Presently, cinema has become a dominant force and an indispensable aspect in the world. It is no more an entertainment activity alone. It is found to significantly influence almost every aspect of human life. Even governance could not escape from its evil influence!
Youth unfortunately become addicted to cinema by its extravaganza and glitter. Portrayal of actors as exceptional individuals on screen misleads impressionable youth into thinking that actors are morally good. The naïve and uninformed youth often fail to recognize that these actors are just ordinary individuals who opted to pursue acting for quick financial gain.
The trend of actors entering politics is a socially unwelcome phenomenon. Ill-gotten wealth gained through the film industry is often misused to establish political parties. Unfortunately, male actors who have entered into politics draw large female followings, which then become their voting base. Consequently, governing politicians tend to praise these actors and their imaginary impact on society.
Several government awards, prizes and appointment as ambassadors for government projects and extensive media coverage of cinema celebrities deceive individuals, especially the youth, to view cinema as a worthy human endeavor.

Immorality flourishes in this world of black money, cinema.
Government remains a mute spectator to the pervasive malpractices because of the immense political clout cinema possesses.
Therefore it is seen that cinema masquerading as an indispensable activity gets undue precedence over all other pressing problems. The poor is misled to support cinema.
As cinema targets mainly the youth for its existence and survival, parents and educational institutions have to play a crucial role in guiding the youth toward a healthy direction.
The exploitation of cinema by the media people for their personal ends should be denounced and controlled.
If society does not collectively strive to demonstrate to our youth the harmful impact of cinema on their lives, true positive growth cannot occur and we will be living perpetually in an atmosphere of deception

There still is cinema in 2025?

If indeed there still is, then the films are probably ignored, where boys and girls come there only to kiss in the dark.

Isn't this what really troubles you, Ezhil?
As well as the loss in mosque attendance?

I remember the last time I actually went into a cinema:
there was no worthwhile film, but I needed to prevent my Qantas frequent-flying points from expiring, so I bought a ticket and never bothered entering the actual movie.

Do you think that when Bruce Willis climbed into an aircraft wheel bay in the Die Hard movie he might have inspired many poor buggers to do likewise, freeze solid, and then get dropped out before Heathrow?

Cinema's got nothing in comparison to Woke Uni indoctrination !

An irrational comparison. Only specific replies to points raised in the discussion will be fruitful for understanding.

Dear Ezhil,

«Only specific replies to points raised in the discussion will be fruitful for understanding.»

Just to clarify: did you mean all points raised in this discussion as a whole or only the points raised by yourself in the opening post?

I have made my point:
In today's world, 2025, with all its over-abundance of stimuli (a disease by its own), cinema no longer influences anyone. If it still exists at all, then that is only because teenagers like the format rather than content, to sit in a dark room, eat popcorn and kiss.

Why does the society allow this kind of wasteful activity at a very high cost ignoring essential problems of the maases? Is it only to allow teenagers to have fun in public or to make cinema people
rich robbing common man's share?
Rational thinking is a sign of human development.

Dear Ezhil,

«Why does the society allow this kind of wasteful activity»

This is not a matter for the so-called "society": it is a matter for parents, who are the only legitimate party to allow or disallow their children to do things.

If I had to be a parent to a teenager these days, then I would first need to plough through a long list of worse things before reaching that "cinema" item near the bottom.

One alternative is to provide youth with a similar venue like a cinema where they have the privacy of sitting in the dark in a similar fashion, just without the movie!

And BTW, most activities performed these days by both children and adults, are wasteful anyway. So long as others are not harmed, people will just have to learn from their mistakes.

it is a matter for parents
Yuyutsu,
Well, yes & no. Education lacking in sense & economic woes & most of all social engineering by way of unhinged welfare groups more often than not persecute parents who try to counter outside influences such as the Woke & LGBT outfits.
Give parents the opportunity to be parents & most of these cranks would disappear in no time & kids will be normal again.

Dear Indyvidual,

Without prejudice, it ought to be the parents and them alone who choose the appropriate school(s) for their children.
You may or may not like what they teach there, but unless these are your own children, all that is none of your business.

