Isn’t it logical to assume that what people see and hear influences them? (that sentence needs to be stronger)
Isn’t it logical to conclude that the younger the person, the more they are influenced by what they see and hear? In fact, isn’t that how children learn everything? By what they see and hear? And aren’t they most influenced by what they like and are trying to model and what feels like play?
Isn’t it logical to declare that
Cannot this effect be measured? Couldn’t we easily determine whether people’s language improves or gets worse after viewing vulgar material?
Isn’t it true that a person can be measured by what they laugh at?
If it were true, as South Park continually claims, that their content does not influence for the worst, then we have to say that pornography does not influence for the worst. Indeed, we have to say that no vulgar influence influences. And here the absurdity is revealed.
Which is more influential: that which is vulgar for vulgarity’s sake, or that which is vulgar in the name of comedy, entertainment, and
Those that cry “Freedom of Speech” are those with guilty consciences. No.
Those who cry “Freedom of Speech” are those who are doing something they shouldn’t. No.
It is also a poor dangerous evil model. To do one thing, and state, emphatically state, the opposite.
To be vulgar, and empahtically deny being vulgar. I see students do this regularly.
If what we see and hear did not influence, then there would be no advertising. In fact, though, advertising runs most industries. People are suggestible, in fact they are only suggestible.
Marketing can, and does, measure their influence. They track the increase in sales after an advertising campaign.