Slashdot Mirror
The State of Violent Gaming
Ownt.com writes "Today we talk with Running With Scissors' Vince Desi of the controversial, recently released gore fest, Postal 2. We talk with Vince about The State of Video Game Violence and his thoughts on the violent gaming, where it's been, where it's going and many other aspects surrounding whether or not games actually 'teach' the players to go... postal."
here
but I'm off to bludgeon my parents for not getting me this game.
I'll let you know how it goes.
Lets beat the shit out of people who say violent games lead to violence
the rating system has done a good job with warning parents about violence and adult content in video games. Its up to the store vendors and the parents to obey the ratings and be aware of the what kids are playing.
_+_+__+_+_+_+_+_+_+++
when i moo u moo - just like that
Warning: Too many connections in /home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/forumz/ownt_f orumz.php on line 14
*smashes screen because site is slashdotted*
> First let me say that if I thought we could make a game that would
> honestly motivate people to do things in real life, then I would
> make a game about fucking, cause this world needs more sex than
> killing that's for shit sure.
I have no motivation problems in this area.
John.
I think not. Someone had to create this game in the first place. Chances are that these people that created the game aren't really 'qualified' to be teaching people how to kill and whatnot. I think that when game creators come up with an idea for a game, it's an idea that ANYONE could have come up with. Game makers aren't some special elite force that knows how to kill. Maybe they do a little research before hand, but I highly doubt that they are any more expericned at 'going postal' than anybody who plays these games.
Also, wouldn't you think that the game creators would get thier brains tweaked a little bit, considering that they have to actaully CREATE the violence?
What's your opinion on the statement "Games make killers out of gamers"? ...I honestly think our society has blown itself into a jerkoff corner and now we cant figure how to get out. How about we start with disciplining our kids, yeah I mean hitting them, and as for criminals fuck rehabbing rapist, I wouldn't even waste time with castration, just get the power generator going and hook it up to a big ass sofa and start the bbq. And we should start with criminal politicians that would help clean up that pimp house known as Congress.
BULLSHIT. If that was actually true we'd have a helluva lot more Columbines and snipers, but thank God we don't. I'll tell you whats really disturbing that a lot of good people are being fed that shit and actually eat it up. I have 1 thing to say RESPONSIBILITY, what the fuck ever happended to saying you're wrong, I made a mistake, I did it
People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work). Parents in some areas can now pay for their children's community service hours so that they don't have to work them...
Kids do dumb stuff and used to get in deep shit for it. Now we can't get kids in trouble because that hurts them later in life. NO SHIT? You mean fucking up when you are young might have ramifications later in life? What's the detterent to doing stupid stuff?
Guns don't cause violence and neither do video games.
I was hopeing that the artical would just say "maine" or "ohio" and just declare that the state of violent gameing.... that'd be cool...
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
No, no crappy joke this time..
I for one enjoy playing violent games, in particular Grand Theft Auto Vice City... but if I had kids old enough to use a console, even as teenagers, I'd be very reluctant to let them play such a game. Am i a hypocrite?
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
way back in 197x were quite violent.
These guys are the ones who really give "violent video games" a bad rep. Postal/postal 2 aren't nearly as clever, or in the same league playwise, as something like Doom or the GTA series. These truly are third rate games who's only selling point is the violence and bathroom humour.
These are the games the Donahues of the world want to bitch about, but they're so forgettable that Doom or GTA take the brunt of the complaints.
Not that they shouldnt be allowed to make whatever game they damn well feel like. Screw all these morons, who for some reason or another, think that video games are for some reason not protected forms of expression.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
whats the deal with the B0RRR1nG /. articles today?
I'm never actually going to go around shooting the heads off of innocent pedestrians just to see the blood spurt out of their necks, but in GTA: Vice City, I can do just that. I can also drive around in a tank and blow things up, and all without anyone getting harmed. I'm not a violent person, but I do enjoy some violence.
There is a ton of violent media out there, and has been for a while. Up to a certain age, it is the parents' job to censor that. After that point, those who imitate things like postal were missing a few cards in the deck anyway. If it's not a video game, it'll be a movie or something else that sets them off.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
There's always the internet to teach us how to go postal.
Ah Postal 2, The game where you sneak up on women and then beat the piss out of them. Literally. You can also urinate in their open mouths which usually makes them vomit...
This will only happen again if stricter control over violent games is not put into place.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
This is a great interview with comments like How about we start with disciplining our kids, yeah I mean hitting them, and as for criminals fuck rehabbing rapist, I wouldn't even waste time with castration, just get the power generator going and hook it up to a big ass sofa and start the bbq. And we should start with criminal politicians that would help clean up that pimp house known as Congress. Vince Desi definitely has a strong opinion that games don't affect/influence mental health as long as they're not used in excess. I'm curious as to why he differentiates using kids as a content element from the rest of the burning, chopping, and general maiming. I'd also like to know if he separates physical violence in the extreme as okay as long as it's simulated compared to sexual violence. I am guessing he definitely does, but would like to hear/read it straight from him.
We talk with Running With Scissors' Vince Desi about his thoughts on the state of violent gaming in today's computer and video game market. Be forewarned Vince speaks his mind and we didn't dare censor him. How did the idea first come for the Postal series? We were bored making kids games for companies like Sesame Street and Disney. Most everybody in the office was playing Doom stuff, and we had a Robotron arcade machine. You make kids games for 10 years and then lets see what you think of. For us it was always about the fun, the comedy, I mean POSTAL is really about adult humor, that was out goal. Was the "Postal" series created to be controversial from the beginning? Was being controversial your main goal? Our main goal was to make people die laughing, we never took it serious. Not at all, we just wanted to do something different. People ask about our industry not being creative or original that's because every other game that comes out is the same as the other, except with new tech features. I had no idea that setting a marching band on fire was gonna be considered politically incorrect, and the suicide move in the first POSTAL, we all thought it was great, but a lot of asshole politicians just seen it as an opportunity to be hypocritical about. When "Running With Scissors" was first developing "Postal 1", what types of ideas went through the team's heads about how controversial the title was going to be? Back then did you think much about the fact that games could somehow "inspire" the player to commit acts that were portrayed in your game, or any game for that matter? First let me say that if I thought we could make a game that would honestly motivate people to do things in real life, then I would make a game about fucking, cause this world needs more sex than killing that's for shit sure. The creative process here is actually pretty open, everyone just says whats on their minds and it all gets considered, of course it the end technical reality takes over. For the most part the games include it all, we don't approach game design by what can or cant we put it, we just ask one thing, is it funny. Of course we have a different sense of humor but hey that's what makes the world interesting. As for the controversy I've said it before we never planned for it nor did we anticipate, I mean shit in this fucked up place called earth who the hell could have imagined that a video game could get so much attention when the real world is filled with real crazy people, but that's the news today. What has influenced "Running With Scissors" development of such controversial titles? OK, to really get a clearer picture let me run off a few personality characteristics of the key folks in design: catholic school upbringing, some of us grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's, metal, comics, race, horny male syndrome, drugs, guns, animals...are you getting the picture yet? Sure I could go on and tell you things like Southpark, Spy vs Spy, Robotron, Atari, Clinton, and of course 9/11. Thinking about it I'd say we're a pretty normal group, that decided to go for it, and actually do and say what we feel, I really do think we're very lucky. If there were no rating system on games and nothing holding back any type of gore or adult content, what type of things do you imagine we might see in today's video games or at least "Running With Scissors" titles? I think a rating system is a good thing, the problem is that retailers are scared to carry controversial titles unless they get big ad guarantees, so the corruption and hypocrisy are not limited to the politicians, lets not forget the major publishers that are nothing more than pimps for sorry ass broke ugly developers. True creativity is a rare animal, so I'm not sure the rating system means that much for real and truly creative folks. I'm very proud of POSTAL not because its shock value but because it succeeds in what we set out to do MAKE PEOPLE HAVE FUN. As for RWS all I can say is if you play or watch POSTAL and don't laugh in the 1st 60 seconds then I blew it, and from all the fan mail
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
also to teach them the difference between fantasy and reality? the games have ratings so parents can make a responsible choice. Most kids know that a game isn't real or should be copied, those that can't figure that out or haven't been taught should play violent games. After all, most stores won't sell games rated "M" to kids. But of course that requires the parent to acctually tell little Johnny NO and back it up. Oh, well I guess that won't happen.
and for those who don't like violent games, don't buy them. No ones forcing them into your house
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Damn, if I knew Gary Coleman was cool enough to carry an M16 in a video game I would have voted him for California governor.
I was just playing two very intense violent games earlier today, check them out. You won't be disappointed. http://jet.ro/dismount/
How did the idea first come for the Postal series?
We were bored making kids games for companies like Sesame Street and Disney. Most everybody in the office was playing Doom stuff, and we had a Robotron arcade machine. You make kids games for 10 years and then lets see what you think of. For us it was always about the fun, the comedy, I mean POSTAL is really about adult humor, that was out goal.
Was the "Postal" series created to be controversial from the beginning? Was being controversial your main goal?
Our main goal was to make people die laughing, we never took it serious. Not at all, we just wanted to do something different. People ask about our industry not being creative or original that's because every other game that comes out is the same as the other, except with new tech features. I had no idea that setting a marching band on fire was gonna be considered politically incorrect, and the suicide move in the first POSTAL, we all thought it was great, but a lot of asshole politicians just seen it as an opportunity to be hypocritical about.
When "Running With Scissors" was first developing "Postal 1", what types of ideas went through the team's heads about how controversial the title was going to be? Back then did you think much about the fact that games could somehow "inspire" the player to commit acts that were portrayed in your game, or any game for that matter?
First let me say that if I thought we could make a game that would honestly motivate people to do things in real life, then I would make a game about fucking, cause this world needs more sex than killing that's for shit sure. The creative process here is actually pretty open, everyone just says whats on their minds and it all gets considered, of course it the end technical reality takes over. For the most part the games include it all, we don't approach game design by what can or cant we put it, we just ask one thing, is it funny. Of course we have a different sense of humor but hey that's what makes the world interesting. As for the controversy I've said it before we never planned for it nor did we anticipate, I mean shit in this fucked up place called earth who the hell could have imagined that a video game could get so much attention when the real world is filled with real crazy people, but that's the news today.
What has influenced "Running With Scissors" development of such controversial titles?
OK, to really get a clearer picture let me run off a few personality characteristics of the key folks in design: catholic school upbringing, some of us grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's, metal, comics, race, horny male syndrome, drugs, guns, animals...are you getting the picture yet? Sure I could go on and tell you things like Southpark, Spy vs Spy, Robotron, Atari, Clinton, and of course 9/11. Thinking about it I'd say we're a pretty normal group, that decided to go for it, and actually do and say what we feel, I really do think we're very lucky.
If there were no rating system on games and nothing holding back any type of gore or adult content, what type of things do you imagine we might see in today's video games or at least "Running With Scissors" titles?
I think a rating system is a good thing, the problem is that retailers are scared to carry controversial titles unless they get big ad guarantees, so the corruption and hypocrisy are not limited to the politicians, lets not forget the major publishers that are nothing more than pimps for sorry ass broke ugly developers. True creativity is a rare animal, so I'm not sure the rating system means that much for real and truly creative folks. I'm very proud of POSTAL not because its shock value but because it succeeds in what we set out to do MAKE PEOPLE HAVE FUN. As for RWS all I can say is if you play or watch POSTAL and don't laugh in the 1st 60 seconds then I blew it, and from all the fan mail we get I think we did pretty good.
What's your opinion on the statement "Games make killers out of gamers"?
BULLSHIT. If that was actually true we'd have a h
WURD!!
We stop violent games so we can shelter everyone from something that only a relatively FEW people can't handle mentally? Bad apples are everywhere; they'll find a way to be bad with or without violent video games.
I didn't ask
Note; this holds true for most first-person shoot-em-up, right back to Castle Wolfenstein and Doom.
Is it violent? Yes.
Is it speculative? Certainly.
Does it use blood and gore as a selling point? Off course.
But does it leads to more violent bahaviour? Now that is hard to prove... and unless it can be absolutly disproved, there will always be people who claims it does and will try to tell the gaming insdustry what they can and cannot do.
We'll always have parents and 'worried people' screaming up on how bad the latest games are. But instead of blaming the gamingindustry - who are basicly turning out more of whats popular - for perverting the youth, shouldn't they instead be taking time to be with their offspring, and possible keep some sort of controll at home over what games the children plays? For some reason, I'm reminded of a certain movie from a few years back, where concerned mothers started a war with Canada because their kids had learned a few naughty words...
Parental responibility. Is that to much to ask for?
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work)
I totally agree with you there. A time-out is really a time-out for the parent. All you do is tell the kid that you can't handle it anymore and you need a break.
gj.
A friend of mine pointed out recently that you can actually use the ESRB Rating Search Engine to show all the games that contain blood, gore, and violence. She went on to comment that she was sure it wasn't their intention, but that they've provided a great way to find good games. :)
Has anyone noticed that, after playing Grand Theft Auto or Vice City for several weeks, you start to look at parked cars a little differently?
Jason.
It's a standard reaction on behalf of the parents and a sad one. There are kids who will go out and do terrible things, but violence is not exactly a new thing in human history. If anything, todays' societies are remarkably non-violent compared to past ones.
