rklenseth's psychology and whatever

[sammigurl61190]

Well if you count edited, then I saw my first R rated movie when I was 11.

[rklenseth]

I use to watch rated R movies at my friends' houses all the time when I was young. The first rated R movie that I watched with my parents permission was probably "Glory" and that was because they knew it was a Civil War movie and that I was really into the Civil War.

Nowadays, I don't really care if it is rated R or not. Back when I couldn't it didn't matter what movie it was. It was rated R so it was pretty damn cool. Nowadays, I like the movie as long as it is well done, has a great story, and great characters. Plus, I've noticed in the pass year that there are less and less rated R movies. I've seen more PG-13 movies as of late. I don't know if it is because the standards have been lowered, or because movie studios are becoming more wary that their prime audience are teens and the government crack down on teens watching rated R movies is getting tougher. I got IDed once at Wal-Marts for buying a rated R movie. They only sold it to me because my father was there with me. That is one thing I won't agree with the government and the Conservatives on.

[sammigurl61190]

I think it's nuts that the government thinks it can monitor even such a simple thing as movies! I mean, the R rated movies I've seen are mostly for their language. I don't watch bloody or gorey or scary movies. Like "My Cousin Vinny". That movie is so good, and I went to buy it at Best Buy. They wouldn't let me until I made my mom come in the store with me to buy it. >_< It's not like I haven't seen it on HBO a million times, but it's just so stupid that they wouldn't let me buy something simply for language. I mean, it's just words. And, anyone in today's society has heard them before, and probably have spoke them. It really gets on my nerves.

[rklenseth]

The way I see it is that real life events make up a person and who that person becomes than any movie can or will. I think there are rare occurances where a kid becomes obessed with a movie or game to the point that they will do some of the things on them but they are rare. I think kids, unless they are sheltered, see and hear worse in their everyday life than they do from any movie. I think it is Conservative religious groups trying to find someone to blame where there is no blame to be placed. Humans experience things in their own individual ways. Two people may grow up in the same manner but one may become a murderer and the other an officer of the law. I think people have a hard time in grasping that and try to place blame so that they feel better. I think very few people understand human nature and what it is.

I highly recommend that you all read "The Prince". It is a great work that I think explains what human nature is best.

[Sho]

It does, as long as you define the "best" human nature as the one that gets you ahead in the real world.
As for the movies thing, I agree that most kids have a sufficiently firm grasp of reality not to re-enact movie scenes, but unfortunately one in a million does, and that single isolated incident will send the legislators panicking. As someone should have once said, "Politics is where one failure outweighs a million successes."

[rklenseth]

Well, maybe it's time that we redefine politics. Anyone want to start a political party?

[kroner]

you'd have no support unfortuanately. most voting age people can not sympathize with children well enough to care if they find a law annoying. overpretective mothers are the only significant voting population who really have any opion on the issue. plus a candidate who's platform is to let little kids see more sex and violence is pretty unelectable. a major flaw of democracy is over coming the tremendous power of widespread stupidity.

[rklenseth]

Ummm....I did say redefine politics. Never an easy road nor one commonly traversed.

I never said what my platform would be nor did I say I would have a platform for this particular political party. As I said, redefine politics.

[kroner]

"Politics is where one failure outweighs a million successes."

But you were replying to that and my final generalization still applies to any fix you could come up with. Politicians have worked out the most effective ways to manipulate the public so that they can be elected. In addition, people fear change and I would even go so far as to say that this is especially pronounced in America with regaurds to politics. The media also plays a major role in this. The one failure makes news.

So in closing, resistance is futile.

[sammigurl61190]

Let's face it--you see as much swearing, sex, and violence in PG-13 movies as you see on TV...they just censor out nudity and a few swear words. But usually it's just as bad.

[rklenseth]

But America is change. Look at what America was 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago. America has always changed in every regard, including politics. I do agree that the Republican/Democratic Parties firm rulership of America in the past 140 years is long overdue to fall. But I have not seen any real political party come up with the balls to face the two of them in those 140 years. Right now I'm an independent and not aligned with an political party. And I am also now favoriting Washington's belief that political parties are not the way to go in America though I am always open to new ideas. If I was to ever join a political party, I would look for one that is not politically aligned wth any political afflitiation and one that has an open ended platform.

