NationStates Jolt Archive


Screw the Children!

Wilgrove
27-09-2007, 02:23
Honestly, where the Hell are the good parents? Where are the parents who doesn't rely on "Gov Co." to fix their every little problem with their child? Why don't they just stop being so damn lazy and actually take an active role in their child's life instead of complaining to "Gov Co." and having "Gov Co." fix it?

I'm talking about of course of a Bill that would shield kids from violent movies on airline flights. I've highlighted what I think are interesting points.

Bill would shield kids from violent movies on planes

By Steve Hartsoe, Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. — It's a good thing Katie Kelley's kids weren't on the plane last February when an R-rated movie was shown.

"There was a lot of nudity," said Kelley, who was traveling without her children, ages 4 and 7.

Kelley complained to the airline after the flight from Atlanta to San Francisco. Weeks later, she said, a response came that said the flight had accidentally shown an unedited version of the movie and those questionable scenes should not have been left in.

Really, it should've stopped there, she complained to the airline, the airline reviewed the video, found that it did present an unedited video, apologized and corrected the situation, but nope.


But Kelley wasn't satisfied.

"The response I was getting from the airline really wasn't answering my questions," said Kelley, who lives in Arden, near Asheville. "They'd say they always show edited versions in the main cabin. They said they realize it could be offensive to some, but you can choose to watch or not.

"My point was that children can't make that decision if they're on an airplane and the scenes are before them. They are naturally drawn to the screen."

Which is why as parents, your job is to shield your kids from anything you don't want them to see. Jeez I don't even want kids and I know I would make a better parent.

Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., agrees.

Shuler said he plans to introduce legislation Tuesday that calls for sections on commercial airlines where children would not be exposed to violent movies.

and then they go home and play violent video games and watch violent TV at their home because most likely the parents are too damn lazy to govern these things in their home.


"The airlines have chosen to put our children in a situation that I don't feel comfortable with," said Shuler, one of the people Kelley contacted with her concerns. "How do you tell a 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8-year-old, 'Don't look at the screen,' when it's basically all over the cabin?"

I dunno, by giving them something else to do? Just a stab in the dark.


Shuler's proposed bill, the Family Friendly Flights Act, calls for the creation of sections on commercial flights where there would not be any viewable movie screens. It would still allow airlines to continue showing the movies they choose on screens located in other sections, as well as on individual screens, Shuler said.

Many movies are edited for airlines, and they are not governed by the rating system of the Motion Picture Association of America. The content of most movies shown by US Airways would not receive a rating higher than PG-13, said Valerie Wunder, a spokeswoman for the airline.

So, the airlines are already self regulating the movies that it shows on it's flight, without Gov. Co. interference, ASTOUNDING!


It's up to the airlines to determine which movies to show, said David Castelveter, spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a trade group.

Jesse Kalisher, a 45-year-old photographer from Chapel Hill, also has lobbied airlines to self-regulate movie content. He says the responses have been few and unsatisfactory.

Kalisher has launched a website (www.kidsafefilms.com) to generate support for restrictions on airline movies.

Which is pointless because the airlines already self regulate.

Kalisher said he got involved after "King Kong" was shown on a flight during which his two young children were sleeping.


Now I have not seen King Kong, but beside a naked giant ape running around the city, was there really anything non-kid-friendly about this movie?

"Parents were trying to protect their children from seeing images that were really gruesome," he said. "The whole thing is completely inappropriate for kids."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-09-25-airline-movie-kids_N.htm)

Maybe the kids should start self regulating themselves and their kids instead of having everyone else do it.

I am tired of this whole "think of the children" mentality that our government offical apparently have, let the parents deal with the children, not Gov. Co.
Zukzes
27-09-2007, 02:26
without children, there will be no future.
The_pantless_hero
27-09-2007, 02:26
Free healthcare for kids? Fuck no. Limiting everyone's personal rights to do everyday normal things? I propose a motion!
Fudk
27-09-2007, 02:29
I agree with you on most parts. But i do have to point out, King Kong was probably scarier and more gruesome than "Grudge" in my opinion. And yes, I do think that most movies over PG-13 shouldnt be shown, except in edited versions. But, as you said, they already do this. They dont wanna get sued or lose buisness because they accidentally showed a porno for an in-flight movie.:fluffle:

Seems like "Good Family Values" posturing to me
PedroTheDonkey
27-09-2007, 02:30
Screw the Children!

Pervert.;)
Posi
27-09-2007, 02:30
What If I wanted my four year old to see his first naked chick during an airplane movie? What the fuck am I supposed to do?
Gauthier
27-09-2007, 02:31
Oh come on, why not inaugurate a child's first airflight by showing Snakes on a Plane?
Wilgrove
27-09-2007, 02:32
What If I wanted my four year old to see his first naked chick during an airplane movie? What the fuck am I supposed to do?

Be honest, have you actually seen a naked chick on an airline flight, and I say be honest because you're talking to not on a PPL but someone who flies airlines often.
Khadgar
27-09-2007, 02:34
What If I wanted my four year old to see his first naked chick during an airplane movie? What the fuck am I supposed to do?