Didn't the Iranians use Rambo movies to pump up their soldiers before battles? Where is the morality there? Isn't cinema more a tool that gets used by all sorts of people for all sorts of purposes rather than conforming to a very limited view of it being a corrupting western influence?

There was a time when some believed that the written word would bring about a dumbing down of society. Perhaps cinema is intrinsically no different from any other form of human expression?

"This is not a matter for the so-called "society": it is a matter for parents, who are the only legitimate party to allow or disallow their children to do things"

Individual patents and their children do not live in isolation. They are very much part of the society. What is happening in the society and environment will have its impact on parents and their children. Cinema is a highly addiction forming media and immature children will certainly be influenced beyond their parental control. Devilish minds make Cinema to enrich themselves at the cost of overall welfare of the society. This was probably not the idea of cinema in the beginning.

Ezhil,

I suggest that you consider using cinema as a means of making your point.

I'm having trouble making much of what you are saying: You seem a bit like people claiming the corruption of youth from various types of music like jazz or rap. Who knows, there may be a common corrupting element in "The Eternal Jew", "The Triumph of the Will", "On Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Dirty Harry", "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or "Fitzcarraldo", but it seems to elude me.

The theme of this thread is, of course, nonsense. But at least it is an OPINION, not some second hand stuff from Google or a minor "expert", littered with 'references' that nobody bothers opening.

Hi Ezhill,
"Why does the society allow this kind of wasteful activity"
- Because individuals are allowed to spend or invest their money however they choose, and it can be profitable venture and provide royalties for many years and can also be a national export.

Just like almost every computer we buy Microsoft windows is on it and they collect a form of rent from the world, not just in the initial purchase but in subscriptions.

Why do you think it's wasteful?
A lot of blokes might think Bold and the Beautiful is a waste of money, but millions of women would disagree.

And what's your problem ttbn,
Maybe if you read some of my links you might be better informed, and not still living in the 1950's, and at least I can back up the things I say.

Business oriented capitalistic minds have difficulty in understanding the altruistic principles. Investment and profit model without honesty is a dangerous idea and it has done immense harm to people by way of class struggles.Huge investment in cinema has not helped nations to profit in any sense of the term.Poverty is rampant, communal classes escalate, war is ravaging many regions and people live in fear for their lives. So what is the profit to the society out of colossal investment in cinema? It has helped only cinema people to amass wealth at the cost of people's welfare. Cinema as a technology cannot be misused to benefit only a few, the cinema men and women.

Ezhil,

Are you saying that cinema is like a living force that corrupts minds, or are corrupt minds attracted to cinema? Also, is the corruption perpetrated by cinema a lone wolf or cooperative effort? Could you explain the underlying intelligence or objectives of cinema?

AC

You couldn't put two words together if you didn't have other people's utterances to repeat. And that's all you do: repeat something you saw or heard from other people, most of whom you don't know.

While everyone does this from time to time, references do not prove anything - they are just something you want to believe.

They certainly do not “back up” your posts. They just indicate that someone else holds the same views you do. Big deal! We can all find references that suit our own particular opinions and views; but many of those views and opinions, plus scientific data, get shot down in the course of time. You only have to look at the blues our idiotic politicians have made, and continue to make, by listening to “experts”.

Nobody is infallible. And when you have clearly qualified people such as scientists having opposing views on all sorts of matters, you might as well use Bob the Builder as your “back up”.

How about providing some of your own opinions by starting a thread, instead of just attacking posters who are responding to threads from people with the guts to put something up.

Perhaps you are too cowardly and piss weak?

"You only have to look at the blues our idiotic politicians have made, and continue to make, by listening to 'experts'."

I'd say that they listen to the wrong experts, but lets take Covid.
Were they listening to the wrong experts, or was the game rigged to benefit pharmaceutical companies to begin with.

Even in the early days I was watching videos that said the ventilators were inadvertently killing people, that the vaccine messes up women's menstrual cycles, that it shouldn't be administered to kids, and funeral directors were seeing massive blood clots.

Anyone that paid attention would've known the vaccines were not made to combat the virus as the DNA sequence had not been learned but the vaccine which was actually a gene therapy was already available, that it would not prevent you from getting the virus nor prevent you giving it to others.
And then they prevented people from taking other things such as Ivermectin, and spoke about how Australia would be the most vaccinated country like it was a race, not each individuals personal health decision.