For the parents - especially of the killers - it's an attempt to find blame somewhere. I feel sorry for them: since Freud's time, parents have been told "you are responsible for the way your kids turn out", when in fact many studies show that parents are amazingly irrelevant to their children's character. One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.
There is violence in our genes, but it generally needs a certain kind of culture to bring it out. The place to look for the causes of such killings are the youth cultures these kids hung-out in. There is no evidence at all that violent games or movies influence children, but it seems clear that violent children prefer to express themselves through violent games, virtual or real.
Court cases like this resolve absolutely nothing, because they divert the discussion in meaningless directions. Let's ban all violent games and movies... OK, will that change anything? Take a look at (random selection from a large pool) Uganda, where the kids watch no movies at all, yet 10,000 young (5-12) killers roam the north.
It is very difficult to change a violent culture, but it is possible.
The first thing is to understand the way violence is propagated. Like all youth cultures, it goes from youth to youth, bypassing all adult control. You have to work at this level, thus.
The second thing is to understand how individuals get drawn into violent behaviour that reinforces itself and finally becomes habitual. Can a young man turn to authority for fair protection? If not, he is more likely to use his own force for self-protection. Can a young man who uses drugs turn to authority for help? If not, he is likely to resort to retribution and violence. Can a young man escape from a violent or oppressive environment? If not, he will eventually give up on himself and "go postal", taking his own life but first taking the lives of as many of his peers as he can, in an attempt to regain some face.
I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem.
Banning violent video games goes further in the wrong direction. Now we make criminals out of those youngsters who want such games. Excellent.
I could go into the big news headlines of kids killing their sisters with WWE moves, kids with guns, etc., but I'll go with this one:
My buddy has a 3 year old. During the time his wife was away, my buddy would play GTA: Vice City, and his son would watch. The son thought it was cool when daddy "beat the shit" of of other guys with the bats. Well, Mom came home to see her son, and saw her son going to town on his favourite teddy bear with a kid-sized hockey stick. He said to his mom that it was because daddy did this "on tv". (And yes, the son would say daddy "beat the shit" out of somebody on tv.)
Whether you decide to play these games is up to you, but I believe we do have to be careful with our kids. We need to make them understand the difference between reality and fantasy, and if they can't tell the difference right now, then that's a lesson for later.
I believe it's called parenting.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
"I can train a kid to be a fat slob too by taking him to Mc Donalds 6 times a day for 30 days. So what does this prove?"
ROTFL...
Loading...
>Guns don't cause violence and neither do video games.
Hmmm... Merriam Webster defines cause as:
"something that brings about an effect or a result"
So, shooting someone does not cause violence? A gun does not bring about the result of violence?
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
I know lots of parents that sent their children to time out, and it worked. Mind you they imposed other restrictions on their children as well. Time out was used for mild punishment, and restrictions on use of technology, or 'play time' were used for harsher punishments. But for them, time out wasn't useless. So I agree with your comment on the use of detterents.
Insofar as whether video games cause violence -they do, in a sense. Responsible studies show that playing violent video games causes children to become more violent. Which isn't saying they will become violent people, but that playing these particular games incites more violent behavior than what would've been the case otherwise.
I don't think video games cause anyone to "go postal," but I do think it can excite those who are already predisposed to violence and encourage them.
The U.S. Army uses video games for training its soldiers. This kind of training allows a person to rehearse certain situations. Through rehearsing, a person sharpens the skills needed for such situations, and gains confidence in his sense of efficacy.
I think if you're already somewhat "bent" on destruction, a fear of not being able to pull it off may be significant in holding you back. Training on video games -- though you may not realize that that's in fact what you're doing -- will make the unfamiliar (for example, shooting into a crowd) less so.
The most important part of any training is training the mind. Video games teach you to acquire a target, shoot instantly, instantly acquire another target -- on and on and on. It becomes second nature. The 3-D games even train the mind to navigate hallways or open fields and so forth.
Again, I want to stress: video games don't cause violence. I do think, however, that they provide encouragement for those prone to it.
And just for the record, we should lock up the crazies, and leave the sane to enjoy their video games in peace.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
wow. who organizes their files like this? useless bunch of webadmins
Who cares about the state of violent games.
... just games, the same as television and films and books are just their own types of fiction. To criticize one without criticizing the other is not just inconsistent, it is fundamentally dishonest.
I'm more concerned about the state of violent politics, the underpinning of big business by law makers at the expense of the individual citizen, and the subversion of law and justice in the name of profit.
Games are
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Three things are needed to kill someone, 1) A weapon, 2) The skill, 3) The will to kill. It's been noted that games claim to provide two out of the three.
1) The cardboard box isn't a good weapon, neither is the CD.
2) Sure, I'm deadly with the rail gun in quake 3, but that doesn't mean I can fire a sniper rifle. Hell, I wouldn't even know how to load one.
3) If anything, a violent videogame would divert a killer kid's energy away from real people. And it's certainly doesn't provide a 'will to kill' to a normal kid.
I much prefer the "The State of Violent Gaming ate my balls!" troll!
Everytime you pass that parked 'vette on the way to work, you think "sweet ride, I'll have to remember where that is so I can steal it later!"
Hey, you'll all be grateful once the Martians invade and all the little kids save your lives due to their advanced weapons & tactical training! (see also: documentary called 'Mars Attacks')
I find it absolutely appauling that people (including the American and Canadian judiciary systems and governments) think that video games advertise violence to children. It is, in fact, partially heir own fault that some kids have violent tendencies. In High Schools all over the US, the armed forces have been advertising violence to children for years. They set up tables with brochures outside cafeterias used by chilren as young as 13. And this isn't fake violence they're pushing (the type where you can turn off the blood); this is real violence where they are actually killing real people. Before going after video game manufacturers for teaching kids to "go postal", they should practice what they preach.
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
It is an interview about claims people have about violent video games with somebody that makes violent video games. He says that he doesn't believe all that hype. What else do we expect him to say?
He sounds like a 13 year old that just learned how to use the words 'fuck' and 'shit' too. At least South PArk knows how to make it funny. This guy seems like he is trying too hard to come off as some dirty loud-mouth rebel. Indiscriminate use of "fuck" doesn't make you cool. Sorry, dude.
In his language he also tries to hide the fact that he doesn't understand the claim against violent imagery. It isn't that violent games makes peopel violent. You don't turn into a serial killed from playing violent games. The study research shows that violent imagery reduces the inhabition for violence and causes acceptance of violence. After playing extremely violent games, people se violence as more acceptable of a solution. This was done by asking questions about attitude towards violence, then the subject plays violent games, and then a new series of questions are asked concerning violence. There are also other forms this takes, such as the willingness of somebody to shock another (it rises) after viewing violent games, etc...
The interview isn't even worth finishing the bottom half. This guys views are so simplistic and covered in obscenity that I just question his ability to think clealy about the problem.
If violent videogames leads to violence, where aren't there MILLIONS of Columbines? There are MILLIONS of Doom, Quake, Postal, Unreal, etc. games. If there were a causal relationship, there'd be more news on it.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
I remember seeing the first Postal. It was practically the only game I've ever found so revolting that I felt sorry for the people who actually thought it was fun. And this is after I had been playing all the Doom and Doom-derivitive games for years. Just going around and shooting people without a just cause is absolutely fucking stupid. At least Doom was fighting against an invasion from Hell or something. In Postal, it wasn't even self-defense.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Oh. Video games? Well, I did rise to power and kill millions thanks to RTCW. Sorry 'bout that.
Signed,
Hitler
When I was thirteen, I remember passing up Mortal Kombat and Doom for some Super Mario Kart with my dad on more than one occasion.
If that doesn't speak to parents, I don't know what will.
Only when the increase in play of violent video games is matched with a corresponding decrease in parenting...which is usually the case.
If you let video games and TV raise your kids, it isn't the video games' or TV's fault when your kid becomes a violent killer. It's yours.
Instead of letting video games raise your children, try talking to them...playing baseball...treating them like intelligent beings with the potential to become full members of the human race. (No, it isn't automatic. That's the double-edged sword of intelligence).
Games are supposed to allow you to do things you couldn't possibly do in real life. That's why I never liked Burgertime, if I wanted to make hamburgers I could get paid for it.
No, you are an adult.
In this world, there are things for adults and things for children. Sometimes, the things for adults should not be consumed by children.
Pretty simple, huh? Its amazing to me how many people miss it.
People still don't get it. Last week a Michigan State Law Professor published an article claiming that videogames (especially violent ones) shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. LawMeme takes apart the argument here.
but there's nothing more rewarding than jumping on my A-Wing after work and blasting me some storm troopers by the mountains of Southern California. Wait, none of you have A-Wings? What do you mean there aren't any REAL storm troopers?
Seriously, though -- those that can't differentiate a game from reality shouldn't be allowed to play those games.
In my youth, I was quite a morbid creature even without much influence from video games. I will not refute any claim that video games introduce forms of violence...and really, so does any form of media. It is a matter of having someone instilling moral values to children. Just because the lead guy in Vice City blasts people with an AK doesn't mean it's ok to do the same in real life.
Parents -- your children WILL be playing these games. If not at your house, then at a friend's. Be proactive and responsible enough to make sure they realize the difference between fantasy and reality.
If they don't get it, let them know first-hand how much a crowbar can hurt by going Gordon Freeman on their violent selves.
See what Merriam Webster defines "inanimate" as...
Guns are inanimate. People cause violence.
First of all, it is incredibly hypocritical of a society to shelter their young from naked bodies doing sticky things, while guns, explosions, and violence are all A-OK to be shown right after SpongeBob's timeslot.
Secondly, it is also hypocritical of a society to preach the virtues of peace, condemn violent art and video games, while simultaneously waging a bloody, arbitrary war on nameless strangers a world away.
What's more disturbing for little Timmy to see? "Terminator 2" or CNN? Why is fake violence so heavily restricted and regulated, but actual people bleeding and dying is completely OK? Would you scold your neighbor if you found out your kid was visiting while the father was watching CNN? What if he was watching porn?
You see, that's a major problem with North American culture, and it really surprises me that so few people recognize it.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Every time this issue has been discussed on /. there is a hue and cry: Violent video games don't cause violence, because lots of people who play them do not kill. Guns don't cause violence, because lots of people who have them don't kill. And so forth.
How about just accepting that it's not just one thing that brought about Columbine and continues to bring about workplace shootings. It's a complex issue that requires more than defensive, reflexive denials of responsibility by partisans motivated by self-interest.
Maybe it's a combination of the following factors in varying formulas that leads to mass shootings at schools and workplaces:
- personality disorders of various types, including narcissistic, borderline, etc
- breakdown in social skills and social interactions (interventions by adults or peers)
- media reinforcement of the primacy of the individual over society (which is a bunch of other individuals)
- media reinforcement of the infantile ideal of instant gratification
- media reinforcement of violent physical or verbal conflict over negotiation and collaboration
- social acceptance and reinforcement of social heirarchies based on fascist aesthetics and maintained by violence (e.g. Columbine jocks teasing geeks)
And yes, the easy availability of guns.
Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine does some salami slicing too, but he does not come to any defensible, simple conclusions as to causes or prescriptions.
No one factor causes these events to happen, but I don't think we should dismiss any one factor without weighing it carefully.
But while I don't blame these games for the Eric Harrises and Dylan Klebolds of the world, I do have a problem with them: they're stupid. By and large they are very, VERY stupid. And they're vulgar. They're a commodification of an ugly thing: violent, directionless, immature rage. They bottle the stuff, distill it to remove any trace of thoughtfulness or ability to succeed as art, and sell it.
I don't think these games make anyone pick up a gun, but they very well make people stupider by giving a pop-culture seal of approval to some truly abhorrent ideas, and the people who consume this crap are going to be worse people for it. You know what feature I hear most often touted by fans of GTA3? How, in the game, you can rob and kill hookers. I think Rockstar should be free to have hooker killing and robbing features in their game; but if they design those games so that people come away from them excited about how much fun it was to kill and rob those hookers, well, then they're just appealing to latent misogyny and anger. I'd like to believe the huffy essays of the "games are art" people, but when I see GTA at the top of the charts I can't help but laugh at them. Do they even understand what art is? There are criteria beyond being able to look and/or listen to something, you know.
Now, you might rightly ask who I am to police art. But if you're really going to try to argue that mowing down innocent bystanders with guns and automobiles is a viable means of conveying a developed artistic idea, I'd suggest that you've got a tough rhetorical road ahead. I concede it may be possible. I maintain that few, if any, of these games do so.
Violence has a valid place in our culture, and while it shouldn't be celebrated, neither should it be censored. Shock value and crassness, on the other hand, are cynical devices used to extract money from the stupid. We can oppose censorship without venerating the content to be censored -- which is frequently pretty terrible. But that distinction isn't being made. Instead it's just worried parents who want to ban things, and enraged gamers refusing to give up their lowest-common-denominator pap. All in all, a pretty sad state of affairs.
-- Jon Carmeck
Guns don't cause violence and neither do video games.
This won't stop Congress from shredding the Constitution further with insane laws to sate their retarded constituents.
Gun laws, drug laws, parent surviellance, no freedom in school...these are the things that breed violence and crime among frustrated and stifled kids. Give them some slack!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
Regularly using time-outs and actually enforcing them *is* a punishment, and liberally taking away privileges as punishment works.
