Hunger Games NOT for young teenagers

BostonB

I didn't realise there was that much fuss about the Hunger games.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2120908/Hunger-Games-gory-young-teens-say-parents-hit-films-PG-13-rating.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/28/hunger-games-12a-classification-concerned-parents
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-hunger-games

iguana

BostonB wrote: »

For me that is filtering, sanitising, and thus contradictory in itself.

Only because you severly underestimate what children can handle. I've described the kinds of things we discussed, they weren't sanitised. If they wanted to sanitise the discussion when I asked if our neutrality meant we'd be ok, they'd have let me believe that. Instead they were honest and told me that, that was unlikely and we were actually living a short distant from a very likely target. (Which as it turns out, we were.) And that we lived in just about the worst possible place in terms of the effects of the radiation, which would be gruesome, so our best bet if the war happened was to kill ourselves asap. If you think that is sanitised I'm very curious as to how you'd describe the potential events of WW3 to someone who lives in an area that would experience direct fallout from the blast.

I can't decide if the fact that you are ignoring my descriptions of the actual discussions we had is baffling or very telling. I'm leaning toward the latter. You seem utterly unable to get your head around what I'm posting so are ignoring the details and are instead trying to score some really petty points to legitimise your discomfort.

Btw, a low infant age group is a newborn considering that an infant is generally accepted to be a child up to the age of one. Some looser definitions include toddlers but a five year old is long past the infant stage.

BostonB

Low/junior/high infants is what they call that aged class in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_education#Ireland

I simply pointed out your comment (the bit quoted) contradicted itself.

All the rest of it is extraneous, because you're making the same points as the quotation. You say you were told about some things and not about other things. That's filtering, or at best being selective in answering a question. That its because you didn't ask, was expedient, in filtering what you were told. Only answering what's asked can be a classic method of withholding information.

iguana

BostonB wrote: »

I simply pointed out your comment (the bit quoted) contradicted itself.

All the rest of it is extraneous, because you're making the same point as the quoted bit. You say you were told about some things and not about other things. That's filtering, or at best being selective in answering a question. That its because you didn't ask, was expedient, in filtering what you were told. Only answering what's asked can be a classic method of withholding information.

But it didn't contradict itself as I never said they told me everything. I said they told me certain things. Why are you so intent on catching me out on something I never said?

BostonB

I've deleted my post, you're right, I'm not interested. I only wanted to find out about this movie. I've done that. Cheers.

iguana

BostonB wrote: »

If the point of those essays about all the horrific stories you were told as a kid was not against the filtering of content kids have access to by parents what was the point?

It was a response to your 'grisly is grisly' attempt at making a point. And they weren't 'horrific stories' they were honest discussions about the reality of the world we live in.

Is your point really that it is less traumatic to learn this stuff when your younger and less mature?

Yes, infinitely less so. I learned this stuff at a young age and was never even remotely traumatised by what we talked about because we talked about it in a safe, controlled way. So there is no way I would have found it less traumatic at an older age because it's not possible to have less traumatic than zero trauma. The kinds of things that people on this are talking about being traumatic for kids weren't at all traumatic to me precisely because my parents ensured I learned about the worst aspects of humanity in a way that I could handle. I didn't like that such things existed but I had no trouble dealing with it. No nightmares, no phobias, no loss of innocence. I still believed in Santa and the tooth fairy and fervently hoped that if I learned to twiddle my nose the right way magic would happen.

BostonB

Now you've quoted a post that doesn't exist. I deleted it. So you recreated it as a quote. Lovely. It leaves out what I quoted which was an quote of your ramblings before I mentioned grisly. But Can you not just leave it at that. You're obviously not traumatised. I'll send little Boston into school with a copy of Saving Private Ryan for show and tell.

BostonB

cynder wrote: »

...We had to close our eyes at the sex scenes but not at the violent scenes.

Why the distinction? I ask in the context of this comment..

'The documentary Bully got an R rating while The Hunger Games got a PG 13. I guess kids killing other kids is preferable to swearing?' Sian Heder wrote....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2120908/Hunger-Games-gory-young-teens-say-parents-hit-films-PG-13-rating.html

Are the age ratings meaningless to most people then? I ask because I was on an outing a while back with 7~11 about 20 kids and the group was asked who had played COD and I'd say 80% of the group said they had. Thats a 16's rated game.