PDA

View Full Version : Is this crap that makes me RAGE


Arc_The_Lad
03-23-2008, 11:24 AM
Ok I was at the local net cafe, you can browse on the semi good PCs and game on the kick ass PCs, anyways. I'm finished and I'm reading something, I noticed a kid, no more than 10 talking to his mom, who gave him a toonie ($2 CAN) to get a food item he wanted. She was browsing her facebook BTW. He bought his thing and went to a gaming PC. I'm assuming he was playing like Maple Story or something. I walk by and he is playing Counter Strike...

With full gore...

While his mom minds her own business...


I wanted to scream at her to do her damn job as a mother but I didn't have the balls. I forgot the ask the guy working what he could do, if anything.

THIS is why video games get a bad rap once a big M is on the cover.

TybaltFlux
03-23-2008, 12:21 PM
I don't know man, I understand where you're coming from, but honestly, a lot of kids are "mature" enough to take it. I was engaged with some (not a not) gore in my youth, and it didn't mess me up (or at least it wasn't responsible for my current messed up nature, as far as I know ;p).

As long as the kid knows the difference between video gaming and real life, and the magnitude involved with violence, I think its fine. Granted, there's the psychological backlash on a really young kid, but well, that's hard to judge, and nowadays kids are barraged with plenty of non-video gaming violence.

Leishu
03-23-2008, 06:04 PM
Hm... I'd say it's very hard to know whether this parent's actions were appropriate without knowing more about the situation. *shrug* She could be a parent who bends over backwards for her child when she really shouldn't. Alternatively, she could just have a kid who likes a game and is mature enough to differentiate it from reality. *shrug*

I was playing Doom when it was released, around when I was 10 years old. It didn't emotionally damage me. I played it -with- my stepfather on network play and he knew that I knew that it was utter fantasy and created purely to entertain. If a ten year old in the early 90s can handle doom, I don't see why a well-brought up 10 year old in the 0's can't handle CSS. :]

Fong
03-23-2008, 06:18 PM
I work at a Gamestop, I see this a lot. I feel that way too; personal parental responsibility is something that is severely lacking in society nowadays. It's all in moderation, though. I always get really ticked off when some smelly looking white-trash comes into my store and says that he wants to "buy Grand Theft Auto for his son, and don't need nobody tellin' him what's in it."

--but then I remember that, on the other side, I was one of those kids. My father let me play whatever games I wanted when I was younger. I think, though it's more than likely true that the kid shouldn't be playing the game, it's all in moderation.

I was always a pretty mature kid, so playing Resident Evil 2 at the age of 10 wasn't a big deal, but that doesn't mean little Joey Jim-bob-joe should be playing GTA while sucking down his Ritlin, either.

I really do try not to judge, believe it or not O_O

Arc_The_Lad
03-23-2008, 06:50 PM
Its the total apathy towards her son thats pissing me off, if he can handle the content thats fine. I played Splatterhouse 2 when I was 8 or 9, gave me nightmares but I still played it.

Ororo Howlett
03-23-2008, 08:12 PM
I work at a Gamestop, I see this a lot. I feel that way too; personal parental responsibility is something that is severely lacking in society nowadays. It's all in moderation, though. I always get really ticked off when some smelly looking white-trash comes into my store and says that he wants to "buy Grand Theft Auto for his son, and don't need nobody tellin' him what's in it."

--but then I remember that, on the other side, I was one of those kids. My father let me play whatever games I wanted when I was younger. I think, though it's more than likely true that the kid shouldn't be playing the game, it's all in moderation.

I was always a pretty mature kid, so playing Resident Evil 2 at the age of 10 wasn't a big deal, but that doesn't mean little Joey Jim-bob-joe should be playing GTA while sucking down his Ritlin, either.

I really do try not to judge, believe it or not O_O

IAWTC

I think it has to do with how kids are raised. Some kids can play violent games and not be affected. Some can't. It's mostly up to the parents to teach them right from wrong and that games are not to be considered role models.