Some of the problems I've seen with implementing this are:
* Warning a child of an impending time-out by counting upwards. A countdown implies going from something down to zero, not the other direction. Children understand it when they're running out of numbers, where counting up gives them unlimited room for expansion.
* Threatening punishments but not delivering. I've seen parents threaten their child, but when the child yanks away from them, screams, whatever, the parent impotently lets the child get away with it. Apparently the child is either running the show, or the parent is afraid of appearing mean in public or something.
* Shortening time-outs because you're in a hurry, or giving back lost privileges due to expediency. If you're serious about punishing your kids, you sacrifice. When you give in and give back things you took away, the punishments have no meaning and the child won't care about being "punished".
Amazingly, my kids usually quickly stop most small-to-medium infractions when they hear the word "five". They know "four", "three", "two", "one", "zero", and "time-out" are coming. They remember all the other times they've been sat facing a corner for periods that seem endless to children, bored out of their little skulls. They know that Mom and Dad will stop what they're doing, just for the purpose of waiting for them to finish a time-out. They also know that a privilege taken away is not coming back, so they try to avoid losing the privileges in the first place.
Parents don't need to beat their children instead of using time-outs, they need to actually spend more than the minimum effort needed to raise their children.
Try it sometime! Hopefully (for the game-loving community) you can witness firsthand the violence that you are causing!
All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
If I produced a shoot-em-up game with Darl McBride as the main target, would that be OK ?
But it sounds like 'Daddy' might have been the problem, not necessarily the game. Go out, play ball, bond, go to the zoo. Don't sit playing violent video games in front of a bored 3 year old and be surprised if he picks up some (and probably your) bad habits.
This is just an example of negligent child rearing and it's been happening long before video games.
Quack, quack.
A time-out is really a time-out for the parent
Umpf... dude : u have kids ? If I want to make it easy on myself, I don't go calling time-outs. I slap'em a bit here, I slap'em a bit there and they'll shutup. Timeouts are by far more stressing to the parent than to the kids.
The difference between a timeout and a spanking session is that, after the spanking session, kids won't do whatever-they-were-punished-for again when you're around. Instead they'll do it behind your back. With a timeout session, I talk things through with my children. I try to explain them what they did wrong and why. It doesn't always work, but if it does, they understand the punishment, and I'm far more sure they won't do it again.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
What are you proposing as an alternative?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
... did Pac-Man make me fat?
A time-out is really a time-out for the parent.
Speaking from LOTS of experience in this, it is NOT a time-out for the parent. If you're doing it right, it's a big fscking pain in the neck, since you have to stop what you're doing and wait for the child to finish their time-out, with restarts if they don't continue to sit where they're placed in silence.
Running with Scissors
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
how come it's legal to copy/paste articles "incase of /.ing"? arent the sites who posted the articles deprived of ad revenue (whether clickthrough works as a business model is irrelevant)?
What we also fail to realize is that, we live in a very violent world. You can turn on the news and see and hear about violence. You have Bush bullying around other nations and threatning them with violence. Don't you think all of this could have even more of an impact than video games and all the other crap they want to blame stuff on? If we are so concerned about our children becoming violent or performing violent acts, then why can't we as a whole set an example? The answer is NOT censoring and reliqunishing our rights, it is about setting an example for our children. If parents would take the time to parent, we wouldn't have this issue that is blown out of proportion would we? Most of the time it is the parents fault, yet the parents act like children themselves and want to blame something else.
Should the parent be legally responsible for their child's acts? No they should not. You cannot always prevent someone from making mistakes.
I Doubt many parents would buy kids their M rated games if they actually sat down and watched their darling little ten year olds blowing up buildings, brutally murdering people etc. Or maybe I am just out of the loop and thats what parents want there kids to do when they grow up...
DUKEY!
With a timeout session, I talk things through with my children. I try to explain them what they did wrong and why. It doesn't always work, but if it does, they understand the punishment, and I'm far more sure they won't do it again.
How about both a physical punishment and a discussion? Children learn quickly that a time-out is of no consequence (as well as the discussion). The physical punishment is not desired and will lead to a better memory.
Its the women.. Now if I could only get impressionable video games for my wife i'd be all set! (We'll ignore for the moment she hates most video games besides Worms.)
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
A game that lets you pee on the mirror in a public restroom? Who can say no to that?
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Children learn quickly that a time-out is of no consequence (as well as the discussion).
Do you actually have children?
Kids of all ages absolutely loathe boredom, and time-outs and long talks from the parent(s) aren't exactly entertaining.
He's 4.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
I know lots of parents that sent their children to time out, and it worked.
The "guilt trip" mode of punishment only turns children into soft adults who whimper at the thought of real responsibility. Parents need to chew out their kids more (not like Wal-Mart trash...reasoned arguments can be okay, too). If the point is to teach children proper behavior, then why not talk to them for ten minutes rather than do ten minutes of time-out?
Fact: modern parents are lazy and too distracted by digital cable over 5.1 audio to really give a damn about their children.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I was hopeing that the artical would just say "maine" or "ohio" and just declare that the state of violent gameing.... that'd be cool...
HEY! I'm FROM Ohio! Don't make me come over there and kick your ass!
Why, yes, I was just playing Vice City...
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
From the Article...... You can take all the advanced tech stuff and get rid of it if it doesn't add to gameplay and the fun factor. For example, in POSTAL 2 we give you liquid dynamics, we let you piss, throw up, and pour gasoline, this adds to gameplay but also its fun to do and actually watch as well.
Now I wonder if I could put my Ex-bosses head in there and piss on his head!!!
That would be a great game!!!!
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
The bottom line is that we'll no longer feature game demos on our cover CD if they contain realistic scenes of humans killing humans. This implies that pretty much all war games are out, and many 1st person shooters.
Exceptions are things like Sci-Fi / Fantasy violence, that still passes (Serious Sam would be one of these), and strategic games where you guide small figures are also fine. Doom 3 is on the edge (I think it won't make it) due to very realistic horror scenes.
Personally I'm fine with this new party line, the only thing I might want exception for is historical wargames. We've had many Vietnam-style 'games' that have a very alternative approach to 'fun', in that they look and feel more like military training simulators than good old-fashioned fun. Am hoping this will promote more fun :)
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
My friends and I call that the GTA effect. When we're out driving we see a sportbike and go "PCJ!". When I'm following someone in traffic , I see a yellow arrow spinning above their vehicle. God help us.
Now I'm curious, would I be as good at killing moving targets in real life as I am in video games. I wonder how good I'd really be at wholesale killing, guess I'll never know. Oops, almost forgot to put my tinfoil hat back on.
I think that for some sick segments of society, games like POSTAL fulfill a want/need to indulge in violence that could reinforce a predisposition to do it in the real world. For most well-balanced people, it's easy to turn off the game and realize the difference. For some people, though, the game is an indulgence of a violent fantasy.
I know Slashdot is a libertarian stomping ground, but at what stage does a community think about what the use is for certain things and decide that we might be better off without them? Can community have some responsibility? We excoriate parents for failing to look over their kids, but perhaps parents feel like society is too hell-bent on making them go it alone all the time. Wouldn't it be easier to be a good parent if there weren't so many porn sites, violent games, etc...if those were restricted more effectively the same way that society has chosen to restrict supply of porn magazines, cigarettes, and alcohol?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Please try to retain the original paragraph spacing and indentation. It makes the article much easier to read.
Select a user name more conducive to karma whoring. My troll detector went off as soon as I saw "Sir Haxalot."
The article contains RUSSIA in all caps. It's easier to karma whore if you stick to articles that do not contain trollish words/phrases.
Make sure your subject line is free of spelling errors.
To quote the Moron-In-Command, "Bring 'Em On".
Thanks and have an Ashcroft-free day,
W00t
People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore. Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
Nor do they teach their kids to respect other human beings, because we are all made in the image of God.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
No doubt. I was watching some really bad B horror movie last night. Nothing like seeing a mans head cut off with spewing blood in one scene and then seeing what *MIGHT* have been a nipple blurred out of a later "love" scene.
........
SAD
Knightfall
Umm, I was a child. I know what time-outs are and I didn't mind them. OH NO, NOT 10 MINS OF SILENT TIME!!! Give me a break. The sound of my father's belt whipping off his jeans was enough to make me piss my pants. THAT'S what deterred me. I think he used the belt less than 10 times but all I had to do was hear it come off and I was sorry enough for what I had done.
TIME OUTS DO NOT WORK.
I truly believe that punishment is a deterrent for bad behavior. My father used a short 1-inch thick board to spank me when I was bad. The effect: I considered the effects of my actions before I acted. I hated the board, I often had mean-spirited thoughts about my dad, but I behaved. However I never did drugs, I didn't try alcohol until college, and I generally avoided bad situations.
Unfortunately, I don't know how I will teach my child (due in April) to behave. Sure, I can scold him/her and send them to a corner, but I know that the child will rationalize the risk with the action. The risk is not too great, thus the child will less scared of being caught. I can spank the child, and the child would be less likely to behave in certain ways, but then I'd have CPA all over me about child abuse.
I say let parents raise their children as they want and hold parents responsible for the actions of their children. Drop the PC crap...
A friend of mine recently removed all references to video games from her house. She did so because her sons (8-10) were becoming increasingly violent and hostile. So in the trash did all that Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and other assorted prepubescent male targeted crap go. Hey guess what? After a few weeks, she notices her sons are beginning to get along better. No more fighting (and I mean physical kung fu action) over who is the real Pokemon/Yu-Gi-Oh! "master", no crying over "He ripped my ultra-rare dark dragon mega...lord... card!", and no more whining that they need the latest in a line of crappy video games. Her sons are doing much better in school now they don't have this obsession to occupy their time.
The content of this entertainment product is pure evil. Violence and sexual content IS having an effect on society and our neighborhoods. Just look around!
How about both a physical punishment and a discussion? Children learn quickly that a time-out is of no consequence (as well as the discussion). The physical punishment is not desired and will lead to a better memory.
:-)
:-)
(My wife is defending her doctoral thesis next monday about psychological conditioning, so I try to talk out of her book here) You're confusing 2 things : punishment versus a negative prime. What you want is for your kid to associate the timeout with something negative. While a physical stimulus (pavlov used electroshocks on his dogs) is by far the most strong and most persistent prime, you're also running the risk of over-exposing, and overreaction.
One of the imporant factors in conditioning are consistency and connectability (I think. dunno the proper word in english): your negative stimulus (a slap on the butt) should be about the same intensisty at all times (which is VERY hard for a parent : when you're freaked out over somthing you often slap harder than u intended) at about the same time interval after the facts and in proportion to the seriousness of the facts (no 2 'crimes' are equal) It is soooo difficult to do this right, that you ight as well not slap at all. It's far too risky that the kid will connect the spanking with something else than what u intended.
And hitting them first, with an explanation afterwards is difficult too : when hitting, you start a whole chemical process of adrenaline and shit (literally sometimes
I think many people try to make an analogy with the animal world, where parents physically scentence their offspring. But we're so far off from that darwinistic perspective (in an infinitely more complex world where you expect kids to do a lot of counter-intuitive things form an animal-point-of-view) that it's almost impossible to do it in a controlled way...
Hmm.. I'm losing myself here. Better submit it before the wife reads it
Anyway, my point being : hitting kids is a reflex, an instinct. Often, the kid's wrongdoing wasn't all that calculated either. More often than not, your hit comes unexpected and has more bad results than good ones.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Video Games and Guns cause violence like condoms cause sex like a car causes auto accidents like a knife causes you to be a chef.
I'm so sick of scapegoating. Nothing but a nation (or planet) of less immature children on a proverbial schoolyard.
Stop. Just, stop.
If someone were pissed off enough to shoot someone, but for some reason they didn't have a gun, they'd just use a knife, or a hammer, or their bare hands.
The person causes the violence. If this were not the case, countries would never be able to maintain a proper military. There are so many guns causing violence, the whole organization would go to shit.
Irregardless of my personal opinion on the issue, doesn't this have a *little* bias in it?
The guy makes money off of violent games - why would he cast his business in a negative light?
This is like asking Microsoft/RedHat/Whomever PR if computers are generally bad for people.
--
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum
I forgot, I wanted to make one thing clearer. While guns don't cause violence, I think they make it a lot easier mentally to do violent things. I think there's a bit of a disconnect when you use a mechanical object like a gun to shoot someone. You're a little more separated from the act you're doing. When you stab someone or strangle them, you're right there, it's more visceral. Even more separated is the pilot bombing targets in his million-dollar night vision enhanced cockpit.
Postal 2 is only interesting due to its violent nature. The general consensus is that the game is offensive but the design underneath the offenses is not solid enough to be worth a purchase.
...after all, which is easier: (1) turning on your console and picking up a controller while you lounge on the couch, or (2) getting a weapon ($$), its ammunition ($$), planning some kind of slaughter (for which you'll get no points...), actually getting up off the couch, going outside (you're kidding!), etc.?
Seriously, though (folks), wouldn't you think these games provide a release or outlet for things people might otherwise do out in the real world? Thereby decreasing real violence?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
the store shouldn't be able to refuse to sell games to minors any more than they can refuse to sell items to various racial groups or genders.
If the parents want to enforce the ratings, they are the ones that have the authority to do so. If they refuse to, then the state has no right to step in and mandate that decision.
