PDA

View Full Version : Wrestling



Pages : [1] 2

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 08:19 AM
Does anyone here agree that Wrestling on TV being aired during periods of the day where children are potential watchers is something that should be stopped? I guess the real question is, as an entertainment value, is Wrestling adequate for children from ages 15 and under?

I don't have a formulated opinion yet. Really I don't. I don't allow my daughter to watch, but I base that decision on an uninformed general principle. I never actually bothered much giving this an hard thought.

There is a governmental proposal on top of the table over here in Portugal where such type of shows will probably be stopped from airing at all for any period of the day up until 23:00. The current government is not particularly conservative in nature. What I found interesting though was that no one seems to disagree, except for the TV stations themselves... and the children.

EDIT: children, I must add, that have been consuming this show in great numbers.

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 08:43 AM
Why should it be?

swgh
11-28-2006, 08:44 AM
I do not agree. Children imitate what they see on televison. I personally think that is how some crime begins. Violence is violence. You see it in many forms, from TV to computer games.
If the government can do one thing to prevent some form of violence being shown to a younger audience, then I agree they shuold either move it to a different time slot or ban it altogether.

That said. some kids will go out of their way ( and their parents ) to watch it. Be that in the form of a freinds house or on DVD. Violence is with us and will be with us for a long time to come I am afraid to say. There is no possible sure proof way to block it from kids eyes forever.

The problem with wrestling is the same as a famous saying:

Monkey See Monkey Do

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 08:51 AM
Do you think it's the kids watching wrestling that is causing the problems or the lack of a positive adult influence?

swgh
11-28-2006, 09:00 AM
Possibly a bit of both. As I said, kids imitate most of what they see, but the adults have responsability as parents to teach their children the right and wrong way to go about things

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 09:03 AM
>Do you think it's the kids watching wrestling that is causing the problems or the lack of a positive adult influence?

Adults that make and air these shows, you mean?

However, I'm not completely oblivious to your point. It is fact many parents, teachers, neighbors, ... we all influence a child behavior. It seems almost sad that we then impose on them principles we don't have. Both in language and actions.

But I think that will always be our way as a society. It's then a matter of seeing where we can at least make some sort of difference. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 09:13 AM
I think I'm misunderstanding your post, Mario.

> It seems almost sad that we then impose on them principles we don't have.

Like what?

> Two wrongs don't make a right.

What does this have to do with anything?

swgh
11-28-2006, 09:35 AM
> Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think he mean:

wrong 1: Kids watch wrestling cause they enjoy voilence
wrong 2: Adults ( parents ) allow or encourage them do do this

I could be wrong, I was figuring out what mario meant

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 09:38 AM
That's only the case if you assume that watching wrestling is wrong to begin with. If the parents monitor what they're watching and impress on them that "hey, you shouldn't throw someone through a table", I don't see what the problem is.

What's the difference between kids watching wrestling and watching, say, US football or rugby or something?

swgh
11-28-2006, 09:42 AM
There isnt. All the sports you listed involve voilence. Take football, its all contact sports. This is one thread that most people are not going to agree on

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 09:43 AM
>Like what?

Well, in general adult behavior is anything but correct when seen at the light of what we then try to transmit to our children. Two adults fighting aggressively on a line, cussing at other drivers, arguing loudly with their spouse... not to mention beating them,... too many examples from our general behavior in the street to our general contempt inside out houses.

We then move on imposing a correct behavior to the children, we don't really show. So yes, I agree the biggest factor is indeed our irresponsible behavior, not what children see on TV.

But...

>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
> What does this have to do with anything?

A lot. What if there is no regulation? Why is it ok to stop smoking or alchool commercials before 23:00, but it's not ok to stop a show where violence is distributed as a form of entertainment to the children? Why is that ok to not air pornography on open tv channels, but it's ok to see a bunch of guys beating each other?

I just think that perhaps there ought to be some form of regulation. Something that at least helps those few parents that give a damn. Personally, I think Wrestling affects out children behavior. I've seen actors there pulling the finger or cussing on TV to an audience of children.