But they kept pushing 'Got to get your 9th booster shot' anyway.

So you have 'experts' and then you also have just 'total bs'.

95% of people couldn't see through the bs.
Believed everything the government said.

Am I the idiot, or is it actually the other 95% ?

"How about providing some of your own opinions by starting a thread, instead of just attacking posters who are responding to threads from people with the guts to put something up.

Perhaps you are too cowardly and piss weak?"

I'll think about it, I don't really like the idea of 'policing' everyone's responses, as they are their own.

ttbn,

I'd argue that civilisation is a construct of shared ideas, whereas a life of complete originality is the life of a savage.

Be grateful for threads like these that don't attract the goons. This is a thread for true believers.

Cinema certainly corrupts the innocent and the ignorant. The only idea of cinema is making money. No noble aims can be seen.

Discussion should proceed in a decent manner. Calling others names is not a civilized way of putting forth one's point of view. ttbn you have a narrow vision and narrower horizon.Arguments should lead to understanding and not
Confusion. You please get some opinions from intellectuals whether the opinion that cinema hijacks people or not.

Ezhil,

So are you claiming that cinema is like a video game and can mesmerise people, sometimes resulting in brutal acts? Wouldn't that then make video games as bad?

I think it would help this discussion if you better described your argument. I'm sure it is clear to you, but I feel like a blind man confronting an elephant.

Do you mean to say that cinema can be allowed to hoodwink people because there are many other bad things such as video games?
Whichever is found bad should be corrected. That should be the policy.I strongly feel that cinema is terribly being misused to send wrong messages to the youth because of cinema people's bad character. Cherry picking points to argue is not healthy. Will you please reply to all points raised in my post?
I am posting such topics not for fun or for hurting others sentiments. Let us continue the discussion in such a way that will lead to some enlightenment on the topic.

Fester,

Yes. I believe, and try to remember , that if someone takes the trouble to start a thread, they are asking for comments on their subject.

For my part, I will address that subject, and discuss it with the thread instigator if the need arises.

I have no wish to get into arguments with every Tom, Nick or Harry who doesn't like my opinion. There is no competition. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and the expression of that opinion is all that is needed. There is no point in silly disputes that won't change anything.

In this case, I don't agree with Ezhil, but I don't feel strongly enough about the subject (I don't go to movies, and like most people I am not influenced by Hollywood nutters who think they should be taken seriously).

However, I do look at comments, and was somewhat annoyed when my comment - not directly aimed at anyone in particular - was taken up by Armchair Critic. He must have a guilty conscience! His usual sorts of comments : ‘I might learn something from his references’, I'm back living in the 50s; all that childish crap.

I should have ignored him as I usually do, and I apologise to Ezhil for going off his topic, something that he obviously feels strongly about.

What I'm trying to do is understand the argument you are presenting. Likening your argument to other things is one way of doing that.

How am I to make anything of your argument if I cannot understand what you are describing in detail? The questions I have been asking you have been to that purpose.

A few real world examples of the harm done by cinema might be a good start. Even one example would be good.

Thanks, ttbn.

I looked at the thread and thought what a breath of fresh air it was to see a topic that wouldn't be polarised. I'm glad you know enough to disagree. At this point, I don't have a clue about what is being claimed. If this thread turns out to be like click bait I shall be very angry.

Black money is rampant in cinema.It is never subjected to any scrutiny by governments.cinema people and politicians are hand in glove in this regard.People's money is swindled this way. Will this not affect the priority for essential programmes ? Cinema runs a parallel economy, it is well known.Actors do not pay incometax properly. Most of their salary is hush money.

Immoral activities such as use of drugs and sex related crimes are common in cinema.
Crime and obscene scenes will affect the youth. It is no more an entertainment but a ploy to trap the innocent.
Heavens will not fall if cinema is restricted. Now it appears that making cinema is much more essential than other programmes.That is the level of priority cinema gets. There are many more. But I will stop here

I'm not sure what you mean either Ezhill.
Movies are funded by production companies and then if the production is good then hopefully they get their money back and make money and people enjoy the production. I don't see how people's money is swindled, though the government probably does give some money to the abc and some small australian production companies, though I'm not very knowledgeable on that.
Go to the cinema, don't go to the cinema,
Hire or buy the movie on google TV
Sign up to a paid TV surscription service.
- Or don't, no-one's forcing you to.