Video games don't kill people.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Ok, this is weird:
Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair
I did NOT type the sentence like that. Slashdot edited my post to look like that.
What the fuck is going on?
hah, me too want to go grief some people? What games do you play?
First it was comic books. Then Rock music. Then D&D. Then Beavis and Butthead (remember when Beavis smoked? Good luck finding it now.) Now violent video games.
I don't know how this bar is set; maybe it's whether the activity is nostalgic or patriotic, or if it's just different enough to scare the generation in charge. Did anyone ever question running around with plastic guns playing 'Cowboys and Indians'*? 'Cops and Robbers'? War? Did plastic Army Men ever have problems? Paintball seems acceptable for teens, and it involves ACTUALLY SHOOTING AT REAL PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS THAT REALLY CAN HURT THEM. (I've had enough paint bruises to know.)
Personally, I think it's more that video games are used instead of family interaction. Whether it's games, books, drugs, TV, or staring at a wall, if there isn't any home interaction then good social skills will come harder. If they aren't nurtured through school activities, then it just gets worse and worse. I've generally found that a naturally outgoing person will find ways to grow socially, it's the naturally introverted that suffer most without a strong family upbringing. (Note - by 'strong' I mean 'open, talkative, compassionate, etc.'. There's no magic formula for that.)
Blaming the current fad instead of poor family life will probably never change. The reasons for it would probably be an interesting socialogical study, but most likely no one who could fund such a study would want a true, balanced answer that 'kids are just kids, and home environment matters most'.
(Offtopic footnote)* - besides the obvious moral problems of whether it was right to subjugate the indigeonous people, I'm simply refering to the fact it idolized violence in general. I'd guess it isn't played very much anymore, though that could also be put to the fact there are fewer westerns nowadays.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
No, I'm New Here
sure, everyone of us can come up with a variety of excuses for why extremely violent and realistic games should be made. responsibility, personal accountability, parenting, etc. etc. and you know what, you're right. in a perfect world, you're all correct, but, everyone lacks to see the fact that we do not live in a perfect world. in fact, we don't live in anything remotely close to a perfect world.
does anyone live close to a ghetto or underdeveloped area? well i do, and when i stop by the local gamestop to pick up a new gamecube game, i constantly see little hoodlum children running around like animals, while their parents do nothing. these same children blab on and on about how they want grand theft auto so they can shoot people and steal things. most of these children's parents obviously don't give a shit about what their children are doing. and sorry everyone, they aren't going to change. these children do not need simulated crime in their life, because it's basically going to be training them for the real thing, cuz they really don't have much guidance out there, and we no matter how much we'd like to change that, we can't.
so for once, i back away from my normally liberal views, and say we don't need this shit.
I've just finished the game. :^)
Must say I liked it, and it didn't make me kill all those #$(@$% who were saying in the line before me at the shop.
Btw, when you finish it, a new mode is unlocked and you piss napalm
oh and it's slashdotted right now.
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
You're making the same mistake that a lot of the no-corporal-punishment-ever crowd does; all kids aren't the same. Just because one kid doesn't react to a certain punishment doesn't mean none of them will.
I don't have kids, but if I did I could easily see myself using "time outs" as a preventative measure. If the kids are working themselves up the crazy meter, running around, shouting, etc., the a time out simply forces them to calm down. If they've actually willfully done something bad, then it's pretty pointless.
you've given your personal example. Let me give a counter example : I remember a few years back when our youngest son (then 3 years old) had been playing in potted plants we have in the corner of our hall. I had a very long, tiring day at work, my wife was sick, and we had told him a few times before we didn't want him to play with those.
:-)
In a reflex I still regret, I grabbed him (he saw me coming, so it was not an unexpcected grab from behind) and gave him a single, solid clap on his bottom while i said in a loud voice : you know you're not supposed ot touch these !
The results frightened me completely : he freaked out, cryed his heart out and peed is pants (which he hadn't done since he was 2) There was a total, insane panic in his eyes and he yelled for his mom like as if i was cutting his balls of...
but that was not the scariest part. That was when it took days for him to be sweet again to me. I had (and now have again) a very very good bond with my kids. I can talk to them about everything even some stuff that they don't tell their mom (and vice versa
During those days, he did nothing wrong, didn't touch those plants, didn't break anything, didn't do anything naughty, finished his plate... pefect... He was like an angel. But an angel that was prety damd scared of me and wouldn't let me hug him.
Dude : it has cost me blood, sweat and tears to bring our relation back to normal, and I have NEVER ever hit our kids again.
Now when he does something fancy, I take him apart and talk it through. Okay, he looks at me with a "oh comeon dad I got the message, stop preaching man". But quite often, a few hours or even days later, he comes over to me and admits "yeah, I was pretty stupid back then." and we can both laugh about it.
I don't expect him to say "sheesh, thanks for pointing out to me how stupid I am and how smart you are, dad" but then again, I guess you never said that to your dad either after he put his belt back on ? Hitting is the easy way. Talking to your kids every day, even when you're tired and they're a royal pain in the ass is the most rewarding way.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
So, the age-old question. Do violent video games negatively affect kids, make them more likely to be mass-murderers or amoral killers?
My usual response would be, "Hell no!" But a couple of days ago I started thinking about it again. Thinking about people who lived in North America in, say, the 18th century, when quite a lot of things that are no longer acceptable (e.g. slavery) were acceptable, and quite a lot of things that are now acceptable (women wearing miniskirts) would not have been.
Someone who was born in 1798 and lived until 1844, for example, might quite possibly have been of the opinion that it was perfectly acceptable to own another human being as property. Would we, nowadays, blame that person, say he was an evil, immoral bastard? We'd most likely say that he was a product of his times. Granted there were people who, by our modern standards were more "forward-thinking" than that, but certainly not an overwhelming majority, like today.
So why did our hypothetical pro-slavery guy believe what he did? He was subject to it as he grew up; it was part of the culture he lived in. Say he lived in the deep South, e.g. Georgia, in a culture whose livelihood much depended on slave labor. We could hardly blame him.
Imagine another hypothetical person, growing up in a hypothetical place and time, where the use of violence as a problem-solver was as prevalent as the Southern use of slave labor was in the early 19th century. Again, would we blame someone who lived in that time for resorting to violence to solve problems? Probably not. He'd be considered a product of his times.
But now we come to the early 21st century, and we have a burning question: do violent media affect the likelihood that young people will be violent? On one side, we have people (like me) who say that, no, of course not, just look at me and my friends. When we were young, we all played horrifically violent video games that involve murder, genocide, and things being bloodily hacked to pieces; but none of us are violent. We don't go out and kill people. People who believe this, let's call them the Unaffected.
The other side says, ah, but look at all these cases of young people who have played lots of games like this, and subsequently gone out and killed people. Or scientific studies that have concluded that exposure to violent media (not just games, but movies and TV as well) impel teenagers to be more violent. People on this side, let's call them the Influenced.
So who's right? I'm beginning to think that neither side is on the money. I realize that this isn't scientific, but it's become intuitive to me that anything we experience can influence who we are. The key word there is can. Not everything we experience influences us to the same degree, or even, necessarily, to any measurable degree. It seems intuitive that certain people are more easily influenced into committing violence than others; or rather, that some people, when seeing violence, think that it might be a good idea to mimic that violence.
The continuing explanation from the Unaffected is that proper parental guidance will (generally) teach children that the violence they see in TV and movies and video games is not real, and using such violence to solve problems is not an acceptable way of going about things. The Unaffected believe that whatever current epidemic of media-induced violence there may be, is due to a lack of proper parenting.
Meanwhile, the more hard-line of the Influenced claim that children can be corrupted by exposure to such violent media, regardless of how good their parenting is.
This last bit is unambiguously false. At the very least, some non-zero number of children can be exposed to vast amounts of violence and be none the worse for wear. I'm certainly living proof. I saw countless violent movies and played countless hours of violent video games as a child -- but my parents, especially my father, were always sure to reinforce the idea that violence
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Much of what we now recognize as great art was produced by people who were just trying to make a living. A videogame may or may not be a form of "meaningful" expression, but the fact that it is produced for profit is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
And so we start a child-rearing pissing contest. Come on people, every child is different.
Everything works for some kids.
Nothing works for all kids.
The most important thing is to know your child, and what he responds to. Trying to tell other people what works for a child you've never even met is silly.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
If the point is to teach children proper behavior, then why not talk to them for ten minutes rather than do ten minutes of time-out?
You are right to suggest to that it is absolutely vital for parents to explain to the child why a punishment is occuring, and to both explain and model preferred behaviors, but you, like most others in this thread, are misunderstanding the purpose that time-outs can serve for certain children at appropriate times.
The problem is that for a lot of children, bad behaviors are a way of getting attention. A kid acts up in class, and suddenly the attention is on him. It is reinforcing because, for him, negative attention is better than no attention.. This is a ridiculously common scenario.
To solve this problem, two things need to happen. Most importantly, the child needs to receive positive attention when he's not misbehaving, so that behaving appropriately will be reinforced. This is harder than it sounds because it doesn't come naturally to most people, but it's important to do; the fact that reinforcing good behaviors is more effective than punishing bad behaviors is something many people in this thread are forgetting (and unfortunately most parents don't bother keeping that in mind either). Anyway, the other thing that needs to happen is that the punishment needs to be something that will actually be a deterrent for the child. Yes, the parents should have a talk with the child about what is and isn't okay, and why, but you can't have this talk 20 times a day--aside from being exasperating, it reinforces the bad behavior.
That's where time-outs are appropriate. It's a way of taking away the attention and stimulation that the child is seeking. It's not much of a punishment for the typical Slashdot introvert, but it is for the hyperactive, attention-seeking types.
Agree completely. Does anybody else thing it's just a "coincidence" that kids started shooting up schools and screwing each other silly in the brief period of time that it's become "abusive" to properly discipline your children? Nobody is going to tell me that making a kid sit in a corner is going to prevent future bad behavior or reinforce the fact that previous bad behavior should be discontinued. He's sitting there thinking about all of the stuff he's going to do when his "time out" is over. All of the "bad kids" that I've seen in recent years (i.e., shoplifters, drug users, etc.) seem to have come from "time out" parents. Sorry, but it's not working.
The only way to properly instruct children as to what is good and bad is through physical punishment. This punishment should never be malicious or life-threatening, but it should definitely be more than a "light swat on the ass", which I view as almost worse than no punishment at all. It's not your duty to be your child's "friend." It's your duty to be a parent. That means that you're ready to rock the kid's world if the situation calls for it. Parents who try to be all "cool" and pretend that they're "equals" with their kids usually let them get away (figuratively) with murder. The problem is that many of these same kids end up experimenting (literally) with murder.
I feared my father when I grew up. Not in the sense that I feared him in general, all of the time, but instead I feared what he would do to me if I misbehaved. Consequently, I did not misbehave. Do you honestly believe that children are afraid of being told to sit in a corner? I sure wouldn't have been. I was definitely afraid of his belt, however, and as a result, I adjusted my behavior to that which was expected of me. It's too bad that parents today can't do the same thing without being labeled as "bad parents", when in fact they are anything but.
Umm, I was a child. I know what time-outs are and I didn't mind them. OH NO, NOT 10 MINS OF SILENT TIME!!! Give me a break. The sound of my father's belt whipping off his jeans was enough to make me piss my pants.
Did you consider that maybe time-outs didn't mean much to you *because* your parent(s) used violence as punishment?
Actually, the punishment depends on the child. Timeouts, for example, work extremely well for one of my daughters. She really is crushed when she is put on timeout, and it prevents her from doing future behavior that landed her on timeout in the first place.
:) Spanking works, timeouts are a joke to this one.
The second one...well, she just needs to be smacked around sometimes.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I've always thought that censorship of any kind is a bad thing. Hear me out; what's worth more, some one who does "good" because they're forced to or some one who does "good" because they chose to?
A person who's been exposed to all sorts of crap (violent video games et al.) but has turned out to be a pretty decent individual is worth a lot more to me than some one who was sheltered from that stuff as a kid and has turned out to be decent. It's the choices people make that a worth something, not necessarily their actions.
It seems to me that the violent video games/movies/sex-advertising etc. are the symptoms of a decaying society and not the cause. We can't censor everything that we don't like and pretend everything's okay because we have rules against "that sort of thing". Everyone should be free to make choices.
To me, banning violent games shows that people are so messed up that they need other people to tell them what to do so they don't have to think too hard or take responcibility for their choices (no choice no responcibility). Enough with the rules, let people think for themselves - no dount we're going to make a heck of a lot of bad choices in life but that's how we learn and grow.
Sorry about the the rant.
http://www.werz.com/timages/page/kids_guns.jpg
and they don't mean anything to anyone else either. Boredom is not punishment it's time to think over how fucking stupid your parents are for not having a better imagination.
I was in combat several times while in the Marines and I play alot of 1st-person shooters.
If, for even one second, playing a game reminded me of the horrific experience of being in actual combat, I'd never play another game again.
Anyone who tries to tell you that playing a violent game has anything to do with violent action, has no experience in either.
Yeah, time-out is a way of not dealing with the problem. The way I see it, parents should do more TALKING to their children and less BEATING. That-a-way kids can LEARN, or, at least, parents are trying to TEACH their kids.
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
every single one of you need to rent bowling for columbine and watch it twice.
There is NO problem with guns, violent movies, violent games anywhere except in the United States.
