"My son doesn't have a choice about running with scissors or pencils or forks: the price of "learning" the hard way is too steep."
Look, as I've explained time and time again, I'm not talking about preventing them from doing activities that could kill them, I'm talking about things such as indoctrinating them to adopt the same religious practices as you or forcing them to have the same personal opinions as you while you censor out the opposing view from their environment.
"You quote me, then completely disregard what I said."
I read what you said, but I was just stating something similar.
"It depends on the child"
This sentence ends here.
"A 5 year old, can't determine what is appropriate for them."
Really? You draw your information from where, exactly? Do you want to know why I wouldn't smash my hand with a hammer at the age of five? It fucking hurts! The same goes for video games and nightmares. I don't need a parent telling me how I feel. Especially since playing a fucking video game doesn't endanger their life.
"At 3, I don't want him playing games that are all about shooting things."
Why?
"but I'd prefer that he played games that didn't involve shooting things until he has been exposed to the concept of death"
So expose him to the concept of death.
"so that we can talk meaningfully about how the game is different from reality"
You know, that's odd because when I was about five and started playing video games, my parents never needed to tell me that they were fiction. I knew right from the beginning that those pixels on the screen weren't real people or real settings. If a five year old can do that, that is saying something.
"I don't want him playing hentai games"
Why?
Censorship, censorship, and yet more censorship. Now, why do so many people not appear to have minds of their own again? Oh, right, it's because they were never given a choice from the very beginning.
"That's your opinion of the function of a parent."
Well, if you want to raise someone to have a mind of their own...
"Unless we can actually appeal to Jeebus or FSM"
Even if you could, that would also just be their opinion.
"Children physiologically do not have the same neural structures for higher order decision making as adults."
That doesn't mean none of them can make rational choices.
"just that they have less hardware to be able to compute with."
That doesn't mean that they need to be indoctrinated with pointless personal beliefs and have all of the opposing views censored in their environment. This is harmful particularly if you want to have a society of people that have minds of their own.
"Not as fallacious as outright ignoring correlational relationships on the grounds that causation"
A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, one isn't any worse or more incorrect than the other. Yes, the article lists some points, but other studies, again, have reached the opposite conclusion. Really. Google it. If they have no real evidence that proves any of this with 100% accuracy (and they aren't even near that, either) then this law is a terrible idea (even if it was true, it would still be a terrible idea).
If they get nightmares from it, it's their own fault. They should learn from their own mistakes, not be pointlessly restricted.
"There is something to be said for protecting your child from themselves."
Not when it's something pointless like a video game. They will discover of their own volition (and without physically harming themselves) that it is not a good idea to play them if they get nightmares. Simple as that.
"A 5 year old shouldn't play Dante's Inferno, they'll get nightmares. However, a mature 5 year old whose parent thinks they are old enough and won't get nightmares would be fine to play it."
Depends on the five year old. I was watching extremely violent movies and playing violent video games at no older than the age of five yet I never got nightmares. Automatically assuming something about someone is never intelligent.
"That depends on the parent and what they believe their child is mature enough to handle."
It depends on the child and what they are going to risk by playing the game.
"The point is that it is up to the parent to determine what is and isn't appropriate for their child."
It's up to the child to determine what is appropriate for them. Imagine some random stranger (or family member) disallowing a full grown adult from watching a movie because they often get nightmares (even though it only affects them). Would you support this, or would it a bad thing simply because of age?
"But, I saw only a few violent movies during all my childhood which"
Then you're pretty different from the masses of people who grew up watching violent films and playing violent video games constantly and turned out to... *gasp*... not be murderers or criminals! Could it be because they can differentiate between fiction and reality? But, I thought that was something only an adult could do! How could kids possibly tell that those pixels on the screen aren't real!?
"Sure, adverts of a few seconds here and there apparently work wonders for sales"
All advertisements do is alert people to the existence of potentially interesting products, not change their behavior completely and turn them into murderers.
"But there are many who are."
I think you should double check your facts. Perhaps you should look at just how many people are exposed to violent media constantly yet aren't violent themselves. Funny, that.
"nudging weak people over the edge"
To nudge someone over the edge, as you put it, you need a group of trusted individuals telling them that fiction is real. Even then, the individual needs to be completely insane for it to take effect.
