Kids Who Watch R-Rated Movies More Likely to Start Drinking

[Always_Remain]

WHAT? I'm too busy drinking to understand that text. Now excuse me while I go play a video game and then go kill a family of four from Arkansas.

 

[Superior Mind]

I started drinking before I had even watched my first R16 movie. Explain THAT Dartmouth Medical School.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Well I can safely say that I grew up on Terminator, Robocop (other violent films) and I don't drink, although I' am probably an exceptionn, however I fail to see the connection between watching violent films and taking up drinking, really astounding what people come up with.

 

[Rokar333]

Did they think that maybe, just possibly, the parents who take their kids to see R rated movies Don't Care if their kids drink.

God forbid people recognize that a lot of parents also drunk underage and maybe don't have an issue with underage drinking.

Whereas kids who live with parents who try to censor everything from them are more likely to batshit insane pussies whose kids will rebel much more outrageously in later years.

Also only 25%, really, that's an issue. You think maybe these were the kids who were going to drink underage anyway. It's stupid shit like this that is making me doubt some research colleges.

 

[linkblade91]

I'm 19, and I haven't had a single alcoholic drink in my life. I don't exactly plan to drink when I do reach 21, either. At the same time, I thoroughly enjoy a number of R-rated movies; in fact, some of my favorite movies have been deemed R-rated, such as Die Hard and V for Vendetta.

Drinking by 13 or 14? I find that ridiculously upsetting in a theoretical sense, and very sad because I know it to be the truth for some people.

 

[Mray3460]

It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

The Amethyst Initiative, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and similar groups basically lobbied the congress to death until they finally passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which essentially allowed the federal government to withhold funds until a state changed its policies to be in-keeping with the act (Which technically DOES fall within the bounds of the constitution. While directly banning the sale of alcohol to people <21 years of age is prohibited by the 9th amendment)

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

That's what I can't accept. The idea that "oh, well we can't enforce it as a federal law, why don't we threaten them till they pass it at the state level"

Before I begin my re-response, let me just say that I agree that the whole thing stinks to high heaven

I mean if the government collects federal taxes yet refuses to spend money on them... isn't that taxation without representation? Isn't that what the entire American War of independence was (started) over?

How could the Constitution have missed that out!?!?

First off, no, it's not "taxation without representation." TWR is the act of taxing someone without giving them a representative in the government. In the case of the colonies, the British parliament placed taxes on them, regardless of the fact that colonies had no representatives in parliament. So this is not "Taxation without representation" it's "Taxation without...anything."

Second, the Constitution is by no means a perfect document, nor was it ever intended to be, and was written under dreadful circumstances (I'm writing my final term paper on the subject, hense why I know this). In essence, when the Constitution was originally written, the framers expected the United States to remain just that: united stateS. They never expected that the states would be reliant on federal funds for ANYTHING (They expected the opposite, that the federal government would always be supported by the states), or that the feds would work within the affairs of the individual states beyond inter-state relations. So, how did the Constitution not protect against this? It was not designed to.

And 9th Amendment is kind of a weak one, that basically says you have right even if they aren't actually listed (natural rights), but it's all too easy for a court to simply not see certain rights as inherent.

...no arguments from me on this point!

Aren't States guaranteed some certain and distinct amount of independence? Wouldn't the 10th amendment prevent the united States (federal) from forcing the states to change their laws?

Surely only a constitutional amendment could bring about something like enforcing a law for all states.

You'd think so but...no.

You've forgotten about another key piece of the constitution: The Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Translated to newspeak, that means that Federal treaties, policies, and laws, outweigh and overrule any and all contradictory state laws.

The 10th amendment talks about something completely unrelated

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What that means is that any power that the Constitution Does not give to the federal government, along with any power not expressly forbid to the states or general citizens, belongs to the states and general citizens exclusively. And, yes, before you or anyone else points out, this amendment HAS been violated innumerable times by the federal government, but at this point no-one with any power is doing or will do anything about it, as the government has long since stopped paying attention to parts of the document that clash with its agenda.

As for constitutional amendments, I believe I've already demonstrated why those are not necessary to enforce national will on the states: No one cares.

Brass tacks man, no one who has the power to make a difference cares about the violation of the constitution's checks and balances, mainly because there's no penalty.

Is the constitution going to break out of its display case at the national archives and beat up a politician breaking its rules? I think not.

Are other politicians, who themselves have no doubt completely ignored the constitution in favor of getting themselves another term in office by taking advantage of the fear of a bunch of alarmists, going to stop that politician and enforce the rules that THEY broke? I think not.

Will those crazy Tea-Party activists rise up in open rebellion to overthrow the government? Possibly...but...

Will they be able to stand up to the accumulated power of the US military, along with a bunch of other people who like the system JUST fine how it is: unenforced? I think not.

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Robert632]

If the R-rated movies they watch mention drinking alot, then this is like saying a child who watches porn at a young age will masterbate sooner. They are just exposed to it before they should be

 

[Silk_Sk]

Yeah, I think it's just a case of irresponsible parents. Mine never let me watch R-rated films when I was young and I'm 22 years sober. I will also add I have the best parents anyone could ask for.

 

[sirkai007]

Bullshit.

Well put, HUBILUB.

I watch R-rated movies all the time and I don't drink, I don't smoke and I am a virgin.

Therefore, ...

Bullshit.

You are also a member on a video game forum. Could that possibly be linked your lack of sexual experience and never going to any parties where the cool kids are getting laid and drunk at the same time?

Perhaps... Just like "perhaps R rated movies cause kids to drink". Just because there is a positive correlation doesn't rule out other factors. More research is needed before you can say anything for sure.

What if the kid's parents let them drink? The parents obviously don't have a problem with them watching film content that is potentially disturbing to children.

PS I don't mean to flame you, I don't go to those kind of parties either.

 

[Slayer_2]

I was allowed to watch R movies, play M games, etc, and I don't drink alcohol (at all) or have sex indiscriminately. I think this "study" is BS, but that is just my personal opinion.

 

[archvile93]

what the media consistantly fails to realize is that just because one thing is linked to another does NOT mean one causes the other.

 

[Bek359]

I love how every one of these bullshit "studies" thinks that correlation implies causation, when it is just as much, if not more likely, that both are caused by a third factor, like, say, inattentive parents?

 

[Aura Guardian]

I watched my first R-rated movie when I was 12. And to this day....I don't drink.

 

[tkioz]

I think I first saw an R rated movie when I was 6, Commando, at a friends house. Meh, didn't hurt me none.

 

[Billion Backs]

Because most teenagers don't drink. Nope, not at all! And that party they're going to is really a homework club!

What's the big deal here, anyways?

And I really love how correlation ALWAYS implies causation. Apparently. Hey did you know that the majority of people involved in car crashes on weekday mornings had cereal for breakfast! Newsflash! Eating cereal makes you more likely to be involved in a car crash!

 

[Zayren]

However, it can also be argued that parents who restrict access to R-rated media are also the type of parents more likely to be the keeping strict tabs on all of their child's activities.

This. The one thing I've learned from statistics is this: Correlation does not imply causation. Just because some see R movies and drink more does NOT means seeing R movies made them drink more.

 

[little.09]

watched my first R rated movie (kill bill vol 1) when i was 11. I drink, not because of kill bill but because i have fun when i drink.(Also I'm Australian, its a national past time). this survey is bull crap because it was obviously done by someone who took the data out of context to suite his/her opinion. As far as i can tell they haven't looked at any other factors. For example family history, location and how they feel when they drink, i would like to like to slap the person who did the research(ill settle for slapping their mum), because they may as well have made up their data, because they used no scientific method.

Ill have a beer for you mate

 

[katsumoto03]

I guess that I'm one of those pansies who doesn't drink or watch R movies.

And Canadian laws are awesome.