Have him hang out in the john during movie time. He'll join the mile high club.
Posi
27-09-2007, 02:36
Be honest, have you actually seen a naked chick on an airline flight, and I say be honest because you're talking to not on a PPL but someone who flies airlines often.No, the airlines up here have cable, and really just let you pick what to watch. Since I have only flown in the morning, I have only seen cartoons and TSN. Although, if I had a 2200 flight I could catch the L Word and see some hot lesbian sex...

Unless the airline decided to censor that...
Johnny B Goode
27-09-2007, 02:36
Honestly, where the Hell are the good parents? Where are the parents who doesn't rely on "Gov Co." to fix their every little problem with their child? Why don't they just stop being so damn lazy and actually take an active role in their child's life instead of complaining to "Gov Co." and having "Gov Co." fix it?

I'm talking about of course of a Bill that would shield kids from violent movies on airline flights. I've highlighted what I think are interesting points.



Really, it should've stopped there, she complained to the airline, the airline reviewed the video, found that it did present an unedited video, apologized and corrected the situation, but nope.



Which is why as parents, your job is to shield your kids from anything you don't want them to see. Jeez I don't even want kids and I know I would make a better parent.



and then they go home and play violent video games and watch violent TV at their home because most likely the parents are too damn lazy to govern these things in their home.



I dunno, by giving them something else to do? Just a stab in the dark.



So, the airlines are already self regulating the movies that it shows on it's flight, without Gov. Co. interference, ASTOUNDING!




Which is pointless because the airlines already self regulate.



Now I have not seen King Kong, but beside a naked giant ape running around the city, was there really anything non-kid-friendly about this movie?

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-09-25-airline-movie-kids_N.htm)

Maybe the kids should start self regulating themselves and their kids instead of having everyone else do it.

I am tired of this whole "think of the children" mentality that our government offical apparently have, let the parents deal with the children, not Gov. Co.

Jeez.
Hunter S Thompsonia
27-09-2007, 02:36
...Has anyone else pointed out the humourously sexual nature of your title yet? Yes, you say? Okay....
New Manvir
27-09-2007, 02:37
without children, there will be no future.

exactly


Children are the future...UNLESS WE STOP THEM NOW!!!!!

and seriously, KING KONG...

What could be that gruesome in a PG-13 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/) movie
Bann-ed
27-09-2007, 02:37
Pervert.;)

I thought this was going to be another Pedophillia(sp?) thread.

Luckily it isn't.

Though I think the whole idea of a bill shielding kids from giant-ape violence is rather useless. That is a parent's job.
Mirkai
27-09-2007, 02:41
It is sort of impractical to cover a kid's eyes for two hours during a flight.
Intelligent Humans
27-09-2007, 02:42
im 23 and i watch porn since i was 11 or 12yo and im okay.
actually, i watched way more porn when i was a teen, than i watch now - or better, since 18yo or so

why shouldn't the others be okay too?

just get rid of guns and everything will be fine... oh and share porn ;)

Discovery channel & ca shows animals doing it... Humans aren't really that different
Undeadpirates
27-09-2007, 02:47
What I don't get is that these movies are deemed inappropriate because of violence. I never really thought violence is too big of a deal unless it's like Saving Private Ryan. But then again those movies would be edited.
Jeruselem
27-09-2007, 02:50
Airline movies boring enough as they are.
Don't need to make that any worse.
Pirated Corsairs
27-09-2007, 02:54
And I thought I was going to get to say that we already have a thread on catholic priests.
Khadgar
27-09-2007, 02:56
It is sort of impractical to cover a kid's eyes for two hours during a flight.

Why is showing nudity so much worse than showing violence?
Non Aligned States
27-09-2007, 03:07
Why is showing nudity so much worse than showing violence?

It's a vicious cycle. You see, the Puritan viewpoints regarding sexuality never really went away. What that generally meant was that it left them sexually frustrated (not deprived, just unsatisfied). That kind of frustration tends to build up aggression, so violence is a blow off point.

Now if they got rid of that "sex is dirty" mindset, they wouldn't have all that pent up aggression. But they can't, because it goes entirely against their mindset, which is further reinforced by that aggression.

Vicious cycle.
Wilgrove
27-09-2007, 03:07
Why is showing nudity so much worse than showing violence?

Because we don't want them to see any naughty parts, that they may have already seen when playing 'doctor' on one another.
Wilgrove
27-09-2007, 03:13
Yes, because letting kids have a healthy attitude towards sex is bad. We should indoctrinate them to the point that they honestly believe that their sex organs are a completely different from the rest of their body because they are inherently bad, which is why we are shameful of them.

We should have mandatory nude days. *nods*
Posi
27-09-2007, 03:14
Because we don't want them to see any naughty parts, that they may have already seen when playing 'doctor' on one another.Yes, because letting kids have a healthy attitude towards sex is bad. We should indoctrinate them to the point that they honestly believe that their sex organs are a completely different from the rest of their body because they are inherently bad, which is why we are shameful of them.
Mirkai
27-09-2007, 05:56
Why is showing nudity so much worse than showing violence?

I didn't say one is worse than the other.