What I meant was EMULATE = they don't actually do it, they pretend to. Like, one kid is the train and the other is the car. They're not actually on the railroad tracks.
And nothing they see and hear now will affect them later?
I have a hard time imagining that someone's going to race a train when they're 16 because they saw it in a movie when they were 6.
That was never a point in the article.
Does it have to be? Is that a new rule on FR?
It was a great irony for him.
So we should change a movie just to keep from hurting one man's feelings? Why doesn't he just not see the movie?
And he says that statistics bear that out.
I drive a red car. Does that magically transform me into a dangerous driver, who is going to race a train?
Bunk. And you know it is.
I have a hard time imagining that someone's going to race a train when they're 16 because they saw it in a movie when they were 6.
When something is presented as "cool" the idea takes root. Witness the thug/rap culture. Kids ARE what they see and hear whether you like it or not.
Does it have to be? Is that a new rule on FR?
You said: I'm also trying to comprehend the idea of parents letting their children play around railroad tracks unattended.
You were attributing something to the article that wasn't there.
So we should change a movie just to keep from hurting one man's feelings?
That wasn't the point. The color of the car was added irony. The point is that an unsafe act is presented as "cool" by a cute little red car.
I drive a red car. Does that magically transform me into a dangerous driver, who is going to race a train?
I didn't say anything about a train in connection with red cars. I said the Police Chief said statistics show that people who drive red cars are more likely to be risk takers. Argue with the statistics if you like.