task by the community when they overstep the acceptable bounds. We are asking abortion protestors to do the same.
B
boppaid
Guest
I read the link you provided. I still vehemently disagree with the way you are using PDE to “get off on a technicality”. And, yes, that’s my OPINION of how I see you using it. Sorry you disagree.Your OPINION. Your UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion.
PDE is not a technicality for getting someone off.
PDE is a tool for weighing two practices both of which cause some degree of harm. PDE is a tool for choosing which of two practices is the morally licit one.
If you had clicked the link I provided (twice) and gone to the website to which I referred (twice) and read the material there (once) you wouldn’t have to endure the embarrassment of posting a completely off-the-mark comment.
K
Kelly
Guest
Vern,
I can’t recall which image you are speaking about. Would it be one from Nagasaki or Hiroshima? What’s the answer? (I would call my Dad, he is retired Air Force and served in WWII at the age of 15 in the Army, but he passed away in December). I’m dying of curiosity.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
“The Dead on the Beach at Buna” showed three Marines lying half-buried in the sand. This was the first depiction of American dead in the general press. Life Magazine published it with an editorial explaining why they published it. That explanation carried the day, and the controversy died – because people realized it was necessary for us to see things like that in order to understand what we were facing.
In black and white it is a deeply evocative picture – whenever I see it, I can smell the odor of wet canvas – the soggy web gear on their bodies.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Was it printed on the cover, or inside the magazine?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
- Status