Why the tv-show "Young Justice" is a pile of rubbish dangerous to your children

[Chestertonian]

jerome...just a thought... but generally speaking people may take what you have to say more seriously if you invested yourself (you knw,since you have ample amounts of free time) to be a member of this community and participate in threads that dont involve lecturing everyone over alleged mortal sins from making different choces than you do with regards to regulating media intake... when you only post in topics only concerin one matter, in a way that suggests that you believe yourself to be a self appointed crusader against saturday morning cartoons, people tend to see that as trolling and it makes them stabby

why dont you comment on some of the prayer threads, or participate in some of the conversations OTHER people have started on various forums, post a thread about something related to men in st josephs workbench, or share with us what generation you're from, or what extracurriculars you did in high school.  Take a xanax,calm down, go to the good morning thread and have a pumpkin spice lattee or whatever Carleen is making,  perhaps start out a cofffee and donuts thread and answer these questions

What brings you to SD?
Are you a member of other Internet fora?  If so, care to mention which one(s)?
Why did you choose your username and avatar?
What is your state of life - single, married, religious, or still discerning?
Whereabouts do you live "in real life"? (be as specific or as general as you wish!)
Personality type?
Favorite books?
Favorite movies?
Favorite TV shows?
Favorite sports/teams
Have any hobbies?
Pet peeves:
Fun random fact about yourself:

[Jayne]

You rashly judged that I was letting a child watch Young Justice when, in fact, the son I mentioned in my post is an independent adult. You have an opportunity to show by example what one should do when one realizes one has made a rash judgement.

I have thought to address that, but I don't agree with you that my judgment was rash, since all evidence available indicated that 1) you watch the show and look forward to watch it again, and 2) your son watch the show and look forward to watch it again; and you gave no indication whatsoever that you opposed him doing this; and in fact, you only made the thread in the first place in order to post your and your son's appreciation of the show returning so you can watch it again. This means that, even he he did not live with you (which was my only mistake in my conclusion), you still approve of him watching the show.

My judgment would only be rash or wrong if I had no evidence, or almost no evidence, or if I interpreted your words completely wrong when your meaning meant something entirely else: when I made my assertion that you approve of your children watching the show. But do you really oppose him or others watching it, considering that you watch it yourself and you even look forward to watch it again? It seems hard to believe that. But perhaps you have changed your position since I made the post?

You did not correctly understand the situation and lectured me based on your false understanding.  That is rash judgement.  Your unwillingness to admit to faults in yourself makes you especially unfit to point out the faults of others.  It is not just this; I cannot recall you ever admitting to be being wrong about anything, even when reproved by the forum admin.

And for those who object that the show is evil, I was very thorough in my above post on why the show was bad, especially when quoting from Wikipedia detailing the characters of this show and all the evils connected with them and how they will impress young children especially. If you did not read the whole post, please do so, and you will change your position about the tv-series, I am sure.

If people can let their children watch this kind of tv-series, then one can only shudder at the thought of what other shows they let their kids watch.

I read what you wrote and I disagree with you that the show is evil.  I have actually seen it whereas you base your judgment on reading a description of it.  I don't want to go through point by point showing all the errors you made.  It is not going to convince you anyhow and you do not engage in discussion, only lecture at people.

I do not watch shows that I believe are sinful nor do I encourage my children to watch them.  When making these decisions, I give little weight to the opinions of those who do not appear to know what they are talking about.

Random quote on approval by guilty silence:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 57), Dec. 31, 1930: "If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: 'They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.'"

Why did you include a random quote that is completely inapplicable to the situation?  That was about priests.

[Chestertonian]

Hey jerome do you like spiders

[Greg]

Looks like my prophecy is coming to pass....soon.

[Greg]

Jerome, what do you do for fun?

The Sound of Music on Peyote is amazing.  (So they tell me)

[Jayne]

Looks like my prophecy is coming to pass....soon.

Trump already got elected.  Was there another?

[Jerome]

You did not correctly understand the situation and lectured me based on your false understanding.  That is rash judgement.

Definition of rash judgment:

"RASH JUDGMENT. An act of mind that, on the basis of insufficient evidence, attributes something morally discreditable to another or denies something morally creditable. As judgment, it is an act that affirms or denies with certainty and without the hesitation that is characteristic of suspicion."

Since when is it rash judgments to believe a posters own words? All your words indicated that you spoke as a mother with a child happily awaiting the return of a tv-show that you both evidently watch. That was the evidence available, and it was public and clear.

But even so, I ask your pardon for not having asked you beforehand even more clearly what exactly you meant with your own words that already seemed so clear to me.

Sure, a poster can always have meant something else or there could be more to the topic than was mentioned, but I don't think I have an obligation to assume such things, nor do I think one can accuse someone of rash judgment for not making such assumptions. It is only human to believe what others say.