Scoti
03-23-2008, 08:57 PM
It's irritating when parents use TV and Video Games as babysitters. It's worse when parents don't even step in to explain the difference to between fantasy and real violence.

I don't know much about online gaming but don't you pay monthly for Counter Strike? If so I'm sure the mother knows what her child is playing. She may be oblivious to the violence but you can't make her care.

Dear parents: Don't blame the media for not teaching your kids morals that's YOUR job.

Kids that age like to imitate with the parents going "how could this have happened?"....duurr

Leishu
03-23-2008, 10:27 PM
Counterstrike Source's online play is actually free on PC. I don't think that it is for the X-box live version. :]

ULTIMATE KASUMI
03-23-2008, 10:47 PM
I don't think that it is for the X-box live version. :]

We don't have Source. We just have old Counter Strike. =/

FinalEVA
03-24-2008, 02:51 PM
I think most people have good points. Although I grew up in the 16 bit era, I was seeing rated-R movies for a good portion of my life as a kid. I saw Terminator 2 when I was 9 in theaters. I'm definitely not violent as some people are who have been restricted their whole childhood.

Kids need to face the content that's on the media at some point in their life and it's parents that need to teach their kids to not take media as a role model.

The rating systems and voluntary enforcement of stores is good enough as it is.

If I was a parent, I would be more concerned with the homophobic and racist environment that exists in online gaming (Xbox Live / PSN, etc.) than the content developers put into their games.

strifestreak
03-27-2008, 12:03 AM
Well...We have very diferent opinions when it comes to games.

In my opinion, I wouldn't mind letting my kid play a game with lots of blood and gore. Because honestly...It's not real. Which is why I wouldn't care. Most of the blood and gore in games is so unrealistic that it's just stupid, not to mention the fact that we're dealing with pixels. I mean, they really don't look that scary when we have a blurry guy with red globs coming out of his side. And no, a five foot stream of blood will NOT squirt out of your hip if it were to be cut.

I agree with FinalEvangelion. I would be more worried about the environment of the game. I know I would never let my kid play any type of Horror videogame until they were in their teens. I mean, we let my friend's little sister watch us play Crimson Butterfly once because she just wouldn't go away, (We warned her) and she couldn't go to bed for two days because she was scared that ghosts would come and get her at night.

However, she has absolutely no problem at night when she watches us play God of War. It's a crapload of blood and mindless massacre.

Also, let's not forget the fact that it takes a helluva lot more to scare kids these days then it did 'back then'. I mean, I look at some movies and I'm like scary? Pfft, not with those graphics. I mean, we've come to the point where we don't just want to see something scary, we want it to be REAL we want it to look as if that was something we saw everyday, something we KNEW, as if looking at some crazy monster on screen was like looking at then human actors beside them. We don't just want to be scared, we want to be scared into the reality of it---Or at least that's what I think.


Still, I would find it insulting as a mother if somebody were to come up to me and tell me to parent my kid better. I mean, if he was throwing an unecessary tanturm and I wasn't doing anything to stop it, sure, but over a game...Not so much. You may not always know what's best for other people's kids, so just don't pay attention to it. n__n

allthatsgeek
04-05-2008, 10:31 AM
Well...We have very diferent opinions when it comes to games.

In my opinion, I wouldn't mind letting my kid play a game with lots of blood and gore. Because honestly...It's not real. Which is why I wouldn't care.


That opinion towards children and gaming, hell children and any fantasy violence is very very tricky. Sure, you know it's not real, you know the real life consequences, and real life reaction to the actions seen in video games, but a child may not be able to draw those distinctions between fantasy and reality. It's not just video games, these kind of things have been happening since the dawn of violent entertainment, kids jumping off of their house because they think they can fly if they put on a cape, a kid puts a rake forks up on the ground to recreate looney toons, and ends up killing someone. It's the parents job to make sure the child understands the distinction.

Sisshi
04-05-2008, 11:30 AM
That's interesting...personally, I wouldn't have been allowed to play any game like that when I was 10...hell, my mom threw a hissy fit when I was playing Mortal Kombat for Super NES (of course...I was about 7). She still doesn't like that kind of thing, and I'm 19, but I can play it when she's not around, and my brother isn't around. He's under 18. My mom has issues with types of games, and when I choose to do something about playing them she grits her teeth and walks away.

I'd always been able to play those types of games as long as there wasn't sex involved. I watched Scream 1-3 when I was only 7 so...

As many said already, it all depends on the kid. I was raised on cutsy wholesome games where everything has a happy ending and no one but the bad guy dies, with absolutely no blood involved. But then a friend of mine watched Alien when she was 2 and was pratically raised on blood, gore, and explosions. If a kid is mature enough to handle that type of game without nightmares then they shoudl be ok.

Now if the kid is going out and mimicking the violent moves, wiht the actual intention to hurt someone or is violent and acts upon those motives, then they shouldn't be playing. But if they just act a little violent, but don't act on any of those moves except in the video game world (as me and friends do, we get angry, so we play some fighting games to get our rage out) then it's not so bad.

TheLadySummoner
04-05-2008, 12:57 PM
My mom wouldn't let me play Mortal Kombat when I was younger, either, even though I was a pretty mature child. I understand her reasoning for it, though, and when I have kids, I'll probably monitor what they're playing until a certain age.

While I understand that a child can be mature enough to handle something horror related, I think there are a lot of games out there that parents DO need to be making sure their young children don't play. Grand Theft Auto for example. Now I'm not saying that any kid who goes out and plays it is immediately going to start leading a life of crime, but children shouldn't be subjected to stuff like that a such a young age. People need to let their kids be kids. Also, there are children who have played these games and become violent. I don't think it's entirely the games fault; I mean, these people obviously didn't have very good parents. However, when tragedies do happen and we find out that these people did play those games, it just makes politicians want to censor them even more. So I think, regardless of whether or not you think your child can handle it, all parents should be setting a good example. If they did then people wouldn't be able to blame video games for their bad parenting.

Besides, there are plenty of excellent non-violent games out there that kids could be playing. I hate how the general consensus nowadays is that video games are violent, and therefore not worth having around.

darthseb
04-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Ok I was at the local net cafe, you can browse on the semi good PCs and game on the kick ass PCs, anyways. I'm finished and I'm reading something, I noticed a kid, no more than 10 talking to his mom, who gave him a toonie ($2 CAN) to get a food item he wanted. She was browsing her facebook BTW. He bought his thing and went to a gaming PC. I'm assuming he was playing like Maple Story or something. I walk by and he is playing Counter Strike...

With full gore...

While his mom minds her own business...


I wanted to scream at her to do her damn job as a mother but I didn't have the balls. I forgot the ask the guy working what he could do, if anything.

THIS is why video games get a bad rap once a big M is on the cover.

At least gaming getting a bad rap means SOMEONE'S noticing. Look where you are. You ever hear a Jack Thompson-type guy go after Death Note, Hellsing, Noir, or many other ANIMES that are watched by kids? There sHOULD be one. Jack is TRYING to show the parents that if they don't watch what their kids play, they might turn into monsters.

Also, hah, if the mother has a Facebook, she must be too young to be responsible enough to take care of a kid.

Scoti
04-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Also, hah, if the mother has a Facebook, she must be too young to be responsible enough to take care of a kid.

I wouldn't make that assumption. Facebook and myspace have a wider age range then you might think. I have a professor who uses facebook to update class due dates and information. It's a very useful internet tool for communication...

sam vimes
04-08-2008, 01:47 PM
At least gaming getting a bad rap means SOMEONE'S noticing. Look where you are. You ever hear a Jack Thompson-type guy go after Death Note, Hellsing, Noir, or many other ANIMES that are watched by kids? There sHOULD be one. Jack is TRYING to show the parents that if they don't watch what their kids play, they might turn into monsters.

I feel the exact same way about home schooling.

Also, I'm getting a troll vibe from you.

darthseb
04-08-2008, 01:58 PM
I feel the exact same way about home schooling.

Also, I'm getting a troll vibe from you.

I wish I could shake it off. I'm just passionate about my beliefs.

Also, I guess it's off-topic, but what do you mean about home-schooling? I really haven't looked, but I've yet to notice any real battle of opinions between homeschooling and going to a school.

sam vimes
04-08-2008, 02:13 PM
I wish I could shake it off. I'm just passionate about my beliefs.

Also, I guess it's off-topic, but what do you mean about home-schooling? I really haven't looked, but I've yet to notice any real battle of opinions between homeschooling and going to a school.

Correctly socializing your kids, the ability of the parent(s) to educate children on topics that fall outside their interest/knowledge, sheltering them from different points of view, I could go on.

Let's keep this on topic.

allthatsgeek
04-08-2008, 02:18 PM
Jack Thompson isn't advocating parental responsibility, he is accusing video games of being the cause of all teen violence.

penny_dreadful
04-08-2008, 02:22 PM
I really haven't looked, but I've yet to notice any real battle of opinions between homeschooling and going to a school.

Then it's precisely because you haven't looked.

My own feeling is that individuals need to parent their children, not everybody else's. I grew up reading Stephen King novels and stories from the age of 5, watching horror films, and generally being exposed to ideas, themes, and images that most people would consider "mature." Some of it disturbed me (it took 20 years for me to break the habit of sleeping with the covers over my head after seeing Bela Lugosi's Dracula movie), some of it inspired me, and I'll admit I've always had a pretty unusual view of the world. But I was always precocious and I could handle the majority of it. I've never had violent or promiscuous tendencies, I'm still sensitive to real incidences of violence or tragedy, etcetera.

Then again I babysat some kids who insisted I tell them bedtime stories where "nothing bad happens." They would NOT be good candidates for taking to PG-13 movies before their time. A wise parent observes their child and makes judgements from there about what is and is not appropriate considering their child's experience and emotional maturity. Furthermore, it's always a good idea to sit down with your child when they are first exposed to something so you can gauge their reaction and discuss themes with them that they might not fully comprehend.

In short, from a passing glance you have no idea what a single child and his parent is like or what their relationship is, so you can't fairly judge the appropriateness of what that child is doing. If it were me, I'd reserve my judgements for people I knew intimately, and even then dole them out with caution.

--PD

darthseb
04-08-2008, 03:07 PM
My own feeling is that individuals need to parent their children, not everybody else's.

--PD

I agree with this, but I would say that, when you stop paying attention to what your kid sees or plays with, it isn't good parenting, nor bad parenting, it's a LACK of parenting.

The issue with video-games is that the parents don't pay attention. Like the OP's case: the mother was checking her Facebook, and didn't pay enough attention to her child.

It would be different if the parent actually knew what he was playing, and was fine with it.

THAT's when someone needs to step in and remind parents of their job.

penny_dreadful
04-08-2008, 03:19 PM
I agree with this, but I would say that, when you stop paying attention to what your kid sees or plays with, it isn't good parenting, nor bad parenting, it's a LACK of parenting.

The issue with video-games is that the parents don't pay attention. Like the OP's case: the mother was checking her Facebook, and didn't pay enough attention to her child.

It would be different if the parent actually knew what he was playing, and was fine with it.

THAT's when someone needs to step in and remind parents of their job.

