Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

0 helpful
325 replies

by hockeyist

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Certain types of games that incite violence and immorality are rife and readily available.
Do programmers or their project managers (or anyone in the publishing chain) need to take responsibility for the ethical/moral content and consequenses of the end product? Do programmers and their project managers need to be regulated and accept consequences of their products (much like manufacturers of other consumer items such as cars) or would their right of freedom of speech and my right to be offended/injured be infringed?

325 replies

by jessie

I think you should be carded in order to purchase some of these things. Blockbuster won't let my kid rent an R rated movie without my permission, but they can rent or purchase a "mature audiences" game without it. IMO, that's wrong. I think parents should be responsible for what their kids are watching/doing, but I need a little help from my community which will not allow my kids to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or porn, but video games have yet to enter that arena, and I think they should.

by montgomery gator

If the issue is important enough, then you can contact your representative in your state legislature to see if he/she can get a law passed. Just recently, my state of residence (Alabama) passed a law prohibiting the sale or renting of mature rated games to minors. I do not have a "dog in that fight", as I have no children, but personally, I think it should be the responsibility of the parents to monitor such stuff. My brother in Florida lets his 13 year old son play games like "Grand Theft Auto", and he is a well adjusted boy, does well in school, and is not violent in any way in the real world, and recognizes the difference between fantasy and reality. However, I understand that some parents do not want their kids to play such games, and it is inappropriate for many kids who cannot handle them, so let the parents decide for their kids. I would suggest that video stores should be allowed to sell/rent such games to kids if their parents/guardians gave permission ahead of time, but not if no permission was given.

by synthetic

Hmmmmm, before we condemn video games, and look to censor manufactures, we do need to look at the real violence in our world, and the fake stuff on our T.V.s.
The national TV violence study, the largest of it's kind done to date, analyzed programs for three years from 94' to 97'.
Some of the findings,
Nearly 2 of every three programs contains some violence, averaging 6 violent acts an hour.

Fewer the 5% featured an anti-violence theme or showed reality based consequences to the violent actions.

Violence is more prevalent in kids programming (69%) than in any other type (57%). In a typical hour of kids programming, children's shows featured 14 violent incidents, compared to the 6 average for other programming.

The average child who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day may see nearly 10,000 violent incidents each year. researchers estimate that at least 500 incidents will pose a high risk for learned violent behavior and desensitization to violence.

This is not just cartoon violence, in an episode of the Power Rangers, researchers observed children who had watched the program committed seven times as many aggressive acts, such as hitting, kicking, and shoving peers. Children who had watched Mr. Rogers were more likely to be cooperative and share.

before we look at games, look at the TV. It is a nearly useless object, and has a corruption of spirit ans soul far more tragic, and available than video games. We should not be censoring the manufacture, we should be boycotting the product if we feel strongly. That is a parents responsibility. It is also a parents responsibility to teach their children how to deal with others, how to interact without violence. It is our responsibility to explain how wrong violence as a solution is. As the parent of a 13 year old, I am not speaking theoretically. Most importantly, turn off the TV, takes the kids out, and teach them the confidence of learning, sports, nature, the library. Teach them respect, honor, and how to verbally spar, how to be positive parts of society. Teach them to love, and be loved. If you really care about your kids, turn off the TV.

by dwiebles

Childrens' access to the media is the only real problem. I think retail outlets and rental stores should be checking to make sure that the wrong content is not getting into the hands of children. That alone won't stop it, cause let's face it, young kids can get smokes and booze, a video game won't be much of a challenge to those who are determined. Parents have to be active in the effort to keep the questionable content from children.

I would not go so far as to say these item "incite" violence and immorality, but rather portray and glorify it. Everything comes down to choice. Children have to be aware of their actions, and the consequences of them, taking away a violent video game isn't going to make them wholsome angels. Unfortunetly, prime time TV, music, movies and the internet are filled with content equally questionable to video games. Video games are the new scape goat. First it was music, then TV, then marilyn manson, now video games. All kids want attention, all find different and sometimes poor ways of getting it.

by jwarmath

Remember the saying Garbage In Garbage Out? Children's brains and minds are just developing and if they have a steady diet of garbage then, yes, these types of games can "incite" violence and immorality. Yes, it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children. Unfortunately, our society has askewed the general populace morals. Sometimes the village needs to be more proactive in teaching the morals.

by montgomery gator

..results in the village idiot. It is the responsibility of the parents, not society as a whole, to raise kids. As you said, "our society has askewed the general populace morals", so a child "raised by the village" would therefore have poor morals. I grew up watching violent shows, even as a small child, and I am not violent in any way. I played games like "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians", where we pretended to shoot and kill each other (and had a great time pretending to be shot and falling down dead), but me and my friends did not grow up to be psycopathic murderers.

by absolutely

Games do not "incite" violence. They portray violence. People are responsible for the violence they commit. Programmers are not responsible for the violence other people commit, regardless of any superficial similarity to what the programmer portrays.

William Shakespeare is not responsible for your suicide if you drink poison, even if you are motivated by lovesickness and "inspired" by 'Romeo & Juliet'.

You have no "right to be offended/injured" by your lack of self-control or that of your children, just because a person with weak morals, lack of self-interest and self-esteem, or simply a weak mind is more strongly influenced by a video game than by morality. The person acting is always responsible for his/her actions, including those that result from failure to exercise the volition that is each person's individual responsibility.

by hockeyist

self. Here's a hint for words that are "big" (in your opinion)...use a dictionary and if that doesn't help use a thesaurus. You give the impression of being offended by others use of English...I'll try to be monosyllabic, anyway, what you fail to understand is that we all have a moral obligation to the weaker in our society, otherwise you risk being a social outcast. Your arguement seems to support the right of people to be self-centred and not be socially responsible.
hmmmm...lets see what happens if we allow a game such as Manhunt, a virtual-reality killing game, inside an asylum. Manhunt is only one of many Ultra-Violent games out there, I only chose it because of the following link. Read the following http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=871302004
regarding violence and games. The fact that stands out is the statement regarding the development of the frontal lobes of the human brain.