I read what you wrote and I disagree with you that the show is evil.  I have actually seen it whereas you base your judgment on reading a description of it.  I don't want to go through point by point showing all the errors you made.  It is not going to convince you anyhow and you do not engage in discussion, only lecture at people.

You will always hear this when people want to defend themselves. It happens all the time. When St. John Vianney condemned dancing, the mothers, and presumably the children, excused themselves too. But does that make any difference? No. He was still right and they were wrong.

"There is not a commandment of God which dancing [or media] does not cause men to break! Mothers may indeed say: 'Oh, I keep an eye on their dress [or what they watch (you cannot know all content!)]; [but] you cannot keep guard over their heart.' Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; GO! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well! Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements." (The Curé D'Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146)

I think it's safe to say that the "Hellish amusements" of media is many times much worse than even dancing is!

Yet you claim to ignore my posts merely on the fact that I have not seen the show, as if that makes any difference. Do you think Vianney attended the dances he condemned? I think not. Did that make him less fit to condemn it? Certainly not.

I do not watch shows that I believe are sinful nor do I encourage my children to watch them.  When making these decisions, I give little weight to the opinions of those who do not appear to know what they are talking about.

If you don't see a problem with the show even after having read the post detailing the various problems with it, then perhaps your understanding of good and bad, bad influence vs good influence, are not as clear as it should be.

Jayne, if St. Alphonsus even condemns romances that in it self contained nothing obscene, what then would he say about this show that contains immodesties, immodest dress, lasciviousnesses, occultism, magic, bad behavior, bad influences on your children, violence, etc. and ad infinitum?

Quote from Alphonsus: "Fathers should not allow their children to read romances. These sometimes do more harm than even obscene books; they put fantastical notions and affections into young persons heads, which destroy all devotion, and afterwards impel them to give themselves up to sin. "Vain reading," says St. Bonaventure, "begets vain thoughts and extinguishes devotion." Make your children read spiritual books, ecclesiastical histories, and the lives of the saints. And here I repeat: Do not allow your daughters to be taught their lessons by a man [or the media], though he be a St. Paul or a St. Francis of Assisi. The saints are in heaven." (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 480-482)

"Fr. Faber agrees completely with St. Alphonsus on this point. In the middle of "Growth in Holiness" he suddenly breaks off to write a few pages describing how horrified he was by popular trend of the day in the 1850's for females to read romance novels like those of the Bronte sisters. He called this practice a "hothouse of every vice." Like St. Alphonsus, he believed that the long-term emotional damage caused by romance novels might be worse than the effect of reading outright immorality."

All this was explained in detail in the post I made, yet you ignored it all, even ignoring the Word of God condemning many of the things endorsed in this show. I also posted news articles that corroborated the points I made that Children imitate and get influenced by these kinds of shows that they watch, yet you ignored it all as if it didn't even exist or as if it was all a lie. But why? Answer: Because you yourself watch these kinds of shows and don't want to stop watch it? Is that why?

You speak in your response as if I don't know what I am talking about, yet you yourself defend or don't see a problem with the following occurrences in the show: immodesties, immodest dress, lasciviousnesses, occultism, magic, bad behavior, violence etc. Yes, there's much more than that, read the original post for all of it. Wikipedia is very detailed in their description of the characters.

If even reading books can be dangerous, what are we to say about these kinds of shows and the media in general?

Theresa, The Life Of: "What I shall now speak of was, I believe, the beginning of great harm to me. I contracted a habit of reading books; and this little fault which I observed was the beginning of lukewarmness in my good desires, and the occasion of my falling away in other respects. I thought there was no harm in it when I wasted many hours night and day in so vain an occupation, even when I kept it a secret from my father. So completely was I mastered by this passion, that I thought I could never be happy without a new book."

[Jayne]

You speak in your response as if I am the one who don't know what I am talking about, yet you you defend and don't see a problem with: immodesties, immodest dress, lasciviousnesses, occultism, magic, bad behavior, violence etc. So who is it that don't know "what they are talking about"? to borrow your own words.

They are unrealistic cartoons.  I find it unlikely that any immodest dress among them would lead most people to impure thoughts.  And yes, there is bad behaviour.  The bad guys behave badly.  A good guy behaves badly and deals with the guilt this causes leading to repentance and character growth.  What is sinful about violence? Etc.

You came up with a list of problems that are not problems.  This is why you seem like you do not know what you are talking about.

[Jerome]

You speak in your response as if I am the one who don't know what I am talking about, yet you you defend and don't see a problem with: immodesties, immodest dress, lasciviousnesses, occultism, magic, bad behavior, violence etc. So who is it that don't know "what they are talking about"? to borrow your own words.

They are unrealistic cartoons.  I find it unlikely that any immodest dress among them would lead most people to impure thoughts.  And yes, there is bad behaviour.  The bad guys behave badly.  A good guy behaves badly and deals with the guilt this causes leading to repentance and character growth.  What is sinful about violence? Etc.

You came up with a list of problems that are not problems.  This is why you seem like you do not know what you are talking about.

