Slashdot Mirror

Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.

The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcwill/www/CMWilliamsSko ric.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study5.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study4.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 2.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 3.pdf

Like I said, other researchers and myself do not firmly believe that video games are not the primary cause for aggressive outbreaks.

Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.

The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcwill/www/CMWilliamsSko ric.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study5.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study4.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 2.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 3.pdf

Like I said, other researchers and myself do not firmly believe that video games are not the primary cause for aggressive outbreaks.

Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.

The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcwill/www/CMWilliamsSko ric.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study5.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study4.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 2.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 3.pdf

Like I said, other researchers and myself do not firmly believe that video games are not the primary cause for aggressive outbreaks.

Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.

The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcwill/www/CMWilliamsSko ric.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study5.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study4.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 2.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 3.pdf

Like I said, other researchers and myself do not firmly believe that video games are not the primary cause for aggressive outbreaks.

Your link is journalistic and is not scientific, I am sorry. There are no correct sources, no references, no nothing. No scientist would dare cite that article in their paper.

The articles are complete with statistics. Here are links to some of the scientific articles I have read and/or cited.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/dcwill/www/CMWilliamsSko ric.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study5.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study4.p df
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 2.pdf
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 3.pdf

Like I said, other researchers and myself do not firmly believe that video games are not the primary cause for aggressive outbreaks.

The ESRB is a government and censorship matter when its ratings are used as part of censorship laws.

Studies showing correlations between violent video games and hostility:

One by the University of Oklahoma Medical School:
http://www.lionlamb.org/research_articles/study%20 1.pdf

One by the University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content _storage_01/0000000b/80/0d/ba/44.pdf

Here is an interesting study that challenges the correlation vs. causation argument. It basically states violent video games induce violent tendencies (not necessarily behavior).
http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/672%20Bushman%20&%20A nderson%202002.pdf

The problem is that many games rated T contain gratuitous sex and violence, M contains straight out sex acts and A (Adults) isn't used at all.

In addition MOST kids are buying and playing M titles.

http://www.lionlamb.org/factsheet1.htm
http://www.lionlamb.org/E_T_M_rated_games.htm

Now personally, I think ratings are all fluff and a giant political boondoggle to argue about silly stuff while ignoring real issues (like a poor education system). A parent should be able to look at a game like Playboy Mansion or Grand Theft Auto III and determine that that's not a good thing. Instead of claiming to be faked out by a bad rating system.

But it's hubris for the ratings board to be saying "oh look, M games make up only a small percentage of all the games available because there are also sports titles too!" The big money makers ARE M rated games because, face it, everybody bought DOAX because they love to play video game volleyball...

The problem is that many games rated T contain gratuitous sex and violence, M contains straight out sex acts and A (Adults) isn't used at all.

In addition MOST kids are buying and playing M titles.

http://www.lionlamb.org/factsheet1.htm
http://www.lionlamb.org/E_T_M_rated_games.htm

Now personally, I think ratings are all fluff and a giant political boondoggle to argue about silly stuff while ignoring real issues (like a poor education system). A parent should be able to look at a game like Playboy Mansion or Grand Theft Auto III and determine that that's not a good thing. Instead of claiming to be faked out by a bad rating system.

But it's hubris for the ratings board to be saying "oh look, M games make up only a small percentage of all the games available because there are also sports titles too!" The big money makers ARE M rated games because, face it, everybody bought DOAX because they love to play video game volleyball...

Err... what does this have to do with high school students?

Harvard teaches other stuff than just medicine.

Getting into medical school requires an undergrad degree first.

I realize that you were trying to type quickly to get FP... but come on.

Maybe you were providing an obscure reference to some harvard study?

AC

or "When they came for the cartoons I did nothing because I wasn't a cartoon"

Weren't there some government hearings on cartoon violence a few years ago? Didn't the television folks agree to straighten up and fly right? It sounds like that's about the time cartoons started getting lame. Coincidence? I don't think so. I got curious about what happened and did some googling....

STEP 1. OMG! Marvin the Martian just blew up the Earth, and that's supposed to be funny?

from TRUCE - Teachers Resiting Unhealty Children's Entertainment

"Too much of what children see on television is violence as entertainment. It undermines lessons we teach at home and school about how people treat each other, and encourages the use of violence to solve problems and to have fun. We have seen the effects of this glamorized violence in such events as school shootings."

STEP 2. I am shocked and appalled and am going to do something about it.

from lionlamb.org

"The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children. We do this by helping parents, industry and government officials recognize that violence is not child's play - and by galvanizing concerned adults to take action."

"Lion & Lamb works to reduce the marketing of violent toys, games and entertainment to children in two distinct ways. We work with parents and other concerned adults to reduce the demand for violent "entertainment" products, and with industry and government to reduce the supply of such products."

"We believe that attitudes about violence as "entertainment" can be changed over time. Just as attitudes about drunk driving and smoking have changed, we believe that Lion & Lamb can help forge a national consensus that violence is not child's play. Just as it has become "uncool" to pollute and to litter, we are working to change the tolerance level for violence as a "cool" theme for toys and other entertainment products for children."

STEP 3. Well, if you think about it, we can't do it ourselves, so we need the government to force everyone to do the right thing.

"Too often, both government and the entertainment industry place all responsibility for monitoring the games children play on the shoulders of their parents. Certainly, parents need to be vigilant and provide their kids with guidance. But in a culture where $1 billion a year is spent by industries of all sorts to advertise their products directly to children, parents can't stem the tide of "entertainment" violence on their own." - snippet from an article at LionLamb.org

STEP 4. The Government is only too happy to oblige. Who could vote against protecting children?

"Senator Paul Simon, speaking to a conference organized in Beverly Hills on August 2 by the National Council for Families and Television, told some 650 representatives of the broadcasting business who were present that he was giving them sixty days to come up with a plan to regulate themselves with respect to the portrayal of violence--or else they would face some sort of government regulation." - from newcriterion.com article archived from Sept. 1993

Step 5. Mission Accomplished

"Culminating a protracted campaign against TV violence, both Houses of Congress have passed legislation requiring that new televisions be equipped with the so-called v-chip -- a computerized chip capable of detecting program ratings and blocking adversely rated programs from view." - from an article in the ACLU Archive

or "When they came for the cartoons I did nothing because I wasn't a cartoon"

Weren't there some government hearings on cartoon violence a few years ago? Didn't the television folks agree to straighten up and fly right? It sounds like that's about the time cartoons started getting lame. Coincidence? I don't think so. I got curious about what happened and did some googling....

STEP 1. OMG! Marvin the Martian just blew up the Earth, and that's supposed to be funny?

from TRUCE - Teachers Resiting Unhealty Children's Entertainment

"Too much of what children see on television is violence as entertainment. It undermines lessons we teach at home and school about how people treat each other, and encourages the use of violence to solve problems and to have fun. We have seen the effects of this glamorized violence in such events as school shootings."

STEP 2. I am shocked and appalled and am going to do something about it.

from lionlamb.org

"The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children. We do this by helping parents, industry and government officials recognize that violence is not child's play - and by galvanizing concerned adults to take action."

"Lion & Lamb works to reduce the marketing of violent toys, games and entertainment to children in two distinct ways. We work with parents and other concerned adults to reduce the demand for violent "entertainment" products, and with industry and government to reduce the supply of such products."

"We believe that attitudes about violence as "entertainment" can be changed over time. Just as attitudes about drunk driving and smoking have changed, we believe that Lion & Lamb can help forge a national consensus that violence is not child's play. Just as it has become "uncool" to pollute and to litter, we are working to change the tolerance level for violence as a "cool" theme for toys and other entertainment products for children."

STEP 3. Well, if you think about it, we can't do it ourselves, so we need the government to force everyone to do the right thing.

"Too often, both government and the entertainment industry place all responsibility for monitoring the games children play on the shoulders of their parents. Certainly, parents need to be vigilant and provide their kids with guidance. But in a culture where $1 billion a year is spent by industries of all sorts to advertise their products directly to children, parents can't stem the tide of "entertainment" violence on their own." - snippet from an article at LionLamb.org

STEP 4. The Government is only too happy to oblige. Who could vote against protecting children?

"Senator Paul Simon, speaking to a conference organized in Beverly Hills on August 2 by the National Council for Families and Television, told some 650 representatives of the broadcasting business who were present that he was giving them sixty days to come up with a plan to regulate themselves with respect to the portrayal of violence--or else they would face some sort of government regulation." - from newcriterion.com article archived from Sept. 1993

Step 5. Mission Accomplished

"Culminating a protracted campaign against TV violence, both Houses of Congress have passed legislation requiring that new televisions be equipped with the so-called v-chip -- a computerized chip capable of detecting program ratings and blocking adversely rated programs from view." - from an article in the ACLU Archive

Contrary to some of the comments here, a large body of research shows a link between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. There is a consensus among experts on this point (see this joint statement by the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Psychiatric Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics). Much of the research to date has concerned television and movies; not as much research has looked at video games. But there is growing evidence that the influence of video games is at least as strong and may be stronger. If you want to read some of the research for yourself, the Lion and Lamb advocacy group has a helpful page of links. (I am not affiliated with the group.) The research evidence is high-quality and includes longitudinal surveys showing long-lasting effects of early exposure to media violence on later aggressive behaviors. In showing a relationship between media violence and aggression, the studies rule out other factors that might be correlated with violent-media exposure, such as low socioeconomic status, poor parenting, low intellectual ability, etc. Of course, many of these things can also contribute to a person becoming violent, and no single risk factor is likely to make a person violent. Still, the evidence is strong that exposure to media violence is one risk factor. One study (Johnson and colleagues, 2001) noted that the effect of media violence on aggression is larger than the effects of calcium intake on bone mass and childhood lead exposure on IQ. As for video games per se, an analysis of the results of several published studies (Anderson and Bushman, 2001) showed that the size of the effect of violent video games on aggression is about the same size as the effect of condom use on the risk of HIV infection. (The Johnson and Anderson studies are linked at the LL site.)

As noted time and time again by those opposed to game violence, just a casual glance reveals that the Most Popular games are also the Most Violent.

For example, just take a look at number 21 : HOYLE SOLITAIRE. HOYT SOLITAIRE has been comdemned by numerous game anti-violence activism groups, including The Lion and Lamb Project.

How many more children need to die before HOYT and other violent-game makers stand up and becomes accountable? How many more people will buy (and I'm getting ill at the thought of it) ... _Guns_, for 'self-protection' and 'hunting', before congress will take action against these code-writing purveyors of death?

As a bible-thumping christian, I am reviled by the thought of these violent games and guns, especially remembering the death of our savior, Jesus Christ, at the hands of Doom-playing gun-wielding members of the pharisees. Evil is no older than videogames and guns. Write to your congressman now! Stop the corruption of our children!

(and since I typically get mod'd down at least once before someone realizes my sarcasm, yes, this is sarcastic.)

Vad things happen to stupid people all the time, just check out rotten.com.

If you think it's normal to blindly click "ok" on that dialog that comes up asking you to either download or execute something, then it's going to happen to you too.

...and maybe after you get ripped by a virus or some other malicious code you'll learn your lesson.

I think it's funny that the people who think this is a valid article are the same ones bashing the lion and lamb garbage...it's the same damn thing.

If you follow the main articles URL It says the "Top 12 Toys to avoid" then says Toys tied TO video games. So it is dealing with the actual toy itself.

So I poked around their site a bit and found their Top 20 suggested toys for this fall.

#1 on the list was...

Handy Work Puppets
Description: Child-sized hand puppets in different skin tones representing a number of professions, including a fireman, police officer, doctor, astronaut, chef and artist.

If my parents had given me a Handy Work Puppet as a kid I would have beaten them over the head with it.

Don't believe for a second that these advocacy groups are content to limit themselves to a yearly "dirty dozen" list. These groups are constantly lobbying to ban any toy, video game, etc. that they believe encourages violent behavior.

The problem is when people cross the line from wanting everybody to be informed parents, to demanding the government enforce their view of good parenting. I fully support parents who want to make informed decisions in what toys/games to allow their children to play with, and which movies they allow their children to view, but I believe that this organization is no longer merely informing.

Hereis a link to the Lion and Lamb project's testimony to congress (somebody already linked to this in another comment)in which, for example, the speaker states "...government needs to assume its responsibility to neutralize the pervasive and intrusive violent messages children confront every day..." This is where this organization steps over the line. They would be pleased if government turned all of their personal parenting preferences into legislation.

I did read the suggested games and found their "why we chose this product" to be ridiculous. The descriptions in the suggested fields are very lovingly coddled and smoothed and fluffy, whereas the "dirtydozen" are written sharply with short, quick sentances to make the reader feel uncomfortable.
BUT, then again, mothers through-out the centuries have been trying to "mother" their boys to make them soft and caring (and we do indeed hope that young men will treat their loved ones this way), whereas a boys father has been pulling the other way, to make them 'rough-and-ready' (and shouldn't they be ready to defend their family, state and country if need arises?)

Why we chose it: These costumes allow children to become heroes themselves, and act out their own scenarios. Young children love dress-ups?and these are very well made. Children can spend many happy hours pretending to be a fireman? or just walking on the moon.

I do ask you, though, check out the descriptions on the top two suggested on that list--the ones with costumes to pretend to be a fire-fighter, police-man, or astronaut. Then tell me why they didn't list a policeman's job in their description? Could it be they wanted to gloss over the violent nature of that job? (I wonder what they would think of their kids playing "Cops-and-Robbers"??)

because they got marked as a 'concerned interest-group' or 'knowledgable citizen' and go give testimony in front of Congress to get them to allote money towards their cause

I went wandering around their website a bit and came across their "Parental Action Kit". It is definatly marketed to the older parental set (it includes the title in one of their booklets "I used to watch westerns and I'm not a mass murderer", and even Clint's "Spaghetti Westerns" came out in the late 60s; you'd have to have been 7 then!) but it is to counter this kind of argument. I'd have cut&paste their reasoning in, but they want money for it.

Of course, when I was seven, I carted around a plastic M-16 to shoot at the enemy; I even had one of the old Nerf missle launchers and could play with itso long as i didn't disrupt the lamps. it's too bad, really, that i haven't been put in jail even once! Then I could be their poster-child!

• The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children.

Complaining about them is like complaining that religious fundamentalists are nuts... 1) their statements and our reactions are obvious and predictable, and 2) they usually don't have much influence on others anway.

Check out the Top 20 toys -
2001-2002

2000-2001

1999-2000

1998-1999

Check out the Top 20 toys -
2001-2002

2000-2001

1999-2000

1998-1999

Check out the Top 20 toys -
2001-2002

2000-2001

1999-2000

1998-1999

Check out the Top 20 toys -
2001-2002

2000-2001

1999-2000

1998-1999

They're arguable trying. Here's a link to their testimony to Congress. They're apparently trying to get Congressional support so that action figure tie-ins from M-rated video games don't get marketed to children.

They've gone from "inform" to "lobby", in my opinion.

Here's a page with links to previous years' Dirty Dozen lists.

I am always surprised when they list Nerf toys as dangerous and encouraging kids to be violent. It's Nerf for goodness sakes!

Not only that, but when they do single out a Nerf toy, it's usually one of the pathetically underpowered ones. Case in point: Their 1988-89 Dirty Dozen List shows the Nerf Pulsator as the top offender. My favorite gripe of theirs: "box refers to the darts as "ammo."".

Here's a page with links to previous years' Dirty Dozen lists.

I am always surprised when they list Nerf toys as dangerous and encouraging kids to be violent. It's Nerf for goodness sakes!

Not only that, but when they do single out a Nerf toy, it's usually one of the pathetically underpowered ones. Case in point: Their 1988-89 Dirty Dozen List shows the Nerf Pulsator as the top offender. My favorite gripe of theirs: "box refers to the darts as "ammo."".

I'd say it's pretty explicit about that. The first sentence from the front page reads:

"The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children."

Seriously, this is just another Frontpage 4.0 built site from a mother who saw too much violence in her kid's toys and decided to put together a small site with her opinions on what toys are bad influences on young minds.

Wasn't that the beauty of the Internet? To give each and every person a place to express their opinions and ideas, regardless of just how silly it is?

Now, as to this article: The reason why this organization doesn't have any funding is because the politicians already have people to tell them what's wrong with the Internet. People like Pat Robertson, David Grossman and Donald Wildmon and organizations like th American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, and the Lion and the Lamb Project are more than willing to tell them about the horrors of the Internet. Maybe the reason that the organization set up by the Child Online Protection Act hasn't recieved any funding is because the politicians whose bread and butter is this issue are afraid that they would come up with something reasonable that doesn't tread on anyone's freedoms. Something rational is also not going to bring in those big contributions checks from the "family values" organizations.

Since these organizations and people want to see an end to the First Amendment in this country, they aren't really interested in solutions to the problems. They certainly wouldn't want an organization run by industry people making decisions on these issues.

After all, without controversial issues "for the children" what would politicians have to do all day?