What would happen of someone made a movie that was first-person view, no storyline, along the lines of a murder simulator such as Manhunt and released it for general consumption?

So, ignore what goes on around you and you will continue to feel safe, until you become a victim of violence (or the "victim" of a lawsuit) "incited" by a game such as Manhunt.

by absolutely

And I recognize them as subterfuge for a very small idea: escape from personal accountability. Your agenda is to make programmers responsible for the actions of any imbecile who claims to have been "influenced" by a video game. I do not need to know what personal self-betrayal has motivated you to such depravity, but I do know that you alone are responsible for your regret, not me.

Your thuggish claim that "we all have a moral obligation to the weaker in our society, otherwise you risk being a social outcast" is exactly the small concept I had in mind. I do not risk being a social outcast, I reject in advance any member of society, even if that means all the rest of mankind, who claims that he has a right to expect me to take care of him, his offspring, or his messes. I make no such claim upon any other person, nor accept any such claim from any other. I do support the right of people to take care of themselves and only themselves, to deal with others only when it suits them and as in whatever type of mutually agreed relationship they decide to form. And if you care to rephrase it as "the right of people to be self-centred and not be socially responsible", I support that right as well. I am not responsible for society, it is responsible for itself, one person at a time, each individually accountable to those with whom they deal, and to their own beliefs.

Your outrageous scenario involving a killing game inside an asylum is absolutely irrelevant outside of an asylum. You may have better luck if you try to peddle your philosophy to lunatics.

by eastmann

i read the article in the scotsman about manhunt just to check if it was the article i remembered, the murder of the child in Leicester was motivated by robbery not a video game, oh and it was the victim that was playing manhunt not the guy who attacked him. I would check some of the other newspapers archives about the story instead of just throwing up the first sensationalist anti video game story that you find

by erich1010

"What would happen of someone made a movie that was first-person view, no storyline, along the lines of a murder simulator such as Manhunt and released it for general consumption?"

Oh, you mean a movie like "The Passion of the Christ"? I agree that it was a terrible movie, but I doubt anybody was incited to violence.

by wjstroup

The game was rated "18" and the kid was age 17. You may argue that there is no difference in age when it comes to something of this nature, but the weight of the suit will lean toward the responsibility of the parents to know what their child was doing.

I'm reminded of my high-school days, when Dungeons & Dragons (a phantasy role-playing game) was touted by ultra-conservatives and fascists as the a source of demonic oppresion and the leading cause of suicide among teens. This was never backed up by any facts, but an isolated case of suicide in Utah became a bandwagon that raged high-schools across the country - sponsored by the now defunct YFC Campus Life.

A mentality that states we have to be "morally responsible for everyone" is the same as saying "you aren't capable of deciding what is moral" which is another way of saying "let me decide for you." The problem here is not a video game that shows graphic violence (or a movie, television show, comic book, play, short story, movie, etc.) - the problem here is few people (parents especially) have bothered to teach their children personal responsibility, another way to say "accountability".

And accountability for ones own actions will never be a reality if blame for actions is regularly shifted to our entertainment, as has been suggested here.

Bottom line (for your example) is that the kid murdered his friend. He is a murderer, and must take accountability for his actions, even if his parents think it's the games fault. A court may decide that the game (in this instance) did indeed "incite" the teen to the action. Psychology will show that he was damaged goods before he ever touched his joystick.

by propellerheadus

...America stand up and say "I did it".

We are all responsible for our own actions.

It's not someone else's fault.

by montgomery gator

I agree completely with Absolutely on this one, as a strong believer in the doctrine of Free Will. We make our choices to act or not to act. Blaming the games is like blaming tobacco companies for people freely choosing to poison their lungs, or blaming whiskey manufacturers for people freely choosing to drink and drive. It is like the old but true saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I am tired of people trying to blame their own selfish lack of control on other people or on various consumer products. I am tired of a legal system that allows people to sue manufacturers and merchants for their own bad decisions. For example, I am about 80 pounds overweight, but I do not blame my local grocery store for having good, inexpensive food available in large quantities. It was my own choice over time to overeat, and it is my own choice to curb my eating in order to bring my weight down.

When it comes to video games, let the parents make their decisions for their children, but the government need not intervene. Just like the example in my other post in this subject where my brother lets his 13 year old son play "Grand Theft Auto", and the boy is still a well adjusted honor student with no tendencies to violence (other than against computer-generated characters.). In fact, I believe that violent computer games reduce real violence, since people can work out violent tendencies in a harmless virtual world, and would then be less likely to have urges to commit real violence.

by hockeyist

...have strong wills and are not easily influenced by games and there are those with weak wills. Just as there are those with strong constitutions and those with weak ones. Do we simply ignore the weaker ones and let them wreak havok on themselves? Or do we self-regulate before the government steps in.
There are a lot of games out there which are well written and challenging. There are also a few which unfortunately stand out as ultra senseless/violent.

by absolutely

It must be very convenient to ignore dissenting opinions as "tantrums" regardless of the clarity of their presentation.

You're of course entitled to the opinion that my utterances are "crap", but until you provide better logical support for your opinion than I do for mine, you are the inarticulate loser of the debate, and your utterances, meaningless profanity.

by hockeyist

read what I actually stated and not go off half-cocked. I am asking "Do" programmers and... I didn't "blame" programmers and anyone involved, just wanting opinions from others. I also didn't want to enter into or attract personal attacks (with your "big words/small ideas" play) from social aphids such as yourself, just your intelligent opinion.

by hockeyist

... and taking the p155 out of people is normal by contemporary Australian standards. Half of the language in every debate involving Australians is that way. Sorry if I offended you.

by absolutely

is that in addition to the question which you now admit, you claimed a "right to be offended/injured"--which you and I do not have--and you mentioned in a context suggesting that it is equal in stature to the right to freedom of speech--which you and I do have. That does not mean you cannot be offended, but you cannot "consider" yourself injured in the legal sense, with the right to redress that accompanies an injury, by an action that is disagreeable to you unless you are really injured by that action. In the scenarios you describe, the person holding the real weapon is the one against whom you would have a complaint, not the programmer.

If I am a social aphid, I would expect you will win this debate easily, without further need to resort to name-calling or vulgarity.

by hockeyist

...could be where those who enjoy the M part of S&M or boxing, karate, hockey, etc. If you take away the essence of a game, whether that be a virtual game or a physical game, does that take away my right to play the game as I want to play it? Or do I need regulating to protect myself. That is what I am asking.

I have a right to sue not only my attacker but the party who causes them to cause me injury, e.g. a cigarette. There have been a lot of cases where third party smoke has been the basis of a successful lawsuit. Take the tobacco industry in recent times. A smoker has a right to injure themselves but not others. Others have a right to sue the tobacco company for allowing smokers smoke to "injure" them. The smoker also has a right to sue the tobacco company for allowing themselves to be injured.

by absolutely

Now you ask a few different questions than you did above, and the one that looks familiar is in different form.

So I'll address what appears to be your general question: "do I need regulating to protect myself". Answer: the Constitution unequivocally grants you the right, and the accompanying responsibilities, of regulating yourself.

Now, regarding the cut/edit/paste job below, I have a question: is this an assertion of your personal belief, or only a statement of what you have observed of the state of legal precedent? I don't want to bother arguing against an opinion if you aren't even espousing one.

"I have a right to sue not only my attacker but the party who causes them to cause me injury, e.g. a cigarette...The smoker also has a right to sue the tobacco company for allowing themselves to be injured."

by hockeyist

...and an observation of what has happened with regards to tobacco. It's an example which I have used for clarity. It is my opinion that this precedent may very well apply to other consumer products such as ultra-violent games.

by absolutely

I just figured out what that illustration of yours is, or at least I think I did. The little object destroying the man's head is a hockey puck isn't it? Is it safe to assume then that you personally enjoy vicarious violence?

by hockeyist

...I actually played for 14 years on defense and loved every minute of it, even when I was knocked out, broke my nose several times, and chipped some teeth. I'm playing in the beer league and still love it. Too bad it's not a popular here. Should pick up in popularity as one of our teams have signed up an NHL player and current Pittsburgh Penguins Assistant Captain Steve McKenna. He's been attracting huge crowds here.

by dmambo

Back in the day, my parents freaked that I was watching a band smash their guitars and blow up their drum sets. It was OUTRAGOUS!!!!

Now my kids go to friends' houses and kill each other on the screen, or watch music videos with 15-year old sexpots. It is over the top the way this stuff is portrayed. Realistically, parental control won't work because there are just too many parents that don't have the time, energy, or concern to police their own kids.

Is government intervention the answer? I don't think so. The government should stick building roads. (Plus for a government which has invaded a country without provocation to crack down on violence would be a tad hypocritical.) It's a tough question. All I can say is that each one of us needs to be vigilant about what goes on under our own roof. The question remains...How do we protect ourselves, i.e. our society, from the next Columbine??

by absolutely

I agree that government intervention is not the answer to these problems.

I also submit that aberrations such as the Columbine massacre are nothing more than aberrations, and therefore undeserving of attention--personal, government, academic, whatever--that would save more lives if applied to less unusual occurrences, or to types of problems that cost more lives. Cold logic and statistics don't make headlines for some reason, but they do accurately describe the factors that make the difference between life and death. More people die every day from mundane, old-fashioned violent crime. It it is really your goal to protect ourselves, ie our society, the place to start is with the greatest danger.

by dmambo

From InfoPlease.com: (An edited copy and paste)

A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings
Feb. 2, 1996
Moses Lake, Wash. Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.
March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.
Feb. 19, 1997
Bethel, Alaska Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.
March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.
Oct. 1, 1997
Pearl, Miss. Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.
Dec. 1, 1997
West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.
Dec. 15, 1997
Stamps, Ark. Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.
March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, Ark. Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.
April 24, 1998
Edinboro, Pa. One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.
May 19, 1998
Fayetteville, Tenn. One student killed in the parking lot at Lincoln County High School three days before he was to graduate. The victim was dating the ex-girlfriend of his killer, 18-year-old honor student Jacob Davis.
May 21, 1998
Springfield, Ore. Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.
June 15, 1998
Richmond, Va. One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway.
April 20, 1999
Littleton, Colo. 14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.
April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.
May 20, 1999
Conyers, Ga. Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.
Nov. 19, 1999
Deming, N.M. Victor Cordova Jr., 12, shot and killed Araceli Tena, 13, in the lobby of Deming Middle School.
Dec. 6, 1999
Fort Gibson, Okla. Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.
Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.
Feb. 29, 2000
Mount Morris Township, Mich. Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun.
March 2000
Savannah, Ga. Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.
May 26, 2000
Lake Worth, Fla. One teacher, Barry Grunow, shot and killed at Lake Worth Middle School by Nate Brazill, 13, with .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol on the last day of classes.
Sept. 26, 2000
New Orleans, La. Two students wounded with the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School.
Jan. 17, 2001
Baltimore, Md. One student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School.
March 5, 2001
Santee, Calif. Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.
March 7, 2001
Williamsport, Pa. Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, wounded student Kimberly Marchese in the cafeteria of Bishop Neumann High School; she was depressed and frequently teased.
March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, Calif. One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.
March 30, 2001
Gary, Ind. One student killed by Donald R. Burt, Jr., a 17-year-old student who had been expelled from Lew Wallace High School.
Nov. 12, 2001
Caro, Mich. Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.
Jan. 15, 2002
New York, N.Y. A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.
April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.
April 24, 2003
Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.
Sept. 24, 2003
Cold Spring, Minn. Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.
March 21, 2005
Red Lake, Minn. Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.

by dr dij

I'm told only one gun was legal; so if we enforced illegal gun sales better might have helped prevent columbine. And isn't there a law saying parents must lock up their guns? (kid might have got it anyway). If parent didn't, hold them responsible for that in addition to kid's actions.

by chaz chance#

First, the government:

What government would want a society where everyone was opposed to violence? Where would they get the soldiers for next years war? Besides, if we are all scared of each other, we will vote for any restiction on our freedom they suggest. I wouldn't expect them to step in without a lot of votes hanging on it.