Again, you avoided every single quote from the saints detailing the problems.

You also minimize the issue of immodest dress with that they are cartoons. That doesn't make any difference, it is still immodest, and hence is this an influence one wants one's children to watch and learn from? No!

You also avoided the news articles detailing the problems. (Yes, that's right, even the secular world admits there is a problem with such shows, but Jayne knows better, apparently, then the saints and all of the rest of them.)

You also avoided to adress many of the points I brought up specifically in the last posts, such as magic, occultism. And what about the fact that the Bible and God condemns this? Is this something one should watch or let one's children to learn from? No!

There are problems, the evidence is there, but you don't want to see them or even adress them or even touch them, and you are especially careful not to even quote them in your responses.

Free will, being as it is, you can do what you want.

Concerning your statement on violence. Violence will not help you nor any children to become a better person, but rather make them worse. Since the characters are evil and do evil, even if some of them later apparently "repent" but then the next show do evil again, this is what happens:


Educators Worry About Influence of Cartoons on Children

             "Like many other eight-year-olds, Liu Yimin's favorite heroes aren't great scientists, or the national soccer team, or popular Chinese icons like Lei Feng.
             His heroes are two Japanese animated characters who defy their parents and teachers. Local educators are worried and say that some of characters may be a bad influence on youngsters.
             Xin San, an arrogant kindergarten student, bullies the weak, battles the strong, and constantly lusts after women - lots of women.
             "I think the content of these shows is too mature for children," said Zhang Jinlian, director of the Shanghai Children and Juvenile Psychological Guidance Center. She said many students like to imitate the actions of these cartoon kids, causing trouble in the classroom and at home. Zhang would like to see steps taken to prevent children from reading books and watching videos and VCDs about Xin San, but the cartoon kid is just too popular to be avoided.
             But today's kids don't want to be instructed, they want innovative cartoons with characters who are rebellious, Xu pointed out. Sales of books and VCDs of the two cartoon series, plus viewer ship levels of the "Chibi Maruko Chan" on Shanghai TV prove that rebellion is very popular with local youngsters.
             Unfortunately, children are picking up those rebellious attitudes. Zhang said that many children now bully their parents into buying them a new toy - a trick that they picked up from Chibi Maruko Chan (undoubtedly they also bully their weaker classmates as they have been taught). Even worse, she said, some young boys lustfully gaze at their girl classmates."

[Jayne]

Again, you avoided every single quote from the saints detailing the problems.

You seem to have difficulty understanding when a quote is relevant to the point you are trying to make.  When you quote a Saint condemning dancing, it does not show that there is something wrong with my ability to judge TV shows.  You like to amass large numbers of quotes, but they are rarely relevant.  I am not avoiding the quotes.  I am ignoring them because they are irrelevant.

Similarly your secular article that says that some TV characters may be a bad influence on children is not relevant because I do not have any children that age.  Young Justice is a show that I and my grown children watch.

[Carleendiane]

 

[Kaesekopf]

That questionable quote about jpii could be applied to jerome.

"Writes much, says little."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Kaesekopf]

Looks like my prophecy is coming to pass....soon.

Trump already got elected.  Was there another?

There was another one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Jayne]

Looks like my prophecy is coming to pass....soon.

Trump already got elected.  Was there another?

There was another one.

[Jerome]

You seem to have difficulty understanding when a quote is relevant to the point you are trying to make. When you quote a Saint condemning dancing, it does not show that there is something wrong with my ability to judge TV shows.  You like to amass large numbers of quotes, but they are rarely relevant.  I am not avoiding the quotes.  I am ignoring them because they are irrelevant.

No, the quotes on romances and books and even dancing is applicable. But if someone doss not want to see it, there is nothing I can do about it.

Believe me, had they lived in the time when media existed and not only dancing and books, I can assure you that they would have thundered harsh words against it. But since they did not live in our times, we can only use similar quotes that are available and that speaks of similar but lesser dangers! Yes, that's right, they disapproved of even less dangerous things than what many do today.

Similarly your secular article that says that some TV characters may be a bad influence on children is not relevant because I do not have any children that age.  Young Justice is a show that I and my grown children watch.

Ok, lets see what you will say:

Do you approve of children watching such shows? Yes or no?

Do your son have children? If so, do they watch this show? Yes or no?

If you only approve of adults watching such shows, then at least it is a step forward.

But evidently, if something is bad for children, then it is likewise bad for adults. The new modernistic thinking which says that adults can expose themselves to bad and immodest material, magic, occultism, bad influences etc., but not children, is of course opposed to Catholic teaching and morality.

This is what the Church teaches and the Word of God teaches:

Pope Leo XIII, Exeunte iam anno (# 10), Dec. 25, 1888: "Now the whole essence of a Christian life is to reject the corruption of the world and to oppose constantly any indulgence in it..."

"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) "It is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16) "Flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world." (2 Peter 1:4)