Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry?

[UnSubRocky]

I have no intention of being loyal to you. I will be fair, though.

[lisa jones]

USR wrote

Given the willingness of governments to censor things that would offend the easily offended, if people were that vulnerable to mimic antisocial behaviour on television, books, cinema, etc., without first considering the consequences, we would have seen a ban of the antisocial depictions shown in the entertainment industries quite some time ago.

What do you mean "if"?

I am surprised that after all the posts I have directed at you, you still can not see perfectly well that people are very vulnerable to imitating on screen violence, and on screen criminal behaviour?

Let us get things perfectly straight. People are not "very vulnerable" that they are imitating on screen violence and criminal behaviour. They are using on screen violence and criminality depicted in the media to try and cover their arses whenever they get caught out. Christians like to cover their arses about why people are turning away from the church. They love to blame societal changes for why people do not want to believe in a benevolent zombie monster. But, they do not want to take responsibility for the fact that society does not like the suppressive nature of superstition. The NRA love to blame the entertainment media for gun violence. But their double think disallows them from seeing that if they try and embellish the problems alleged of the entertainment industry, the issue with gun violence has come to a point where the NRA are figuratively "shooting themselves in the foot" further discouraging people joining their organisation and furthering encouraging restrictions on firearms and bringing in new gun laws.

People are not dumbarses. The amount of people that scoff at nonsensical depictions of antisocial behaviour only helps my argument. The entertainment industry reinforces people's motivation by seeing what is depicted on screen. People act either consciously or subconsciously to counteract what they find objectionable.

Your last paragraph in particular is dreadfully wrong and is just a massive (and quite frankly dangerous) generalisation.

Some people definitely behave like dumbarses.

Some people don't counteract what they find objectionable because they can't.

[lisa jones]

I have no intention of being loyal to you. I will be fair, though.

I have no intention of being loyal to you either. I will be fairly scathing though.

[UnSubRocky]

Your last paragraph in particular is dreadfully wrong and is just a massive (and quite frankly dangerous) generalisation.

Some people definitely behave like dumbarses.

Some people don't counteract what they find objectionable because they can't.

And what do you expect these dumbarses would have done if they were let loose on society? Act like dumbarses. You could shake your house keys in front of some of them and they would be distracted from being dumbarses. Sit them in front of the television, and they are distracted from being dumbarses. Entertainment counteracts boredom. Bored people go out and create drama. It is then that you worry about the criminal element.

[UnSubRocky]

I have no intention of being loyal to you. I will be fair, though.

I have no intention of being loyal to you either. I will be fairly scathing though.

By reverting to calling me a multitroll or a drunk or a cyberjunkie or welfare dependent or homeless. No value of your posts have been shown.

[lisa jones]

I have no intention of being loyal to you. I will be fair, though.

I have no intention of being loyal to you either. I will be fairly scathing though.

By reverting to calling me a multitroll or a drunk or a cyberjunkie or welfare dependent or homeless. No value of your posts have been shown.

Actually I had no intention of calling you a multi troll or a drunk or a cyber junkie on welfare etc.

What's remarkably interesting is that you thought I did have such an intention.

[lisa jones]

Your last paragraph in particular is dreadfully wrong and is just a massive (and quite frankly dangerous) generalisation.

Some people definitely behave like dumbarses.

Some people don't counteract what they find objectionable because they can't.

And what do you expect these dumbarses would have done if they were let loose on society? Act like dumbarses. You could shake your house keys in front of some of them and they would be distracted from being dumbarses. Sit them in front of the television, and they are distracted from being dumbarses. Entertainment counteracts boredom. Bored people go out and create drama. It is then that you worry about the criminal element.

These dumbarses are not let loose. They ARE loose.

SubRocky .... how long can any human being sit in front of a tv? How long do you think you can distract someone with tv? Eventually these dumbarses will create havoc. Why? Entertainment is only a short term distraction that delays the inevitable.

And I have a problem with your definition of entertainment too. Violence - in any form and on any medium should never be euphemized as entertainment.

[UnSubRocky]

These dumbarses are not let loose. They ARE loose.

SubRocky .... how long can any human being sit in front of a tv? How long do you think you can distract someone with tv? Eventually these dumbarses will create havoc. Why? Entertainment is only a short term distraction that's delaying the inevitable.

And I have a problem with your definition of entertainment too. Violence - in any form and on any medium should never be euphemized as entertainment.

You can think of distractions as like warning labels or traffic signals or laws. Some people will ignore them and create problems. Television is a distraction from creating problems. I could tell you a somewhat sad story about my time being distracted by the television. But I won't go into details because I am pushed for time.

[UnSubRocky]

I have no intention of being loyal to you. I will be fair, though.

I have no intention of being loyal to you either. I will be fairly scathing though.

By reverting to calling me a multitroll or a drunk or a cyberjunkie or welfare dependent or homeless. No value of your posts have been shown.

Actually I had no intention of calling you a multi troll or a drunk or a cyber junkie on welfare etc.

What's remarkably interesting is that you thought I did have such an intention.

Given your history of doing that to me and other people, I feel justified in saying that.

[lisa jones]

I have no intention of being loyal to you. I will be fair, though.

I have no intention of being loyal to you either. I will be fairly scathing though.

By reverting to calling me a multitroll or a drunk or a cyberjunkie or welfare dependent or homeless. No value of your posts have been shown.

Actually I had no intention of calling you a multi troll or a drunk or a cyber junkie on welfare etc.

What's remarkably interesting is that you thought I did have such an intention.

Given your history of doing that to me and other people, I feel justified in saying that.

I am hoping to use other ... more scathing terms.