How come we don't have canadian kids running around killing others and blowing up schools, buildings and setting fire to everything every holloween..
come to think of it, none of that happens in England, France, Germany, Iran, Saudi Ariabia, Japan......
It's not the games, it's not the music, it's not the movies, it's not the guns.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The Horse Hot equine action! Blood covered hooves, hot horse sex, and everything that free! Available for most major platforms and with generic ANSI C sources without any system-specific hooks.
Bonus for Linux users - ncurses-enhanced version!
Moralistic media watchdogs would have you believe that humans are "weak" against media, and that censorship is needed for "protection". That viewpoint is utterly insulting crap.
The media (art, literature, movies, games, etc) is not our master. We are not mindless robots who can only follow orders. We are superior to all media. We are living human beings with free will and adaptable minds.
Blaming the media is the path of power-hungry tyrants who wish to make men into mindless robot servants. That can only happen if one willingly submits to their nonsense and lies. Never surrender your mental freedom.
A few things that work for me:
1) never, ever, ever, punish the child while you're angry. That sets up a feedback look that is very easy for you to lose control of. Count to 10, wait a half hour, or what ever it takes for you to get in control of yourself. Don't leave the kid hanging during this time. Explain you are angry, and you will be back to deal with this in a short while.
2) Warn of consequences. Don't just go from observing an infraction to punishment. Give them a warning or two. "That's not appropriate behavior. Do not do it again, or you will [get the belt|stand in the corner|get spanked|etc].
3) Always follow through. If you threaten punishment, by $deity you had better follow through. Otherwise the child learns that these are empty threats, not predictions of consequences.
4) Don't sweat the small stuff. No need to go ballistic over every single bit of misbehavior. Children will 'misbehave' but that's more a function of the world-view and wanting to push their own envelope, than a deep seated urge to do evil. Conversely, let the child know that there are some actions that are directly tied to their safety, that ANY infraction will bring about the worst possible consequences.
5)There is a relatively narrow range in which physical punishment works. Too young, and the child has no idea why he did was wrong (above the level of a slap on the wrist, or a swat on the butt). As they get older, they should already know what is and isn't appropriate behavior, so physcial punishment is simply diminishing returns. What are the proper ranges? Well, my Daughter is 12. Unless she breaks the one cardinal rule of the household (do not leave the property without first getting permission), she should never have to worry about getting spanked or whatnot.
But that range depends on the child. There is no 'one size fits all' rule here. And that seems to be where a lot of the confusion lies. What worked for me, may not work for my kids. And it certainly didn't always work for my siblings. Creative problems demand creative solutions.
Remember, our goal here isn't to have peace and quiet, it's to raise responsible and contributing members of human society. Make sure your methods are compatible with those goals.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
If you prevent your child from making any mistakes how will they know what is right and what is wrong?
Take a dog as an analogy. I could keep it outdoors its entire life, but does this mean it won't piss on the floor when I let it in?
That's an example of a movie I probably won't let my kids see. At least Hollywood disguises its propaganda in the form of entertainment.
People today are fascinated with guns and the improper use of them because the majority of americans live in cities and so they've never gotten to use them in the proper way.
.22 or shoot some skeet, while teaching them proper safety and handling of guns, they wouldn't be talking about busting caps in your ass or any of that shit within a generation.
Guns have been put on a pedestal by their inaccessibility and the way the culture of the city looks down on the proper usage of them. Shooting that's not at people has been given the redneck/hick stigma and no city kid wants that.
If you took every kid from the inner city out to the country for a few days every year, and let them blast the shit out of some targets with a
If you REALLY want to cure the problem, when they're old enough, you take them hunting so that they get to see some blood and guts. Sure, it's squirrel or rabbit or deer blood and guts, but it all looks the same after you shoot it with a 12 gauge. If a kid still wants to shoot people after he's seen a deer get gutted and field dressed, he's got problems that nobody can fix.
I was taught what guns can do from an early age and I've always had the proper respect for them and have never once thought that gun violence was a good thing.
However, there are limits to expression in Canada, including "violent expression." This is usually meant to apply to expressions of violence, though. As twisted (in a very bad way) as the Postal games are, I doubt they'd be considered violent in the sense necessary to avoid the 2(b) protection.
Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
Maybe it didn't on you. Do you have any kids of your own?
I can tell you from my own parenting experience that for small children, there's nothing more frustrating than being made to sit in one spot without leaving or talking or having anything to play with. The older they are, the longer you leave them there. If it doesn't work (which it won't if you use it too often or don't enforce the silenct rule), send them to an empty room instead. In most cases, you're constraining their natural energy in a most unnatural way. It's surprisingly effective if you use it consistently.
Classic baby-boomer mentality. So the kid was afraid of you for a couple days? So what?
My grandparents...the "Greatest Generation"...they knew how to take care of children. You just let them run loose and discover things for themselves, but whne you catch them fuck up, you let them know it (with a broken broom handle).
My parents, on the other hand, treated me like I was the fucking Prince of the Universe. You have no idea how this fucked up my head. I was a wuss and crybaby. I thought I was above everyone. All because they tried to be my friend instead of my parents. It wasn't until I got into high school and had some sense knocked into me by some larger classmates that I started turning around. The way I see it, I raised myself from then on. I develpoed a sense of respect and humility that I never had as a child.
Sure I'm always hearing baby-boomers complain about how rough they had it when they were growing up...but that's how it should be. Kids today are too damn spoiled because their parents decided they weren't going to raise their children the way they were raised. So instead they do the complete opposite. Just look at the all the school shootings going on. These kids do this because they grow up without any sense of humilty. They can't take it when bad shit happens to them.
You say it cost you blood, sweat and tears? Hell, the kid's your son. My dad threw me against a wall once (later on in my life...I think it was a "moment of weakness" for him), but I still love him. Sure I hated his guts for a while and I was afraid to go near him, but those emotions only last momentarily.
I say forget all this pseudo-science, psychobabble bullshit and bring back the yard stick.
This is the best violent game out http://resistance.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=28
Actually, it depends on the child. Kids are unique individuals. They're not like little mass-produced robots that only function according to a fixed set of commands.
A few of my friends have children that are generally pretty calm and mild-mannered. Punishing by spanking isn't really necessary, and probably just hurts the parent more than it does the child. (EG. After a spanking, you have to endure the kid screaming and sobbing, and possibly even putting on a show of ignoring you completely for the next 30 minutes or so.) If a "go sit in the corner for 5 minutes" or "Stop that, or you're going to lose privilege Y!" is effective, great!
On the other hand, yes, some kids won't respond to anything less than spanking. Sometimes, it's because they're at an age where they want to test their limits. If parents won't take things to the level of spanking, the child keeps piling on worse and worse behavior, trying to provoke some sort of response. (Eventually, they just decide they can do anything they want without consequences more serious than threats that don't get backed-up with actions.)
One big problem, nowdays, is with people too concerned with what "the other parent" is doing, and not enough with their own lives. Do I think twice before punishing my daughter in public? Unfortunately, yes! I shouldn't have to - but ignorant people out there will file complaints, report you to store security, or any number of boneheaded things.
Just last week, I barely escape a big incident over nothing at the local WalMart store. I went in with my (18 month old) daughter to buy her some clothes and get some food items. When the cashier rung me up, my kid started fussing (wet diaper), so I was distracted. She bagged everything for me, but when I went to grab the bag I thought she put the clothes in - she stopped me, saying "That one's not yours!"
She was already ringing out a guy behind me who was also buying some clothes - so I figured it must have been my mistake, and I left. When I got to the car, I saw the clothes weren't in my bags at all - even though I just paid for them. I wasn't going to try to run back in with my fussing daughter (and she was more calm sitting in her car seat anyway) so I left her in the car and ran back in.
It wasn't more than a minute, but when I got back to my car, security was already there, starting to write up some kind of report, and a lady was talking to the guy about the "kid abandonned in the car"! Come on, people! I can understand trying to be helpful and all - but don't jump to conclusions about something you know nothing about. At least spend a few minutes making sure the parent isn't right around the corner before filing complaints.....
I'm building a penalty box.
Roughing, 2 minutes...both of you!
t
Oh cripes.. another one of these "left wingers"
It's true, if you were not so frigging programmed and a damned sheep you would see it.
the problem is with what is fed americans....
fear.... fear.....FEAR......FEAR!!!!!!!
get a clue and maybe you would get your head out of your butt....
One the one hand, we have personal responsibility, and on the other we have media that closesly resembles military style conditioning.
There is some required reading on the subject.
Please, read the above before you respond.
No, read it, fucker.
So, given that violence is not not a natural thing in children, or other age groups for that matter, there has to be something that is causing our society to so degrade. It's not all gaming, it includes family breakdown, news media, Cops, Schwarzenegger, gun proliferation, etcetera.
It's also interesting to look at the drop in instances of post traumatic stress disorder between the world wars, where there was no conditioning to make soldiers kill easier, and vietnam, where we were 6 times better at it through the training. I don't have the numbers off hand right now, and I remember it was a pian to google them up, but there is a huge drop, which would seem to suggest that not only does the training these soldiers recieve make them more able to shoot people (by turning it from action to reaction), but it makes them more able to just pass it off as something normal. That, in my mind, is a great horror.
And what relevance does that have to games? Look at how soldiers were trained for Vietnam. Instead of shooting at targets, they waited in anticipation for the target to pop up, then they shot it. It conditioned them to react immediately, taught them that there was no time to think, no time to do anything but aim and shoot and kill. How is it different than GTA or any first person shooter?
I'm not saying that people are absolved from their responsibilities, but looking at that responsibility and the conditioning recieved... they are not mutually exclusive. Both an be at fault, and I think both are.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Hey Burgertime rocked, along with Boot Hill, which was on the other side of my azimuth aligning tape for my c64.
what does religion have to do with this?
.sig.
Damn, forgot the article. Me smart.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
"People don't have to take responsibility for their actions anymore."
Boy, tell me about it. When I was 7 years old, my neighbor friend decided he liked his big wheel better than mine. So he took it. We knew he took it. We went to his mom. "Oh no, he's an angel. I taught him not to steal. He knows never to do that. He didn't take your bigwheel." I went over to the nearby shed in their yard, opened it up, and pulled out my big wheel.
I never thought very highly of her as a parent. It never really sounded like she was in tune with her kids.
"Derp de derp."
And what came in at No 2? "Pirates of The Caribbean".
Ooo, scary
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
I always got time-out for beating up my brother. Did it suck? Sure. Did it stop me from beating up my brother? No...the kid was a cocksucker.
Time-out just gave me some quiet time to plot revenge on my jackass little brother (which usually just involved more beating).
Seems like this thread is a real honey pot for mountain militia men.
Based on the responses in this discussion it seems like videogames might be more like a mirror to the soul than anything else.
If yr a gun toting child beatin trailer dwellin kinda guy then VVGz (violent video gamez) are maybe just more furniture in yr WYSIWYG world.
I love shoot em upz. My grrlfren loves crappy StarTrek videos.
Hey! It's a free country!.
Each to their mindless pichinko own.
But if VVGz cause you to start drawlin in some righteously indignant way bout gun raats and the konstushun then well, maybe, just maybe, its time to turn yrself in.
Lighten up. They're only pixels.
If you wanna beat up yr kidz and ole lady, or shoot yr Ak into the night sky, well, we're talking a catalogue of DSM III probs than no online counselling at slashdot.med is gonna fix...
You need to get your mind rite elsewhere.
I once saw an amusing bumper sticker that read: "Guns kill people the same way spoons make Rosie 'O Donell fat." Being a pro-gun person, I got a good laugh out of that. I think the same logic applies to violent video games, too.
That's not to say that all pro-video game violence people are also pro-gun, just saying it's a pretty decent analogy...
That's what French class is for.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
i whole-heartedly agree. Spare the rod = spoil the child IMHO. i've seen this time and time again....
You are a dumb sister humping piece of shit redneck. I hope you dog dies and you should stick a double barelled shotgun up your ass and pull the trigger. do the world a favor and kill yourself.
It is the parents' reponsibility to find out what kind of games are their kids playing. It is also the seller's responsibility to check for age/id when purchasing a rated game, just like movies, alcohol and cigarettes.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Just a couple things.
I am not completely familiar with the video game studies you are referring to (the one with college students playing doom or the like?), but I am assuming they are similar to some studies I am familiar with. One in particular found that when children saw an adult interacting aggressively (violently) with an inflatable doll (either live watching or seeing a video tape), that the children would act more aggressively with the doll than those who had not seen the aggressive interaction. These findings are similar to those found in more recent studies of younger children watching more violent programming.
I will address two caveats with these types of studies. The first study I mentioned, and subsequent studies like it, show only short-term (minutes after exposure) effects. The more recent studies with habitually more aggressive children and violent television did not control for family dynamics or the possibility that children who are more aggressive naturally seek out more violent stimulation.
So, the findings of these studies are interesting, but I would say hardly conclusive evidence that violent media can make children more violent. This is assuming the children have half-decent parents who can point out that this stuff is not real.
I can find citations for one or some of the studies I mentioned given a few hours to look through my myriad texts if they are wanted.
"I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
did you son pee his pants because you did that or because you never DO do that and you did once? if you had started punishment such as this from the beginning he wouldnt have reacted to it in this way... i'm 22 years old and my parents definatley spared no rod in my household and i can honestly say i'm WAY better for it. They didnt do it out of anger or hatred or anything, but out of love and it works. and thats the bottom line....
Spare the rod = spoil the child
Just don't send that child to Columbine High School...
"every child is different."
;)
Not me
It is ignorant to believe that a person is not affected but what he or she experiences.
I disagree. Look at the stink over "Natural Born Killers". I'm generalizing, but in the USA violence in the movies is OK because it is generally Good Guys vs. Bad Guys and the most violence is directed toward the Bad Guys. I think that is also why GTA is controversial but games like Rainbow Six aren't.
Brian
your reply makes no sense... what does "spanking" have to do with columbine.
while we're on the topic, i've been playing violent games since we got our Amiga 2000 back in 1988 and i havent ever had a violent tendancy towards someone, let alone in a way that a game would have taught me. explain that up to me please... if violent video games and spanking kids leads to columbine, are there just millions upon millions of special cases?
It's all about money and blame if you ask me. "something happened to me so it CAN'T be my fault so while i'm sulking over it i'll try and get some money out of the deal." people need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop being babies.
Come on, people! I can understand trying to be helpful and all - but don't jump to conclusions about something you know nothing about.
I know what you mean.
On a slightly different angle, my wife was going through the Mall of America doing some shopping. I don't recall what my eldest son did wrong at the time, but my wife placed him in time-out and stood nearby waiting for him to finish wailing before actually starting the clock.
A woman stranger approached and tried to comfort him, which just caused him to shriek louder. My wife told her he was in time-out and asked her to leave him alone. For some reason, the woman started berating my wife for mistreating him and tried to get him to come with her.
My wife--who was trained in high school and college to sing opera, and has a LARGE voice when she chooses--yelled at her to "let go of my son!" Needless to say, that woman experienced immediate attention from everyone in the area, as well as mall security, who arrived in short order.
This is clealy a better experience than yours, since the person who barged into the parenting of another got a demonstration in why that's not a good notion.
You must not work tech support for a living. You should relay more information if you expect an answer, such as:
What did you actually post?
You posted: Plain Old Text? HTML formatted? Extrans? Code?
Did you preview it first?
Is it repeatable, say by posting anon with the same options and same text (try responding to some FP trolls)?
Otherwise, it's just like a user saying "My document looks funny," which could mean anything from a corrupted file to accidentally adjusting the zoom to hitting the print preview button to the brightness knob being turned down to....
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Outsmarted by your own kid
"That was when it took days for him to be sweet again to me."
Yeah we see who's in charge.
"he freaked out, cryed his heart out and peed is pants (which he hadn't done since he was 2)"
Damn that's a bad sign. Your kid is going to grow up to be a total wimp. I can't believe you feel so ritous about what you are doing to your son.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
My parents never hit me, and I'm a perfectly well adjusted 24 year old.
My girlfriend was hit repeatedly from the time she was two years old. She suffers from manic depression and suicidal tendencies.
What was your point again?
What about violent theming on sites about gaming?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Sure I hated his guts for a while and I was afraid to go near him, but those emotions only last momentarily.
Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome ?
lol, and i don't suffer from them at all... 'nuff said. looks like there's probably something a bit deeper there ;)
There's a big difference between hitting your child and repeated, senseless beatings.
Ass.
agreed :)
Yeah...it's more pseudo-scientific bullshit. Plus it has to do with kidnappers, not your own felsh and blood. Dumbass.
I lived for a few years in a country ravaged by war and that's what made me violent at the time. Heck if I didn't have a little compassion I would've tried to kill some people but instead I came to try some crazy suicidal stuff like yelling at soldiers to shoot me everytime I was pissed off. Then I started watching Jackie Chan movies and heck it was good fun that made all the war and violence a little lighter .
:) No matter how many actual dead corpses you see it's still horrible every single time. The only way I coped with it was to not look and act as if it doesn't exist.
:)
Then I lived in a peacefull country and within a year, most of the hatred, violence and rage that I had in me was gone and replaced by peacefull thoughts. I play lots of violent video games and watch lots of violent movies but does it desensitize me from real violence? Hell no. Does it make me a criminal? Hell no. Even after all the real dead people that I saw during a real war I still have a very hard time taking a look at victims of real violence. You can't get desensitized to such horrible stuff. Talk to war photographers and ask them if they're desensitized
Are Saddam, Bush, Ben Laden, Putin, Sharon, Arafat, etc. game players?
oh, and by the way, i know plenty of people who were never hit who suffer from manic depression and have suicidal tendancies as well...
what was YOUR point again?
You don't seem to get the news from those countries. For instance, in Germany on April 26, 2002 a student executed 13 teachers, the principal, a cop and 2 students! (see this for example). If I recal correctly, he used a legal gun.
In Saudi Arabia, 15 school girls were forced to burn to death at a school since they weren't 'decent' (they didn't have a head scarf on) to go outside!! (see this article for details) I could go on...
But he didn't play in that plant pot anymore, did he?
In a reflex I still regret, I grabbed him (he saw me coming, so it was not an unexpcected grab from behind) and gave him a single, solid clap on his bottom
The results frightened me completely : he freaked out, cryed his heart out and peed is pants (which he hadn't done since he was 2)
I'd like to say two things: Have you been working out?
Your kid is a dirty little beast
The studies I was refering to were from peer reviewed psychological journals. I highly doubt they would've been reported on in the media -those journals are designed for psychologists and would probably be unreadable to the media.
Both those studies are flawed, I agree. I'll be going back to the university later tonight, I'll try to find the journals that published the study.
I can't handle spanking kids. I took some physical abuse (beyond just corporal punishment) as a kid and I don't have the heart to dish it out.
However, I know some kids won't respond to anything else, so it has to be done.
My solution is to not have kids at all. I don't have the capacity to discipline and thus care for them like I should.
Ditto here. 2 young kids, both sons, both different. The first is very social and outgoing, therefore timeouts work pretty well. He hates having to sit there alone and quiet. The other, well sitting there alone with his own thoughts doesn't seem to phase him in the least (he probably just uses the time to plan his next evil scheme :) In his case it's usually a sharp smack on the hand or behind that's needed to get his attention.
I am heartened to see people agreeing that sexual content is less "damaging" than violent content.
Though there is still the argument that "violence in the media" be it video games, movies, TV, what-have-you is somehow totally unrelated to real-world violence.
It is my humble opinion that there is indeed a connection, a culture of violence where violence is tolerated or even desired for "entertainment" is somewhat sick.
Granted, nearly every society, has had this sickness to some degree or another, so the latest first-person-shooter is no different than public executions in the 16th century, from a conceptual point of view (except that the public executions are obviously worse by a very large factor) -- it's all a matter of degrees.
So it's not that hollywood or whoever is producing this violent content is totally "bad" or should take all kinds of blame, however, they certianly are not HELPING the situation.
People, kids or adults, that live in a society where the government bombs the shit out of whomever they don't like, justifiably or not, AND they absorb violent FICTION on the boob-toob or wherever, are getting it from all sides, and again, in my opinion, this is less than ideal.
I'm not saying there is a simple 'fix' for all this, but there IS a problem (or a whole set of problems) that are resulting in a violent society, and while "fictional violence" is not the primary problem, it is at best a symptom, and at worst, a contributing factor.
blah.
Off topic? Parental attitude is very much an important factor in video game violence.
"Derp de derp."
I agree with most of what you say. However, I'm saddened to see that you believe that violence against one's children is helpful.
In clinical practice it is well known that people who advocate corporal punishment are either perpetuating behavior their parents used to torment them, as is the case with many child abusers, or simply lack the patience and understanding to raise a child.
You all seem to agree that violence = bad no matter what the cause is. Why then do you all seem to think that war = good no matter what the justification is?
I may have been bleeding some of the research results between viewing general media violence and the increase in aggression (especially toward women) in those who do not like pornography that are made to watch pornography (the same is not true for those who do like pornography). I have much more information and citations on that, but I'm reticent to go digging through my mounds of material from a pschology and law research course.
At any rate, two researchers who call into question the conclusion that viewing antisocial portrayals is highly associated with antisocial behavior based on its, at times, extremely modest effect. [Freedman, J. L. (1988). Television violence and aggression: What the evidence shows. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Television as a social issue. Applied social psychology annual, Vol.8. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. (p. 407)] and [McGuire, W. J. (1986). The myth of massive media impact: Savagings and salvagings. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior, Vol. 1. Oralando, Fla.: Academic Press. (pp. 260, 407)]
This is way too long for the short response I indended. The main point was that if you do find the citations for the study, please post it/them as I'd be interested in reading them.
"I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
Hahaha.
I'd like to be the devil's advocate and say that I neither believe there is anything wrong with sex or violence in games or media, and it doesn't really depend on age. I'd say it depends on the individuals' ability to realize what is a creation of bits and bytes, and what is real life. I don't think there is a specific age to this, and the government has no right getting involved with this. It is the job of the parents and children to come up with their own standards -- not the media or government.
I believe the solution is to continue rating games and the media, but allow the parents to give their children a card that clears them to buy certain games or see certain movies or buy "pornographic" magazines. This way, it takes the power of restriction and censorship away from the government.
When it comes to sexual imagry in games, I believe that sex is part of human nature, and I think we simply should just not make a link between sex and violence. Otherwise, passionate loving sexual depiction in games is something that I would much rather children see than someone getting their head ripped off.
With respect to violence in video games, I believe that this is simply a way to experience something without taking any risk. You play the game, and if you die, it isn't permanent. It still seems realistic, and gives you the chance to roleplay and people often play a role they would be afraid to in life. I believe as long as people have the conception its not real, then they should be able to play.
If a parent believes that they have educated their child enough, they should be able to give them a card to clear them to buy violent or sexual games. The card could be something made so that children could not make fake ones.
I used to play violent games like Wolfenstein when I was a little kid, saw violent movies, and I also had a stash of porn magazines, and watched pornos my friends had gotten a hold of and not only did they not make me violent (I could barely hurt a fly) or permiscuous. Of course, I can't speak for everyone in saying that because it had no affect on me, it would have no affect on everyone.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
Have you ever thought that your smacking him was a good thing? Now you both know that you want to avoid
that lowest point situation. So you both are more
careful from that point onwards. He knows what to avoid and he is better for it. Since it has
fostered a better relationship, it can't be all
that bad.
On the other hand, if you had just talked about it, he would probably have continued it, knowing
he won't get anything worse than a mild shouting.
This may prove to be a problem in the long run.
Note that I am not saying smacking kids is a good
thing. You have to judge that on case-by-case
basis. But not smacking them is bad. You have
to be strict and assertive at time.
kids who play videogames kill people.
That you are both social misfits and suffer from mental illness? I fell off my bike once, and now I don't like broccoli. That's some damning evidence right there.
There's tons of research on this, and it's largely consistent with the idea that setting limits *and enforcing them* is more effective than either inconsistent / no discipline (permissive parenting) or rigid limits and arbitrary punishment (autocratic parenting). It works the same way with rats, for that matter. Unfortunately, since this doesn't really toe the conservative *or* liberal party lines on parenting, it doesn't get much press.
Personal responsibility is key here. If you don't have the time to pay attention to children, and teach them how to behave properly, go to the shelter and get a pet. Messed up pets don't go around shooting people.
If you think that physical discipline is sufficient to raise well-behaved kids, I've got a whole rural town full of counterexamples for you (and I'm sure others can provide examples of the failure of permissive parenting). But you'll get no argument from me that the lack of personal responsibility is a very bad thing.
PS: I don't believe that spanking your kids is the same as abusing them. However, I've encountered a lot of people who don't get the difference between spanking a kid to correct a behavior when other methods fail, and beating the crap out of a kid because they're pissed (or drunk, or whatever).
Dude, you had the desired effect. You want them to remember doing what they did wrong. So he gave you the silent treatment, big deal. Thats your issue. The discipline worked, and he isn't scarred in the slightest. YOU are.
We don't its just the moron that we elected and his posse. Oh wait we didn't elect him, damn...
If your going to insult our homeland, at least let us know where your from, im sure your country is known for something every bit as stupid as anything the US has done in the last few years.
I am guessing he was being sarcastic.
But is that really so backwards?
Isn't it the case that humankind, unlike most other species, appears to exhibit a strong preference for enganging in procreating activities in 'private', whereas we, like most other species, have nothing at all against exhibiting our strength and prowess in war-like activities in public (particularly if male)?!
In other words, maybe a lax attitude to publicly displayed violence may be more ingrained in our nature?
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Actually, he accidently landed on his sister while bouncing down the stairs after going to the restroom. The stairs spiral up so not seeing his sister laying on them at the bottom was entirely possible. The physical evidence also doens't support the WWE moves version.
The original story he gave about the WWE moves was because he felt it was better sounding than admitting his clumsyness is what killed her. Apprently he felt so bad about what actually happened, he decided to stick to the worse sounding story all the way to prison. The parents of both are now trying to get the sentence reduced.
Both stories were predicated with "accidently" it was just a matter of what he "accidently" did that resulted in her death. It wasn't a malicious act like the media at the time made it out to be.
Even though what actually happened in no way supports the above posters point, this story will probably be repeated as much as the Spilled Coffee Lawsuit.
One would hope people would realize that there are enough VALID cases that once a case is shown to be invalid to show a point, it would be dropped.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
What is it with violent creatures... were they spanked too much as children? too much violent video gaming? not enough sex? ...where they dwell, they are the undisputed king of all beasts. I know this very well. My name is..."
From his book: "...It can decapitate with a single swipe or grotesquely disfigure a person in rapid order.
is pointless. Yes, there is quite a selection of weapons to kill people with in Postal 2 but the number of ways you can kill a person is horribly limited. Basically you can take their head off, make them urinate on themselves, fry them or just shoot them and watch them bleed.
Contrast that to Carmageddon where you could knock any limb off and watch them scream and hop around on one leg or whatever besides knocking their head off. Plus you could smash yours and other vehicals up by crashing or using a variety of creative ways in a wide variety of realistic ways. Fenders falling off, sides being dented, etc.
So not only was Postal 2 pointlessly violent but its level of violence was pathetic compared to other titles.
If you want hilarious violence, profanity and great gameplay, Conker's Bad Fur Day is the top choice. What other game allows you to turn into a bat and drop guanao on fleeing mice and then drop them into spinning spikes of death? It's creative, entertaining and not violent for the sake of being violence.
I could go on with other examples to contrast what a pile of crap Postal 2 was compared to them in every area including the violence but I won't.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
A few years ago, there was an accountant who made the news by going berzerk and killing his family and a few coworkers with a hammer.
I waited for days to see if anyone would propose legislation banning hammers.
-
"Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
The second one...well, she just needs to be smacked around sometimes. :) Spanking works, timeouts are a joke to this one.
I hope your daughter never grows to fear you like I fear my father. My father never beat me, but he spanked my brothers and I when we were little. We all clearly recall that it didn't happen frequently; once a month, maybe. We remember that he even cried when he "had" to spank us.
But do you have any idea how much anguish it's caused my family? My brothers and I fear my father because when we were young and impressionable our father spanked us. In our minds it was unbearable. The thought still makes me frightened. I love my father, but I still fear him when he reaches out to fast, because I remember being slapped across the face when I was little.
I'm a good man -- I grew up well. My parents barely had to discipline me after I turned 10. But the occaisional (hell, rare) "smacking around" that I got sticks with me to this day, and I'm still afraid of my father. I hope, for your sake, that your daughter never fears you like I fear my dad.
I have two daughters, beautiful children both, but both need a bit of punishment now and then -- short timeouts for one do the trick, but the older one needs either much longer punishments, or something more severe, like peas and lima beans for dinner, the loss of TV, going to bed early, etc.
I have not hit either of them in 10 years. I never will.
That's why there are lots of school shootings in Singapore and China, right?
I have no interest in what Vince Desi or his company have to say about anything.
Being a talentless, exploitative shitsack isn't amusing or ironic. It's just a really, really pathetic way to attract attention if you lack the ability to produce work that can succeed on its own merits.
Having these parasites refer to game development as "our industry" makes my flesh crawl. Nobody in the games industry wants anything to do with you, you emotionally-retarded bastards.
Thankfully, for all Vince's claims to 'controversy', nobody gives a shit about their tired old gimmicks any more. I doubt that Postal 2 has been flying off the shelves either.
In fact, these pant-shitting imbeciles going bust (how did they last so long after the first Postal?) might be the first funny thing they do.
No, actually the best thing would be if Vince Desi and Jack Thompson were both killed in some horribly botched kinky sex ritual. They'd cancel each other out.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
So why did our hypothetical pro-slavery guy believe what he did? He was subject to it as he grew up; it was part of the culture he lived in. Say he lived in the deep South, e.g. Georgia, in a culture whose livelihood much depended on slave labor. We could hardly blame him.
So to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, kids of today will grow up believing that violence within computer games, movies, and CNN are perfectly alright, as they are a product of their times, and it has become part of the culture they live in.
Now, let me rant.
To say that watching an event causes somoene to emulate that event is just... well, its just crazy talk. Millions of people watch larger-than-life celebrities act convincingly in thousands of movies month after month, year after year, and does this cause people to become good actors? No. The same statistics are true for people watching kung-fu masters, successful businessmen, ace pilots, rather good strippers, and crazily inept programmers, but does watching these events cause people to emulate these events? No.
In the case of all the preceeding examples (except for movie programming, I can't figure that crap out) of course, those are learned skills that you use after you have practiced. Alot. And why do you practice them? Because you chose to practice those skills in order to become good at them.
Well, that begs the question, why does someone become violent? Why do people shoot friends/coworkers/strangers, beat up wives/children/other kids, and generally cause pain to others? Its because they choose to do so. Just like someone chooses to eat a sandwich, drive a car, or develop a new skill that they previously did not have. Just like people cannot absorb new skills by simply watching them in action, people cannot absorb random amounts of 'violence' by watching violence in action. Actually, what CAN you absorb by simply seeing it in action? Nothing. You can't absorb a good sense of humor by watching a comedian. You can't even absorb emotions by simply watching them happen. You can't acquire excess love by watching newlyweds or pick up a few additional pounds of despair by talking to your friendly neighborhood goth.
In a final argumentative gambit, someone could say that by observing an event, people become aware of new options to choose in life. For instance, before watching the movie Eraser I did not even imagine that it was possible to gut-shoot a person and then suffocate them WITH YOUR VERY OWN CHEEK. Of course, since it was a movie it may not actually be possible to suffocate someone with your cheek, but the movie made me aware of this option to try if I ever wanted to kill somoene in a very personal manner. So in this case I would have to agree with this person, that watching movies makes you more aware of the choices that you can make in life, especially violent and sexually stimulating choices.
However, it cannot be and never will be possible to police the ideas and thoughts that people acquire throughout life, and if you try then you quite literally become the THOUGHT POLICE. Even if movie violence was so heavily regulated that the movie Eraser was never created, I could still have met this storyteller who had a burning desire to share this tale about this really, really evil cop who killed somoene that he should have been protecting by shooting her in the stomach and then suffocating her with his cheek. And no thought policeman would have caught us either, because he would have told the story at night, in the mountains, around a campfire, while we were all camping. So there, you stupid thought police!
Anyways, what was I trying to say? I think it was that violence comes from within, not without, and external forces cannot make you violent. If you choose to be violent, it is a choice on your part and you can't blame anybody or anything else. If you try, that's just crazy-talk.
Oh, and if you have not engaged in violence and are STILL trying to blame violence on outside forces then you are a naive fool who does not know himself and are inadvertently providing a flimsy, scapegoat excuse for any sleazeball with a desire to kill and an ear for your theories.
I have to agree, if your child was that 'damaged' from one incident of harsh punishment, then you need to look at your parenting. Sure, talking and time out may work sometimes, but if the child has done something wrong, or repeatedly disobeys you, you need to take a more serious approach. If your child does not respect or obey authority, it could reate a major problem in his later life. I grew up with that philosophy, and i have turned out exceptionally well... But children need something to deterr them. A simple time out won't do it, and sometimes a spanking is needed. If the child doesn't like you then, who cares, his feelings will get better, and he will learn a valuable lesson. But dont baby him, and let him get away with everything just because you are scared that your relationship might be different. Your responsible for your child learning proper rules, and codes of conduct, you are not there to be his friend.
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
I'm still trying to figure out who the bigger puss is -- the dad or the kid.
Why take control when you can give information.
The delay of HalfLife2 and theft of code thus resulting in further delays certainly fills me with violent thoughts.
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
the good news for me is that i'm half-way there, the movie is very informative
i am the self-proclaimed king of free stuff
Golfers watch golf on tv because they love golf.
Any non golfer (such as myself) will be bored to death watching golf on tv.
My point: Golfers watch golf because they are golfers. The columbine kids played violent games because the kids were violent people.
Playing the game did not make them violent. If thier parents had done a better job and took notice of thier kids gun collections, the SWASHTIKAS on thier walls and the animal abuse they commited maybe those nice boys would have been playing mario golf instead of doom.
Or at least maybe they wouldn't have killed thier classmates.
Now I'm not saying that anyone who plays a violent video game is violent. What I am saying is that this is the reason THESE particular kids played this game.
I played doom because it looked cool, was fairly scary, and presented a good challenge. I think this fairly sums up the criteria for most gamers. The gore? it just looks cool. In real life, gore is a lot less cool. Just like in real life a car chase is a lot less fun.
These sick little fscks at columbine played the game because it allowed them to kill. To them, this video game was an extension of thier real life wishes.
Remember a clockwork orange while when reading the bible, rather than identifying with christ the protagonist identified with the romans?
This is what I am talking about. The same thing meaning two entirely different things to different people.
The trick is determining for who the game is mere fun, and for who the game is an extension of real life desires.
Not only does the punishment depend on the child, the punishment also depends on the severity of the punishable offense.
I used both time outs and the occasional spanking for my daughter, who is pretty damned well behaved now. (She'll be 10 next month).
Timeouts were used in just about every situation, unless there was a chance of serious injury or death occuring.
Talking back to the parent= Timeout.
Letting go of my hand and running in a parking lot with moving cars= Getting your ass swatted.
Seems to have worked for her. YMMV.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
It shouldn't be a surprise that violent games correlate with violent behavior. Of course Bob Psycho is going to prefer Quake IV or Postal X to Tuxracer. The question of whether Bob was a psycho already is the only one that matters, and post 9/11 the game industry is better off being seen as having some influence. Two possibilities:
*Okay, a slight exaggeration, but do I even need to add this?
http://www.eff.org/issues/usapa/
I haven't RTFA because its /.ed. but the videogame industry really needs to get a bit more proactive. They need to run some commercials during prime time shows that kids don't watch and explain that not all games are for kids. These comercials need to tell parents about the rating system. It might not do any good. Parents might not listen, but at least the industry could say, "Look! we're trying to educate the public!"
Also I think it might be time for Microsoft to implement some parental controls in its OS. An OS that calls itself "home edition" should have some features that are usefull for families. A simple to use parental control system would be a nice feature for them to hype. One that can be configured to block IM's and chat, limit access to programs and an equivelent of a v-chip for games so that the actual software of games could notify the OS of its rating and parents could determine what rating they want their kids to be able to play.
Of course all of this could easilly be bypassed by a smart kid, but once again, that isn't the point. It's PR. Microsoft could promote the fact that they give parents control giving the appearance that they care about what children do so that they too can say, "look we are trying to protect children!"
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Different strokes, as it were. :)
I spank on the butt, never anywhere else. And I don't do it out of anger, they know what they have to do to get a spanking, so it's not a surprise. Usually it's a last resort, but sometimes what they do is severe enough to get a spanking immediately.
Besides, the fact that you grew up "right" is evidence that of anything else spanking does do, it doesn't create bad people. And if my daughters grow up to be strong, ethic people, then my job was done correctly, regardless of the cost.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Remember when kids used to play Cowboys and Indians?
And now all the natives are stuffed into reservations, while the white man rapes the land of resources?
It was the game I tell ya!
Why, when I was a boy, we used to walk uphill to and from school, in the snow, with no shoes. And it wasn't even really a school. It was an outhouse with a Sears-Roebuck catalog beside the seat. Oh, the memories.
See, games make people crazy!
I've used a mixture of punishments. One of my more favorite mechanisms is a negotiable bedtime. I think the trick is to balance punishment with due rewards.
Now, if there was only a way to keep that wife of mine in line, and get her to stop talking back... Spankings don't work the way you'd expect, and going to bed early isn't a punishment at all. Time by herself is a precious thing, so time-outs really don't work there either. I think the only punishment I've concocted is spending too much time in the Slashdot forums.
This isn't the right approach. You are assuming a child 'naturally' behaves badly. The truth is the child does not know what is right or wrong. This means that if you provide slight good consiquenes for good behavior and slight negative consiquences for bad behavior, you should be successful. The ranges of these consiquences does not have to be extreme.
The most severe mistake you can make is confusing distress with bad behavior at very young ages - at this point your focus should be on education not consiquences.
Either as main chars, or as first and second kills? Either way, I think it would be fun.
Does it glamorize violence? Sure. Does it desensitize us to violence? Of course. Does it help us tolerate violence? You bet. Does it stunt our empathy for our fellow beings? Heck yes.
Does it cause violence? .... Well, that's hard to prove.
Look, I don't usualy bust someone's balls, but here goes:
My wife used to stop at the post office and leave our kid in the car seat. It was a small, one room post office and the car seat is a real PITA. When I found out she was doing that, I went ballistic.
First, nothing is more important than your kids. Not mail, not a bag of clothes, not that next hit of crack.
Second, you never know what's going to happen. If you are sepperated, then you run the risk of something happening to one party and the other is unaware of that. What if you'd fallen in the store and been knocked unconcious? What if the car had been hit by some teenagers playing around acting all 'fast and furious' in the lot? What if someone broke the window and grabbed your kid? You can't stop bad things from happening, but the least you can do is be there for yourkids when those things do happen.
Third, while reporting you to the cops might be a bit harsh, people in this world do care. I care about you and your family. If it was early, i'd stop to help jump your car. If it was late, I'd offer a ride home. I gave almost 15% of my gross income last year to charity. I care about people. Sometimes people who care offer friendly reminders like this one. Sometimes, we call the cops to make our message loud-and-clear.
In short, I think spanking is OK, repeated hitting is abuse. Letting your kid be independent is OK, but letting them run arround a store unsupervised is abuse. Definately seperating yourself from your kid just because it's convenient for you shows a lack of priority in your life.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
The best thing about a video game is when it let's you do what you would never do in real life. Never be able to or just never would do it because it is morally wrong. I would want someone stoned to death if the did in real life what I did in the first 2 minutes of playing Postal 2. But, IT'S A GAME! I didn't really do anything wrong. I didn't harm any person, I didn't do drugs, I didn't make anyone feel bad about themselves. I blew off some stress. It was funny because it was completely unrealistic. No matter how much someone pisses me off, no matter how much I want to, I'd never shoot someone in real life for being a bitch at the checkout. And I COULD NOT ever piss fire on a bunch of pedestrians just to watch them die, no matter how much I wanted to. Games like this keep people sane.
You are a god! Mod Parent up
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
1)Going down to the elephant pit and setting fire to the elephants, watching them trample and set fire to dozens of civilians.
2)Setting a cat on fire and watching it run down the street setting people on fire along the way.
3)Pissing on people until they puke.
4)Then chopping their heads off with a shovel.
5)Running through the maps pissing fire on people with near impunity.
6)Electrocuting people into convulsions then kicking them to death as they lay there crying.
7)Rocket launchering Gary Coleman.
8)And best of all, throwing scissors at the sick bastards that came up with this game.
You can let your kids watch a nasty movie, play a nasty video game, and listen to nasty music. It can be a healthy outlet. Just make sure to put it in context. Ban something every once in a while. Dissaprove of things that should be disapproved of, and comment on why things that are bad, are bad. Context is everything. It's one thing to whitness horrible things and be discusted. It's a completely different thing to whitness a horrible thing and think it's cool. And you don't need to instil a sense of discust in them. Simply by expressing your opinion they will notice how it differs with thiers. It may take a while to sink in, but that's how most kids learn best.
(At least I think that should work. I have no parenting experience.)
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
I am a firm advocate of the ESRB(Youthful minds are easily influenced), but if video games affect us as much as the media tries to make it seem, then every bug tester at video game companies would never live long enough to retire anywhere else than a federal prison.
And if you think you can't beat the piss out of women then you never used the stun gun until they begged for mercy.
Parents don't punish children they give them time-outs (hey folks, it doesn't work).
Here's the deal on hitting kids: It works, it works great. They do exactly what you want them to do. It's effective.
Just remember you teach them that too. They learn real quickly that if some kid at school won't shut up one good smack might change his mind. You teach your kids that a thrown blow ends unwanted behavior fast.
Want to make your kids violent? Hit them. The more you do it the more likely they are to learn some very bad habits.
Doesn't always work, kids can also use this to run the show.. ie you're going someplace and the kid doesn't want to.. he starts causing trouble, and you'll miss your appointment because he's punished and you'll have to wait for him.
Seen it happen enough with one of the neighbour kids who also has ADHD..
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
While I'm all for caring people, and prevention of ABUSE, this kind of interefering can be annoying. To cite the examples you gave:
What if you *did* trip in the store, but were carrying your child, and landed on her, injuring her head so severely she died?
What if by driving off you pulled out onto the road at the end of the row of cars, you placed your daughter in the rear-right of your car in the direct line of a speeding driver not watching the road?
What if someone car-jacks you when you drive off with your kid in the back?
There are dozens of possible examples and counter-examples we could offer here, however I don't feel going back inside to pickup a bag leaving a child in the back seat of the car is bad parenting, and it's certainly not particularly dangerous.
Lets wait some years to see too realistic video games gets completly banned from almost all countries.
Because these games will allow the player, among other things, to cut and see any parts on the body of the virtual character. Not a problem when 3d graphics arent that realistic yet.
But once it will looks like TV or better, with differants zoom levels, some people won't like children to play with it.
Oh, and stileproject.com could become useless when it'll happen.
If you had read further, I stated that being together does not prevent bad things from happening. What I said was that if bad things do happen, you should be together to support each other.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
You know shephard didn't hit their sheep with the rod, right? You know it's a shephard's rod being mentioned, right? That line from the bible is pretty strictly against corporal punishment!
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Yet another one who believes that you should be your child's friend and not their parent.
I saw the demo of Battlefield 1942 and thought it was excellent, straight away buying a copy.
...anyway I think that says something about the game ratings system, not to mention that graphic images arn't exactly required to make a game violent. Postal 2 has some seriously funny elements, and a few great moments in gameplay, but overall I was like over it by 'Thursday'. It kinda pissed me since i shelled out for it right away thinking it would surely be banned. After you have been 'creative' in killing a shit load of people, you really just want to move onto the next map / weapon / task. After getting a few weapons and do a few of the tasks the drive to do more so is lost. Anyways, just my rant on Postal2.
/. *click preview* *click post*
I played that game for months online, and thought i had witnessed some of the most graphic violence ever put to pixels. Then one day someone pointed out there wasn't any blood or gib effects in BF42, I had to watch carefully to notice...
As for the general topic of violences in games in mirrored in reality, I don't see it. I wonder if things keep going the way they are with gaming how will society be in 50 years time. I doubt it will have changed much, humans are violent creatures. What we know of pain is what makes violence useful to us, and what prevents us from using violence against each other. Computer games in the current form don't really convey pain very well, and seem to cartoon style anvil violence.
Someone once made a connection between a quake death match map, and the play equipment at a school. This connection exists for all FPS maps I think. Cowboys and Indians, Chasings, are all just like a deathmatch. It's all about enjoying yourself and trying to win, and society tells even our youngest actual real world violence offers you neither. Well in the strictest sense, perhaps more sutble hints to the contry exist.
Lastly, whilst the RWS guy makes some great points, I had always expected him to be like some sorta uber PR guy who could talk his way out of anything. Turns out he's straight up, rather un polished in his approach and sorta stupid. I wonder how he manages to counter attacks from silver tounged politicians.
OMG It's so late, what have i just written. bah who cares
Don't say 'The USA allows too much violence and not enough sex.'
Say 'Why would the government want to generate more violent individuals?'
Because it is good for the government!
Real Violence gives the government both the excuse for excessive controls over individual freedoms, and also provides the labor pool of soldiers and police officers who have no problem using excessive force as a means to an end.
The prisons full of people also provide a reason to tax and spend, and job security for even more government workers.
All part of the Prison-Slave Labor Complex and
Military-Industrial Complex...
After all, if children understood that War Really Does Suck, and being a grunt in the field is hard, dangerous, and no fun, kids wouldn't grow up to be soldiers.
How could the governments of the world get more enlisted men
without the eternal 'Glory of War'?
Gee, we sure have come a long way from pong!
It's annoying to see the parent post marked as offtopic; I'd say it makes a vital point. I'm sure the Bush/Blair administrations would be happy to wax eloquent about the moral implications of allowing a twelve-year-old to hack off a polygon arm on an Xbox - in between singing the sheets of paper that put bullets in heads in the real world. (Please note: the politicians are signing the papers, not the twelve-year-old. Thanks.)
If you're 17 in the UK, you can't go into a store and buy Vice City; but you can sit down at night and hear about the four marines and six Iraqis shot dead that day in a gunfight, or maybe watch some carpet bombing, or try and figure out why a Palestinian your age would want to be a suicide bomber. I'm always reminded of Kurtz' speech at the end of Apocalypse Now, about training young men to drop fire on women and children, but not letting them write "fuck" on their aeroplanes because it's "obscene".
Seriously, violence in games (or movies, or novels) is the best form of violence I can imagine, and the last form of violence that requires our attention.
don't mock scripture by twisting it to fit your needs. and if you're going to say things about a bible passage you need to include a reference so anyone can do look at it in its correct context...
There's also a hell of a difference between a spanking and a beating.
I had absolutely nothing but love for both of my parents until my mother graduated from spankings to slaps on the face and throwing into walls. Even occasional things for excessive problems wouldn't have been a really big deal, might've pissed me off for a while (much like the poster's child was mad at him for a few days, though I'd say pissing his pants was extreme), but overall wouldn't have hurt my relationship with my mother. The fact that it became her sole form of punishment for just about anything was what made it clear that she was unfit to be a parent (and frankly, the part about throwing me into a wall is what made it really clear to my father that she was unfit to raise his children).
That being said, even though my mother was obviously over the line in many cases, I learned (actually from the spanking alone) a healthy fear of punishment in general (no fear of my parents, though, my father is one of my best friends). It kept me out of trouble throughout my teenage years, even if I did occasionally do things behind my parents' backs (and frankly, most teenagers do, but if they don't want to be punished, it's less likely they'll do anything that will come back to the parents, or get in trouble with the law or in school).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
dunno if sex is as natural as we think.
most animals do it once a year or so, and
that's that.
the other time of there life they dedicate to eating, sleeping and staying alive.
there's one exeption though: bonobos and they are
famous for it (maybe evolved in a environment
with too little/no pretators.)
anyway sticking one body part into someone else
acctually doesn't turn me on alot. and the look
on somebodys face when they're in the act of making love looks mostly like the look on a person
with down syndrom. anyway sex makes you lie and
wastes time and money (economy wise).
and too much of it makes you violent (alpha male)
and stupid.
so stop saying sex is "natural".
every normal/natural person knows it's something to multiply not to enjoy.
Let me check... mm, yes videogames are still the Media favorite scapegoat, and the lawyers still love to sue multimillion dollar videogame franchises because their clientes claim they "warped their little fragile minds" (have you ever wonder why they never sued "counter strike" when it was just a mod? it was just as violent as it is now).
If you are actually interested in this subject watch "Bowling for columbine" you may get some answers.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Most importantly, the child needs to receive positive attention when he's not misbehaving...
Yes, but how many parents and teachers do so? I think many people are too wound up in their status symbols/jobs/dead-end relationships and see their children only as an inconvenience--a nuisance. The success of a family is really only chance, anymore (literally, it's 50/50), where children everywhere are victimized due to the divorce of selfish and short-shighted parents. Many people simply don't care, either. Children are fast becoming either pets, political tools, or tragic accidents from their parent's point of view.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Doesn't always work, kids can also use this to run the show.. ie you're going someplace and the kid doesn't want to.. he starts causing trouble, and you'll miss your appointment because he's punished and you'll have to wait for him.
We've had this problem, too. Obviously there aren't any hard-and-fast rules that will work in all situations for all children. Being adaptable is required when you have kids, and not only for this particular situation.
For a while, we had the Chevy Venture Warner Brothers Edition minivan. We'd still go, but they'd lose their video privileges. (There's the added benefit of angering your sibling who also lost out due to your actions. It works on troops in basic training, it also seems to work on kids.)
"Really, neither should be socially acceptable - especially in mediums so easily accessed by children. Violence and Sexuality expose children to concepts that they don't know how to deal with and end up just emulating them"
This naive rant is a common fallacy used these days to justify censorship of all kinds. How are kids supposed to learn how to deal with these issues? Talking it over in a loving, supportive environment? People, especially primates, learn by seeing, doing, and emulating. Why are Americans attitudes about sex/nudity/violence/swearing to insane? No proper examples to grow up with. American men today don't know what a real woman looks like without her clothes on, so they now think gigantic plastic tits are desirable instead of freakish. Or that _any_ body fat is undesirable because you never see it on TV.
Bonobo chimpanzees have sex constantly right out in the open and the young chimps are right there poking a hand in between the adults figuring it all out. And they have the least amount of violence in their society of _any primate_.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
/// Those players with serious mental outcome and those players who commit irrational violent acts are victims of a problem engineers found and solved over fifty years ago.
Visit VisionAndPsychosis.Net and read the Everquest Connection page. This is about the suicide of Shawn Woolley in 2001. The Everquest problem was never solved. I think I found the cause of the problem and it's not the violent game, the player, the computer, or the internet. It's the workstation where the computer is used.
This was discovered in the mid 1950's when workers in newly designed close spaced workstations had bizarre or psychotic episodes. The problem was peripheral vision reflexes and it was quickly solved. The same solution is built in to Cubicles and Systems Furniture Workstations today.
Everyone wants to know why psychotic mental illness has increased with the advent of the computer. THIS IS IT!
From Columbine to the shootings as Case Western Reserve and Meridian Mississippi computers were involved. This is how they were involved.
Bottom line put the CPU and its blinking hard drive busy light under the desk. This CPU placement is required in Cubicles and Systems Furniture Workstations. (Read the paragraph 'blinking lights' on the Everquest Connection page.)
http://www.VisionAndPsychosis.Net
You must have been the inspiration for the wussy teacher on Beavis and Butthead.
I think that you care more about your "relation" with your child than your child. Being a parent is not about being your child's friend ( I know this is against ALL of modern parenting ), it's about being a parent :SHOCK:
This does NOT mean that you cannot be your child's friend. However, compensating for not being able to have parents that bond with you does not mean that you bend over backwards to try with children. Some people are lucky and are compatible with their children, some are not.
The reason that your kid behaved that way because he's never felt that kind of threat before. If you started discipline early, you would require less and less overtime ( unless you are inconsistent ).
This will allow your child to have discipline that will allow him to learn things and be competitive in the future, also it will create less burden to the teachers. If all parents did this, school system would not be broken. The school system is not broken, the parenting system is broken.
Everything, only most people refuse to even entertain the idea.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
I am at a loss...
I cannot find the articles I mentioned, I cannot even find the journal.
Sincere apologies; I eat my words....
No need to go that far. We all lose track of articles at some point. Thanks for the effort of looking.
"I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony