Are children's cartoon's too violent?

[Phi for All]

A good alternative is to have your kids read. Then after work when you get home you can actually play games with them. Bond more with them and become best of friends.

Reading doesn't have to be an alternative to cartoons. People can do both. Can you explain first what you mean by your title question, perhaps with some examples and reasoning before listing alternative behavior?

 

there not violent

and so what is they r ?

my father let me watch ''saving private ryan '' .. now im 13 years old and i understand everithing u say in the phsisics part.. what does thet tell you? that im not a mass murderer [emphasis mine]

and we should learn children about violece not just hide from it , they will encounter it when they get to school anywais

thats like when i watch some cartoon about king arthur and they dont kill each other, they just smack eachother to the head.. i mean really ..

and then they never show blood in cartoons, well blood is a natural part of us its not something scary , thats like censuring the nose or something

i think the same abour pornography

Tom Hanks is great. I learned how to spell better from watching him in Toy Story.

[JustinW]

I believe cartoons have always been violent. Old episodes of bugs bunny or foghorn leghorn, those characters were bludgeoned all the time. Before cartoons books were read to children. Do you think the literature before cartoons was so called "child friendly". Even the bible's children stories are filled with death, slavery, and torture.

I wish lab_supplies would have expanded on the thought at the top of the page more. Don't get me wrong, I believe that bonding and playing games with your children is important, but there is no need to coddle. I believe an everyday, ordinary cartoon will build a more "well rounded" character. Or at least provide variety of imagination that a game of go fish could not.

[questionposter]

I believe cartoons have always been violent. Old episodes of bugs bunny or foghorn leghorn, those characters were bludgeoned all the time. Before cartoons books were read to children. Do you think the literature before cartoons was so called "child friendly". Even the bible's children stories are filled with death, slavery, and torture.

I wish lab_supplies would have expanded on the thought at the top of the page more. Don't get me wrong, I believe that bonding and playing games with your children is important, but there is no need to coddle. I believe an everyday, ordinary cartoon will build a more "well rounded" character. Or at least provide variety of imagination that a game of go fish could not.

 

That's not how it works though: If you experience more violence, then even if you consciously don't want to be, your subconscious will be. Life lessons should be taught from life, not cartoons.

[JustinW]

Oh I agree! Life shouldn't be taught through the T.V. My point was, that there is still just as much violence in literature and always has been. Most physical games deal with competition in an agressive way. And I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't edit what their children watch or do to fit the values you want to instill. The fact of the matter is that cartoons aren't more violent, there are just more cartoons. Now you could argue that the mindset of the violence has changed. Where it used to be about comedy it may be starting to lean more towards anger and malice. I could see where that might have a impacting affect on a young one on a subconcious level. Do you think subconcious thoughts affect behavior more or less than concious thought? I've only been through 1 psych class and I can't quite remember what was said about the learning process.

[CaptainPanic]

I do not think that cartoons are too violent. But I do think they are too dumb.

 

You can easily squeeze something to learn into a cartoon... and kids will absorb it without even knowing it. Put some biology lessons, or the alphabet, or simple maths into the cartoon, and kids will watch it just as happily.

 

[mississippichem]

I do not think that cartoons are too violent. But I do think they are too dumb.

 

You can easily squeeze something to learn into a cartoon... and kids will absorb it without even knowing it. Put some biology lessons, or the alphabet, or simple maths into the cartoon, and kids will watch it just as happily.

 

 

One! One good point! Ah...Ah...Ah.

[questionposter]

Oh I agree! Life shouldn't be taught through the T.V. My point was, that there is still just as much violence in literature and always has been. Most physical games deal with competition in an agressive way. And I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't edit what their children watch or do to fit the values you want to instill. The fact of the matter is that cartoons aren't more violent, there are just more cartoons. Now you could argue that the mindset of the violence has changed. Where it used to be about comedy it may be starting to lean more towards anger and malice. I could see where that might have a impacting affect on a young one on a subconcious level. Do you think subconcious thoughts affect behavior more or less than concious thought? I've only been through 1 psych class and I can't quite remember what was said about the learning process.

 

Nope, most of the time cartoons are more violent. Playing a game of football? That's not nearly as violent even if it is competitive as actually seeing the image of someone's head chopped off or whatever, and further more its also time, or a constant exposure to violence that causes problems. Although, to be fair to nature, if you live in a more hostile environment, chances are that you need to be more violent to survive, but most of the time you don't need to be and yet cartoons are. Most other things aren't that persistent in violence.