However, I'm in no position to be affirmative around this. I just don't know if I'm right. And that's the really troublesome thing. That no actual real, incisive, comprehensive study was ever made about TV influence (or lack thereof) on the society in general.

Two wrongs don't make a right, if you believe Wrestling is cheap violence. You have one wrong (adults not being a good example), and you have another wrong (because of that, who cares if children watch violence).

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 10:15 AM
> So yes, I agree the biggest factor is indeed our irresponsible behavior, not what children see on TV.

OK, we agree on that, then. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you were saying before.

> Why is it ok to stop smoking or alchool commercials before 23:00, but it's not ok to stop a show where violence is distributed as a form of entertainment to the children? Why is that ok to not air pornography on open tv channels, but it's ok to see a bunch of guys beating each other?

I don't know how Portugal does things, so maybe you can clear the air here. Are action movies shown on TV during the day?

> Personally, I think Wrestling affects out children behavior. I've seen actors there pulling the finger or cussing on TV to an audience of children.

I think it's the parents' responsibility to decide whether or not this is appropriate for their children. Of course, I don't have any children, but that is how I feel and I'd like to say I'd feel the same if I did.

> That no actual real, incisive, comprehensive study was ever made about TV influence (or lack thereof) on the society in general.

There are a million studies about this, but they're all going for one angle or another. I'd be pretty surprised if there was an unbiased study about this, though.

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 10:42 AM
Yes. I guess this is pretty much a mute debate. The most decisive factor, is not what TV shows and at what time of the day... but how parents behave and what they allow or not allow their children to see.

> I don't know how Portugal does things, so maybe you can clear the air here. Are action movies shown on TV during the day?

Yes. And also sexual-explicit movies. Go figure eh?
I don't think the government has much power over what a TV station can pass or not. Neither perhaps it has the right because steps were taken to make sure freedom of communication is not just something people talk about.

However, on some key points they were able to put some constraints. The most ridicule ones were tobacco and alcohol. So, this is how it goes.

tobacco tv commercials were banned altogether. There's none whatsoever. Period.
alcohol tv commercials only after 23:00.
sexual-explicit movies are okay.
violent movies are okay.
COPS being aired at any time of day almost as an educational program is ok.
Jerry Springer being aired in the mornings is ok.

and now... to put the cherry on top...
Sexual education programs with true educational content... only after 23:00

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 12:16 PM
You guys can show sexually explicit movies but can't show sex ed programming? Sounds like Portugal has higher priorities than wrestling.

PING
11-28-2006, 02:52 PM
Ive been watching WWE n WWF every since i can remember, and i really dont think that ive grown up to be a criminal or someone who likes hurting people or any of the stuff that they show in the wrestling matches..hell, im almost 20 now, but i still love watching wrestling..it completely depends on the kind of environment you are in, some silly TV program doesnt really influence the mind of any child to that great an extent..

Sentral
11-28-2006, 03:16 PM
Violence in any type of media format doesn't provoke someone to commit violent acts. Video games take the beating, of course. Mostly from soccer/"high-class"/rich/preppy Moms who think everything in the world is bad except their Mercedes and getting ****ed by their rich husband. It's ignorance. I've played Doom at the age of 5 with my Dad. It was something me and my dad could share together (we beat the game 3 times!). I'm 16 now and never got in trouble in any form, never even had a detention at school! Don't even get me started on that sack of **** Jack Thompson. I hope he dies real soon! :D

manutd
11-28-2006, 05:01 PM
Bit vengeful :p

twomers
11-28-2006, 05:09 PM
I was afraid that the Hulk Hogen would get me from the TV when I was a kid so I didn't watch wrestling much.

Perhaps it should be banned from daytime TV on certain channels, but until 23:00 ... sounds somewhat extreme, in my opinion.

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 05:15 PM
> Violence in any type of media format doesn't provoke someone to commit violent acts.

That is incorrect. You can perhaps say that it shouldn't be attributed the blame and then we will agree partially. But there's too many documented cases in which it did provoke violence.... and death.

It's important to stay focused here.

twomers
11-28-2006, 05:24 PM
Children are very impressionable, and as a result it's important to filter some of what they may encounter (TV, real live perhaps, etc), but filtering too much is just over protecting the child, which could be seen as worse. They may not be so inclined to kill someone, but that doesn't mean they're going to be ... socially savvy *.

* can't think of the work I'm looking for.

Govtcheez
11-28-2006, 07:47 PM
> But there's too many documented cases in which it did provoke violence.... and death.

I don't know of any concrete evidence that says video games or TV have definitely 100% led to deaths.

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 08:28 PM
Of the top of my head, the Spanish kid that killed his parents and sister with a samurai sword basing himself on some sick interpretation of Final Fantasy VII.. Some forms of Rap influence on street gangs, that kid that killed himself over having lost his character in... what was it? Everquest? And the Brazilian soap actress killed by a viewer who thought she was too evil and deserved to die.

2 of games, 1 of music, 1 of TV. 4 examples. Don't make me research links, please. Take my word for it.

Happy_Reaper
11-28-2006, 09:07 PM
I don't that strong a point can be made of that. People who take art so litterally were bound to do something crazy regardless of the medium. You can't blame the artist for what peole extract from his art. The artist portrays his own vision, and from that vision people make their own. Deranged people see deranged visions. It's like blaming "A catcher in the rye" for the death of John Lennon.

Mario F.
11-28-2006, 09:21 PM
Oh. I'm not making a point of it. It was just in reply from a statement from Sentral made a few posts above. Like I said then, it is one thing to discuss accountability. It's another different thing to deny entirely these things happen. One is debatable, even though we all seem to agree on a common view. The other is just plain ignorance,

Of the 6.5 billion (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html) estimated out there in the world, it's pretty safe to assume there's some weirdos. If one guy in Germany (was it?) wants to be killed by a stranger on the internet and get eaten, I'm prepared to accept some people might just be a little too crazy over movies, or games, or tv shows, or music. Not because both stories relate. Simply because the latter almost seems like a normal thing in comparison.

whiteflags
11-29-2006, 12:18 AM
To answer the original question, WWE programming is rated TV14 which means that people under 14 should not watch the show. As a parent you have the right to be concerned about what your daughter sees on television. Also, pushing it to a later timeslot does not hurt its American ratings. The debate sort of begins and ends here, unless you feel that the government stepping in and passing a law regulating television more is a restriction of your freedom.

I personally don't see how it could possibly be so. You're still allowed to watch it, so it's not as though they banned wrestling altogether.

Through observational learning, younger people can suppose that a violent reaction to stressors is acceptable. Of course this depends on other factors such as parental involvement, and how the person is educated concerning violence. If you were abused, you are 1/3 more likely to abuse your children as well (National Child Abuse Statistics (http://www.childhelp.com/resources/learning-center/statistics), Cycle of Abuse ... ). If the violence kids are exposed to is more alike to a current situation, what they have learned makes them more likely to respond with violence as well. I doubt this is the case with wrestling since people are aware it is sports entertainment.

> I don't allow my daughter to watch [wrestling].
Be proud of this. It's the parent's responsibility to enforce any sort of Nielson-family approved (if I can joke :P) TV-viewing guidelines. And besides, pro-wrestling really blows arse. You may feel more comfortable letting your daughter watch luchadors (horrible spelling). WWE is a soap opera for men, imo, and drowning in too much pop-culture to be considered sport.

When it comes to the subject of violence, people neglect that it is a natural response (http://www.stressstop.com/articles/article1.html) that which we are still capable of using. People may believe that a new law will solve the problem, but you still have to make sure that your kids go to bed on time until they're fifteen. And educate them on the subject of violence. Being able to explain why violence is wrong would really help them, I assume. We are no longer animals, but a sophisticated species facing entirely new challenges--ones that our bodies aren't equipped to handle. Teach them how to handle their stress so that their natural response doesn't get the best of them.

g4j31a5
11-29-2006, 01:45 AM
Here in Indonesia, there are 2 kids that died because they attempted to wrestle like in Smackdown. And it was already aired at 10 pm. So I think it doesn't matter anyway.

whiteflags
11-29-2006, 01:54 AM
That is the one thing that ........es me off. After Owen Hart died, the WWE put out a bunch of Don't Try This At Home PSAs during their show, but then they stopped. There wasn't a reason to.

twomers
11-29-2006, 05:30 AM
Mario, what age is your daughter?

Mario F.
11-29-2006, 06:22 AM
She's 8. She comes home from school telling stories of the other girls who watch wrestling and know the names of all the fighters. She doesn't take any particular interest in it, so mum or dad didn't actually have to impose ourselves. We just monitor and make sure she won't gain that interest.

I was mostly curious about how this show is wildly perceived. Other government attempts to legislate certain type of shows have faced a lot more resistance from the society in general than this one. That got me curious as to why. We aren't any notoriously resistant to USA less interesting imported materials. Although there's an historical preference to UK and national shows.

Wrestling is to me very what Citizen pointed out. I add a few interesting adjectives when I'm in no particular mood to be objective. But basically I consider it cheap entertainment with no value whatsoever. I find it also slightly offensive the way it presents itself as a form of sports... But that's an whole story in itself.

PING
11-29-2006, 06:25 AM
And i always thought that mario was a 16 year old kiddo :confused:

Govtcheez
11-29-2006, 06:28 AM
It is entertainment first, but a lot of that stuff is very difficult to do and the people have to train for a long time in order to pull it off. I don't know how you could avoid defining it as a sport.

(and before anyone asks, no, I don't watch it)

Mario F.
11-29-2006, 06:58 AM
> And i always thought that mario was a 16 year old kiddo

I try to be. No really, I'm serious!

> It is entertainment first, but a lot of that stuff is very difficult to do and the people have to train for a long time in order to pull it off. I don't know how you could avoid defining it as a sport.

Well Govt, I understand that particular component of Wrestling and by no means I can avoid admiring them for their athletic ability and strength. However there's more to sports than just that. There's this notion of sane, unbiased, competition where the main aspect is to explore our, human, physical and mental capabilities. There's no fixing in real sports (or people try to make it that way :D ). There's no 4th school grade commentators talking about the fact the guy pinning someone down is exerting revenge to the guy being pinned down because he gave some harsh words to his girlfriend. There's no stopping the fight because the coach started wrestling the ring host on the sidelines. And definitely, there's no joining their fight.

Maybe I'm a little conservative about these things. But calling wrestling a sport is almost the same as calling Theater, Cinema. Just because theres a weak link between the two, it doesn't make one into the other.

whiteflags
11-29-2006, 06:58 AM
> I don't know how you could avoid defining it as a sport.
It's a sport in the same way that pretending to fight another person burns as many calories as actually kicking their ass. [/Mario's post, shorter]

Govtcheez
11-29-2006, 07:09 AM
> There's this notion of sane, unbiased, competition where the main aspect is to explore our, human, physical and mental capabilities.

My definition of sports doesn't require that. Is boxing a sport?

And with all the drama swirling around major sports via the tabloids and news organizations, it seems silly to me to discount wrestling as a sport because they create the drama themselves rather than some retarded blogger or "newcaster" doing it for them.

Mario F.
11-29-2006, 07:21 AM
The drama is external to the competition itself. Whereas in Wrestling it is central and a necessary part of the... show. The distinction is important because the drama doesn't affect the outcome neither it dictates who fights who.

> My definition of sports doesn't require that. Is boxing a sport?

Sure is. However, if you broaden your definition of sports to accommodate a competition that is decided before they even start to fight, then yes. I have to agree. Wrestling becomes a sport.

However, my definition is more strict.

Govtcheez
11-29-2006, 07:26 AM
I think the thing that I learn most from debating stuff with you is that definitions are not nearly as concrete as I would have believed. It seems like every time we discuss something we end up agreeing on a general point, but end up disagreeing over the definition of what we're discussing.

Did that make any sense?

I brought up boxing because boxing matches are largely viewed as fixed.