Second, children who misbehave:

Dr Phil McGraw (I hope I got his name right) recently quoted a study that showed that the amount of trouble that children get into is inversly proportional to the amount of time they spend in conversation with their parents. That is to say, the more you talk to your children, the better behaved they will be when they are out of your sight.

Watching the TV together is NOT quality time, except as a cue to elicit childens opinions and start discussions.

Thirdly, those "kill each other" computer games:

I love them! I play them with my friends and their kids. We have a great time.

Now, I will go out of my way to get a spider out of the bath and into the garden without injuring it. Hurt somebody in the real world? I couldn't do it unless they were a real threat that could not be dealt with in any other way. And my friends and their kids are all of similar opinion to me. So where is the harm that these games are doing to us?

At the same time, I have played the occasional game where one's acts had reasonable consequences. I few more wouldn't do any harm, but I don't believe that this is more than a very small part of the solution.

Finally, reason's to be violent:

Millions of people listened to Beatles records. One person used one Beatles song as a "reason" to commit appauling acts. I submit to you; if a person want to commit an anti-social act, and they want something to "inspire" them to do it, they will find something that fits the bill. If you deny them games and videos and everything else you can think of, then they will get religion and claim God (or whomever) told them to do it. Take away their guns and they will use knives, iron bars, hammers, rocks or anything else that will get the job done.

The only way to make a well adjusted society is to make well adjusted kids. The rest will happen naturally.

by chaz chance#

First, the government:

What government would want a society where everyone was opposed to violence? Where would they get the soldiers for next years war? Besides, if we are all scared of each other, we will vote for any restiction on our freedom they suggest. I wouldn't expect them to step in without a lot of votes hanging on it.

Second, children who misbehave:

Dr Phil McGraw (I hope I got his name right) recently quoted a study that showed that the amount of trouble that children get into is inversly proportional to the amount of time they spend in conversation with their parents. That is to say, the more you talk to your children, the better behaved they will be when they are out of your sight.

Watching the TV together is NOT quality time, except as a cue to elicit childens opinions and start discussions.

Thirdly, those "kill each other" computer games:

I love them! I play them with my friends and their kids. We have a great time.

Now, I will go out of my way to get a spider out of the bath and into the garden without injuring it. Hurt somebody in the real world? I couldn't do it unless they were a real threat that could not be dealt with in any other way. And my friends and their kids are all of similar opinion to me. So where is the harm that these games are doing to us?

At the same time, I have played the occasional game where one's acts had reasonable consequences. I few more wouldn't do any harm, but I don't believe that this is more than a very small part of the solution.

Finally, reason's to be violent:

Millions of people listened to Beatles records. One person used one Beatles song as a "reason" to commit appauling acts. I submit to you; if a person want to commit an anti-social act, and they want something to "inspire" them to do it, they will find something that fits the bill. If you deny them games and videos and everything else you can think of, then they will get religion and claim God (or whomever) told them to do it. Take away their guns and they will use knives, iron bars, hammers, rocks or anything else that will get the job done.

The only way to make a well adjusted society is to make well adjusted kids. The rest will happen naturally.

by montgomery gator

Regarding the tobacco analogy, no one forced people to start smoking. They chose to do so. Therefore, the tobacco companies should not be held liable for damage done to smokers who choose to poison their lungs. No one forced people to be violent after playing violent computer games, or watching violent movies and TV shows.

Regarding people who supposedly have "weak wills", that is just an excuse, just being lazy, people who just want to say "woe is me" and blame others instead of taking responsibility for themselves.

by montgomery gator

They supposedly work on people with weak wills.

"This is not the discussion forum you are looking for."

(Well, it was worth a try) :-)

by montgomery gator

Canadians are trying to trick the world into playing hockey, to lower our collective intelligece!!! If their plan is successful, they will have all of us saying "eh" at the end of our sentences! The Horror!!!!

by jck

Don't get rid of hockey...it's better than that MLB crap everyone insists on paying guys so much money for...all the do is stand around to try and catch or hit a ball, or run from each other.

Hockey players hit harder and move more...

I gotta get season tickets if they ever start playing again...

God Bless the NHL...hopefully they'll come back.

by dmambo

I must take exception to your rant, Tom. Hockey is their national sport. And, while it might not be for everyone, especially the weak who are too weakly weak to bleed on ice, it is a tremendous sport to play and to watch. You deserve to spend 10 minutes on a small rink with Marty McSorley or Ti Domi for your disparaging comment.

Let's get the NHL back out there and LET'S GO HABS!!!!!!

Is this off-subject??

by synthetic

Your right, we need to save the people from themselves and the bad choices they make. Maybe we should outlaw violent games, and you can be the one to say what is and isn't violent.
How about this, we help to make the world better for all people, poverty breeds violence, hopelessness breeds violence. Sound s like your worried about you and you alone. Worry about your society, in a non bush (doesn't matter but makes headlines) sort of way, and see real change. There will alway be individuals in our society who have a twist of Cain, no matter what, they will exist, but if we take away the reasons for someone to be violent, then we have advanced. Prohibition has never worked, and reading your responses to absolutely, your definitely not the person to call the shots.

by hockeyist

...you think Bush doesn't impact us Aussies? HO HO HO HO HAHAHAHA LOL! LOL! LOL!, Oh boy, America doesn't get much news from the rest of the world but if it did you would realize that U.S. politics and media affects us all, and no I'm not worried about myself. All I know is I'm on the other side of the "river" here and everything seems a lot better here (at the moment). Aussie society gets more than their fair share of American culture via T.V. and more recently PC games. Our school kids know more about American history than our own and can probably name every U.S. state.