Whilst I think some programming is garbage
(But that's actually up to each persons own personal preferences)

I think that some movies are quite enjoyable,
You can sit down and relax and take your mind off things for a while
Different perspective on life through cinema can help you see things in different ways
Some TV is informative and you can learn new things
You can get daily news updates and other information, play music
Some TV like comedies can make you laugh, and not take things so seriously.
Some people enjoy sports or other hobbies, cooking, gardening, home renovations for example
You can sit down and watch TV with people you love.
There's TV for kids which helps them learn.

It's not in any way reasonable to say that all TV or cinema is bad.
I like watching movies.

Hey Fester,
Which Die Hard did John McClean climb up into the airplane wheel well?

Oops, I meant John McClane, not the toothpaste.

My mistake, AC. I was sure I'd seen such a film (probably Air Force One with Harrison Ford), but apparently there is no film where the hero accesses a plane from the wheel well. I did find a story about a couple of wheel well stowaways who claimed inspiration from a film, but they couldn't remember the film.

Dear Ezhil,

«Individual patents and their children do not live in isolation. They are very much part of the society.»

Individuals (both parents and children) are sentient beings - "society" is not. I rather care for the living than for the dead.

«Cinema is a highly addiction»

Cinema was a common addiction in the 20th century.
Perhaps there could still be some youngsters in 3rd-world countries who are addicted to it, but in Australia and other "developed" countries, the youth have by now moved on to much stronger drugs, which should be more concerning.

I must've been about 12 or 13 when I first saw the original Die Hard Fester,
I had a copy of it on the old Beta video cassette.
I must've watched it 20 times, I think I could've recited the entire movie word for word.
But I only ever saw the later Die Hard movies once or twice.
I'd started to grow up, and was always out with my schoolmates, usually doing something stupid / mischief etc.
Being a little older I didn't care for being at home watching TY round the Christian family anymore, I'd saved up and gotten myself a dirt bike in high school, then it was girls, then a job and my drivers license and then a car.

I just wasn't sure there was a airplane wheel well scene in the later Die Hard movies or not.

Comparing the different social evils is for the planners. As individuals let us confine ourselves to the theme of the thread. Can we all deny the fact that cinema has hijacked the society from the orderly life that we all learn in our studies and from elders? Cinema has changed the value system.
Whatever it is cinema is not essential for life. Giving undue importance to cinema has affected the normal functioning of the society. It promotes material culture which is not desirable
People start living virtual lives due to the influence of cinema.

Dear Ezhil,

«Can we all deny the fact that cinema has hijacked the society from the orderly life that we all learn in our studies and from elders?»

That ideal orderly and God-centered life has been hijacked millennia ago, whereas cinema only appeared around a century ago.

Our elders were only a couple of generations behind us, and as I grow older, when elders are us (and no, cinema has never played a major role in my life), I discover more and more how less-than-ideal our revered elders were and how dishonest and ungodly were their teachings, sorry, but they did not really know any better.

Our studies too of between 3,000-5,000 years of documented history, show much cruelty, slavery, deprivation and wars, and how instead of cinema, gossip ran the show. Orderly life was harsh and cruel especially towards women, and what has now been partially replaced by ugly commercial materialism, which none of us likes, was then expressed as rampant worship of masculinity, which I wouldn't like either.

In the 1960-70's, the young has rebelled against this fake order, mostly in real life, not in cinema, but you can see the confused result in the film "Yellow Submarine" - yes, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", all guidance was lost as the elders' example proved empty and unworthy.

As much as we like to idealise, we will have to look much much further back into the past to find that ideal, times when human population was much sparser, times where the great holy sages were living a simple meditative life on earth, where peace and knowledge of God reigned, times when materiality had so little value that the line between material reality and mythology were still blurred.

