07-30-2003, 04:00 AM
Alright, I'm irked. The forums lost my first post...It was a fairly comprehensive argument too.
PG stands for Parental Guidance, right?
I stand by the fact that any movie labeled with rating "PG" has material that can potentially be offensive to any number of groups out there, which is why it isn't approved for general "G" audiences. I feel that it is the parent's responsibility to research the movies their children want to watch and find out what about them can be "offensive" in their opinion. Then they can make educated judgments on whether the child should watch the movie, and if so, prepare themselves to explain these "offensive" concepts to their children according to the dogma they wish to instill upon them.
After all, there are different levels of tolerence with different groups of people. Some cultures expose their children to both nudity, alcohol, and sex at a much earlier age, and those cultures have been around longer than American culture has. It's all a matter of persective. Some groups may not find blasphemous talk about God offensive, and thus have no need to explain it to their children save to be respectful and not say it in front of the religious.
As for the Discovery Channel material, I really don't see what the problem is. I see nothing about a total disregard for life when a lion casually flips out a liver to devour. I mean, this is daily life for them. They must eat prey animals to survive, and they don't have the hands to gently scoop out the liver and lay it down. Animals have greater concerns than morality, especially since moral quantifiers are something that seem to be exclusive to human mentality. Do you see dogs ashamed about having sex in public? It's entirely natural to them because it serves the purposes of nature. Primates, dolphins, and humans are the animals most likely to have sex for pleasure and not procreation, so there's nothing offensive to me about their acts at all. They're just trying to procreate.
It's nature at work, and to me it's information that my child can ingest. Children are innately curious about things, and if they want to know about the birds and the bees, then why not let bears and lions do it? It doesn't show anything morally objectionable about the deed unless you find the deed itself reprehensible, or you think anything but missionary position is a sin. If my child was interested in nature or the historical details of the bloody Normandy Invasion, I'd encourage such investigative thought and nourish it. That's the kind of mental exploration I would encourage in all people, to ask the questions and seek the answers. If they're watching the Discovery channel instead of MTV, I'm a very happy father indeed.
But ultimately, that's because that's how I choose to guide them as a parent. Parental guidance. I know what they're watching and I find nothing objectionable about it. I take an active role in their lives. To me, PG 13 means that there must be something in this movie that would require some explanation about morality or other philosophical concepts, especially since before their teenage years children have problems with complex abstract thought.
-Grim-
PG stands for Parental Guidance, right?
I stand by the fact that any movie labeled with rating "PG" has material that can potentially be offensive to any number of groups out there, which is why it isn't approved for general "G" audiences. I feel that it is the parent's responsibility to research the movies their children want to watch and find out what about them can be "offensive" in their opinion. Then they can make educated judgments on whether the child should watch the movie, and if so, prepare themselves to explain these "offensive" concepts to their children according to the dogma they wish to instill upon them.
After all, there are different levels of tolerence with different groups of people. Some cultures expose their children to both nudity, alcohol, and sex at a much earlier age, and those cultures have been around longer than American culture has. It's all a matter of persective. Some groups may not find blasphemous talk about God offensive, and thus have no need to explain it to their children save to be respectful and not say it in front of the religious.
As for the Discovery Channel material, I really don't see what the problem is. I see nothing about a total disregard for life when a lion casually flips out a liver to devour. I mean, this is daily life for them. They must eat prey animals to survive, and they don't have the hands to gently scoop out the liver and lay it down. Animals have greater concerns than morality, especially since moral quantifiers are something that seem to be exclusive to human mentality. Do you see dogs ashamed about having sex in public? It's entirely natural to them because it serves the purposes of nature. Primates, dolphins, and humans are the animals most likely to have sex for pleasure and not procreation, so there's nothing offensive to me about their acts at all. They're just trying to procreate.
It's nature at work, and to me it's information that my child can ingest. Children are innately curious about things, and if they want to know about the birds and the bees, then why not let bears and lions do it? It doesn't show anything morally objectionable about the deed unless you find the deed itself reprehensible, or you think anything but missionary position is a sin. If my child was interested in nature or the historical details of the bloody Normandy Invasion, I'd encourage such investigative thought and nourish it. That's the kind of mental exploration I would encourage in all people, to ask the questions and seek the answers. If they're watching the Discovery channel instead of MTV, I'm a very happy father indeed.
But ultimately, that's because that's how I choose to guide them as a parent. Parental guidance. I know what they're watching and I find nothing objectionable about it. I take an active role in their lives. To me, PG 13 means that there must be something in this movie that would require some explanation about morality or other philosophical concepts, especially since before their teenage years children have problems with complex abstract thought.
-Grim-
Kwansu, dudes! - A whole bunch of Patu San citizens.