You are correct in stating that I am not the one to call the shots, I never volunteered that I would either, just provoking others to comment/debate the subject.

by hockeyist

Us Aussies and New Zealanders have been using Eh at the start or end of our sentences for years. Must be an English thing.
...and DMambo, Hockey is never off topic.

by jmgarvin

It is the responsibility of the parent to control the content that the child is exposed to.

While your child will be exposed to content you don't want them to be, it is YOUR responsibility as a parent to raise the child and to explain to them why the content is bad.

I really am tired of the blame game...RAISE YOUR DAMN KIDS!

by black panther

Exactly right -

There is an "off" button on the TV and another button to change the channel!

Because a game is produced does not mean you have to buy it and play it! ( although it should have some type of rating ie 15+ High Level Violence etc etc ) - just as cigarettes do for Cancer, which means there is no harm in trying to enforce the authorities to make sure TV and Games etc are subject to some type of rating system.

Then it's buyer beware!

The unfortunate part is that we all are and will be constantly "bombarded" in todays world by many sources ( especially the Media ) with Violence, Sex, Profanity more than the past as we did not have the electronic "mediums" back then.

Where there is good there is Evil - we all have to make our own choice in the end.

by jmgarvin

1) YES! Let the buyer beware!
2) There is an ESRB rating that should be enforced (it works like the movie ratings system). Why doesn't the media focus on the lack of enforcement of that?
3) I know that Grand Theft Auto was a big deal a few years ago, but really video games haven't changed that much in 15 (or more) years. Anybody remember Carmagedon from 1996ish? How about Car Wars from the late 80s? What about Phantasmagoria and the graphic rape scene? Why are we not parenting our kids?
4) Uh, why is everyone to blame? If I shoot a nail into my head is the nail gun company to blame?

by absolutely

There are zillions of magazines and websites devoted to rating games for playability. Look for phrases like "The detail is so rad, you can identify the different areas of the brain when you bash people's skulls!" then don't buy that for your five-year-olds. There is no plausible "economy of scale" excuse in this case for government interference in parents' responsibility, nor for reallocation of wealth to a service for only those of you who choose to breed.

I really am tired of the blame game...RAISE YOUR DAMN KIDS!

by salamander

[Applause]

I don't know when it became acceptable for parents to fail to control their children and then blame others for the outcome, but I agree entirely with your assessment.

This "it takes a village" mentality in society has gotten entirely out of hand. Our culture has become ridiculously child-centric, and I'm personally getting more and more fed up with every news broadcast I see proclaiming some new, insidious threat to society's impressionable youth. Please.

by absolutely

"I don't know when it became acceptable for parents to fail to control their children and then blame others for the outcome".

I do. It happened just after, and because, it became "acceptable" for adults to fail to control themselves sufficiently to EARN a living, then blame others for the outcome.

by dmambo

There are just too many people who really don't give a sh1t about what their kids are doing or where they are. I'm pretty sure we've all seen these people out there. Letting 4-year olds wander around without supervision, 12-year olds on the streets past midnight...etc. It is without doubt the parents' responsibility, but because the parents refuse to be responsible it ends up falling to schools and public agencies - that is the taxpayers.

This is why the government steps in with things like ratings for games or, potentially, restrictions on game content. They do it for porn, drugs, and even free speech to some extent. The regulation is an attempt to be a cure-all solution for a problem that has millions of individual causes.

by absolutely

Still, the majority of these headlines do not look like massacres, but like personal issues that individuals could not solve rationally. My point remains valid: scan these newspapers for all murders committed, and the ones that take place in schools are STATISTICALLY irrelevant. Not irrelevant, but a minuscule percentage of all killings. So isolating the causes of violence that are unique to killings that occur in schools is wasteful compared to using the same resources to combat the more common violent scenarios.

by montgomery gator

The Canadian evil plot is working in Australia and NZ, it seems. However, unless things have changed in the last 14 years (when I was in England for 6 months), the English were not using "eh", at least not in London, where I was staying, or in Nottingham, where I visited some of my kinfolk.

I believe that Mike Myers (in his guise as Dr. Evil) is the mastermind behind the Evil Canadian Conspiracy.

by salamander

Though this is off-topic, I suspect that self-control has fallen out of vogue for a variety of reasons.

Chief among them is the idea that self-control doesn't get you anywhere, and it really doesn't anymore...if you can rely on the government to support you if you don't feel like working, if you can buy whatever one's little heart desires on credit, if somebody's always waiting in the wings to pick you up and dust you off when you fall...self-control basically only yeilds a marginal benefit over expecting everybody else to solve your problems.

As a result, nothing is valued anymore. The idea of sacrifice (financial or otherwise) is virtually unknown. Why should we have to, when instant gratification is at our fingertips?

by montgomery gator

Starting in the 1960s, when a lot of parents started using Dr. Benjamin Spock's book, we started having problems with unruly, disrespectful kids. Spock's methods were too permissive and lacked proper discipline. My parents had the stupid book, but I am glad they chose to ignore it.

by absolutely

Pointy-eared minions of Satan!

Seriously, since my childhood, "child abuse" has been redefined from inflicting serious injuries needing medical attention, to any contact leaving a mark (even just a bruise), to any at all, including spanking. The fact is that before humans develop the ability to reason abstractly, communication must occur through the available means. It is also true that reciprocity, the concept expressed by the Golden Rule, can be taught by simple spankings, in many situations where words would not suffice for, say, a five-year-old biter. When children misbehave, they must be spanked until they can be taught the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior without physical pain. It's unfortunate, but it is a factual limitation of their ability to reason, until perhaps puberty. We can disagree about what age the brain becomes sophisticated enough to respond to more sophisticated forms of punishment, but there is no room for honest disagreement on the fact that physical discipline is necessary for young children.

by montgomery gator

The ESRB rating should be a voluntary thing, let individual manufacturers and retail outlets decide if they want to use it or not. Let the market reward or punish the choices they make. I do not want to see the government being a censor that decrees who can or cannot buy certain games. If the ESRB ratings prove to be a good marketing device, they will be used. If parents want to use it, and refuse to buy games for their kids with certain ratings, or refuse to buy games that are not rated, then the market will reward manufacturers and retailers that use it. The ESRB ratings can also be a good marketing device for those who do like good violent games with a M rating. When the rating says "animated violence", then it might be a pretty good game that is fun to play.

by dmambo

I'm just saying that regulation is a shotgun approach in an attempt to control very specific behaviors. Any given individual will agree with regulations that suit his/her lifestyle and bristle under regulations that don't. Your can say this about any issue from gun control to gay marriage.

No matter how well a law is crafted, there will be a group who is against it. I'll bet there would have protests no matter how well Solomon cut that baby in two.

Technology gives everyone access to information about very controversial issues, and with access comes calls to put a lid on certain things.

by absolutely

Or, you're a good enough philosopher without considering yourself a philosopher, to correctly observe that regulation is an excessively broad remedy (you say "shotgun approach") to specific problems. That's really all that needs to be considered under the US Constitution, which makes clear that the purpose of just law is the protection of individual liberty, not the creation of a risk-free society of total unanymity. This is equally applicable to "any issue from gun control to gay marriage."

I have no idea who this "Solomon" is, but cutting a baby in two is always evil.

Finally, on the issue of technology, it is true that a lot of people have more information available than they once did, earlier in their lives, and more than their ancestors could have acquired. This does not give anybody the right to regulate issues that did not infringe on their rights before technology gave them access to "knowledge" they didn't have means of acquiring 229 years ago. In other words, if people want to know more about the world around them, fine. If they want to use microcomputers and the Internet to do so, fine. If they want to revise away my Constitutional rights to re-create their idyllic illusions, they can do so over my dead body.

by dmambo

Solomon is the Old Testament king known for his wisdom. When there was a controversy over a child, he proposed cutting it in half to split between the parties knowing that this would force the parties to come to a solution of their own. I'm no biblical scholar either, so I'm probably screwing up this story, but you get the idea.

by dmambo

When considering the Constitution's design to protect individual rights, don't forget to put it in the perspective of 18th century social constraints. The framers were living in a world that was fairly strictly limited by social and religious guidelines. These served just as strongly as most laws do now. They were a long way from what we would call "total freedom." They were also pretty far removed from freedom from interference in their lives. Only the interference then did not necessarily come from govt. But it served the same purpose.

BTW - In my posts, I've not really taken a position either way on this issue. Rather than trying to debate, I've enjoyed our discussion.

by brent84

What happened to parents controlling what their kids watch/play? Parents need to take responsibility for their childrens actions and stop blaming the different types of media they feel is contributing to their childs behaviour.

The sooner people quit whinging about what other people do with their lives and take an active role in their own and their families the better off we'll all be.

by mikefromperth

I read the responses from everyone and there seems to be a trend of going off on a tangent talking about parents responsibilities to control what their kids watch or play. All are forgetting that adults also play these violent games as well. Lets get back to the initial thread of "should anyone be held responsible?".

So what does it matter who creates games/cars/drugs or whatever society doesn't like. Its all down to self control and knowing right from wrong. If you teach your kids that killing is wrong then it will stay on the screen. If you or your kids are unhinged enough to go on a rampage then the game may be the trigger but not the reason.

by pivert

yeah, like in this thread, we're going to solve a discussion that's been going on for years: guns and violence, music and school-shootings, games and influence on kids,... i shot the b*st*rd but it was because of my bad childhood / violent game / loud music... i had nothing to do with it, my lawyer says. let's talk about education, future perspectives, feeling confident and good, becoming balanced individuals? there will always be people that someday explode and the way it's going now (pressure everywhere) i don't see a turnpoint soon but let's look for real causes, not easy solutions.

by dogknees

>>Do we simply ignore the weaker ones and let >>them wreak havok on themselves

No, but neither do we restrict the rights of those who can handle it because of some who can't. If you can't deal with it, you shouldn't access it, but if I can, you have no right to stop me accessing it.

Regards

Regards

by adwhaan

Your comparison with car manufacturers does not work out. They are responsible for consequences when their cars fail at something it should have done properly: e.g. a failing airbag in a crash.
Besides, think about what you're implying: I could be a moron (I'm not, trust me ;-)) that takes your avatar a little seriously and starts hitting people with ice hockey pucks in the face. I could claim your avatar was the one that put me to it and suddenly, out of the blue, you are responsible! Since you are playing (or fan of) ice hockey: fighting amongst the players is fairly common with this sport I guess. Following your line of thinking players and their managers should be responsible for fights which can be related to viewing an ice hockey game.

Better let people be responsible for their own actions. Although I do recognize that weaker minds should be protected in some way from being influenced too heavily by violent games, but also from violent television or movies. Putting responsebility for this on 'anyone in the publishing chain' is not the way however.

by absolutely

Weaker minds should be protected? why, so they can skirt Darwinism and thin the gene pool with their weakmindedness? No, I think there are quite enough weak minds in human society. We'd all be better off with responsibility squarely upon individuals than with this "strong carry the weak" drivel that's going around like the common cold.

by canada_yoda

SlapShot

What is your meaning of the word "incite" and how do you think that these games do this?

Is this a sole source of influence on the population in your estimation?

Yoda_C

by uca

...if the motive was "only" robbery why did he use a gun instead of just beating up the other guy ?
The link between the murder and video games is not what they were playing at the time. It's the fact that these games give you a lot of ideas on how to deal with what stands in your way, other than your own instincts, imagination or previous life experience.
Plus, when you are a consumer of such "virtual violence" you tend not to realise the real consequences of the actions depicted.
Many of us have played violent games or watched "action" movies, but how many have actually seen an animal (let alone a man) bleeding to death ? Add to this the teenager's unstable emotions and you end up with the terrifying list I read above

by chaz chance#

The programmer is not knowingly creating a product that will cause physical harm to the purchaser.

Can you say that about, say, cigarette manufacturers?

by nh ranger

Its only a game right, its not real right? I do not think anyone is getting their arm twisted to buy the product. So if you object- do not buy.

by brian

as with all things, it's not what you see, or hear, it's how you process it. if your backassed hubris catches on (and in this climate, i'd be amazed if there's not already a clause in the patriot act for it) and violent video games are banned, the same person who would be "incited" to violence would snap after a particularly rousing episode of "the A-team", so you're no better off.. you might as well build a blanket clause into the bill you're already thinking up to include television, videotapes, music, and human thought.
That is about as stupid as the backward-masking or the "rap music incites violence" debate that idiots like pat robertson are still arguing--20 years later--to no end. It's like this: if you don't like it, then DON'T SHOP AT WAL-MART ANYMORE!

...just don't screw up my freedom of expression by nullifying all games to fit your twisted london bobbie "stop, or i'll say stop again" moral fattitude.

by gitmo

that the concepts of freedom and of liberty are completely foreign to most people.

by absolutely

Actually, I'm 100% certain that these ideas are native to me. That is, I valued them before I learned the words.

by montgomery gator

..and I do not want to see the video game manufacturers regulated. My Right Wing mindset means that I believe in personal responsibility, not the "nanny state" that the leftists want that would protect everyone from everything, and do away with personal responsibility.

by absolutely

Am I the only one to notice, since the bankruptcy of the USSR, a progressively sillier list of bogeymen in political debates?

by php_penguin

You write about games which are ultra sensless/violent, but where is the point at which these games go from being "well written and challenging" to being "violent"?

The point is that there are things to stop children getting hold of these games, for example the rating system. Back in the good old days (when i was 10) the game "Wolfenstein" frightened the pants of me, but there was no real system for stopping it getting into the hands of minors, and it hasnt affected me in any way.

If somehow a minor gets hold of an 18+ game, and the parents do nothing to stop it, and dont realise that their son is obsessed with it, then it is the boys fault, and thus the parents fault. Why dont they just sue Sony as well, because they made the software to display the game?

by kattoon

I'm so sick and tired of people not taking responsibility for their own actions or the actions of their children.

My brother and sister-in-law have 5 children. They monitor what their children watch and what types of video games they play. I'm not saying their shouldn't be rules (such as not renting Mature games to minors), but I am saying it's time for parents to take their parental role seriously and stop having kids because it's the "in" thing to do.

by mollenhourb9

NO! The premise that game manufacturers are responsible for violence (or gun manufactures, for that matter) is absurd. Yes, there is evidence that unrestrained use of these games makes kids more prone to violence, but that is where parents come in.

As for the notion that these are a dangerous product, like a car, that is equally absurd. If you make these logical leaps, I'm afraid to see what code you write if you are a programmer, or what kind of employee moral you have if you are a manager.

Whatever you do. Please don't EVER write your senator or congressman about ANYTHING. Stick to your day job.

by absolutely

I remember one phrase from my statistics class, and that is it. Any correlation of two variables may actually be related by direct causality or may both be results of a third variable. A scientist is never allowed to assume that THE most important variable has been correctly identified by statistical correlation. So a scientifically correct statement would be: there is evidence that unrestrained use of these games is a common trait among kids that are more prone to violence than the majority of their peers. But newspapers are written for people who do not speak "Big Word", so they substitute causation for correlation, which has no synonyms that are commonly used by the common man. It is never correct use of statistics to claim cause and effect, that is the domain of laboratory science, which would violate human rights. It is very possible, for example, that the same children play video games "unrestrained" and are more violent because they are unrestrained by their parents in nearly everything that they do.

I still remember the first time I saw one kid pull another kid's hair. He got the toy he wanted immediately! So, I tried it the next time I wanted a toy somebody else had. It turns out that the absence of adult supervision is important to this means of toy acquisition, and I learned the hard way, with a spanking, that it's better to wait my turn than to yank and grab. The point of my verbiage is that I did not have to watch a video game to get this idea. Bad kids come from bad parents. Period.

by barryaaa2

When do the parents and individuals begin to accept responsibility? The parents are responsible for overseeing their own children, and the adults who play these games are already responsible, or at least, should be. Smokers, people who drink hot coffee in their moving cars, and others who have abdicated their positions as adults responsible for their own actions should be given this back. Get on with life, people!

by viztor

Religion has caused many more deaths than computer games, should we regulate it?

The ills of trying to protect people from all potential folly or danger outweigh the benefits.

There are much more serious problems we should be addressing.

by datamordechai

First of all, what the heck is with the big words? Secondly, this is an issue for attorneys, which regardless of our post, will never be solved by us. Third, I love violent games and always will. Granted I don't let my children play my games, but that doesn't mean I can't. My point being, this should not be a liability issue for the game designers or programmers, but should be left up to the adults whom purchase them. It's the same issue as saying, "will I let my kids watch a movie with an R Rating?". Well, of course not. Games should be treated the same way. It's their creative outlet. If you don't like what they have to offer, then it's simple. Don't Watch. Done

by kattoon

Slapshot, you state that: "...and an observation of what has happened with regards to tobacco. It's an example which I have used for clarity. It is my opinion that this precedent may very well apply to other consumer products such as ultra-violent games."