Mario F.
11-29-2006, 07:39 AM
It does make sense. And I do enjoy these little diatribes. Keeps reminding me that what we consider correct or wrong (no ethical connections here, mind you) is largely defined by how we perceive things. And that two different perceptions doesn't make one necessarily wrong. Of course there are fields where this can't happen. If I tell you int p declares a vector, because that's how I see it... well, that will generate an interesting debate.

As for boxing, that's very unfortunate, I know. I'm not sure how much of that has not became a urban myth though. However, in Europe (with the exception perhaps of UK. Someone hit me if I'm wrong) boxing is better treated and regarded.

g4j31a5
12-04-2006, 10:43 PM
Now in my country all things Smackdown, ECW, etc, are banned. The TV station airing them is forbidden to show them again. All stickers, posters, games are banned. This is because there's two more child with severe injuries and one more died. Now the question is, who to blame?

1. The wrestling federations?
2. The TV stations and game developers?
3. Or the parents?

Tonto
12-04-2006, 11:19 PM
I share classes with some kids that wrestle, and the way they describe what they do is kind of wierd. It might have to do with me having seen 'the world according to garp' -- kind of entrenched some wierd homophobia or something.

biosninja
12-04-2006, 11:28 PM
there is a reason why they sya diring the program "Don't try this at home"

Dave_Sinkula
12-04-2006, 11:31 PM
Now the question is, who to blame?

1. The wrestling federations?
2. The TV stations and game developers?
3. Or the parents?Easy: the one(s) who did it.

Nodtveidt
12-05-2006, 09:06 AM
There are no unbiased studies that provide any link between violence on TV and violence in real life. Often, violent youths will attribute their violent behaviours to what they saw on TV simply to try to take the responsibility off of themselves. They do it with video games too...blame the video games. The media's had a grudge against video games for years now because when you play video games, you're not watching their braindead propaganda. Anyways, while it is ignorant to suggest that there is absolutely NO connection between the two, it only shows up when the child has a penchant for violence in the first place. Furthermore, you are RARELY told all the facts to any particular story, all you ever hear about is the scapegoat...whatever makes the story convenient for the media to tell as well as to get under your skin and make you mad at whoever the media has selected as its scapegoat. It WORKS. The media has centuries of experience to draw upon to manipulate you.

Mario F.
12-05-2006, 10:12 AM
> The media has centuries of experience to draw upon to manipulate you.

Why then are you aware of it?

g4j31a5
12-05-2006, 07:59 PM
there is a reason why they sya diring the program "Don't try this at home"

Well, it didn't have any effect if it was showed in a country where English is not the main language.

Govtcheez
12-05-2006, 08:14 PM
I'm assuming they translate the rest of it, why wouldn't they translate that?

biosninja
12-05-2006, 11:34 PM
I'm assuming they translate the rest of it, why wouldn't they translate that?

True....my first language is Afrikaans....now....if i broadcast a program in your country (in Afrikaans)....does the program stand a cance of being popular if it stayed in tat language?.....therefore....TRANSLATE

g4j31a5
12-06-2006, 06:46 AM
I'm assuming they translate the rest of it, why wouldn't they translate that?

Well, they did. But it's in a form of subtitles. And kids usually see the "big pictures" and skip the sub-titles.

Mario F.
12-06-2006, 07:10 AM
"Don't try this at home" is even better than "don't push this button" for anyone 18 and under.

It just doesn't work. Which of course, doesn't mean they shouldn't show the words. It's just that, they aren't used to protect the TV network. Those words alone are not and can't be considered as safe and legal disclaimers. They are used as a safety warning. Nothing more. It is possible that in some countries they are legal obligations (they are over here). But they still aren't legal disclaimers.

If I put those words on my show I still can't suddenly start teaching how to rape a woman or rob a bank.

Nodtveidt
12-06-2006, 07:16 AM
If I put those words on my show I still can't suddenly start teaching how to rape a woman or rob a bank.
Raping a woman or robbing a bank are not legal. Acting out bogus fight scenes are.

Mario F.
12-06-2006, 07:23 AM
But it is legal to teach how to do it