Spammers harvest email addresses... either live with it or deal with it (don't put your email address on the web).
By that logic, if you don't like being raped, you shouldn't wear miniskirts.
I should be able to post my e-mail address on the web and should reasonably expect to only get e-mails from people who have a comment on my website, knew me in high school, would like to offer me a job, or some other directly related subject. I should not have to expect to get overwhelmed by spam from a non-human source.
I did RTFA and since it is only February of 2005, he was probably 17 when he bought the game and 18 when he shot cops. Unless his birthday happens to be prior to today.
Yes, he is still his parents responsibility to care for, but I can't see blaming his parents for him shooting someone unless it can be proven that they did a poor job of rasing him. Most likely he was raised adequately just like the rest of us and made a wrong decision, or just can't tell right from wrong, or has a poor judgement of the value of human life. Oh yes, and on an unrelated note, he also played a video game once in which you could kill cops if you really wanted to, but it was not a requirement for enjoyment of the game.
I later did some research and realized that the labels are for parents benefits and have no legal bearing on the vendor, so I happily retract that part and continue to lay the blame right where it belongs, on the young adult that commited the crime.
And I'm not asking how he got the gun because I read the article. He got it from the cop.
The parents for not clearly defining right and wrong and structuring the environment around the "right" things.
Where does the article state that they did not clearly define wrong and right? What if they did?
The Wal-Mart is to blame for not checking his ID when he was 17 and young and impressionable Video game ratings are voluntarily done by the industry for parents to read and are not required to be checked by by the vendor. Also, 17 year olds are practically adults and not nearly as impessionable as you think. Studies have shown that children learn more in their first five years than in the rest of their life. Maybe that's relative to the zero they know when they are born. I know statistics are useless, but still...by the time a young adult is 17, they are pretty well established on the path they will take. The game itself is to blame for being vividly real. That's never caused me to kill anyone. I play GTA all the time. I usually try to see how few innocent people I accidentally run over or shoot while still trying to complete all the missions. Other people I know just like to shoot all the civilians and cops. I think that rather than the game influencing what you do in life, it is probably more likely that what you do in life influences how you play the game. WHY would somebody kill three cops? In GTA you can do it "just because" and there's 0 reprecussions
Yes, but just like in real life, you don't HAVE to kill the cops. Just because the game allows you to do something doesn't mean you should, just like in real life. There are things that you are allowed to do, but that doesn't mean that you should. It's common sense. Also, if you kill cops in GTA, of course there are no real life consequences, but there are in game consequences, such as the cops will start chasing you and most likely try to kill you.
>even if there was no fault, we still must look for one, if only to prevent it from happening again.
In the case of GTA, if we remove the "fault", incidents like this will still happen in the future, but we will just blame it on something else.
>did it come with appropriate "M" for Mature sticker title
Yes.
>Was the store that sold it check for age
They are not required to. The sticker is just an advisory for parents.
>or did the parent buy the game for their child.
No. The 17 year old young adult bought it himself.
>Seriously though, the only bit of justice I see here is that Walmart is being sued for selling a game rated M to someone under 17. I think that's perfectly reasonable and since I hate Walmart anyway, all the better.
Except that after reading a bit more, I find that it there are no laws on the books regarding sale of various rated video games. It is apparently up to the parent to read the label and make decision. Also, the young adult in question WAS 17, and most parents, including myself, would probably allow their 17 year old to go to Wal-mart unsupervised. Let's face it, by the time someone is 17, you've probably instilled about all the values you are going to be able to, and the person is going to pretty much determine their own destiny at this point. You'd probably do more harm than good by trying to micromanage them at this point in life.
>Look, until the kid is $LEGALLY_ADULT_AGE
You mean 18? He was 18 when he killed the cops, so no longer his parents responsibilty.
>I know all of that goes counter to the "but it's someone else's fault!" mentality that seems to have pervaded much of Western society,
>...
>parents just have to deal with the fact that they chose to reproduce, and that it's their offspring, so they have to be responsible for what their kids do
But isn't blaming the parents also the "it's someone else's fault!" problem? He was 18 years old, for crying out loud. Let's put the blame where it belongs, on the young adult who did the crime.
>It's only when children are allowed to watch this before their cognitive abilities have developed far enough to differentiate right from wrong where this causes a problem
You've just been lucky. Odds are that one of your three children will not turn off the violent programs on TV no matter HOW you've trained them.
Some people (yes, even kids) are just violent anyway. Otherwise, where did violence come from?
>GTA and its sequels have sold 32 million copies worldwide, and only one kid has acted out violently because of what he saw in them
I agree with your post wholeheartedly and would like to expand the point that even that one young adult has not necessarily acted out because of what he saw in GTA. That is just what some people are claiming in a desperate attempt to punish someone, anyone, and to get money to try to salve their emotion wounds.
It's amazing how gullible some people are. Maybe they forget that when they were young, they did things their parents wouldn't have approved of. Maybe the 60's and 70's sitcoms have replaced the reality of growing up with the perfect family where kids always obey their parents. Maybe it's just that most people who make comments about bad parenting either don't have kids, or have never been burdened with a troublesome child. Yes, children have wills of their own, and ultimately, no how many timeouts, beatings, yelling, or whatever your chosen method of dealing with problems, the kid will make a decision for himself whether he will listen to the parent or not. I have three pretty good kids and one that is almost unmanageable. I parent them all the same. But kids, like adults, are different from each other. When we grew up, I was mostly pretty good, and my sister used to sneak out of her window at night. We had the same parents. My mom was a single mother, but rather than use that as an excuse, I chose to be pretty good, and my sister didn't.
So let's not try to believe in this BS ideal world where good parenting always equals a good kid, and realize that everyone makes their own decisions, and in the case of a 17 year old, the parent has very little control over whether or not the kid goes out and buys a video game. Of course, it doesn't matter anyway, because a video game is not going to make you kill someone.
>First off, your language is inaccurate. A video game can't "make" you do anything.
I agree.
>do I believe the video game influenced him to kill people? Yes
I think it might possibly have had SOME influence.
>Do I believe he would have not killed people if he didn't play the video game? Probably
This I disagree with. I think it very unlikely that not playing the video game would have stopped him from killing people. He would have just found some other influence to influence him in the direction that he was predisposed to going.
>But now consider the kid who grows up in a ghetto, in an environment glamorized by violence and drug use. And then, he plays a highly realistic game that stars a lead character just like him, just like in his hood. You can pretty much damn well believe that kid is going to be much more susceptible to violence
Of course. But was it because of the video game or because he was exposed to violence in real life on the streets for 18 years?
>(b) The culture we live in that decides it's the videogame's fault and not the parents'
I have a problem with the culture we live in that decides it's the parent's fault and not the 18 year old young adult.
>its still the parents' fault for exposing their child to it
You mean for not confiscating it after he went to Wal-mart and Gamestop and bought it (according to the article). Assuming that they even knew he had it, of course. When I was that age, I had some skin mages that my parents never knew about.
Oh, by the way, he was 17 when he bought it, for those who can't be bothered with reading the article. So technically, Wal-mart and Gamestop can be held liable for selling a rated M game to someone who was still several months short of being able to handle the content of the game in a mature and responsible matter. And probably they should be held liable for that to the full extent of the law. Of course, they can't be held liable for what the guy did, because regardless of what he was exposed to, it was his own decision to kill the cops.
>So, why is there no official game in which you'd manage a concentration camp
Because it would sell poorly and cause a lot of public outcry which could damage sales of a companies other products. As far I have read, it is NOT illegal.
Interestingly, Wal-mart, which sells GTA would probably NOT sell a game about a concentration camp. I'm just guessing here, but for a superstore, they do occassionally regulate what they will sell.
As with everything else in the legal world, you have to look at every case individually. Would you punish parents who won "parent of the year" three years running, just because their kid decided against all hist training and upbringing, to commit a crime?
Believe it or not, adolescents make wrong decisions even when they know what is right and have been told and shown what is right. Unless you can prove that a parent is negligent, there should be no punishment of the parent. ESPECIALLY above about age 10. That is when kids will ON PURPOSE do the opposite of what parents teach them.
It is my opinion that in many if not most circumstances, blaming the parent for an older adolescents behavior is just as faulty as blaming video games or whatever else. I think society is encouraging people through these lawsuits to believe that oneself is NEVER to blame for ones actions, because of your age, your upbringing, the neighborhood you grew up in, the fact that you were drunk at the time, or high, or "temporarily insane". BULLSH*T! BULLSH*T! BULLSH*T! You did it. You chose to do it. No one made you do it. You are responsible. You are to blame. Now shut the f*ck up and take your punishment.
>he truly believes in his cause and sited several studies to back up his claims
The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
I heard it on NPR months ago. And Here is a link to an article in the Daily Californian from August 12, 2004 (which I will admit says the search may be in vain).
>Phone numbers (In the US, at least) are limited to
10 digits because research shows the average person can only memorize 10 digits
I think you mean 7 digits. Since area codes generally are in common with lots of your other contacts, you are able to remember the area code in a different way than you remember the phone number.
I never understood why universities needed to take attendance. If you can manage to ace the class without attending, then bully for you, and if not...hey, it's your money. I'm sure it will be put to good use when you have to pay it again next semester.
Hey, as long as we're shifting the blame from teachers to parents, why don't we go ahead and shift it to where it belongs, the students. EVERYBODY'S parent suck. Some worse than others. That is no excuse to go blaming your parents or anybody else for your own actions. Everybody, deep down, knows what is right. Even my three year olds do, because when they are doing bad things, they stop as soon as I come in the room.
If people don't do what is right, then they are to blame, not their parents, not their teachers, not society. If we are to get anywhere as a species, everyone has to be held accountable and responsible for themselves.
Yes, I realize this could be devastating to the law profession, which feeds mainly upon people holding other people responsible for their own foolish actions or lack of common sense.
>For $100 - $200, anyone can buy a gps unit
Yes, but do marine GPSs need to be certified? The same thing is happening in aviation. ie, the gov't is looking at shutting down some of the current navigational systems (VORs, MDBs etc) as GPS becomes more popular. However, the big push against this is that this means that the hundreds of thousands of private pilots have navigational equipment that uses older technology, and regulations require that a GPS be certified by the FAA before you can use it as a primary navigational aid. Handheld units start around $500, but most are not certified for navigation. Panel mounted GPS units can cost from $3000 to $11,000 or more.
>If you're on the phone, you CAN'T pay close attention without letting the conversation go to hell.
So let the copnversation go to hell. The road is more important. You can turn off the phone, but you can't turn off drunk.
I notice this when using the cell phone as well. I have no recollection of the last few miles. But I have also had this happen to me on the way to work in the morning when I have not had enough sleep. Luckily, we can handle typical traffic scenarios while sleepy or on the phone, and our body has developed a chemical inkection called adrenaline which quickly kicks in when crazy stuff starts happening. Unfortunately, in traffic situations, the adrenaline jump may not be quick enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Spammers harvest email addresses... either live with it or deal with it (don't put your email address on the web).
By that logic, if you don't like being raped, you shouldn't wear miniskirts.
I should be able to post my e-mail address on the web and should reasonably expect to only get e-mails from people who have a comment on my website, knew me in high school, would like to offer me a job, or some other directly related subject. I should not have to expect to get overwhelmed by spam from a non-human source.
I did RTFA and since it is only February of 2005, he was probably 17 when he bought the game and 18 when he shot cops. Unless his birthday happens to be prior to today.
Yes, he is still his parents responsibility to care for, but I can't see blaming his parents for him shooting someone unless it can be proven that they did a poor job of rasing him. Most likely he was raised adequately just like the rest of us and made a wrong decision, or just can't tell right from wrong, or has a poor judgement of the value of human life. Oh yes, and on an unrelated note, he also played a video game once in which you could kill cops if you really wanted to, but it was not a requirement for enjoyment of the game.
I later did some research and realized that the labels are for parents benefits and have no legal bearing on the vendor, so I happily retract that part and continue to lay the blame right where it belongs, on the young adult that commited the crime.
And I'm not asking how he got the gun because I read the article. He got it from the cop.
The parents for not clearly defining right and wrong and structuring the environment around the "right" things.
Where does the article state that they did not clearly define wrong and right? What if they did?
The Wal-Mart is to blame for not checking his ID when he was 17 and young and impressionable
Video game ratings are voluntarily done by the industry for parents to read and are not required to be checked by by the vendor. Also, 17 year olds are practically adults and not nearly as impessionable as you think. Studies have shown that children learn more in their first five years than in the rest of their life. Maybe that's relative to the zero they know when they are born. I know statistics are useless, but still...by the time a young adult is 17, they are pretty well established on the path they will take.
The game itself is to blame for being vividly real.
That's never caused me to kill anyone. I play GTA all the time. I usually try to see how few innocent people I accidentally run over or shoot while still trying to complete all the missions. Other people I know just like to shoot all the civilians and cops. I think that rather than the game influencing what you do in life, it is probably more likely that what you do in life influences how you play the game.
WHY would somebody kill three cops? In GTA you can do it "just because" and there's 0 reprecussions
Yes, but just like in real life, you don't HAVE to kill the cops. Just because the game allows you to do something doesn't mean you should, just like in real life. There are things that you are allowed to do, but that doesn't mean that you should. It's common sense. Also, if you kill cops in GTA, of course there are no real life consequences, but there are in game consequences, such as the cops will start chasing you and most likely try to kill you.
>even if there was no fault, we still must look for one, if only to prevent it from happening again.
In the case of GTA, if we remove the "fault", incidents like this will still happen in the future, but we will just blame it on something else.
>did it come with appropriate "M" for Mature sticker title
Yes. >Was the store that sold it check for age
They are not required to. The sticker is just an advisory for parents.
>or did the parent buy the game for their child.
No. The 17 year old young adult bought it himself.
>Seriously though, the only bit of justice I see here is that Walmart is being sued for selling a game rated M to someone under 17. I think that's perfectly reasonable and since I hate Walmart anyway, all the better.
Except that after reading a bit more, I find that it there are no laws on the books regarding sale of various rated video games. It is apparently up to the parent to read the label and make decision. Also, the young adult in question WAS 17, and most parents, including myself, would probably allow their 17 year old to go to Wal-mart unsupervised. Let's face it, by the time someone is 17, you've probably instilled about all the values you are going to be able to, and the person is going to pretty much determine their own destiny at this point. You'd probably do more harm than good by trying to micromanage them at this point in life.
>Look, until the kid is $LEGALLY_ADULT_AGE
You mean 18? He was 18 when he killed the cops, so no longer his parents responsibilty.
>I know all of that goes counter to the "but it's someone else's fault!" mentality that seems to have pervaded much of Western society,
>...
>parents just have to deal with the fact that they chose to reproduce, and that it's their offspring, so they have to be responsible for what their kids do
But isn't blaming the parents also the "it's someone else's fault!" problem? He was 18 years old, for crying out loud. Let's put the blame where it belongs, on the young adult who did the crime.
>It's only when children are allowed to watch this before their cognitive abilities have developed far enough to differentiate right from wrong where this causes a problem
You've just been lucky. Odds are that one of your three children will not turn off the violent programs on TV no matter HOW you've trained them. Some people (yes, even kids) are just violent anyway. Otherwise, where did violence come from?
>GTA and its sequels have sold 32 million copies worldwide, and only one kid has acted out violently because of what he saw in them
I agree with your post wholeheartedly and would like to expand the point that even that one young adult has not necessarily acted out because of what he saw in GTA. That is just what some people are claiming in a desperate attempt to punish someone, anyone, and to get money to try to salve their emotion wounds.
It's amazing how gullible some people are. Maybe they forget that when they were young, they did things their parents wouldn't have approved of. Maybe the 60's and 70's sitcoms have replaced the reality of growing up with the perfect family where kids always obey their parents. Maybe it's just that most people who make comments about bad parenting either don't have kids, or have never been burdened with a troublesome child. Yes, children have wills of their own, and ultimately, no how many timeouts, beatings, yelling, or whatever your chosen method of dealing with problems, the kid will make a decision for himself whether he will listen to the parent or not. I have three pretty good kids and one that is almost unmanageable. I parent them all the same. But kids, like adults, are different from each other. When we grew up, I was mostly pretty good, and my sister used to sneak out of her window at night. We had the same parents. My mom was a single mother, but rather than use that as an excuse, I chose to be pretty good, and my sister didn't.
So let's not try to believe in this BS ideal world where good parenting always equals a good kid, and realize that everyone makes their own decisions, and in the case of a 17 year old, the parent has very little control over whether or not the kid goes out and buys a video game. Of course, it doesn't matter anyway, because a video game is not going to make you kill someone.
>First off, your language is inaccurate. A video game can't "make" you do anything.
I agree.
>do I believe the video game influenced him to kill people? Yes
I think it might possibly have had SOME influence.
>Do I believe he would have not killed people if he didn't play the video game? Probably
This I disagree with. I think it very unlikely that not playing the video game would have stopped him from killing people. He would have just found some other influence to influence him in the direction that he was predisposed to going.
>But now consider the kid who grows up in a ghetto, in an environment glamorized by violence and drug use. And then, he plays a highly realistic game that stars a lead character just like him, just like in his hood. You can pretty much damn well believe that kid is going to be much more susceptible to violence
Of course. But was it because of the video game or because he was exposed to violence in real life on the streets for 18 years?
>(b) The culture we live in that decides it's the videogame's fault and not the parents'
I have a problem with the culture we live in that decides it's the parent's fault and not the 18 year old young adult.
>skin mages The one time I don't preview. Sheesh! Skin MAGS. As in magazines.
>its still the parents' fault for exposing their child to it
You mean for not confiscating it after he went to Wal-mart and Gamestop and bought it (according to the article). Assuming that they even knew he had it, of course. When I was that age, I had some skin mages that my parents never knew about.
Oh, by the way, he was 17 when he bought it, for those who can't be bothered with reading the article. So technically, Wal-mart and Gamestop can be held liable for selling a rated M game to someone who was still several months short of being able to handle the content of the game in a mature and responsible matter. And probably they should be held liable for that to the full extent of the law. Of course, they can't be held liable for what the guy did, because regardless of what he was exposed to, it was his own decision to kill the cops.
>So, why is there no official game in which you'd manage a concentration camp
Because it would sell poorly and cause a lot of public outcry which could damage sales of a companies other products. As far I have read, it is NOT illegal.
Interestingly, Wal-mart, which sells GTA would probably NOT sell a game about a concentration camp. I'm just guessing here, but for a superstore, they do occassionally regulate what they will sell.
As with everything else in the legal world, you have to look at every case individually. Would you punish parents who won "parent of the year" three years running, just because their kid decided against all hist training and upbringing, to commit a crime?
Believe it or not, adolescents make wrong decisions even when they know what is right and have been told and shown what is right. Unless you can prove that a parent is negligent, there should be no punishment of the parent. ESPECIALLY above about age 10. That is when kids will ON PURPOSE do the opposite of what parents teach them.
It is my opinion that in many if not most circumstances, blaming the parent for an older adolescents behavior is just as faulty as blaming video games or whatever else. I think society is encouraging people through these lawsuits to believe that oneself is NEVER to blame for ones actions, because of your age, your upbringing, the neighborhood you grew up in, the fact that you were drunk at the time, or high, or "temporarily insane". BULLSH*T! BULLSH*T! BULLSH*T! You did it. You chose to do it. No one made you do it. You are responsible. You are to blame. Now shut the f*ck up and take your punishment.
>he truly believes in his cause and sited several studies to back up his claims
The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
I heard it on NPR months ago. And Here is a link to an article in the Daily Californian from August 12, 2004 (which I will admit says the search may be in vain).
>Phone numbers (In the US, at least) are limited to 10 digits because research shows the average person can only memorize 10 digits
I think you mean 7 digits. Since area codes generally are in common with lots of your other contacts, you are able to remember the area code in a different way than you remember the phone number.
I never understood why universities needed to take attendance. If you can manage to ace the class without attending, then bully for you, and if not...hey, it's your money. I'm sure it will be put to good use when you have to pay it again next semester.
Hey, as long as we're shifting the blame from teachers to parents, why don't we go ahead and shift it to where it belongs, the students. EVERYBODY'S parent suck. Some worse than others. That is no excuse to go blaming your parents or anybody else for your own actions. Everybody, deep down, knows what is right. Even my three year olds do, because when they are doing bad things, they stop as soon as I come in the room.
If people don't do what is right, then they are to blame, not their parents, not their teachers, not society. If we are to get anywhere as a species, everyone has to be held accountable and responsible for themselves.
Yes, I realize this could be devastating to the law profession, which feeds mainly upon people holding other people responsible for their own foolish actions or lack of common sense.
>For $100 - $200, anyone can buy a gps unit
Yes, but do marine GPSs need to be certified? The same thing is happening in aviation. ie, the gov't is looking at shutting down some of the current navigational systems (VORs, MDBs etc) as GPS becomes more popular. However, the big push against this is that this means that the hundreds of thousands of private pilots have navigational equipment that uses older technology, and regulations require that a GPS be certified by the FAA before you can use it as a primary navigational aid. Handheld units start around $500, but most are not certified for navigation. Panel mounted GPS units can cost from $3000 to $11,000 or more.
>If you're on the phone, you CAN'T pay close attention without letting the conversation go to hell.
So let the copnversation go to hell. The road is more important. You can turn off the phone, but you can't turn off drunk.
I notice this when using the cell phone as well. I have no recollection of the last few miles. But I have also had this happen to me on the way to work in the morning when I have not had enough sleep. Luckily, we can handle typical traffic scenarios while sleepy or on the phone, and our body has developed a chemical inkection called adrenaline which quickly kicks in when crazy stuff starts happening. Unfortunately, in traffic situations, the adrenaline jump may not be quick enough.