Enough so that militaries use it as a tool to condition soldiers to get used to the violence and expect it.
At one point, law enforcement agencies sometimes hired psychic detectives to solve crimes. The government sometimes (oftentimes) takes idiotic courses of action; what else is new?
But even if that is true, and it might be, it's still nothing like real world violence, and it very likely won't make them into murderers, as you said. If it has any effects at all, they seem to be rather minor, so I don't see a cause for concern.
There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas.
I don't think that's a good argument, but it is damn amusing. I can only laugh at the people who think such things are even remotely common, or exist at all.
I said, "anything more than a minor effect." Having nightmares is pretty minor, I think. If your kid turned into a bloodthirsty murderer, I would say that would be major.
But seriously, just because your kid can't handle horror movies without having nightmares doesn't mean no one else's can. I never once had those problems when I was a kid, so...
It matters because I don't want my kid exposed to the world of evil shitheels before she's old enough to realize that it's not a good thing to be an evil shitheel.
How often does that actually happen, and to what degree? I do not find it likely that these games have anything more than a minor effect on people, if any effect at all, regardless of age.
I cannot imagine, that your dad let you watch splatter movies at the age of 6.
You must have a very limited imagination, then. I was watching extremely violent movies at just 5 years old and constantly played Doom when it came out a few years later.
but I am saying, that a 6 year old child shouldn't be made (or allowed)
Shouldn't be made to see the content? Maybe. I wouldn't want someone forcing me to watch something. Shouldn't be allowed? That I can't agree with.
Exactly. If some AC claims that 1 + 1 = 2, that must be false; after all, why else would they be trying to hide their identity? They just want to spew forth falsehoods! It's not as if I can read their entire arguments and attempt to determine whether they're valid or not without taking into account irrelevancies; that's just impossible.
Because they were gullible imbeciles. Some research would have told them that that is a very, very bad idea, but since they don't bother to do that, or are more interested in making sure the guy they really, really despise doesn't get into office, the cycle continued.
I have a confession to make, my dear Slashdotters. Up until now, you've all believed me to be nothing more than an ordinary, weak Slashdot reader, but in truth... I'm a professional snap dancer! Such a thing!
We're already getting molested at airports, among other things. People might (temporarily, and in small numbers) complain about it, but it seems unlikely that much will change.
I can't see the logic. This is just typical scaremongering and paranoia from the government.
The US government molests anyone who tries to get on a plane because there's a 0.000001% chance that they could be a terrorist, or something ridiculous like that. There is no "logic" here; just power-hungry pieces of trash.
Where did I say it didn't? I believe it applies to all humans. Government thugs can't be trusted, and neither can these greedy corporations or businesses; they're all pieces of trash in my eyes. It's just that these piece of trash business people don't usually have as much power as government thugs.
How is that relevant to whether or not what he said was correct? It isn't. That said, the people directly involved with organizations that violate people's rights know more about them than the public and have more chances to act (quit, leak information, etc.). Normal people can vote accordingly to make a statement (it needn't jump straight to a revolution).
Why don't you try reading the comment I replied to? He suggested that it is okay for the NSA to snoop through his emails, as if one could never abuse such a power; I merely called him out for being ridiculously naive. Again, this is about giving people too much power.
As someone who used to work for the U.S. government, I can say that not everyone there is pure evil.
No one said that everyone who works for the government is pure evil, but give people too much power and they will abuse it and seek to expand their power even further; this has been observed countless times throughout history. It doesn't matter how "normal" the environment seemed to you.
It is foolish to assume that the people working for the government are perfect angels who could never mean you any harm; this has never been true and never will be true.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand issues with pornography
I can't.
Enough so that militaries use it as a tool to condition soldiers to get used to the violence and expect it.
At one point, law enforcement agencies sometimes hired psychic detectives to solve crimes. The government sometimes (oftentimes) takes idiotic courses of action; what else is new?
But even if that is true, and it might be, it's still nothing like real world violence, and it very likely won't make them into murderers, as you said. If it has any effects at all, they seem to be rather minor, so I don't see a cause for concern.
You'll understand why you're 100% incorrect at some unspecified point in the future.
Sound moronic? That's because it is.
He basically claimed that anyone who disagrees with him is not a parent; that is not valid.
No True Parent would...
There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas.
I don't think that's a good argument, but it is damn amusing. I can only laugh at the people who think such things are even remotely common, or exist at all.
I said, "anything more than a minor effect." Having nightmares is pretty minor, I think. If your kid turned into a bloodthirsty murderer, I would say that would be major.
But seriously, just because your kid can't handle horror movies without having nightmares doesn't mean no one else's can. I never once had those problems when I was a kid, so...
It matters because I don't want my kid exposed to the world of evil shitheels before she's old enough to realize that it's not a good thing to be an evil shitheel.
How often does that actually happen, and to what degree? I do not find it likely that these games have anything more than a minor effect on people, if any effect at all, regardless of age.
I cannot imagine, that your dad let you watch splatter movies at the age of 6.
You must have a very limited imagination, then. I was watching extremely violent movies at just 5 years old and constantly played Doom when it came out a few years later.
but I am saying, that a 6 year old child shouldn't be made (or allowed)
Shouldn't be made to see the content? Maybe. I wouldn't want someone forcing me to watch something. Shouldn't be allowed? That I can't agree with.
However, there is proof that exposure to certain media at a young age does harm children
How does it harm them? How likely is it to "harm" them?
But there is such a thing as exposing a kid to shit that they're too young to handle (or understand).
Is there? In a video game? And in a way that will harm them? That seems highly unlikely.
And that's not a good thing.
To you.
A kid's innocence is a precious thing
It's also completely ambiguous and meaningless.
It's over 1 click, and it's time for your alarm bells to go past the point of ambiguity.
The problem is nonexistent, and "copying" has not gotten out of hand.
Exactly. If some AC claims that 1 + 1 = 2, that must be false; after all, why else would they be trying to hide their identity? They just want to spew forth falsehoods! It's not as if I can read their entire arguments and attempt to determine whether they're valid or not without taking into account irrelevancies; that's just impossible.
People tried that with "hope and change".
Because they were gullible imbeciles. Some research would have told them that that is a very, very bad idea, but since they don't bother to do that, or are more interested in making sure the guy they really, really despise doesn't get into office, the cycle continued.
That's not rash; it's the only intelligent course of action. The entire organization is a piece of trash.
I have a confession to make, my dear Slashdotters. Up until now, you've all believed me to be nothing more than an ordinary, weak Slashdot reader, but in truth... I'm a professional snap dancer! Such a thing!
We're already getting molested at airports, among other things. People might (temporarily, and in small numbers) complain about it, but it seems unlikely that much will change.
I can't see the logic. This is just typical scaremongering and paranoia from the government.
The US government molests anyone who tries to get on a plane because there's a 0.000001% chance that they could be a terrorist, or something ridiculous like that. There is no "logic" here; just power-hungry pieces of trash.
Where did I say it didn't? I believe it applies to all humans. Government thugs can't be trusted, and neither can these greedy corporations or businesses; they're all pieces of trash in my eyes. It's just that these piece of trash business people don't usually have as much power as government thugs.
I don't know the real answer to a problem, so I'll just make something up and claim it solves it.
How is that relevant to whether or not what he said was correct? It isn't. That said, the people directly involved with organizations that violate people's rights know more about them than the public and have more chances to act (quit, leak information, etc.). Normal people can vote accordingly to make a statement (it needn't jump straight to a revolution).
Why don't you try reading the comment I replied to? He suggested that it is okay for the NSA to snoop through his emails, as if one could never abuse such a power; I merely called him out for being ridiculously naive. Again, this is about giving people too much power.
As someone who used to work for the U.S. government, I can say that not everyone there is pure evil.
No one said that everyone who works for the government is pure evil, but give people too much power and they will abuse it and seek to expand their power even further; this has been observed countless times throughout history. It doesn't matter how "normal" the environment seemed to you.
It is foolish to assume that the people working for the government are perfect angels who could never mean you any harm; this has never been true and never will be true.