Some call it the Garden of Eden, others call it Dream-Time.

"Can we all deny the fact that cinema has hijacked the society from the orderly life that we all learn in our studies and from elders? Cinema has changed the value system."

Yes I would deny that.
But I can't even figure out if you're referring only to movies or all TV including platforms like youtube or only 'going to the movies' (cinema) to which I haven't done so in a few years.

I think it's more accurate to say that there are pro's and con's.
Good and bad aspects of television viewing.

I wouldn't say that society has been hijacked by cinemas showing kids movies over the school holidays, and quite honestly we live in a modern world now, the idea that 'TV is evil' is about as ridiculous as my newly born-again religious father was banning 'The Simpsons' in our house nearly 40 years ago now, because he thought it was a 'Work of the devil'.

Bart Simpson: - 'Don't have a cow, man'

Hi Ezhill,
Why don't you go watch something funny on TV and lighten up a bit.
If you don't like cinema and you'd prefer to be sad and miserable then go sit in the corner by yourself and don't watch it.
- But don't try to ruin everyone else's fun.

Don't have a cow man Compilation | The Simpsons
http://youtu.be/X3sdZw1gThE

Fester -
Harrison Ford from Air Force One

"Get off my plane!"

Yes I agree that the past was not that better. Present must be better than the past naturally. But new inventions should lead to a better civilisation. Has cinema brought that? Certainly not. It has made the life more miserable.In the past crimes were committed by a few rowdies. But now fraud, corruption,lack of honesty and integrity have been decentralised. Very few remain honest. We are born not to have fun only. Let us also be a bit serious about the unpleasant environment created by the so called modern gadgets.
Civilisation should take us towards a better world where people lead a
friendly life sans animosity and acrimony. I don't think cinema helps in that direction.

TV is like free speech.
I can be wielded as a weapon to influence people in a malevolent way
But it can also be used as a tool to defend the innocent and be a facilitator of good..

There's pro's and con's.
The world is always changing.
Change is always met with challenge.
Human progress, sometimes it feels like regress.
In an of itself TV isn't bad, the content however is what we are questioning are we not?

You want to tell me that Home and Away doesn't attempt to show young people the adult world and help and prepare hem growing up?
That Bold and the Beautiful doesn't give mums a small break from the tediousness of raising kids, that Weekend sports with a beer doesn't give blokes a few hours to unwind and relax after working all week, that people aren't inspired by cooking and home renovation shows?
That people that like gardening and painting can't find programming suitable to their own tastes or that the news (as fake as it is) doesn't create a more unified society up to date with current affairs and events that have an impact on their lives.
Or that for some of us that yell at the news, it doesn't provide a relief valve to throw in ya 2 cents at the stupidity of the world.
That it doesn't provide an income for thousands of people who create content we all watch if we put up with the ads.
Even he damn ads inform us o products and services that can help us in our lives.

I'm not going to let you put TV down unchallenged without getting real, and making you be more specific than saying 'Cinema is evil'.

You can't just say 'Cinema is hijacking society'.
The argument deserves to be challenged and refuted.
What about millions of people who have learnt so much more than they ever would've if not for TV?

What the hell are you even talking about?
That TV can't be used for a tool for good like telethons to raise money for sick kids in hospitals?
Or as a training tool for surgeons than must operate on them?

Go to google right now and ask this:
'do surgeons learn through video of procedures'
"Yes, surgeons absolutely learn through videos, using them extensively for initial skill acquisition, preparation for complex cases, and post-procedure self-evaluation, often alongside traditional methods like reading and simulation, to improve technique, understand anatomy, and boost confidence before operating."

Until you acknowledge the good, not just the bad, I feel your entire argument is flawed and lacks merit.

Pro's and Con's
- It can be a tool of good and a tool of bad, but it's human progress.

If you want to get real and say that some programs certainly can lead some people astray, then sure I'll agree with you that it can have a negative impact on people and society, but you can't have that without also acknowledging the good.