P.J. O'Rourke once said "Everyone knows how to raise children, except the people who have them." Some days I wonder why, if you need a license for everything from marriage to driving to fishing, you don't even need to take a class to have a child. But really it's not your business if a parent is letting their kid play a violent video game. It is your business if there is suspicion of abuse or neglect, it is your business if the kid is causing problems for the people around them, but monitoring what people allow their children to play with, read, or watch, is not something you need to concern yourself with. If the parent is not being attentive to their child, the onus is on them, not on any bystanders. They're the ones that decided to have kids, after all.

Honestly, do you have children? If so, how would you feel if a stranger came up to you to say you were parenting wrong? Out of all the parents I know, I can't think of anyone who would really appreciate, outside of being notified their kid was in physical peril or putting someone else in peril, someone informing them that they didn't approve of what their kid was doing.

allthatsgeek
04-08-2008, 03:31 PM
The issue with video-games is that the parents don't pay attention. Like the OP's case: the mother was checking her Facebook, and didn't pay enough attention to her child.

It would be different if the parent actually knew what he was playing, and was fine with it.


We don't know if she was oblivious, or knew what her son was doing, and trusted him to play with all the graphic imagery, we just don't know, so it's pure speculation.

darthseb
04-08-2008, 03:32 PM
Honestly, do you have children? If so, how would you feel if a stranger came up to you to say you were parenting wrong? Out of all the parents I know, I can't think of anyone who would really appreciate, outside of being notified their kid was in physical peril or putting someone else in peril, someone informing them that they didn't approve of what their kid was doing.

Heh, I'm WAY too young to have kids. I don't even have a girlfriend.

You make it sound as if, if your job description doesn't include bringing a problem, or possible problem, to attention, then it's blasphemy to do so. This isn't a very good example, but by your logic, it's wrong to question Enron's actions, because they made the company, you didn't.

allthatsgeek
04-08-2008, 03:36 PM
Wait....I believe she was talking about CHILDREN, not businesses, very VERY different things.

sam vimes
04-08-2008, 03:37 PM
Heh, I'm WAY too young to have kids. I don't even have a girlfriend.

You make it sound as if, if your job description doesn't include bringing a problem, or possible problem, to attention, then it's blasphemy to do so. This isn't a very good example, but by your logic, it's wrong to question Enron's actions, because they made the company, you didn't.

HINT #1: Corporate responsibility and ethics =/= parental responsibility and ethics.

HINT #2: Don't try to champion the use of logic when you have little grasp of it.

penny_dreadful
04-08-2008, 03:44 PM
My POINT is that if you don't have kids, don't try to tell other people how to raise theirs. This is a far, far, far cry from business ethics, as allthatsgeek and sam vimes pointed out. Parenting classes, etc. are fine things, but nothing short of having actual children will legitimately prepare you for what it's like.

I find it rather distasteful that anyone who is not a parent would deem themselves capable of making judgements on how other people do their parenting in regard to something like video games. I have yet to see irrefutable proof that violent media has led to violent crimes by youths that are otherwise deemed mentally healthy. In individuals that are mentally unstable, then absolutely it is a parents' responsibility to pay attention to them and monitor what they are doing. But, again, PARENTS' responsibility-- not society at large.

darthseb
04-08-2008, 04:23 PM
My POINT is that if you don't have kids, don't try to tell other people how to raise theirs. This is a far, far, far cry from business ethics, as allthatsgeek and sam vimes pointed out. Parenting classes, etc. are fine things, but nothing short of having actual children will legitimately prepare you for what it's like.

I find it rather distasteful that anyone who is not a parent would deem themselves capable of making judgements on how other people do their parenting in regard to something like video games. I have yet to see irrefutable proof that violent media has led to violent crimes by youths that are otherwise deemed mentally healthy. In individuals that are mentally unstable, then absolutely it is a parents' responsibility to pay attention to them and monitor what they are doing. But, again, PARENTS' responsibility-- not society at large.

Are you a parent?

You really have a set-in-stone world-view about some sort of hierarchy of who can judge who. I believe I don't have to experience everything to have a sense of what it's like.

What about obesity? Should we let obese people eat themselves to death? Leaving them alone doesn't really motivate them to quit eating or exercise.

Jack Thompson's mission was to HELP these people.

allthatsgeek
04-08-2008, 04:35 PM
Are you a parent?

You really have a set-in-stone world-view about some sort of hierarchy of who can judge who. I believe I don't have to experience everything to have a sense of what it's like.

What about obesity? Should we let obese people eat themselves to death? Leaving them alone doesn't really motivate them to quit eating or exercise.

Jack Thompson's mission was to HELP these people.

Pot, meet kettle.

Again, personal dietary choices =/= raising a child, stop trying to draw parallels between two things that have no business being compared.

Jack Thompson's mission was to help nobody and nothing but his own personal agenda based on snippets of data found in entirely inconclusive studies, and personal opinions that have no factual evidence supporting them.

The Hag
04-08-2008, 04:55 PM
Are you a parent?


Yes.

Penny's right.

Judging =/= interfering. People are free to think whatever they like about my parenting as long as they stay out of my grill.

penny_dreadful
04-08-2008, 04:58 PM
Pot, meet kettle.

Again, personal dietary choices =/= raising a child, stop trying to draw parallels between two things that have no business being compared.

Jack Thompson's mission was to help nobody and nothing but his own personal agenda based on snippets based on inconclusive studies, and personal opinions that have no basis in fact.

Well said.

I go by the saying "judge not lest ye be judged." And, if we're on the subject, then I feel obese people should completely be allowed to eat themselves to death. We are all accountable for our own actions. Is it right? No. Is it hurtful to the people who care about them? Yes. But it's their own body and they can do as they please with it. As long as the information about their choices is readily available, the issue is for them and their family to deal with, not the world at large.

And Jack Thompson is a sensationalist. There is no real basis for his theories on how violent media impacts children-- none. He does not have credentials as an expert-- or anything, really-- on psychology or human behavior, he's just a pundit spouting his opinions, which is something even the least of us is qualified to do.

My completely unqualified belief is that it would be more helpful to focus on mental health awareness, which would identify and assist those people who are at risk of being influenced by violent media, before we start banning violent imagery and obscenity wholesale. Simply removing an object does not lessen its influence-- look at Prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States).

sam vimes
04-08-2008, 05:03 PM
You really have a set-in-stone world-view about some sort of hierarchy of who can judge who. I believe I don't have to experience everything to have a sense of what it's like.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Amazing Teenager Who Knows Everything! Watch in awe as he swings from subject to subject with no visible connection! Gasp in terror as he juggles irony blindfolded! Feast your eyes on the spectacle of him leaping from logic without the aid of a safety net...

Lol. I'm surprised he hasn't called anyone a fascist yet.:rolleyes:

Scoti
04-08-2008, 05:17 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Amazing Teenager Who Knows Everything! Watch in awe as he swings from subject to subject with no visible connection! Gasp in terror as he juggles irony blindfolded! Feast your eyes on the spectacle of him leaping from logic without the aid of a safety net...

Lol. I'm surprised he hasn't called anyone a fascist yet.:rolleyes:

Where can I get tickets? XD

This thread is turning into a classic internet argument.

darthseb
04-08-2008, 06:05 PM
Where can I get tickets? XD

This thread is turning into a classic internet argument.

I disagree, I think it WAS an internet argument, and now you and Vimes there, like the kids I saw you to be, wanna 'be cool and troll it.'

Also, as for the actual argument, who's to say these parents ARE reading up on the ESRB and such?

Jack thinks they aren't. And I don't know where you get your info from, but he does go to the professionals to get his charts.

Finally, not only did I not say anything about preventing the sales of games to anyone 18 or older, but to make a comparison between the issue and the Prohibition is silly.

Scoti
04-08-2008, 06:20 PM
**ignore this post, it's not worth it***

penny_dreadful
04-08-2008, 06:31 PM
darthseb, don't let the rage blind you-- Scoti and I are different people, and I believe it was me you were replying to. Sam Vimes and I are both older than you-- and, frankly, we're acting like it.

Not all parents are responsible, no doubt about that, but as long as it's not abusiveness then there's really nothing you can do besides shake your head and try to do better with your own brood. I'd like to know what "experts" Jack Thompson goes to his records for, because I've read several legitimate studies on the correlation between violent media and violence in adolescents and nothing has proven that playing a "mature" video game causes kids to tweak out and go nuts.

I don't speak for anyone else when I say I'm not trolling-- I'm not, I'm trying to engage in a discussion. I disagree with your point of view, which you are entitled to, and I am trying to persuade you to see my point of view in a reasonable manner: this is called a debate. Debating is not equivalent to trolling.

I believe the comparison to Prohibition is a valid one: Thompson calls for the eradication of obscenity in music and stylized violence in video games because he believes it to be morally detrimental and dangerous to society. Prohibition came about because alcohol was deemed by many to be morally detrimental and dangerous to society. In the end, Prohibition was a failure because outlawing it did little to stem its production and use, let alone alcoholism and the problems it causes, and my point was that banning violence, sexuality, and obscenity from the media is not going to solve the problems Thompson claims it causes.

darthseb
04-08-2008, 06:56 PM
darthseb, don't let the rage blind you-- Scoti and I are different people, and I believe it was me you were replying to. Sam Vimes and I are both older than you-- and, frankly, we're acting like it.

Not all parents are responsible, no doubt about that, but as long as it's not abusiveness then there's really nothing you can do besides shake your head and try to do better with your own brood. I'd like to know what "experts" Jack Thompson goes to his records for, because I've read several legitimate studies on the correlation between violent media and violence in adolescents and nothing has proven that playing a "mature" video game causes kids to tweak out and go nuts.

I don't speak for anyone else when I say I'm not trolling-- I'm not, I'm trying to engage in a discussion. I disagree with your point of view, which you are entitled to, and I am trying to persuade you to see my point of view in a reasonable manner: this is called a debate. Debating is not equivalent to trolling.

I believe the comparison to Prohibition is a valid one: Thompson calls for the eradication of obscenity in music and stylized violence in video games because he believes it to be morally detrimental and dangerous to society. Prohibition came about because alcohol was deemed by many to be morally detrimental and dangerous to society. In the end, Prohibition was a failure because outlawing it did little to stem its production and use, let alone alcoholism and the problems it causes, and my point was that banning violence, sexuality, and obscenity from the media is not going to solve the problems Thompson claims it causes.

I should clarify, my last post was referring ONLY to Vimes and Scoti. I don't think you are trolling, but I should also note that I KNOW WHAT A DEBATE IS.

Secondly, I never said or implied games made people crazy, but if you take a person whom is already nuts, like Dylan Klebold and friend, two teens who had been ridiculed and whatnot by classmates, and give them a violent video game, it is going to incite and fuel some gory thinking within the tortured individual.

And lastly, a humorous image is coming up when I compare the situation to the Prohibition, an image of kids meeting in hidden backroads and playing crudely made violent video games.

Quantum9
04-08-2008, 07:03 PM
I should clarify, my last post was referring ONLY to Vimes and Scoti. I don't think you are trolling, but I should also note that I KNOW WHAT A DEBATE IS.

Secondly, I never said or implied games made people crazy, but if you take a person whom is already nuts, like Dylan Klebold and friend, two teens who had been ridiculed and whatnot by classmates, and give them a violent video game, it is going to incite and fuel some gory thinking within the tortured individual.

Mind if I jump in here? Thanks.

Darthseb, it's apparent that you don't know what a debate is. All you have been doing throughout the entire topic has been throwing the well-organized responses of the opposing parties back into their faces, claiming your credibility based solely on the fact that "you're right." You know who else does that? Your apparent idol Jack Thompson.

Look, I'll be the first to keep my kids away from violent games. While things haven't been proven, I think we do need a rating system, and I do think that kids under the age of 17 aren't ready for M-rated content. That said, it has not been proven that there is a connection...and especially one with Columbine. The fact is, they did what they did based on their own thoughts - gaming wasn't the firestarter, as so many would like to say.

penny_dreadful
04-08-2008, 07:06 PM
And lastly, a humorous image is coming up when I compare the situation to the Prohibition, an image of kids meeting in hidden backroads and playing crudely made violent video games.

Sadly, I imagine if we managed to remove all negative elements from the media, this is exactly what we'd wind up with.

I'm relieved to know you can tell the difference between debating and trolling. The Internet makes it hard to tell sometimes.

A remark I made earlier, and which I will reiterate, is that I think preventing mentally disturbed people from seeing violent imagery will not necessarily prevent them from committing violent deeds of their own volition, and it's dangerous to think so. It's easy to blame a piece of media when something terrible occurs, like Child's Play 3 being implicated in the murder of James Bulger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child's_Play_3). The two boys who committed that heinous murder were truly twisted-- do you honestly think that they wouldn't have come up with some other miserable thing to do if they hadn't been watching Chucky's antics? There are plenty of people who commit violence without having watched something violent beforehand.

Certainly those things can be triggers, but I don't believe they come out of nowhere. There are typically signs and symptoms that, if they weren't so often ignored or diminished because mental illness is still a taboo topic in society, could probably be caught and treated if we put more of a focus on early intervention-- rather than waiting until something terrible happens and looking for the nearest handy piece of smut or torture porn or what have you to blame.

kuko-chan
04-10-2008, 09:38 PM
This issue has been debated since the dawn of the first violent video game. Fact is, there is no solid evidence to prove that video games cause violence. This is just parents passing the blame off when their kids start acting like maniacs. A lot of entertainment sources have gone through the same treatment. Remember when mothers thought Kiss was the devil's music and had backwards devil-worshipping chanting? Or how TV was blamed for everything under the sun? Video games are taking its turn in the hot seat and I imagine it'll only be a matter of time before parents turn their attention to the next "murder simulator".

Now on the subject of parental responsibility, it's not anyone's business to tell someone how to raise their kids, even if you're good friends with them. I can't even give suggestions to my sister regarding her son without her snapping at me that he's not my child. No parent likes being told they're raising their kids wrong and quite frankly, it's not your place unless they're physically harming them or neglecting their needs. Exposing them to violent video games and not explaining the content isn't exactly a national crime punishable by imprisonment. It'd be nice if parents DID teach their children about those things properly, but this isn't a perfect world we live in.

soradesu
04-11-2008, 10:13 AM
Not all kids are stupid, just like not all teens and adults are smart. As long as the child's mother knows what he is doing, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Some parents don't censor their children. My parents never censored me, and I think I turned out a lot less perverted and a lot more sane than people who were sheltered at a younger age. It's the people who were never allowed on the internet when they were young who tend to be corrupt when they are older.

kuko-chan
04-11-2008, 06:26 PM
Not all kids are stupid, just like not all teens and adults are smart. As long as the child's mother knows what he is doing, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Some parents don't censor their children. My parents never censored me, and I think I turned out a lot less perverted and a lot more sane than people who were sheltered at a younger age. It's the people who were never allowed on the internet when they were young who tend to be corrupt when they are older.

True true. I know a few people who were over-protected by their parents and after they turned 18, they had a sudden switch-flip personality. Completely rebellious, obsessed with getting drunk as hell just to piss off mommy and daddy, running around at all hours of the night, disappearing without notice for days, sleeping around with random people. It's not cool. I'm not saying that ALL over-protective kids turn out that way and I'm not saying that ALL uncensored kids turn out better. I'm simply saying that there's a limit to both sides. Sometimes it's impossible to find that medium ground. Parenting is a tricky feat and there are no do-overs.