I think you should check your facts and not rattle off information without backing it up. The tobacco companies are winning the cases against people who are suing them. For example, Reller v Philip Morris 2003. Philip Morris won this case: http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/en/tob/20050323/20050323reller.html

I think you should stick to your original topic, instead of justifying your opinions with data from a non related topic.

by acrie

There is a moral responseabily that must be part of the gaming genre. Killing, murder, torture, made up dieties, and sexual represtation from people who have NEVER had sex or a loving ralationship should not be a part of the gaming industy.

by absolutely

freedom of speech was never meant to apply to virgins! They might tell others the wrong way to do it, and in no time we'd all be humping each other in Abominable ways because we're just so impressionable! After all, our ancestors didn't really LEARN how to use fire so much as they were impressed by lightning, and decided to try to mimic it.

Now I'm just curious because I know they are all not real, but just which "made up dieties" (sic) do you mean to prohibit from games? It's spelled d-e-i-t-y. "I before E...", like so many rules, does not apply to god.

by wcp83

Look at it this way, nobody told those idiots to smoke, nobody told those morons to buy coffee and pour it in their laps. If the Idiotic morons of these planet would get their heads out of their butt and just say no then it would be alright. As a parent I have a say so as to what my kids watch or play so open your eyes and get a life.

by tiddles

Let me see if I have this correct. Hypothetically, let's say I am a game publisher and I publish morally questionable games. My games are distributed by one of the larger game houses which in turn self-regulates itself with the game ratings we have all become so familiar with. You, the consumer, plunk down your hard or not-so-hard earned cash to by said game.

You have now made a conscious effort to buy my game and therefore be subject to my games moral depravity.

Now if you decide to go shoot up a school or mow down some people on the sidewalk or go street racing who's ultimate responsibility will it be for YOUR consequences? Are you going to blame the distributor or the developer? Are you going to blame society? The game? Give me a break!

If you are an adult and have made a conscious choice to buy the game then it is your own damn fault what actions you take after that.

If you are minor and you or your parent have ALLOWED you to buy a game that is too mature for you then I blame the parents and I hold them responsible.

by absolutely

I know of no allowance for my freedom to be "limited by social and legal guidelines". I do, however, know of a LAW prohibiting any support for religion by government, which literally prohibits what you have proposed as a legal consideration.

by drcard.dana

What is sad about this discussion is the number of individuals who believe they are "experts" in how the minds works and what motivates one's actions. For example: with violent acts by children in schools. "They played violent games, therefore it was these games that were the cause of the children's violent actions". That makes about as much logical sense as they ate Twinkies and therefore Twinkies were the cause. As one poster pointed out prohibition has never solved the problem it was enacted to solve. Why? Because the item being prohibited was not the cause of the problem.

Taking the situations involving violent acts of children in schools; one fact has existed in the background of all the children involved in these acts.....they were the objects of harassment by their peers. How is banning violent games, TV, etc. going to effect this?

A person (adult or child) chooses violence as a solution to a problem because their options based upon their knowledge has chosen this as the best answer. Increase that person's knowledge and you'll increase their options for handling a situation and you'll find that violence is always the last choice. Banning decreases options and thus increases the choice of violence.

Dana:))

by eng21

Your right...is to not purchase their product. Just like it's you're right to not tune into programming you feel is questionable.

by erich1010

People are mostly the same. Some are more educated and some are less educated. The less educated tend to resort to violence, and they don't need a video game to tell them how to do it. Consider that violent crimes, such as murder, have gone down in the time that video games came out.

So, what do you blame for the rise of murders before that? Come on... I'm sure you can come up with something. There are always meaningless social issues you can pin stuff like that on. Afterall, you don't like it, therefore it has to be wrong.

by absolutely

never had friends! If they had, they'd know that value formation does not occur by passive absorption of the values practiced in one's immediate vicinity, but by choice, where one's environment determines nothing but the particular choices that one encounters. I formed my values as much by disagreement with my playmates as by any other factor.

by keyguy13

Maybe I watch too much violence on TV, but that was funny :) But then Irony is OFTEN humorous :)

by absolutely

You should provoke debate based on the cigarette analogy, lead your opponent down the intellectual blind alleys he seeks to use as obfuscation, and only when he's taken that untruth as the basis of his entire argument clobber him over the head with his factual error! Haven't you ever played cards?

:)

by orion215

First, I disagree with the first statement. I don't think there is any proof that games incite violence. I think it is an easy excuse for poor parenting in our "I'm not resposible for my own actions" society.

by keyguy13

And I couldn't have said it better. No human being has the right to 'Expect' anything from anyone else. We all have a choice as to how we relate to each other. If you want to play the 'victim' of society, speaking as if society owes you something and if not delivered according to YOUR ideas is wrong, then you're the selfish fool having the pity party. Society doesn't owe anyone anything. We as individuals can CHOOSE to be responsible for what we view or believe, or we can let 'society' decide and never have any real power over our lives.

Is that poster trying to say that she/he can't be responsible for teaching their kids morals? Because if so, that is even more pathetic than I thought.

by acmbruch

Specify which ones, types and why - I get the impression that everyone replying is bouncing on there own catagory, type and subject - soap box.

Is there a few apples spoiling the barrel?
Are there more than one barrel of apples?
Are there a number of spoiled barrels?
Come on this is the computer age of facts and analysis.
So Analyse the problem

by tlea

Ah yes, video games. The latest scape goat for moral decline in our society. Let's see, big band music, Rock and Roll, role playing games, Heavy Metal, Hip Hop, and now computer games.

You want to help society? Find a way to educate parents as to the effect of not spending enough time with their children. Most "anti-social" kids that I knew growning up either had very little parent supervision, or their parents were abusive to them. Stopping violent video games from being sold is not going to solve this problem.

By the way, nice avatar for someone who is taking a stance against violent video games.