TV is a part of life and it's not going anywhere, so live with it, find a show you like or read a book instead.
You can complain about it all you want, but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

"What about millions of people who have learnt so much more than they ever would've if not for TV?"
Alright people learn many things from TV and cinema. Has this learning helped to change world to a better place to live in? These media will have only a temporary influence on good things. But children and the wicked take bad things shown strongly and even practice them in their life. Poverty adds to this kind of development. Hungry man is not affected by good sermons from media or from religious men. Let us give priority to teach human values to our future generations. Let us not allow the media to play negative role .Now They are monopolized by the bad elements who are least bothered about truth, honesty, integrity etc and who live every day separately and they do not understand that life is a continuity.

The overall influence of moving pictures has been negative.
That is not to say that there have not been positives also, but the balance is negative.

Yet moving pictures are only a part of a larger trend, called "media".
"Media" literally means indirect living.
Instead of facing life itself directly, people isolate themselves and live life THROUGH a medium.

This can result in a sedentary, passive lifestyle, as well as succumbing to comparisons, comparing oneself to others and often feeling inadequate and as a result attempting to disingenuously live the life of others.

NEVERTHELESS, the choice of having a healthy, independent, wise and fulfilling life or otherwise, must always remain with the individual, and in the case of children - with their parents.

It is relatively better for people to make poor choices, then learn and gradually become wiser the hard way, than to force others (who are not one's children or pupils) to go through the motions of a good life resentfully and without learning anything.

Attempts to wilfully improve society, tempting as they may be, are a mistake, akin to deciding that primary schools should no longer teach about integers, but go straight to teach fractions. This world is a school and people must learn their lessons in order, or they will not understand anything.

Strength will be gained when people themselves (and on behalf of their children) learn to say 'NO' to devices that are not helpful.

Hi Ezhill,
My only point was that there are pro's and con's, good and bad, and that it comes down to each program on their own merits.
Also take note that we do have ratings, G, PG, AO and warnings for drugs, nudity, and violence etc.

"But children and the wicked take bad things shown strongly and even practice them in their life."
- That's true, I acknowledged some programs can have a negative impact on some people and society in general.

"Let us give priority to teach human values to our future generations."
- There's nothing to stop you from doing this all on your own, starting your own youtube channel and X.com and Tik Tok content.
Nothing to stop you from 'Being the change you wish to see in the world'.
You could start a channel, 'Cinema is hijacking Society' I'm sure you'll get some viewers, but if what you really want to do is teach human values, just do that.

"Let us not allow the media to play negative role"
Programming and truth is hijacked for special interests and official narratives.

As for Yuyutsu's important point.
'On balance, overall influence'
He says negative.

I'd say 'too many factors to make an informed decision either way'.

You see, we wouldn't have the computer without the TV screen.
And it makes me wonder do we blame cinema, or the camera that made moving pictures?
Maybe we should be angry about progress itself.

In any case the TV is just a small part of what became computers.
You take away the TV, and then there's no computer, take away the computer and there's no internet, and you take away all the good, (and bad) that comes from all of it.
- And that's why arguing over whether TV on balance is a good or bad thing, is just too big an idea to quantify - if it was never invented.

That's all I have to offer.

Dear Critic,

The first computers I used had no screens.

You fed them with punched cards, then received their response in a printout of continuous paper.

And if you really needed a graphic output, they later came with a plotter device too.

All that meant that there was no immediate sense-gratification, so before submitting input you took time to consider what was really important and what wasteful.

I was personally fascinated with the TV screen, but that was about the technicalities of how it works, how signals are transmitted through the air and how electron beams are magnetically diverted at the correct frequencies to form images - it was about that, not about broadcasted content.

Same for [what is now called] the internet - the implementation of its low-level protocols (UDP/IP and TCP/IP) can be very interesting and challenging, but adding the web layer on top is neither well-planned nor particularly intelligent.

Hi Yuyutsu,
I accept your points, hope you can accept my errors.
But I'm sure you kind of get where I was going.

Would the world be a better place without moving pictures?
- I don't know, but I'm leaning towards a 'no'.
Just think of the crime that would ensue without security cameras.

Let me ask a different question,

Have mobile phones hijacked society?
Would the world be a better place without mobile phones?

And again I think that if you take away the bad aspects that they can bring, that you also take away the good aspects that they can bring.

Maybe the best we can hope for is to minimise the bad, and maximise the good, but suddenly just saying that I feel like the e-safety commissioner looking for content to censor.

Intelligent men
Invent systems, science
To alleviate human suffering
Lo! Materialistic men
Foolish, misuse
Trade on
And aggravate
People's misery

"Have mobile phones hijacked society?
Would the world be a better place without mobile phones"

Certainly Yes.All are busy with mobiles. No time to talk to children,parents, friends,neighbours etc.No sufficient social interaction. What kind of a society we make? Divorces and suicides are more amongst computer people it is reported. These physical developments can only make life easy but cannot bring hapiness.Only a civilized and interactive society can make people happy. The happiness index in the so called developed countries is very low

Pro's and Con's Ezhil
You see I kind of threw that in just to see what the response would be.

So parents being able to keep track of their kids location isn't a good thing?
Parents being able to contact their kids anytime, and kids being able to contact their parents anytime.
What about people of all ages being able to contact others in an emergency?

It's easy to think about drawbacks of said cinemas and mobile phones, but do you really grasp and appreciate all of the benefits?

It's hard to see all the benefits of human progress.
One day mankinds civilisation will reach out into the stars.

Your last paragraph seems like a lot to unpack right now.

Pro's and Con's.
- A little from Column A, and a little from Column B.
- Change is always met with challenge.

"So parents being able to keep track of their kids location isn't a good thing?
Parents being able to contact their kids anytime, and kids being able to contact the the r parents anytime.
What about people of all ages being able to contact others in an emergency?"

These statements amply illustrate the amount of insecurity in the society.With so much distrust life is miserable. Parents did not keep track of their wards in the past. Now we have to fix cameras at homes,offices and many other places to feel secure.What a great life and society we have now? Loving fellowmen can only bring a sense of security.Let us move towards that. Development without human values is a dangerous thing, indeed.

Dear Critic,

«Just think of the crime that would ensue without security cameras.»

Assuming your are unwilling to re-employ human night watchmen.

There may be anecdotal advantages to security cameras, but I could easily write a full page about the woes caused by them.

Crimes exist because there are criminally-minded individuals on the one hand, along with others who deserve to suffer as their "victims". Security cameras tend to some extent to divert the criminals away from locations which have them - towards other locations which do not. Overall suffering will never diminish by wilful schemes.

«Have mobile phones hijacked society?
Would the world be a better place without mobile phones?»

Yes, and Ezhil already gave you several reasons, to which I can add many others.

Again, you could always bring in anecdotal cases where hikers were lost in the bush and managed to call for help. Bad luck, but as far as I am concerned, this is not a good enough justification for all innocent people having to wear the equivalent of anklet monitors, close enough to Orwell's 1984 "telescreen" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen).

«And again I think that if you take away the bad aspects that they can bring, that you also take away the good aspects that they can bring.»

Yes, and a fair price to pay.

«but suddenly just saying that I feel like the e-safety commissioner looking for content to censor.»

Well this may be one difference between myself and Ezhil:

While we both understand that the latest technology brings more suffering than joy, I will never contemplate forcing people out of it against their will. If someone asks for my advice then I advise them to stay away from these harmful gadgets as much as they can, but otherwise that is not my place, it is not my job to "fix" them and people usually need to learn from their own mistakes.

I now look and appreciate Ezhil's last post (Monday, 8 December 2025 10:46:15 AM):

Yes, a fear-based society is not worth having.
Replace that with love, if you can, but at least do no harm.

"These statements amply illustrate the amount of insecurity in the society"

No it doesn't.
You don't lock your doors at night because you hate outsiders, you look you doors at night because you love and protect the people inside.
It's not about controlling your kids, it's about being responsible and not knowing other peoples intentions.

It's not about being distrustful of your own kids but being distrustful of others to protect your kids.

You can live in a fantasy world where you believe everyone has good intentions, but then you have to come back to reality and realise you have no control over what others do, and you still have to protect your kids from harm regardless.

This isn't being controlling or paranoid, its being responsible.

You can say I hate cinema, I hate mobile phones, but they are not going anywhere so complaining like you think you can change things is ridiculous.
They are not going to ban TV and mobile phones end of story, learn to live with it.
And if your real issue is human values, focus on that.

