First, Rome isn't really a good example - you're referring to a particular small area of a small-in-overall-terms empire, and one that imploded. Historically, we tend to remember the sensational. Most of the world wasn't watching people fight each other to the death. Even in Rome, most people weren't. And what's often forgotten about the Coliseum is that even then, many of the battles weren't to the death (there are debates over how many gladiatorial battles were to the finish, but all agree it wasn't standard, and they also had nonviolent performances), and no one, not even those in the front row, were viewing the battle up close. It's somewhat comparable to Spanish bullfighting - horrible and brutal in execution, but with those elements not visible to most of the spectators. On top of all that, if reports of the time are accurate, the point was to show stoicism in the face of death - that even the lowest would die bravely, and so should Roman citizens - not gore.
It fell largely do to lead poisoning of a good deal of it's upper-class citizens.
No, it fell because it stopped expanding and the empire ran on a pyramid scheme that required steady influxes of new territory to support itself, and because they were brutal repressive dictators to the people they conquered, so that they needed a large standing army to keep control of the outer provinces. The lead poisoning may have something to do with why they didn't manage to realize and fix this in time, but the Coliseum decadence also reaches its high points about the same time they're behaving worst.
Christianity? Comes from the fact that the guys in charge of Jerusalem were so awful people were willing to revolt at the drop of a hat with no real chance of success, because they were so regularly abused. Pilate was such a psychotic fuck that Rome of "hey let's let lions eat people!" fame ultimately recalled him in horror at how he was handling things.
They are really just not an example to point to. There's precedent, but it'd be better to find precedent not linked so closely to disaster. Maybe the Romans weren't affected by viewing violence, but maybe that's because they were already self-destructive violent nutcases.
Also, while they may be doting, loving, and attentive, there seems to be one thing that these parents have failed to teach their children: compassion and the Golden Rule.
Those aren't taught, though. Oh, they're reinforced, but like most widespread morality systems, they're based on innate values. We're hardwired to understand pain reactions. Even small children will react to crying. So will monkeys, for that matter. Any normal person can understand reactions, as well - if I shove you, and you shove back, I'm supposed to learn that there's a cause and effect there. I'll learn that even if I can't empathize, just as I should learn that touching a hot stove burns me even though it doesn't happen because the stove is angry I touched it.
You have to go out of your way to lose these things.
My major nit-pick here is that you seem to hold the gaming industry responsible for this when really it is the parents of such children.
Well, yes. I hold movie companies responsible for creating movies with excessive violence. Additionally, parents aren't able to screen everything, especially if the kids are smart enough not to play it around them. Latchkey kids don't necessarily have neglectful parents, but at the same time, if Mom and Dad show up at seven, and the kid normally eats and does homework around then, it's easy for them to have no idea he just spent the past four hours playing some incredibly violent game (And if they catch on three months later, the kid will quite reasonably point out that they've had it for months with no problems, so what's the big deal?).
Also, there are a lot of laws in place because we recognize that parents aren't always responsible. Kids shouldn't buy cigarettes, so there's a law against it. Kids shouldn't drink, so there's a law against it. Kids shouldn't be put to work at a young age or stop going to school, so there's a law against it. Kids shouldn't see violent movies, so there's a law against that, too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Not this again...
Date: 2007-11-26 04:41 pm (UTC)It fell largely do to lead poisoning of a good deal of it's upper-class citizens.
No, it fell because it stopped expanding and the empire ran on a pyramid scheme that required steady influxes of new territory to support itself, and because they were brutal repressive dictators to the people they conquered, so that they needed a large standing army to keep control of the outer provinces. The lead poisoning may have something to do with why they didn't manage to realize and fix this in time, but the Coliseum decadence also reaches its high points about the same time they're behaving worst.
Christianity? Comes from the fact that the guys in charge of Jerusalem were so awful people were willing to revolt at the drop of a hat with no real chance of success, because they were so regularly abused. Pilate was such a psychotic fuck that Rome of "hey let's let lions eat people!" fame ultimately recalled him in horror at how he was handling things.
They are really just not an example to point to. There's precedent, but it'd be better to find precedent not linked so closely to disaster. Maybe the Romans weren't affected by viewing violence, but maybe that's because they were already self-destructive violent nutcases.
Also, while they may be doting, loving, and attentive, there seems to be one thing that these parents have failed to teach their children: compassion and the Golden Rule.
Those aren't taught, though. Oh, they're reinforced, but like most widespread morality systems, they're based on innate values. We're hardwired to understand pain reactions. Even small children will react to crying. So will monkeys, for that matter. Any normal person can understand reactions, as well - if I shove you, and you shove back, I'm supposed to learn that there's a cause and effect there. I'll learn that even if I can't empathize, just as I should learn that touching a hot stove burns me even though it doesn't happen because the stove is angry I touched it.
You have to go out of your way to lose these things.
My major nit-pick here is that you seem to hold the gaming industry responsible for this when really it is the parents of such children.
Well, yes. I hold movie companies responsible for creating movies with excessive violence. Additionally, parents aren't able to screen everything, especially if the kids are smart enough not to play it around them. Latchkey kids don't necessarily have neglectful parents, but at the same time, if Mom and Dad show up at seven, and the kid normally eats and does homework around then, it's easy for them to have no idea he just spent the past four hours playing some incredibly violent game (And if they catch on three months later, the kid will quite reasonably point out that they've had it for months with no problems, so what's the big deal?).
Also, there are a lot of laws in place because we recognize that parents aren't always responsible. Kids shouldn't buy cigarettes, so there's a law against it. Kids shouldn't drink, so there's a law against it. Kids shouldn't be put to work at a young age or stop going to school, so there's a law against it. Kids shouldn't see violent movies, so there's a law against that, too.