Resistance is only futile if you don't have the balls to fight and stand up. If you don't then you correct that resistance is futile. Change does not come easy. But is it better to live the rest of your days knowing that you had the chance to do something and did nothing because you believed the task impossible. I think too many people do that too often. You only live one life, you only have one chance to make it better for your children. You let that chance slip away then who are you really failing?

[kroner]

Change is inevitable, but inevitably people always fight it. The US has changed, but not as much as most other places. It really stems from the fact that the US was one of the first countries to hit on the radical and highly effictive idea of a large scale democratic republic. people glorify this which is fine, but then they place it as the pinnacle of human progress and begin to fear change which is not fine.

As for political parties, there are many many many people and groups who have tried to get into the fray in mainstream politics with new parties and ideas. Unfortunely most don't make it for the reasons I stated. There are a few that are widely known such as the Green Party, the Conservative Party, the Right-to-Life Party, etc. Don't say no one has the balls because that is about as far from possible from the truth. The truth is that balls doesn't cut it. You need a platform that will get widespread support and the surest way to do this is to serve up the same old stuff (reheated of course). That's why the two main parties are untouchable. They remain roughly centered over the average opinion. If the general opinion changes, the parties shift appropriately. To break their hold you would need to drastically and unexpectedly change the minds of a large portion of the population. Events like this are rare and for obvious reasons, unpredictable.

As for me, there are honestly things more important to me than dedicating my life trying creating drastic change in US politics, although I would love to see it happen.

[sammigurl61190]

Balls may not cut it, but it sure helps. The Republican and the Democratic parties will not always be dominant, someone just hasn't worked hard enough and gotten enough support to change that. The Liberatarian party is slowly creeping up the ladder. If you love politics enough and are passionate about changing the government, then you could do it. It's just finding someone dedicated enough at this point in time.

[rklenseth]

I would disagree in that America has changed much more than most countries in the world as far as culture and society and with that change it has also changed the politics and the government.

I do respect those parties that do try to fight but most of them are too far on the left or too far on the right. Most people are moderate and take ideas from one side to another. That is why today the Democratic Party has lost ground in America because they are taking too much of a left wing stance while the Republican Party has taken more of a moderate stance. That is why you see a Republican Congress and Senate and most states have a Republican Government and why I believe that President Bush will win the election in 2004 especially if Dean wins the presidential nominee for the Democrats who has been taking too much of a left wing stance when compared with the other Democrats running for president. A moderate political party is what people are looking for. One that takes ideals from both sides of the political spectrum and found a way for it to work.

And in a democratic nation it is the people who choose the leader to represent them and it is the leader that represent their ideals and beliefs. Most people in the United States are moderate and aren't align with a political party either way. Most people in France usually hold socialistic ideals and align themselve with the left. Both elect the leaders that best represent them and that is fine as long as they keep in mind that minority still has a say and should and shall be discriminated against.

People always fight change but is that a reason to fear fighting for change? My belief is that the United States has changed. The government has changed over time through the will of the people. The Founding Fathers created a system that allows that. What we have today is what was built upon over ages by every generation that has lived and died in the United States. I still think the idea of America is very Radical. People think that today the United States is bought out by the rich and famous. I do not agree with this. you have to remember that the majority of Americans are like you and me. A lot of them don't vote and that is really stupid and naive of them that they don't. This is their country and they have every right to choose their leaders that will represent them. This is the reason why the United States is around today. Americans didn't want to be part of a government that did not allow them any representation in their government. So they broke away from that government and fought a war to create a government of their own where they would be represented. I believe a government should be their to represent and to serve the people. Not the people representing and serving the government. That is the system that was created and that is here today. If you don't like the rich mongols or whomever it is that is representing you then vote for the person that does. If there is no one that is there then perhaps you should find somebody or perhaps run yourself. Our government does change and has changed. What I think you are looking for is that you think that it is the structure itself that is flawed and it is not. It is working exactly the way is should and was meant. Just because we aren't socialistic like most of Europe is because the people of this country has not elected enough people who hold those ideals. If Dean does happen to win the 2004 presidential elections and he does what he claims he does then I would say that the US government would turn toward more of a socialistic principles. If people aren't happy about that when his four years are up then they will elect someone else that will change it again. As President Lincoln once said this is, "... government of the people, by the people, for the people..." And that is the best definition that anyone can ever give to what the US goverment is. And I don't think any other government that I have seen comes close.

[sammigurl61190]

You think Bush will actually win the 2004 elections?? Ha! After how he screwed up?