"I see nothing wrong with a parent refusing to allow their child to play a game"
If they don't believe the game causes violence, there is no point. The same goes for if they do believe the game causes violence but have no evidence. It's just worthless censorship.
"If they know a game will give their child nightmares, then they shouldn't allow the child to play it."
At most, they should warn them about the possible effects that playing this game will have on them. If the child doesn't care, let them play it anyway. They are the ones who will suffer and will likely learn from their decision or they will continue to have nightmares.
It certainly does say that, but it's invisible! Even if it didn't, that constitution thing is so old and silly! We need to protect the children from video games because... I have no idea, but we need to protect them anyway by banning the video games!
Not if they're not backed up by facts. They are trying to ban something before understanding the situation. That is absurd. If you disagree, then allow me to ban religion on the basis that it causes people to become insane even though I don't yet have any proof of this.
"Your arguments against what you call censorship on the part of the parents would seem to imply that you believe children are capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare, and everyone else should just butt out."
If it's something that causes them no physical harm, then yes, they can make those decisions. It's pointless not to let them.
"A major role of parents is and must be to train their children on socially normal roles and behaviors (if you want to call that indoctrination that's fine)."
For one thing, normal is highly subjective. Second of all, the function of a parent is to educate their children on how to make decisions that won't cause them physical harm and to teach them to be free thinkers, not indoctrinated drones. Brainwashing them with your religious beliefs and personal opinions while giving them no choice in the matter and censoring out the opposing views is not education, it is indoctrination and censorship.
"Violent video games do contribute to the perception that violent behavior is acceptable"
Yes, because works of fiction are universally understood to be real, right? Even a five year old knows that that is not true.
"Violent video games facilitate and enabe violent behavior"
I've already read that. A huge portion of it assumes that correlation equals causation, which is a logical fallacy. For instance, why aren't the masses of violent video game players murderers and criminals? A majority of them have grown up to be normal, and for the ones who haven't, blaming them on the games themselves displays your ignorance.
"But we can't ignore the partial understanding that we do have."
Which is none. People are responsible for their own actions. Video games do not make them commit these actions, and it is absolutely insane to claim that they do. Besides that, if they did encourage violent behavior, I as well as many others must be secretly murderers and criminals. I played violent video games at no older than the age of five and was able to differentiate them from 'reality'. It is not a difficult concept.
However, even if they did have some link to violence, banning them would still be insane. You might as well ban all violent media and alcohol (which even affects adults), as well. An individuals actions are in their own hands.
Opinions don't matter. What matters is facts. If you have no facts to back up your beliefs, banning it for anyone is downright idiotic.
"I think it's more realistic to say that some material is inappropriate for some children."
No, it's not.
"Our society has long respected the right (and responsibility!) of the parent to make those judgments for their own children."
This mindset is why we have so many people that can't think for themselves. A surprising number of people have replied to me saying that parenting means to indoctrinate children with the parents beliefs (even worthless ones such as religious beliefs and pointless personal opinions) while giving them no choice in the matter.
Video games do not cause violence. People who are detached from reality believe they do, however. There is no need for any censorship, whether it is the government doing it or the parents.
"As a parent trying to raise a child, wouldn't you expect me to pass on the values and ideas that I think are important and significant to my children?"
I would expect you to pass on facts, not religious beliefs or pointless personal opinions.
"Your problem is that if you don't agree with those values and ideas, you label it as indoctrination."
You misunderstand. I label is as indoctrination if no choice is given.
I didn't say that. My comment merely said that we shouldn't wait until something becomes an actual problem before we do something (as the above poster's comment suggests).
I figured you would. If a child isn't completely indoctrinated a controlled, they might actually have a mind of their own! Can't have that. People must shove their religion, beliefs, and personal opinions down their throats while censoring the opposition. That is exactly what education is!
Yet still, the video was about a real live adult doing something, not an imaginary video game character. If video games caused violence, I'd be a murderer. Actually, lots of people would, not just the few we have now. Did they take off and go shoot up a school? No. Did the clown get killed? No. I doubt he was even hurt.
"or about adults feeling "safe"?"
It's about censorship, control, and indoctrination.
"if one can agree that there does exist certain material that is inappropriate for children, then why, by definition, should it be acceptable for retailers to sell it to children?"
There isn't, and there's no reason to think as such.
Lesser so if you give them choices. However, I was merely talking about religious views and pointless opinions. Just because you protect them from physical harm does not mean you need to brainwash them in every aspect of their life.
"You want to protect your kids and raise them to be good men or women."
But not tools. Oh, wait, many people do.
"With decent values."
So subjective it's pointless.
"How do you set up those values?"
Choice. All sides must be heard.
"You're saying we should stop being human."
If "being human" means being illogical, then yes, I am. In reality humans are nothing more than animals that will simply die, their entire existence pointless. I don't know what the point of that statement was.
"Speak to you again when you have your own kids."
I have no interest in furthering the survival of such an illogical species.
"Let them view porn at 4 because you don't to censor the information that is given to the child?"
Let them view pornography at four? I don't see what harm that would do, but it's vastly useless to them. At most they would likely think "wow, that's gross."
"A child cannot comprehend everything like adults can."
Adults are not somehow special. They've merely lived slightly longer than a child. Depending on the rate at which a child can memorize new information, they could out perform an adult who has lived in this world longer. That's besides the point, however. The answer is obviously education, not indoctrination or censorship. That is not what education is about.
"And parents may want to raise their kids to never use violence"
That's great. Violence is a means of the weak-minded to censor the opposing view. However, they should merely opt against it and explain the consequences of doing the opposite.
"I'll be damned the day that I let my 4 year old go watch a car accident."
Some people can handle such things, others can't. Obviously if they can't, you should explain to them what will happen if they proceed with watching the accident. Beyond that, however, it is their own fault.
Slashdot Mirror
"My son doesn't have a choice about running with scissors or pencils or forks: the price of "learning" the hard way is too steep."
Look, as I've explained time and time again, I'm not talking about preventing them from doing activities that could kill them, I'm talking about things such as indoctrinating them to adopt the same religious practices as you or forcing them to have the same personal opinions as you while you censor out the opposing view from their environment.
"You quote me, then completely disregard what I said."
I read what you said, but I was just stating something similar.
"It depends on the child"
This sentence ends here.
"A 5 year old, can't determine what is appropriate for them."
Really? You draw your information from where, exactly? Do you want to know why I wouldn't smash my hand with a hammer at the age of five? It fucking hurts! The same goes for video games and nightmares. I don't need a parent telling me how I feel. Especially since playing a fucking video game doesn't endanger their life.
"At 3, I don't want him playing games that are all about shooting things."
Why?
"but I'd prefer that he played games that didn't involve shooting things until he has been exposed to the concept of death"
So expose him to the concept of death.
"so that we can talk meaningfully about how the game is different from reality"
You know, that's odd because when I was about five and started playing video games, my parents never needed to tell me that they were fiction. I knew right from the beginning that those pixels on the screen weren't real people or real settings. If a five year old can do that, that is saying something.
"I don't want him playing hentai games"
Why?
Censorship, censorship, and yet more censorship. Now, why do so many people not appear to have minds of their own again? Oh, right, it's because they were never given a choice from the very beginning.
"That's your opinion of the function of a parent."
Well, if you want to raise someone to have a mind of their own...
"Unless we can actually appeal to Jeebus or FSM"
Even if you could, that would also just be their opinion.
"Children physiologically do not have the same neural structures for higher order decision making as adults."
That doesn't mean none of them can make rational choices.
"just that they have less hardware to be able to compute with."
That doesn't mean that they need to be indoctrinated with pointless personal beliefs and have all of the opposing views censored in their environment. This is harmful particularly if you want to have a society of people that have minds of their own.
"Not as fallacious as outright ignoring correlational relationships on the grounds that causation"
A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, one isn't any worse or more incorrect than the other. Yes, the article lists some points, but other studies, again, have reached the opposite conclusion. Really. Google it. If they have no real evidence that proves any of this with 100% accuracy (and they aren't even near that, either) then this law is a terrible idea (even if it was true, it would still be a terrible idea).
"some individuals shouldn't play some games."
If they get nightmares from it, it's their own fault. They should learn from their own mistakes, not be pointlessly restricted.
"There is something to be said for protecting your child from themselves."
Not when it's something pointless like a video game. They will discover of their own volition (and without physically harming themselves) that it is not a good idea to play them if they get nightmares. Simple as that.
I disagree with the entire thing because it assumes that correlation equals causation.
"Correlational evidence is very often used to describe causal relationships."
Which is flawed.
"that single solitary "causes" just don't exist"
Precisely. Neither should scapegoats that try to explain the negative actions of a very few individuals.
Now, again, there have been other studies which reached the opposite conclusion. These can't simply be ignored.
"A 5 year old shouldn't play Dante's Inferno, they'll get nightmares. However, a mature 5 year old whose parent thinks they are old enough and won't get nightmares would be fine to play it."
Depends on the five year old. I was watching extremely violent movies and playing violent video games at no older than the age of five yet I never got nightmares. Automatically assuming something about someone is never intelligent.
"That depends on the parent and what they believe their child is mature enough to handle."
It depends on the child and what they are going to risk by playing the game.
"The point is that it is up to the parent to determine what is and isn't appropriate for their child."
It's up to the child to determine what is appropriate for them. Imagine some random stranger (or family member) disallowing a full grown adult from watching a movie because they often get nightmares (even though it only affects them). Would you support this, or would it a bad thing simply because of age?
"But, I saw only a few violent movies during all my childhood which"
Then you're pretty different from the masses of people who grew up watching violent films and playing violent video games constantly and turned out to... *gasp*... not be murderers or criminals! Could it be because they can differentiate between fiction and reality? But, I thought that was something only an adult could do! How could kids possibly tell that those pixels on the screen aren't real!?
"Sure, adverts of a few seconds here and there apparently work wonders for sales"
All advertisements do is alert people to the existence of potentially interesting products, not change their behavior completely and turn them into murderers.
"But there are many who are."
I think you should double check your facts. Perhaps you should look at just how many people are exposed to violent media constantly yet aren't violent themselves. Funny, that.
"nudging weak people over the edge"
To nudge someone over the edge, as you put it, you need a group of trusted individuals telling them that fiction is real. Even then, the individual needs to be completely insane for it to take effect.
"I see nothing wrong with a parent refusing to allow their child to play a game"
If they don't believe the game causes violence, there is no point. The same goes for if they do believe the game causes violence but have no evidence. It's just worthless censorship.
"If they know a game will give their child nightmares, then they shouldn't allow the child to play it."
At most, they should warn them about the possible effects that playing this game will have on them. If the child doesn't care, let them play it anyway. They are the ones who will suffer and will likely learn from their decision or they will continue to have nightmares.
It certainly does say that, but it's invisible! Even if it didn't, that constitution thing is so old and silly! We need to protect the children from video games because... I have no idea, but we need to protect them anyway by banning the video games!
An app that only affects a device that someone must physically have access to in order to install, no less.
I did read the article. Not only was no proof actually given, but it assumes that correlation equals causation so much that it's ridiculous.
"Trust me, I'm a Psychologist."
So are many other people, and many studies have been carried out that reach a different conclusion than the one you're advocating.
"Opinions certainly do matter."
Not if they're not backed up by facts. They are trying to ban something before understanding the situation. That is absurd. If you disagree, then allow me to ban religion on the basis that it causes people to become insane even though I don't yet have any proof of this.
"Your arguments against what you call censorship on the part of the parents would seem to imply that you believe children are capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare, and everyone else should just butt out."
If it's something that causes them no physical harm, then yes, they can make those decisions. It's pointless not to let them.
"A major role of parents is and must be to train their children on socially normal roles and behaviors (if you want to call that indoctrination that's fine)."
For one thing, normal is highly subjective. Second of all, the function of a parent is to educate their children on how to make decisions that won't cause them physical harm and to teach them to be free thinkers, not indoctrinated drones. Brainwashing them with your religious beliefs and personal opinions while giving them no choice in the matter and censoring out the opposing views is not education, it is indoctrination and censorship.
"Violent video games do contribute to the perception that violent behavior is acceptable"
Yes, because works of fiction are universally understood to be real, right? Even a five year old knows that that is not true.
"Violent video games facilitate and enabe violent behavior"
I've already read that. A huge portion of it assumes that correlation equals causation, which is a logical fallacy. For instance, why aren't the masses of violent video game players murderers and criminals? A majority of them have grown up to be normal, and for the ones who haven't, blaming them on the games themselves displays your ignorance.
"But we can't ignore the partial understanding that we do have."
Which is none. People are responsible for their own actions. Video games do not make them commit these actions, and it is absolutely insane to claim that they do. Besides that, if they did encourage violent behavior, I as well as many others must be secretly murderers and criminals. I played violent video games at no older than the age of five and was able to differentiate them from 'reality'. It is not a difficult concept.
However, even if they did have some link to violence, banning them would still be insane. You might as well ban all violent media and alcohol (which even affects adults), as well. An individuals actions are in their own hands.
"Have fun fighting society."
Bigger things have been accomplished in the past. Civil rights movement, etc. This is nothing compared to that. The obvious answer is education.
"That's obviously a matter of opinion."
Opinions don't matter. What matters is facts. If you have no facts to back up your beliefs, banning it for anyone is downright idiotic.
"I think it's more realistic to say that some material is inappropriate for some children."
No, it's not.
"Our society has long respected the right (and responsibility!) of the parent to make those judgments for their own children."
This mindset is why we have so many people that can't think for themselves. A surprising number of people have replied to me saying that parenting means to indoctrinate children with the parents beliefs (even worthless ones such as religious beliefs and pointless personal opinions) while giving them no choice in the matter.
Video games do not cause violence. People who are detached from reality believe they do, however. There is no need for any censorship, whether it is the government doing it or the parents.
"As a parent trying to raise a child, wouldn't you expect me to pass on the values and ideas that I think are important and significant to my children?"
I would expect you to pass on facts, not religious beliefs or pointless personal opinions.
"Your problem is that if you don't agree with those values and ideas, you label it as indoctrination."
You misunderstand. I label is as indoctrination if no choice is given.
"You must not be a parent."
If you think indoctrination and censorship is good parenting, then you're not a very good parent.
"It's a parent's responsibility to censor everything that they see fit to censor."
No, their responsibility is to educate their child on how to stay out of physical harm and how to be a free thinker, not an indoctrinated drone.
"it's the parents who decide what is harmless."
No, facts decide what is harmless. The parents can't alter reality. What we don't need is pointless censorship and indoctrination.
I didn't say that. My comment merely said that we shouldn't wait until something becomes an actual problem before we do something (as the above poster's comment suggests).
I figured you would. If a child isn't completely indoctrinated a controlled, they might actually have a mind of their own! Can't have that. People must shove their religion, beliefs, and personal opinions down their throats while censoring the opposition. That is exactly what education is!
Yet still, the video was about a real live adult doing something, not an imaginary video game character. If video games caused violence, I'd be a murderer. Actually, lots of people would, not just the few we have now. Did they take off and go shoot up a school? No. Did the clown get killed? No. I doubt he was even hurt.
"or about adults feeling "safe"?"
It's about censorship, control, and indoctrination.
"if one can agree that there does exist certain material that is inappropriate for children, then why, by definition, should it be acceptable for retailers to sell it to children?"
There isn't, and there's no reason to think as such.
"It's all indoctrination."
Lesser so if you give them choices. However, I was merely talking about religious views and pointless opinions. Just because you protect them from physical harm does not mean you need to brainwash them in every aspect of their life.
"You want to protect your kids and raise them to be good men or women."
But not tools. Oh, wait, many people do.
"With decent values."
So subjective it's pointless.
"How do you set up those values?"
Choice. All sides must be heard.
"You're saying we should stop being human."
If "being human" means being illogical, then yes, I am. In reality humans are nothing more than animals that will simply die, their entire existence pointless. I don't know what the point of that statement was.
"Speak to you again when you have your own kids."
I have no interest in furthering the survival of such an illogical species.
I know enough to know that censorship and indoctrination are both far from being education.
"Let them view porn at 4 because you don't to censor the information that is given to the child?"
Let them view pornography at four? I don't see what harm that would do, but it's vastly useless to them. At most they would likely think "wow, that's gross."
"A child cannot comprehend everything like adults can."
Adults are not somehow special. They've merely lived slightly longer than a child. Depending on the rate at which a child can memorize new information, they could out perform an adult who has lived in this world longer. That's besides the point, however. The answer is obviously education, not indoctrination or censorship. That is not what education is about.
"And parents may want to raise their kids to never use violence"
That's great. Violence is a means of the weak-minded to censor the opposing view. However, they should merely opt against it and explain the consequences of doing the opposite.
"I'll be damned the day that I let my 4 year old go watch a car accident."
Some people can handle such things, others can't. Obviously if they can't, you should explain to them what will happen if they proceed with watching the accident. Beyond that, however, it is their own fault.