And my example was only one that I thought of in 2 mins.

Lets go back to the doctor, on call.
One of your parents has a health emergency and needs immediate treatment.
Doctors out to lunch with his new girlfriend and can't be contacted.
'Sorry but your parent has passed away'.

Your dream of returning to a world without tv or mobile phones is just pure fantasy.

Try taking others TV or phones away, and they are likely to attack you and you might need to see the doctor.

Just wait till this social media ban kicks in in a few days.
Some parents will get bashed by their own kids.

The world is not kumbaya, no matter how much you dream of it.

Dear Ezhil,

I perfectly understand your last post.
Indeed, a life of fear and distrust is a life of misery.
Yet, this is the state of life on earth in this era and sadly for millennia to come.
And nothing we do can change it,
nothing we do can fundamentally change society et large,
and nothing we say can change the guilty minds habituated to fear.
Only a select few may understand, then strive hard to kick that bad habit
and trust God instead.
Even then, once we do understand, it may still take decades if not lifetimes to heal.

Meanwhile, we should concentrate on our own freedom as a small minority,
that at least those of us who do not wish to have or use these harmful gadgets should be able to live without them
and also retain the freedom to protect our offspring from their evil influence.
- Not an easy call.

Moving towards idealism should be the goal of any civilized society.we may not achieve it within a short span of time. But we must contribute our mite to change the undesirable aspects of the society. Let optimism take precedence over pessimism that says that things will not change for the better. Let us not mourn our fate and keep quiet. Making newer laws and inventing newer gadgets to control will not bear fruit. Only when society changes qualitatively we can see silver lining in the horizon

Dear Yuyutsu,
I thank you for your scientific Outlook. Let us not get deterred by pessimists's outbursts. On this positive note I think we can wind up the discussion on this topic.

Getting angry at the TV or mobile phone is kind of like swearing at the radio because you don't like the song.

These things can only be as good or bad as the content on them.

You think I'm a pessimist, but I'm being more of a realist.
These 'gadgets' have just as much potential to liberate as enslave.

It'd make more sense to say 'I hate the moon, and I'm going to blow it up'.
Because the chances of someone blowing the moon up are probably more possible and realistic than entertaining the idea that TV and mobile phones will ever disappear from human existence.

I think complaining about the existence of tv or mobile phones is a dead end street that serves no purpose.

But if you wish to talk about your own ideas about promoting human values, I'm interested enough to hear what you have to say.

What's the point in worrying about things you can't change?
Focus on the things you can.

"If society does not collectively strive to demonstrate to our youth the harmful impact of cinema on their lives, true positive growth cannot occur and we will be living perpetually in an atmosphere of deception"
- They're not going to listen to you, they're going to think you're off your rocker, and they will resent you if you try to take it away from them. They just want to be like all the other kids, and they want cool parents they can relate to, not weird ones that deny them things all the other kids have.

Tell me, is the TV evil when it's turned off?
It's just a device that displays content.

Both of you are using a device right now (computer) that is capable of moving pictures (even just the cursor is a moving picture) and the internet is a network the same as a mobile phone.

You might as well say you hate computers as well, and then put your money where your mouths are and stop using them, if you're true to that which you believe and wish to promote.

Nobody is angry, Armchair Critic:
As far as I am concerned you may take heroin too, even give it to your children and that is none of my business.

Once you place heroin in my water supply, or give it to my kids at kindergarten lunch break, that is a different matter - though I do not expect you to understand.

Nobody is against gadgets. We are worried about how they are used or misused. Who will control and monitor the contents.The political governments are least interested to monitor the contents as they are more obsessed with the winning in elections. These law makers are found to break first the law they have enacted in the legislative bodies. Appeasement politics is needed to win in politics. They have to please the businessmen, traders who sell their wares and make profit. They do not pay attention to such things. Who else will oversee? So society must intervene and report about what is happening in the media. Unless this is done the society and the government will collapse. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangla Desh are examples for this kind of developments.
I just cannot understand how people support malpractices done so brazenly in the media

Society broke down after women started revealing their ankles in Queen Victoria's day.