11th August 2005, 9:12 AM
Indeed, and you bring up another good point. In the end the whole debate, a lot of the time anyway, comes down to what one or the other "believes", rather than something with evidence to support it. Our side has been just as guilty. The only real argument that can be made is that there is not enough evidence to support the notion that violent media causes actual violence. This doesn't mean it is proven false, in the same sense that a lack of evidence in... dowsing... does not prove that claim false. However, there are lots of claims with no evidence to support them and for the sake of consistancy to believe in one means you must believe in them all, and many directly contradict each other. Best to go where the evidence leads. That said, it's all well and good if someone decides to shield themselves or their own children or even those they have temporary care of from said media. However, if you are to state as fact (or worse, simply state the phrase "don't you think that" before the "fact") something, with no evidence to back it up, please don't bother trying to make any laws about it. It's tantamount to creating laws in support of a specific religion.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)