Slashdot Mirror
Dirty Dozen- The Most Dangerous Toys of 2001
An anonymous reader pointed us to The Dirty Dozen
which lists the most dangerous toys for children. #1 on the list is Metal Gear Solid 2 (which I finished this weekend and highly recommend)
Also making the cut are Gundam and Dragonball Zaction figures (nothing scarier then Bulma on a bad hair day I guess), Super Street Fighter II and Doom. Of course the specific version of doom they classify as one of the most dangerous toys of 2001 is the Game Boy Advanced port, and I gotta agree with them on the GBA thing, those things are dangerous. Play for more then 30 minutes, and you go blind.
I spent a lot of my time playing FPS style games, but I was 17 years old + (today I'm 29) and I was mature enough to realize that it's a game, and that there's nothing fun about violence except when it's in a movie or in a video game.
I would NOT let a 10 year-old play Quake 3 or Half-Life. Just like I wouldn't let the same kid watch a porno movie or a gory horror film.
I feel it desensitizes a child too much. So I have to say I agree.
The site looks like it's more about a "dangerous influence" than anything else. These toys aren't dangerous because of small parts, ineffective hydraulic seals, reactor leaks, or rambunctious atom-smashers. They're "dangerous" because they promote violence in kids.
I have yet to see any well-controlled study linking violent toys/games with violent behavious later in life. This site is just another attempt to impose one person's lifestyle on another's children.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Video games are rated 'M' for mature, yet their toys are rated for ages 5 and up. Brand association, right?
For parents that want to "protect" their children from violent games, I think the list serves a valuable purpose.
90% of the items they listed are not dangerous themselves. What is dangerous is anyone with a warped mindset you would think, for example, that you can go around killing people with BFG's from Doom or go "karate-krazy" and start fighting people because you have some Dragonball toy.
In other words, these toys are not dangerous. As the site specifically states in each rationalization of the purpose for being listed on their site, it is the *children* that are dangerous.
What's next? DVD copies of Farenheit 451, because it incites arson?
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?
If we're worried about toys that promote violence, I wonder why there's no mention of those Topps trading cards featuring all the big names in Operation Enduring Freedom and all the different weaponry at work, etc.
I guess Doom's mistake was that it promotes the killing of aliens instead of Afghans.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Heh.. People are amusing these days.. My son loves DBZ, I love it, my mom loves it. It's not as realistically violent as Looney Tunes. I mean, so Goku shoots out some sort of flaming orb. Tom and Jerry chase each other with knives (something children have seen with their own eyes) yet Tom and Jerry is acceptable because it's a "classic" ? It's bullshit. Years ago people played with GI Joes. DBZ action figures are harmless. If my son wants to pretend to shoot some spirit bomb on me, that's fine. It's better than him chasing me down with a steak knife.
I think that CmdrTaco needs to redo the headline. This organization is trying to get rid of violent toys. Dangerous is definitely a misnomer here.
I would agree that many of theses toys (and games) should not be marketed to small children yet many of them sell toys to kids under the recommended age for the games. A bit of sleaze but nothing that unusual for marketdroids.
I thought Christains loved war (ever read the Bible?), its just sex they couldn't stand.
It's the same bullshit we're more accustomed to reading from Jamie and Michael -- whenever a government or organization takes action, they piously declare that aprents should take responsibility for their children. And then it's a fundamental assault on freedom when parents decide to parent instead of following the prescribed "Your Rights Online" way of life.
I've managed to learn not to flame most of the hypocrisy here ("A new patch for a Windows bug -- the closed source development model is so buggy! A new Linux kernel patch -- look how quickly the open-source model finds and fixes bugs!") but I find this one so offensive it pushes my buttons every time.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
But, as a parent, I think I can tell which toys are too explicitly (or even suggestively) violent for my child. And even if I didn't know anything about software and video games, they now have a ratings system that tells me which age group for which they are most appropriate.
I think the thing that disturbs me most about this is not that some people would compile a list like this - people are free to state their opinions about toys and games all they want - it's that parents would rely so heavily on these types of lists to make their decisions for them. To me, it's just further evidence of a parent's wish to simply not be bothered or involved.
If you really want to have some influence on what your kids are getting into, then for the love of all things good, GET INVOLVED. Use some common sense! Do you want your kids considering guns as toys? No? Then don't buy them gun-wielding toys. It's a pretty simple concept. Don't want your kids to get the idea in their head that head-to-head combat is Good Thing[tm]? Then don't buy them fighting games. It's all very, very common-sensical. There are lots of toys from which to choose. Pick the ones with which you feel most comfortable.
My sigs always suck.
Dumb Slashdot editors:
./--they post stuff that they have no CLUE about.
./ pile on began, completely tearing this guy apart. Turns out the guy is in charge of basically the physical plant security there--he has nothing to do with software. I email Chris Dibona about this, he even replied that he knew that, but decided to leave it out of the article.
1 - The MGS2 thing is about the action figures, not the game.
2 - They don't rank the toys, so saying "#1 on the list..." doesn't mean what it's the worst.
3 - Nowhere on the page does it say "Most Dangerous Toys"
In fact, if you go to the front page of the web site, it states:
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
I don't think that is too bad of a thing. They are complaining that the MGS2 toy is marketed to children 5 and up, while the game is definitely a more mature title. Just another example of the complete morons who run
As another example, there was an article a week back or so about a security guy from MS being hired by the White House. Of course, the
Okay, I'm done ranting.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
The site says these are "Toys to Avoid" and says nothing about "Dangerous Toys". The PRIVATE ORGANIZTION'S agenda is to stop promoting violence to children, and this list is in line with that aim.
I didn't see "Most Dangerous Toys" anywhere.
This story sucks.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
While I agree on isolating children from reality being a bad thing, testing cosmetics on animals is not something that should be taken lightly. On farms, animals are given a fairly good life and then killed almost instantly by having their head decapitated in a single, strong blow before their corpses are slaughtered. Farmers intentionally make sure that the animal feels no pain and does not suffer. Cosmetic testing burns, maims, and tortures an animal before it kills it. Not only are animals' flesh burned by ridiculous amounts of acidic chemicals, but the people in the testing facilities will also slash an animal repeatedly and pour similar chemicals in the wound, as well as drowning other animals in the chemicals and reusing animals that survive tests over and over until they die. In fact, these people pretty much torture the animals in every way you can think of. Pouring acidic chemicals in their eyes, in their wounds, on furred skin, on exposed skin, on skin that's been worn with razors... it's just ridiculous, especially when many other facilities just do the same tastes on cell cultures that have no ability to process pain.
PETA sucks... but they have a point here.
for things that "may" or "may not" be bad for a child's psychi, maybe these parents should spend that time WITH their children...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Jeez --- a private site, simply listing toys that concerned parents might want to avoid this Christmas. That's all, folks!
Even worse is the crap quality of the negative responses. "If your children are jerks it's your fault, not the toys", "You should spend more time parenting and less time on this website." Unbelievable. Has it occurred to any of you that taking the time to choose toys for your children --- instead of buying whatever crap is marketed to them --- is actually evidence of being a good parent?
But, of course, /. hypocrites know no reason. It's techno-libertarian free internet for me, but get your site off my internet for thou. I'm sure if the story had been "Open Source Community Develops User-Driven Database of Toy Ratings" you'd all be creaming yourselves about the power of Open Source.
(You'll have to excuse me, my morning caffeine hasn't kicked in yet so I'm cranky and opinionated...)
;P) I actually have a couple Gundam models gracing my desktop, I can't really see how they're any different from non-fictional military hardware...
Okay... This is one of the dumbest things I've read all week. And that's saying alot since I've been doing a lot of Microsoft-related reading...
First off, here's something no one seems to have noticed, these folks have the Japanese to blame for 7 out of the 12 items, or atleast the shows/games these are merchandise of... (Whether it's intentional, or simply the price to be payed for making all the good games/anime, who knows...)
About the Video Games:
I think at this point, it's safe to say that if playing Doom and Mortal Kombat turned all the kids that played them into homicidal maniacs, we'd be in a lot of trouble right now. I happen to like Doom and Mortal Kombat (Though, I'm much fonder of Half-Life and Soul Calibur these days), but you don't see me running around dismembering people.
About the models:
Would they complain if their kids wanted to build a model of a REAL weapon? (Battleship/fighter plane/tank/Little Johnny's DIY Tac Nuke
In Closing (And more or less covering what I missed):
I think the poeple who are worried about the negative influence a TOY has on their kids need to keep their over-active imaginations in check. Besides, many of these toys are a little on the expensive side (for a kid), wouldn't the parents have to buy them in the first place? I think they can use their own good judgement in that endeavor.
Thanks for not instantly pulling my account for such a blatent waste of bandwidth, lol ^_^
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
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"??)
Guns are no more violent by themselves than action figures. I like to see a /. poll asking whether people were trained by their parents in the proper use of firearms. The reason we have accidents with firearms is due to a lack of training that every American child should receive. However, the reason we have violence in schools and such has much more to do with two-parent households than with the invention of guns.
Now before you start complaining "But they didn't mean that kind of dangerous," I know what they meant. They meant "violent and potentially psychologically damaging to innocent young children." Now, if this is what parents are most concerned about these days, then either the world is a whole lot safer now than it was a few years ago, or those parents are unfit to raise a child. I'm sure there are many other toys out there that could physically hurt a child (if there aren't, I propose creating a small metal baseball bat and calling it the "Big Brother Basher"), and those are the toys I would consider "dangerous." If you don't want your kids exposed to violence and need someone to tell you that stuff with guns is violent, perhaps it isn't the toys that present the most danger to your kids.
Moving on to the humor side:
A series of plastic action figures based on the violent anime cartoon program Dragon Ball Z.
There's violence in that show? I admit that I don't follow the show, but I've flipped through it several times (some in an attempt to understand the appeal), and the characters are always either standing around talking, flying, staring at each other, or all blurred in scenes that resemble bizarre mating rituals. If anything, I'd be worried about kids being exposed to too much stupidity from that show, not to mention the promotional material for the toys: "front kicking action!" "side kicking action!" "double punch action!" Was this stuff written by people who make lesbian porn action figures or something?
It's not the games. It's not the action figures. It's not the toys with "super-duper killer-missle launching action". It's parents who don't know how to teach a kid what's right, what's wrong, and how to tell the difference. Reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade strip
Can't teach our kids to be violent, but we can teach them distorted bodily images and eating disorders.
I thought I was the only one who noticed how insane they were about the violence aspect.
paraphrased: "This action figure promotes watching a violent TV show!"
"This action figure comes from a violent movie!"
"This toy has a reference to a 'T' rated video game on the cover!"
Really. I'd hate to live in their little world where nothing can touch you. A little bit of risk, a little bit of violence, a little bit of anger, never hurt anybody in the long run.
It's been a long time.
I think the hair-trigger threshold that most people around here have for unleashing verbal abuse at innocuous sites whose opinion differs from theirs constitutes its own dataset about the desensitizing effects of violence on children.
Jeez --- a private site, simply listing toys that concerned parents might want to avoid this Christmas. That's all, folks!
Well that's not all though. This same organization is lobbying the US gov't to actually STOP production of these toys. No one on slashdot is advocating shutting this site down. NOW who's afraid of a different opinion?
Has it occurred to any of you that taking the time to choose toys for your children --- instead of buying whatever crap is marketed to them --- is actually evidence of being a good parent?
Yes. And to be honest, I'd much prefer a parent actually LOOK at a toy and think FOR THEMSELVES about the good/bad qualities of it. Much better than simply reading a list of someone else's opinions and taking action on that, when you don't even know if this someone else shares any of the same values that you do.
Maybe you miss the point of why so many people find this scary. It's not a differing opinion that bothers me - it's a differing opinion forced down my throat that does. And of course using a website as an excuse to be a bad parent.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The article is misleading; these are not dangerous toys, only toys that someone considers politically incorrect. Nothing is mentioned about any specific dangers that the toys present, only that the toys have links to violent videogames and television shows.
;)
Some of them shoot foam missiles; big deal! I think that a foot high robot that fires at room intruders is rather endearing.
Dangerous toys are things with parts that small children can choke on, stuff up their nose, or otherwise injure themselves with: sharp corners, fast-moving, massive projectiles, etc. Also, things containing dangerous substances, such as lead-based jewelry for children.
There is little connection between these properties and violence. Even in the category of fast moving things that can injure: this area is probably dominated by sporting equipment. Better not be getting your kid that hockey stick!
And yes, I play violent video games all the time that depict blood, gore, death, and cruelty (CS & RTCW are my current favs ;) ). And yes, if I had kids I would not object to them doing the same, but at the same time I would teach them the differences between firing a virtual bullet, and firing a real one, and the major responsibilities inherent with any real-life firearm.
Even I can see that this list is political correctness gone haywire! There are far more well adjusted CounterStrike/Quake/Doom players the world over than misalligned kill rampaging psycho's. Violent video games have no effect in 'creating' child-age killers. Parental neglect of children, on the other hand, is almost ALWAYS part of the equation of child-age killers. Then you can link violent video games with those kids because they have nothing better to do with their time because their parents really don't pay any attention to them and their wants and needs.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you folks who point out that games like Doom and Quake should not be for 10-year-olds, I don't agree with the review site that come down hard on these TOYS simply by association with violence, COMPLETELY neglecting to check out the storyline/theme behind the game/TV series.
:)
---
Two examples.
Recently...
"Metal Gear Solid" has a HEAVY anti-war theme, and reminds the gamer that war is about killing people, and that it's often filled with sadness. I was already an adult when "MGS" came out, but I've watched 10-12-year-old kids play "MGS" and after a while, I've seen them actually feel sorry for the genome soldiers, and they start avoiding them in-game instead of just mindlessly killing them. When asked about the game, they've all asked me things like, "Wow, war is sad, isn't it?" "Boy, being a soldier is a tough job."
---
For the story about when I was a kid... "Gundam" is, and always has been about war, and "...why people fight each other, when they can understand each other."
In virtually every Gundam, a early-teens child gets involved in battle. It tears his/her family apart, tears countries apart, friends and loved ones sacrifice their lives for each other, etc, etc... It reminds us that soldiers are people too, and most would much rather prefer peace if they had a choice. I was only 7-8 when I watched the 1979 series, but I vividly remember the scenes where Amuro had to fight in the Gundam against people he befriended, respected, and sometimes even loved. If you watch ANY of the Gundam series, you will hear over and over -- "Why must we fight? Why can we not simply understand each other?" (yet the main character has to pull the trigger to shoot down the enemy in order to protect his loved ones)
Was I scathed for life? Did I grow up violent? Heck no... I grew up respecting the men and women who fight for our country. I grew up understanding that much sadness comes from conflict. I grew up believing, to this day, that people can get along if they try. And yes.. I try. Thank you, Gundam.
So... while I can't expect the "toy review site" to put THAT much time into their review, I truly wonder if they've actually given these game/anime titles a chance. Heck, if you don't have time, at least go watch "Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket" -- that'll take all of 180 minutes or so to watch, and you'll have a VERY good idea what "Gundam" is about, and why there is such an insane following in Japan.
What I'm just saying is... take these review sites with a BIG grain of salt, and always check out things for yourself. Quake/Doom for 10-year-olds can't be good, but to blindly say "anything with guns is bad" is really short-sighted.
er.. sorry for the mini-rant..
I can't imagine too many people initially going to the site, or taking the content of the site too seriously; "oh, look honey, there's that toy that that web site said was bad, so we better not buy it for little Johnny"... yeah right.
:)
Then enter Slashdot.
Now the webmaster is looking at the site stats of hundreds of thousands of hits and is thinking "man! what a difference I'm making!". Little does he/she know that the general reaction is "geesh... what next!". Spurred on by this "success", they're already planning the next project.
For that matter, they could probably take their web logs showing the hits they are getting to some politician *spit* and show what a "great job" they're doing protecting the children of society (after all, lots of hits means it's working, right?), and get some federal funding to carry on the torch.
Oh joy.
$0.02 (CDN)
It's CmdrTaco's summary. The article only claims these are "Toys to Avoid", by whatever standards the site uses. Which begs the further question of whether CmndTaco presenting this as "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" is misleading as well.
Ok some people might feel that a right is being violated, but online? They are advocating against toys marketed to children. They aren't trying to say that the toy can't be made. They aren't trying to say that YOU can't buy the toy. They aren't even trying to say that an 8 year old can't have the toy.
All they are trying to say is that the marketing of some toys to YOUNG children is wrong. They are advocating for putting limits on how toys can be marketed. This does IMHO tred on the First Amendment some, but society has decided that other things should not be marketed to children, so there is a chance it could pass in congress.
Personally, I would just rather see strict truth in advertising laws draconian punishments, as the First Amendment does not protect fraud. But I digress.
These people are advocating something I find distaseful, namely the abridgment of Free Speech. On the other hand, I support fully their right to advocate for whatever they want to advocate for. To congress, on the web, to whoever else they want. If they want to organize boycotts, that is their right. If they want to lobby congress that is their right. If you disagree with them, lobby congress too. If you want them silenced, lobby congress for that.
Are they annoying? Yes. Should parent's be able to see and make decisions for themselves? Yes. So what? Get over it and get back to fragging.
I do wish the general userdom in slashdot would get off it's high horse, and actually check some things. The page referenced makes no mention to "dangerous" toys. It makes reference to toys parent's may want to "avoid". The "Dangerous" bit was simply inflamatory from the slashdot community.
Slashdot editors need to take a bit more care to provide a more accurate and balanced view of the various 'news' items posted here as well. Slashdot is becomming the major news site for a lot of people. Although I see nothing wrong with posting a reasonable and informed opinion about a particular piece of news (as in The Register), but slashdot seems to not only present opinion as fact, but fails to check even simple facts before posting what an untrained, and un-responsibile (not not irresponsible, but rather someone who can't be held accountable) person decides to write on the subject.
Come on, is surfing to the site noting the error and posting a little comment at the bottom all that hard?
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns