Slashdot Mirror
Don't Blame The Games, Blame The Parent
jayintune writes "2old2play has an interesting article up on the recent push for more laws on videogame sales to children. It goes over the history of violent crime amongst teens and how it relates to the new surge in videogame-related legislation. Do laws really help our children or is it ultimately the parents role to decided?" From the article: "I'd say by the time a kid is three or four, he or she should know it's not okay to hit someone else. The child should be aware violence is not an acceptable response. Parents, grandparents, older siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, teachers... anyone older than a child should reinforce certain societal values and traits. Kids should and mostly do know better. I talked with a psychologist who told me children can separate reality from fiction at about nine or ten years of age. Well, "pre-teen" is what he said. At that age, they know what's on TV isn't real, what's in a video game isn't real. Video games are easier; they're basically just moving cartoons."
'No shit!'
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
When I was a kid the hype was all about violence in cartoons.. I watched them but I never dropped an anvil or piano on someone (not to say I didn't want rocket-powered roller skates).
I think people give far less credit to kids and their concepts of reality vs make believe.
My studio - www.graylands.ca
I've been hearing this from people in the social and psychological fields since shortly after Columbine. The shame is that Jack Thompson and his band of conservaative game haters never heard it or never listened to it. Studies have been done for years that prove this, very few that prove the contrary, and yet only the ones that prove the contrary seem to make the news outside of slashdot and gaming boards.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Hitler did not have video games. Neither did Ghengis Khan or Alexander the Great. It is up to the parents to raise their children properly. Kids are a product of their whole environment, not just video games.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
Blame the game or blame the parent? WTF. It's all of the above and more. Does anyone honestly it's as simplistic as "it's the games fault that Johnny went postal" or "it's his parents fault that Johnny went postal"? Actually I guess there are people that do.
/. fall into this category) are those who claim that the media (including video games) have NOTHING to do with it and responsibility falls on the parents. Both are right and both are wrong.
Listen up folks, regardless of which camp you fall into, you're both wrong. When someone performs such acts it's almost always a complex interaction between many factors. The child themself, their parents, their friends, their environment, all those things factor into how one acts/reacts. There is no such thing as "perfect" parenting. You could apply the exact same parenting style to two different kids and get to very differently behaved kids. Ditto the other factors. What happens is that all these factors play together and if you get the right (or wrong depending on your perspective) then something bad can happen. Blindly trying to blame a single point of failure, while comforting to many, almost never works.
That is what is so upsetting about both extremes of this debate. On the one side you have folks who want to ban violent video games. On the other (and many on
And sometimes you will still get a violent child. It happens, sometimes. Nature overriding nurture and so forth.
1950s OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS OVER, Rock and Roll... our children are being corrupted
1960s OH MY GOD, ELVIS is such a good boy, but those BEATLES
1970s TV is KILLING my Children
1980s HORROR MOVIES are KILLING my Children
1990s NIVARNA are forcing Children to top themselves
And of course now its Video Games which are forcing Children into a life of violence.
This is just another great "Aunt Sally" for politicians and "academics" to debate and get money from. If it wasn't this they'd be battering on at Cartoons for glorifying violence (there is nothing in Doom III worse than the violence of Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner). The young are ALWAYS being corrupted in the minds of the elders, and what corrupted them in their youth is now seen as innocent.
And have you noticed... its always the over 40s who start wars... something must be making them do it.... I blame mugs of hot chocolate.
And lets not forget when Marge banned "Itchy and Scratchy"
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
So in fact, what he's saying is that games arent the greater evil that drives our teens nuts ? That in fact parents should take responsiblity and raise them better... wow, I must be dreaming....
...not right to begin with so you can't really blame the media but the person who allowed the media to be in contact with the mentally challenged kid.
We have to admit that movies & games *are* getting more and more explicit & gory in days where we actually attempt to control that very same violence. ESRB just being there to relieve the non caring parents from having to decide what's good for their kids or not. Sure I could believe that a mentally challenged kid could see a movie like...hum..Doom, Silent Hill or play a game like God of War and start thinking its right but we know that the kid is
I've been playing countless violent games and watched even more violent movies and yet my last fight goes back to when i was in high school and merely resulted in a bloody nose and a hand that hurted like hell.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
I am a parent and I plan to be as active as I can in the media that my kids will enjoy.
That said, I think ratings are a critical tool to help a parent but the current rating systems suck. There really needs to be something more along the lines of an indicator of what the content is rather than some arbitrary scale that means nothing to me. It goes without saying that I do not agree with censorship at all but there should be something to help us understand what the content is so a parent can choose how a child digests it (if at all).
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Well, then what about sports - i.e. football, lacrosse, hockey. They all involve hitting people, fairly hard too. I can think of many more high school/college jocks that beat up people, than other people who were playing vid games. Let's ban football - oh wait, that would be "unAmerican".
Theory 1:
Back in the old days, parent had other people to rely on, and to some extent get some education on being a parent from.
Theory 2:
These days parents have more responsibilities that keep them away from their kids, so they don't get the feel of what a kid really is.
Theory 3:
If #2 is true then parents have less of an idea what is appropriate for their kids.
Theory 4:
If #1 is true, then new sources should be created to replace the lost ones.
Question:
Are parent's incentive to learn and resources available from which to learn sufficient to satisfy society's stake in having parents educated?
How did Zonk get that title from that blurb???
On a slightly different topic, how am I supposed to monitor my child all the time to make sure he's not doing violent things, when it takes time away from me playing VIOLENT VIDEOGAMES!
They've been placed on the Boomerang network.
The Google entry for that page says "Go to Boomerang.com for more information about our 24-hour network for classic cartoons!", but that's a completely unrelated site. It's also in the page's description tag, which is where Google gets it from. Anybody know what happened to that domain?
Video games are easier; they're basically just moving cartoons.
If you play modern first person shooters, they can be very realistic. The graphics are superb these days. Not 100% perfect, but far better than 'moving cartoons'. You can get totally immersed in the game and begin to think about the game also when you are not playing it. The level of realism possible will only improve in the future. Obviously the author has never played this sort of game, and ought to try it before claiming to know about games.
However it is still correct that it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children play games that they consider suitable for their age, and to limit the number of hours they play. Just please don't pretend that it's OK for children to play all games because they are like cartoons. Some aren't.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Dear Random Nobody,
Okay, you don't like legislation affecting video games, we get it.
But please, your blog entry comes off as incoherent, at best, and childish at worst.
a) You start off with a straw man. No legislators are calling for people to burn video games. No legislators are claiming that they're the root of all evil.
b) You take a quote from someone who runs Common Sense Media -- an lobbying organization that also happens to provide rating services -- at face value. In the same article you call journalists lazy.
c) You mistakenly cite GTA as the "start" of this. "This" has been going on since Doom. GTA3, and Hot Coffee, weren't out when Colubine happened, if you remember.
d) You waffle, and end up attacking video games yourself by saying "I wouldn't let my children anywhere near one of these games", and that the game sucked. That's like defending Manhunt by saying it was so bad people wouldn't play it.
e) You talk with "a psychologist". No citations, no refernces, no studies that indicate when a child can seperate reality from fantasy. Just your word.
f) You commit the fallacy of accident -- just because you haven't been violent, means that video games don't make people violent. That's not proof, that's circumstance.
g) You site crime statistics that are meaningless in support of your proof. There are well understood reasons why the crime rate dropped nationwide in 1993. This does not preclude, in any way, video games from having a detremental effect.
h) You "read studies" -- you don't cite, you don't reference, you selectively remember. For someone with an alleged Master's degree, you sure as hell don't know how to form an argument.
By the way, I live in a province where the government regulates video games and movies. Oddly, I'm still able to go to EB and buy GTA if I want. And my son can't.
I can't for the life of me figure out why that's bad.
The hockey player striptease is the climactic scene in the classic movie Slap Shot.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
By the time a child is three or four, they should have had beaten into them the idea that hitting someone is not okay.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I've watched quite a few home renovation shows but I've never had the urge to renovate an old victorian house.
I've read 'Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee' a few times and never felt the urge for gov't sanctioned genocide.
If the older generation doesn't understand it then it must be evil, right? (See: Elvis, comic books, Marilyn Manson, the internet, etc)
Now to play the blame game...
Okay, I'm tired of the blame game! Let's play Hungry Hungry Hippos!
"(there is nothing in Doom III worse than the violence of Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner)" ...other than those evil demons/zombies throwing fire and ripping people apart, and the blood everywhere, and the...
You get my point.
Seriously, if we have law makers passing this kind of legislation, it is our responsibility to vote them out of office. The article speaks of a generational gap between us (the under 35/40 crowd) and the older crowd. Not surprisingly, it's the older crowd that has the most active voting population, and they vote people in that have their views, which are usually anti-video games. They also have a well organized group (AARP) that feeds them the propaganda that they want to hear so they will write their congressperson and let them know they think violent video games are bad.
If we want to change this situation, we, as a generation, need to take action and vote out the people who are making these laws. This problem can only be addressed by doing something. We need to vote on election days and write on congressperson every time this issue comes up to let our voice be heard.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
There are so many things wrong with this post and your "logic" that I wish I could reach over the internet and swat you with a rolled up newspaper.
The shooter is responsible for what he does with his gun. The driver is responsible for what he does with his car, and the individual is responsible for what he does with his games. The eater is responsible for how much mcDonald's he shoves in his maw. I tend to agree. This "get rich quick via torts" mentality is reaching the end of its tenure. People who constantly accuse products and businesses of destroying America and her precious children trivialize real and legit cases of product liability, and give people the false impression that the courts always side with these ludicrous claims.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Man, give me them good ol' fashioned static cartoons!
Sorry this is far too logical and sensible for the mainstream press to pick up. Come back when you can tie gamers and pedophiles together
Do laws really help our children or is it ultimately the parents role to decided?
I thought laws were made to get politicians re-elected?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Nobody loses.
Where did these stupid kids get this idea?
It even says so in your frickin' link.
Man, you really need that seminar!
How about we blame both? Saying that it is either one or the other is simplistic and completely ignores the myriad of factors at play here. As it is, the only discussion on the subject is people from each camp yelling about how the games/parents are killing the children/irresponsible wankers. It's a ridiculous argument on both sides.
He likes to play World of Warcraft with me (it's really cut to watch him play). When my wife said something to effect that she was worried about the violence, he turned to her and said, "It's not real, mom. It's just pretend."
If my kid gets it at 5, you can be damn sure every teen-ager out there gets it. It's the ones that don't CARE about the difference between fantasy and reality that should scare you. And video games have nothing to do with it.
Can laws help? Yes, absolutely. What a parent who is doing his/her job needs is a content label that tells them what's in the game (mild language, strong language, extreme sexuality, moderate violence, etc.).
The first problem ratings, e.g. motion picture ratins, has always been that they don't tell you what's in the film. Instead, they tell you if the film is 'safe' or 'dangerous'. Now, video game ratings are the same way.
The second problem is that no sooner does a work get labeled than some @$$hat write a law restricting sale/ viewing of works with particular ratings.
The only law that's worth having here is one mandating content labelling to give partents information. After than, leave it to the parents to decide.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
As with most of life's problems, this one will go away if we just wait long enough.
In 20 years or so, those of us who grew up with video games will be in our 40-50's and in control of most things. The people who grew up in the mists of the dark ages will either be dead or pretty darn close to it. Once that happens we can all agree that video games are not evil and insted work on preventing the corruption of children by whatever new evil has come about by then.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
From TFA: What studies? . . . I'm so tired of people stating their opinion as fact and the media reporting it without context. . . . Do the statistics support his claims? If not, don't give him the headline. . . . Yes, I blame the media... for being irresponsible and lazy.
You gotta love an article that complains about a lack of studies, but doesn't cite a single study showing lack of correlation between playing violent games and performing violent acts.
Those overall crime stats are nice, but let's see a study that compares game playing behavior to criminal acts, or the lack thereof.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
So exactly how is the author of this an expert of child development? Is he or she an expert in violence is society? Maybe they raised several children?
,you all did read that he thinks ratings are a good thing didn't you? Yes I do agree with some of his points but this article proves nothing and is not exactly news worthy.
From his own keyboard "I'm so tired of people stating their opinion as fact and the media reporting it without context. If a guy says that about video games, it's the media's job to do the research.".
Yet all we get from this guy is his opinion. No studies on any connection between violence and video games or lack there of.
This article is as valid as one that states, "Mac are not computers because more people buy Windows systems."
I see everyone saying how great this piece is because they happen to agree with it. Face it folks this is a piece written on a gaming site that tells you what you already think is true!
Frankly just like the person that wrote the article I don't have a problem with a rating system
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
the sun is hot, and water is wet.
Children need guidance and advice from their number 1 source, their parents. If they can't get it from their parents, they'll get it from other sources, be it TV, video games, books, friends, etc.
"I'd say by the time a president is in his first or second year, he or she should know it's not okay to hit someone else. The president should be aware violence is not an acceptable response. Senators, representatives, joint chiefs, governors... anyone in office should reinforce certain societal values and traits. Presidents should and mostly do know better. I talked with a psychologist who told me presidents can separate reality from fiction after about nine or ten months in office. Well, "used to the oval office" is what he said. At that point, they know what's on TV isn't real, what's in a video game isn't real. Video games are easier; they're basically just moving cartoons."
:p Sad that people who believe in Santa Claus have figured out something that college educated people haven't.
Seriously - we expect our children to not believe violence is an acceptable solution to their problems. Meanwhile, we use it every chance we can get. And all joking aside, it's not just a single president, or a single country, or a single culture - it's the history and nature of mankind itself.
And yet, go figure, children tend to be far less violent than adults. The truth of the matter is, they should be expecting *us* to not believe violence is an acceptable answer.
While it's true that the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent, this argument is spurious. Just because a kid should know better, does that make it okay for me to sell him something that's potentially dangerous?
Obviously you can argue the games aren't harmful, but that's not the point this guy seems to be trying to make. His point is, "It's the parents' fault, ergo there shouldn't be laws that prohibit sales to minors." That doesn't follow. By that logic, nothing should be prohibited from being sold to children.
I am the father of an 11 year old. He doesn't play his Playstation 2 on weekdays, and even when he does play, it's only sports games (football is our favorite). No TV until the weekends, and definitely no TV in his room.
How do kids have all this free time? He's either at practice (soccer, baseball, basketball - whatever is in season) or outside in our backyard playing with the neighborhood kids (or me).
These parents who complain about TV or videogames just seem a little lazy to me...
Further on in the page, it says:
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
And if you looked at the talkback page, in the section called "good or bad?" you'd see my comment that says that the article's opening focus underemphasizes the tradition that whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress, which is what most people seem to think of when referring to Godwin's Law.
I've been hearing this a lot too and it's pure BS. In the 70s a young girl took a gun to school and killed several of her classmates. When asked why, "I hate Mondays" was her only reply. (IIRC, a punk rock song came out of that incident.) This girl was not the only student to commit such violence at a school in the 70s. You can't blame GTA or any other violent game for that; all that was available at that time was pinball and the early Atari games. This has been going on longer than there have been violent video games. Why are they focusing on video games being a cause now when this problem obviously began -- and well withing living memory -- before these kind of video games existed?
Thing is, a lot of people who advocate this are the same age as me or even older so they should remember these incidents too, which makes me wonder what kind of brain-washing techniques the leaders of this movement are using.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
For those that want a little history, can somebody here dig up some of the good ol' days of D&D witch-hunts? D&D promotes devil-worship, etc etc....
Some people are less mentally stable, less well-reared, and more easily influenced than others. My sister, for example, has had several arguements with me claiming that the Davinci Code (the book, this was back before the movie) was all true and that there's a massive church conspiracy etc etc.
Some people just can't seem to glean that what they see on TV or read in a book/magazine isn't real. Heck, even I get a bit irate when I see the stuff that happens on certain cop shows (although mainly because the shows reflect the abuse of the law that happens in real life, such as arresting non-terrorists under Patriot, etc).
It doesn't make the shows or games evil though, it just means that some people are too easily influenced. In the case of kids, it's a parents' job to determine whether such material is appropriate for their children or not.
But... but... the parents can't be milked--I mean, sued in a court of law--for as much money (and free publicity, McCarthy-style)!
Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
Itchy and Scratchy was a criticism towards the hipocricy of extreme right-wing groups and the corruption of the media.
.xxx domain.
Like when the women helped Marge in banning Itchy and Scratchy... but then they were scandalized at Michael Angelo's David and Marge was accused of treason. Then the TV company saw this and played Itchy and Scratchy again.
The same hipocricy and nonsense can be seen in the "conservative christian" groups banning the
I also find the entertainment media hipocritical - instead of accepting that they *COULD* be *PARTLY* responsible, they blame EVERYTHING on the parents. It would be a scandal that censorship might *GASP* take away their profits! (Shock!)
I think that BOTH the media and parents are responsible. (Of course, this will get me flamed by people from BOTH sides).
Extremists (both left and right wing) just put noise into the environment and don't let the public take the right choices.
The problem truly is that a great many parents are just damn lazy. They would much rather have some great overseer take care of the problem then have to deal with it themselves. I cannot count the number of parents I have seen with their children in public who I watched and wondered, who is really in charge of this situation?
Maybe I was just fortunate enough to have parents who were responsible and actually wanted to know what their kids were doing. I use to complain about my parents monitoring my internet activity at age 14/15 and what I perceived as their paranoia about pedophiles out to get me. They also seemed a bit concerned at first when I started roleplaying online (and not the sexual kind of roleplay). Yes, they eventually backed off, but I know it was their own concern for my well-being that they acted the way they did and not just some techno-phobia.
I see this a lot with my mom today, who even consults me on occassion about items of purchase for my 13 year old brother. She will ask me about games, movies, or websites and even shows some degree of interest in my brothers online activities. He has a myspace account, but I know he is smart enough to not put anything stupid up there and with me listed as a friend, it probably wouldn't last long.
I just wish more parents seemed to show the same concern about their childrens activities. You may not be perceived as the coolest mom/dad ever, but your kids and, hopefully, their kids will be better for it. I learned that line, "You will thank me for this when you are older," isn't the complete bullshit I thought it was. My parents always did what they did because they cared about me, and they were doing what should come naturally to parents, protecting their offspring. So, will the government do us all a favor and leave the parenting to the parents and stop trying to create laws that really accomplish nothing and in many cases have been overturned by courts as unconstitutional anyway.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
There is a difference between conscious recognition that something is "just pretend" and actually not having it effect you, and the fact that someone that is 5, or a teen, or whatever can say "its just pretend" doesn't imply that it is not having a bigger effect on their thinking and behavior than it might on a person with a more mature brain. And there are plenty of studies that support that this is, in fact, generally the case.
Note: I'm not saying I agree with the mindset that the state should regulate; I believe that parents are the best regulators, and that the role of the state should be to empower parents while not constraining the free flow of content, which is a tough balance to strike. And, further, I think that sheltering kids from "mature" content isn't really the best response. Sure, there needs to be some control, but more important is to prepare them for increasingly mature content and helping them develope the mental facilities to deal with it. All I'm saying is that its a bit naive to say that kids are generally safe because they consciously recognize the distinction between "pretend" and "reality".
Because sooner or later they are going to run into sex, violence, etc., in art and/or reality, and they ought to be prepared to deal with exposure to it when they do.
That isn't a very effective method of assuring purity of source.
Perhaps there should be laws and regulations preventing just anyone from having kids ;).
;) ).
Maybe before anyone is allowed to have kids they must have provably brought up a dog of a not super-compliant breed to be well mannered, not destructive but still not totally cowed (can't have one always running away and hiding). The Regulatory body picks and assigns the dog (you don't get to choose the super easy candidates
If they don't pass, they have to keep paying maintenance for the dog and they don't get a chance to have kids till they get to try again and pass. (if they fail terribly the poor dog gets taken away from them for its own good),
If they can't bring up a dog, they can't bring up a human. After most dogs have been bred to be tolerably obedient over the generations. Not so for most humans (not saying it is good or bad, but it is something to keep in mind when training humans).
This is the obvious problem and it has been so since the beginning. Also, if a videogame causes a kid to kill someone, they are already fucked up in the head in the first place. Pardon my language.
It's not violent video games, it's any form of violent media. Movies, TV, books...I mean, look at the bible, that has inspired some of the more violent actions ever.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/offage.htm (showing the decline in teen violence) is one of the most interesting web pages I've seen in a long time. I'm sure you could draw a mirror line showing the rise in consumption of video games.
Question is, where is the games industry's PR team? Where are the full-page ads showing this data? Why aren't they going out and claiming that video games are saving the nation from teen violence - by allowing teens to harmlesslessly burn off their aggression?
Even if most people didn't beleive it, at least it would create another end to the debate - at the moment politicians can use games as an easy thing to rant on about, because the games industry won't say boo to them. Even saying "well, we only sell them to adults" implies that this stuff is like porn - it's obviously vile, but at least we don't pollute kids. This is the perfect set up for politicos to compare games to cigarettes.
(One problem for the PR team of course would be that that so many entities profit from creating a climate of fear in which everything appears to be getting worse. But that's another topic.)
Even the title of this excellent article - "don't blame the games, blame the parents" - plays along with such a trend, because it implies there is a growing problem for which a cause must be found. In fact there seems to be a declining problem - so who should we thank?
Come on games industry - think about something other than piracy for once, and use this data to start defending yourselves properly...
You could argue T&J is worse because it has the same violence but doesn't show the realistic consequences. In Doom 3, you see graphically what a a person ripped apart looks like, and they don't get up (well, unless they become a zombie themselves).
Really? Like what? His post was bang on.
Do any of you have any idea how difficult it actually is to be a parent now? Picture this as an example. My 13 year old son has a paper route, and so a stream of income on his own. He can choose to take his check, ride his bike over to the local game store, and buy any game he wants. He can take this home, and play it. What happens if I come by to check on what he's doing? He turns the game off and picks up a book, says "I'm reading". Short of watching a child 24/7, there is no way to make sure they do everything they are supposed to. Surely you've hidden illicit things from your parents when you were a teenager, like drugs, sex etc. It's actually pretty easy isn't it?
Yes I take the nessesary steps: the computer and game systems are in the living room, not behind closed doors in his room, but I can't watch him all the time. His friends have game systems in their rooms, and there's nothing I can do about that.
Yes, some parents certainly ARE to blame, but even the ones that try hard have it tough. I welcome any law that would prevent a child from buying a violent game. It's not censorship, as anybody who has first ammendment protection can buy the game. I can even buy the game for my child if I think it's okay. The government is not saying what's okay and what's not; that's still up to me.
Since even earlier. Remember the panic about Mortal Kombat? Or the epilepsy scare? Hell, the whole thing can probably be traced at least to the Dungeons & Dragons panic in the seventies and eighties.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
People like a scapegoat, and it's not politically correct to blame the parents (and some times it's not even accurate, since anyone can snap for no reason).
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Listen, did you watch G.I. JOE?
Or better yet, read the horible comic books.
It's the content not the media.
Yeah. Right.
Do you remember the Comic books that describe (often way more graphically than cartoons, and a lot less regulated) violence have been around for AGES.
That's why all the people who read comics and are now about 45-65 are crazy whacked out gun toten compound living lunatics.
Sorry, but the content also comes from the media. But remember, It's the MEDIA because it's entertainment.
Entertainment should be based on what the parent believes is acceptable. It's YOUR job to entertain your children, not mine. If you don't BUY him a TV he never sees that stuff. Every TV made from 2000-on has parental controls. Just lock out everything except Disney & Discovery.
Seriously it's this kind of thing that really gets to me. I appreciate the fact that YOU take responsibility for your children. That is awesome. But I cant be held accountable for OTHER peoples children. Even if due to parental negligence causes them to become a generation of mass murdering, lazergun totin, oil loving, dispicable varmits..
What about books? There are some violent scenes in books too. There you have a real problem. The violence is in both realistic and fantasy settings. Oh, but that doesn't matter. Better keep the Bible away from them!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
You so missed my point.
Take a particularly violent episode of GIJoe on TV. Now redoit live action. Now put it in a comic. Now put it into a pure text story.
The media changes, but has ZERO impact on the violence presented...the content.
See my point?
It's not the media (cartoons, games, live action movies whatever), it's what is presented using that media.
No Comment.
Crap is crap. But if people are seeking out crap, then crap suddenly has value.
I agree that most things on T.V. is absolutely horrible, but I don't know that for sure because I watch less than 3hrs / week. Thats counting VCAST CNN clips on my phone.
The content of a video game is up to the publishers. The consumer (READ PARENT) is the one who decides if it's right for them. We have a decent ratings system that is completly underused. If I want to make a video game where all I do is shoot the floating heads of a certain ficticious person named Gerald Walker the Brave and show realistic blood splatter, then so be it. I can gaurantee that of the 10 people who buy that crap, 8 will be weird, and the other two thought it was DOOM because they couldn't read the label.
This sentiment is why it's COKE's fault that children's teeth rot out. It's not the parents who buy their children 3 cans a day right...
It surely couldn't be the snickers (have they been sued yet? ** checks w/ attourneys**) bars they are eating, or the other Sugary snacks parents so frequently use as a reward.
It's like blaming Quake 2 for columbine.
Maybe I am just not seeing the real point here. I know that video games (like anything in excess) can become addictive. I know that too many cartoons can make people turn into a TelleTubbie. Parents need to make decisions for their children, not the other way around. Give them a choice between two non violent games, not a choice of their pick from the whole store which includes GTA, Hitman, and other violent crap. When they are 16-18 (or 8) and seem mature enough, let them decide whats entertaining for them.
You can't possibly tell me though that the content of cartoons, and video games, has gotten so bad and so invasive that a parent has no control.
The plumber made me do it dad, I had to go on a murderous rampage, because I saw Mario do it on a video game. It was Quake 4's fault. I went out, designed a lightning gun, and roasted the neighbor when their dog pooped in our yard. It's unreal tournemnts fault, I just hijacked a Helicopter that oddly enough flew like a raptor, and went over and personally kicked some Al Queda ASS. Sorry I couldn't dodge that missle, but I ejected and survived. I could go on for days
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Sorry, It's often hard to tell when I am being serious or not.
I do see that the content doesn't change between the media.
My point is just that the content has beent there for a LONG time.
The background story just changes a bit from time to time.
Violence has been a part of history for the last 10000 years, and will continue forever, because it is natural to fight over resources. That fact makes it easy to incorporate into entertainment. From Cartoons, to books whatever. While you can make a game about a boy who goes wandering into the woods to pick huckleberries with his dog it isn't going to sell. It's sickening really, but honestly I wouldn't buy it either.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Are for everyone, regardless of race, religion, creed, age, or even mental capacity. The only thing that can cost you your rights is committing a crime.
The 'We the people of the United States of America...' spiel never specifies an age restriction.
Your son is mature enough to get a job and make money. But not mature enough for free speech?
A 16 year old is mature enough to join the army (in some places). But not mature enough for free speech?
I daresay having his free speech restricted is going to do more harm to the child's psyhology than any video game will.