Violent Games Good for Kids

fjordboy writes "Scholars from MIT, the University of California in LA, and the University of London have worked together to oppose laws restricting children from playing violent video games. The battle is currently taking place in the US Court of Appeals and the case seems to hold a decent amount of merit. From Vnunet:"Experts on childhood and adolescence have long recognised the importance of violent fantasy play in overcoming anxieties, processing anger, and providing outlets for aggression." Similar article from Reuters as well."

Comments

Re:Single validation not enough

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The problem is that Mommy and Daddy need someone to blame when little Johnny (or Eric or Dylan) goes on a shooting rampage.

Now, it's probably not Mom and Dad's fault either. Little Johnny is plenty old enough to know right from wrong and that killing his schoolmates is WRONG.

But there is a very human need to find a "reason", and video games are a convenient scapegoat. Besides, then some politician can call for banning them in order to be seen "DOING SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!". After all, he has to think of the children(tm).

This is dumb

[FortKnox]

Parents making a decision, you just need to know one thing:
Does your child easily descriminate between fantasy and reality?

If he/she can, then games aren't going to have a detrimental effect.
If he/she can't, start the conselling early. Maybe you can make a difference if you start now.

Re:This is dumb

[Theodore Logan]

Parents making a decision, you just need to know one thing:
Does your child easily descriminate between fantasy and reality?

Interesting that the world is always black and white on Slashdot.

If he/she can, then games aren't going to have a detrimental effect.

You just pulled this one out of your arse, didn't you? Or can you back it up somehow? Can you cite any studies? Why do you find it so obvious that healthy children might not become more aggressive by constantly viewing and engaging in virtual violence? You just say that "it's dumb," but for what reason we are never told.

It says a lot about the ability of most of the Slashdot crowd to grasp the complexity of any problem that isn't hard science that this comment was modded up.

Re:Shouldn't it be

[stratjakt]

Actually the lions share of the market is over 18.

RTCW and GTA3 arent designed for little kids. If they were targetting my 9 year old, they'd be doing a piss-poor job.

He couldn't care less about the titles I enjoy.

I mean, how much money does the average 5-10 year old have in his/her pocket? Richie-Rich aside, its not enough to buy a new game every week.

New as in full MSRP on release day, they dont make money when you pick up Warcraft II BattleChest for 4.99 at babbages.

The video game industry didn't surpass the movie industry in gross sales on little Billy's allowance.

That's the reason there are so many 'Mature' games.

All this "good/bad for your kids" debate does is misdirect the public.

Video games aren't "kids entertainment", any more than all movies are "kids entertainment".

Just like Smoking is good for you.

[Zapdos]

Smoking is good for you

Video Games may not cause cancer, but anything to excess is bad. Most gaming time can easily be spent doing something else, something better for you than the games are.

I know of several young children that have picked up the finer aspects of violent video games such as cursing, bad hand gestures, rude comments. Yes it is true that there are other sources to obtain these skills, but why add to the list?