General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2175103

    Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

    Locked

    by hockeyist ·

    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?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3251899

      Much like other “adult” venues…

      by jessie ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3251982

        Some states do require checking ID for games

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Much like other “adult” venues…

        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.

        • #3236335

          I agree on many levels…

          by lwebb ·

          In reply to Some states do require checking ID for games

          I don’t see anything wrong with restricting the sale to minors.

          I DO see something wrong with restricting the sale……

          I have kids, and we have plenty of violent games such as Republic Commando, Planetside, World of Warcraft…all the Star Wars games…

          I will not allow my kids to play games like GTA or any of the “Hitman” games.

          There’s a BIG difference between killing robots and monsters or even plain old FPS Multiplayer and games like GTA that advocate lying, cheating, stealing, brutalizing innocents and breaking the law.

          But I don’t think the manufacturers of that morally repugnant crap should be sued because someone didn’t have the moral fortitude to say no to their kids and their kid are stupid enough to act out the game. That’s retarded thinking.

          Vote with your wallet. You don’t like it? Don’t buy it/download it/play it. The game manufacturers are in it for the $$$.

        • #3236292

          AMEN AGREE AGREE AGREE

          by icon58 ·

          In reply to I agree on many levels…

          Hello:
          I agree with you 100% plus….. I strongly believe in controling what games MY kids play so that they have a chance to grow their morals with out outside corruption. We are seeing the problems of years of “letting kids find themselves” and they have, in violence drugs and the jail?.. Letting kids find them selves is just the lazy way out of raising your kids. If a person would really step back and listen too themselves and hear how stupid it is to let a ?KID find themselves ? We train our pets we go to school to learn how run things. We don?t let workers find themselves on the jobs why would we let innocent blank minds find themselves and HOW?????
          I play a lot of games and I love the one commercial , ?Play in our world LIVE in yours.
          Thanks for the rant
          ICON58

        • #3242516

          Agree but what about other kids?

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to Some states do require checking ID for games

          I agree that parents should monitor this but a problem comes up when your kid goes to someone else’s house where the parents don’t monitor the activities so your kid winds up being exposed to things you don’t even know about.

          I guess the only thing you can do is try to make sure they understand the difference between reality and fantasy, you can’t be with them every minute of every day.

        • #3242465

          Know your kid’s friends

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Agree but what about other kids?

          Some parents like to meet their children’s friends and their friends’ parents before letting them go to their friends’ homes to visit. You can ask your children’s friends’ parents about the games they play along with anything else that may be of concern before letting them go over to play.

          As you say, the best thing is to teach your children the difference between reality and fantasy. Then again, many children probably already know the difference. They know that when the roadrunner runs off the cliff and floats in the air, while the coyote floats until he looks down, and then falls, and then is all better the next scene in the cartoon, that is just fantasy.

      • #3232418

        Missing the Point

        by synthetic ·

        In reply to Much like other “adult” venues…

        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.

        • #3249217

          Kill your TV before it Kills You

          by synthetic ·

          In reply to Missing the Point

          PLease read my first statement, then read this to understand the other dangers of TV, they are nastier than you think 😉 It’s Friday, I hope everyopnes having a great day!
          http://www.nbc10.com/news/4492568/detail.html

        • #3236481

          I know I shouldn’t laugh but…

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to Kill your TV before it Kills You

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

        • #3260424

          Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to Kill your TV before it Kills You

          That’s what happens when you put a 32″ TV on a TV tray.

        • #3260283

          The only acceptable censor

          by captg ·

          In reply to Kill your TV before it Kills You

          The only acceptable variety of censorship is ‘self’. It’s the only expression we have any control of as individuals.

        • #3260163

          Education programs for parents??

          by glennlnrs ·

          In reply to Kill your TV before it Kills You

          Yes I agree that there is violence on childrens TV, though some of you would have watched ‘Transformers’ as a kid I am sure, which is much like Power Rangers, and I didn’t end up killing people or hurting people.

          Maybe there should be an education program on how to bring up kids well, and what to teach our kids, though this may not even work with some people.

        • #3235764

          We have it…

          by captg ·

          In reply to Education programs for parents??

          The instructors are called parents & the students are called children. It’s a hands-on workshop & the course runs 24x7x365.
          You know you’ve successfully completed the curriculum when yours raises one of their own to maturity.

        • #3254981

          Where’s the quality assurance???

          by glennlnrs ·

          In reply to We have it…

          Haha, very true, though who controls what parents know, and what they actually teach to their children??? We have QA for heaps of other things, ie projects, companies etc, so how about for parents to ensure they are bringing their kids up the right way to educate them about right and wrong, and the difference between playing the games and living in real life.

          Yes I believe you will say teachers and the education system? Fair enough though that does not dictate parenting strategies to deal with their children in a proper manner.

          So therefore the education system should also have parenting education programs (compulsory) so people can learn how to bring up their kids in a loving environment.

        • #3254808

          who controls what parents know?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Where’s the quality assurance???

          You would like to decide that for the rest of us? Suppose I decide it for you instead? Still a good idea?

          “So therefore the education system should also have parenting education programs (compulsory) so people can learn how to bring up their kids in a loving environment.”

          Think about compulsory love and consider whether you would be willing, or able, to practice it.

          Tyrant.

        • #3242610

          I’m not so sure

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Missing the Point

          That TV is the fault, or improper use of TV instead of proper parental supervision is at fault.

          On the other hand, I know a 17 year old boy who is into all the gory games and movies, but tears up when he sees roadkill.

      • #3260308

        Pornography – not a “vicimless” crime

        by gregory.schlub ·

        In reply to Much like other “adult” venues…

        I agree with you. I have a relative whose “friend” engaged in adult materials at a young age. My relative was subsequently sexually assaulted by this “friend.” I believe a significant contributing factor to the “friend’s” aberant behavior was due to the pornographic nature of his recreational activities. Society suffers from uncenured content in video games.

        • #3260305

          Perhaps, but it is victimless

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Pornography – not a “vicimless” crime

          A disposition may lead to both behaviors, or there may be a direct relationship. Even if you prove that they are related–and you have not–it is my right to be aberrant with any consenting adult. It is only the violation of somebody else’s right to choose that is a crime.

          Note the substitution of the euphemism, “engaged in adult materials” for “pleasured himself with the help of pictures and videos”. Until you can talk about sex without blushing, do not presume to tell me how to have sex or how not to have it.

        • #3260285

          Still full of ‘euphemism’…

          by captg ·

          In reply to Perhaps, but it is victimless

          Apparently one can have an euphemism of an euphemism.

          Regardless of the attempt to stay within TechRepublics terms of use agreement, the point here is that there are video games that portray acts of rape, and some that reward it, GTA specifically, and this behavior is something that can be learned as acceptable without proper guidance etc.

          While I disagree that pornography is a crime, the argument can be made that combined with masturbation and a lack of certain moral guidelines it could lead a person to commit sexual assult, which is a crime. This in no way excuses the perpetrator from responsibility for thier actions, nor does it place responsibility on the publishers of pornograhy.

        • #3242572

          What?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Still full of ‘euphemism’…

          Masturbation leads to naps, not rape.

        • #3242464

          messy hand

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to What?

          It also leads to a messy hand. Also blindness, and hairy palms.

        • #3239214

          Go ahead and make that argument then.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Still full of ‘euphemism’…

          Stating that “the argument can be made…” is not equivalent to making that argument, and is not similar to proving that argument valid.

          I’m glad you noticed my use of euphemism. If you re-read my post, you may enjoy the irony. In context, it is a suggestion that I also have no right to govern anybody else’s consensual sex, by using a euphemism myself. I had said that somebody who can’t talk openly about sex shouldn’t offer to guide other people’s sex lives.

          Funny? A matter of opinion.

          Clever? Absolutely!

          🙂

        • #3235741

          Humor you, amuse me… Monkey see, Monkey do

          by captg ·

          In reply to Go ahead and make that argument then.

          I don’t think that the post was an offer of guidance, considering that the subject had nothing to do with consentual sex.

          My ‘argument’ isn’t any different than what I’ve stated in previous posts on this topic.
          The hypothetical argument I suggested is just an example of what has been used to excuse sexual assault, and lobby for censorship of pornographic materials. It does not mean that I agree, or have a desire to persuade other people to do so.

          Summed up my argument is this:
          Every behavior we have, good or bad, is learned. Not having learned societaly acceptable behavior, does not excuse unacceptable behavior. Since children are unable to control the behaviors they are exposed to, their parents are responsible controlling the exposure. Since parents are not omnipresent they need to be sure to correct unacceptable behavior when it occurs, and differentiate between what is or isn’t acceptable. As it applies to the overall discussion, that means that the publishers, developers, designers etc. of video games should not be held accountable for the actions of consumers of their product.

        • #3235688

          Why bother presenting “just an example”?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Humor you, amuse me… Monkey see, Monkey do

          If it isn’t your view why do you present it?

          It’s true that “the publishers, developers, designers etc. of video games should not be held accountable for the actions of consumers of their product.” So we are in agreement on the topic of this silly thread.

          But why did you present a position contrary to your own?

    • #3251824

      Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      by dwiebles ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3236510

        GIGO

        by jwarmath ·

        In reply to Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

        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.

        • #3236496

          But a child raised by the village..

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to GIGO

          ..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.

        • #3236482

          …proves that proponents of village standards…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to But a child raised by the village..

          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.

        • #3236348

          Fantasy versus reality

          by salamander ·

          In reply to But a child raised by the village..

          There’s a vast gap between pretend violence and real violence.

          Play is just that: play. Your cops ‘n robbers games were products of your imagination, and you knew it. I’m betting that your parents (like mine) taught the difference between fantasy and reality. Being raised on a steady diet of violent comic books, I managed to not only become a reasonably-literate adult, but I’ve thus far not managed to kill anybody with kryptonite. Neither have I slain any dragons recently, nor felt the urge to try to block bullets with my bracelets.

          I’d suggest that the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is a component of any number of psychological disorders…In such cases, it’s incumbent upon the parents to pay attention long enough to identify the problem, control the child’s environment as the case warrants, and seek appropriate treatment.

        • #3236317

          Which reminds me…

          by lwebb ·

          In reply to But a child raised by the village..

          …of my nephew. Not allowed to play with guns/swords/army men anything violent was prohibited.

          Result?
          He was fascinated with guns.

          My father was cleaning his closet and had all his dresser drawers laid out on his bed. In one of the drawers was a .22 revolver.

          My nephew picked up the revolver, pointed it at my face, pulled back the hammer and said “is this thing real?”

          My dad had a nasty bruise on his thumb from there the hammer struck it as my nephew pulled the trigger.

          One would think that anti-gun liberals would teach their kids about guns, gun safety, identifying guns…along with the “evils of guns”. Well, my brother is not noted for his grand intelligence, only his well-meaning…which almost got me killed.

          You see, my dad (frothing liberal, btw) knowing that his older son (my frothing liberal brother) was very anti-anythingviolent and therefore assumed (incorrectly) that he had taught my nephew what a gun was and never to touch one…
          Nay, he never taught him anything but “guns are bad”…

        • #3242576

          1971

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Which reminds me…

          Gun safety was part of our 9th grade health class. Everybody handled and fired a rifle, a hand gun, and a shotgun. Of course, that wouldn’t fly in any school where the first day of deer season wasn’t a holiday :^)

        • #3260417

          Scapegoat

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to GIGO

          In some ways I believe that this is being used as just another way for someone to not take responsibility for their own actions. I agree that some of the stuff out there (TV/interweb/music/games/etc) have no real intellectual value, but just because you see it in the realm of “entertainment” does that make it ok to carry it out in the real world and then say “well I played GTA and “learned” it was ok to kick the snot out of random people and steal their money”. Everytime I hear someone trying to blame the entertainment industry for their stupid actions I just have to roll my eyes. Step up and take responsibility for yourself.

        • #3260383

          And teach your kids…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Scapegoat

          that productivity is cause for pride, and entertainment is a euphemism for wasting time. Problem solved.

      • #3242596

        It’s the village mentality that got us into all this.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

        The village no longer exists, or at least is in sharp decline. I hear a phrase often that really ticks me off, it’s “I don’t care what other people think”. because it’s indicative of a symptom of the problem. We’re more mobile, don’t stick around long enough to get to know the neighbors, are suspicious of our neighbors, etc. Used to be your neighbor had your back and you had his. You watched out for each other and each other’s kids. If my dad’s neighbor seen me doing something I shouldn’t have been doing, he told Dad and I got whupped (Yes I know, corporal punishment is a dirty word nowadays, but I know a lot of successful and respected people who were also spanked as children and frankly, I’m thankful to be in their company).

    • #3238116

      big words/small ideas/philosophical evasion

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3237845

        All for one…

        by hockeyist ·

        In reply to big words/small ideas/philosophical evasion

        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.

        • #3238728

          I know the meaning of the big words you use

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to All for one…

          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.

        • #3237628

          You utter such crap…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to I know the meaning of the big words you use

          …go and take your tantrums elsewhere…into your own lonely world …if you wish.

        • #3237550

          “Absolutely” makes absolute sense

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to You utter such crap…

          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.

        • #3256598

          There are those who…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to “Absolutely” makes absolute sense

          …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.

        • #3256434

          I guess you believe in Jedi mind tricks

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          They supposedly work on people with weak wills.

          “This is not the discussion forum you are looking for.”

          (Well, it was worth a try) 🙂

        • #3232415

          Nazi

          by synthetic ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          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.

        • #3232121

          Hey Synthetic…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          …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.

        • #3338829

          Lowest Common Denominator

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          >>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

        • #3236578

          How big is a pile?

          by php_penguin ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          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?

        • #3236486

          Strong will vs Weak will

          by erich1010 ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          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.

        • #3236367

          Senseless/Violent

          by cybrduck ·

          In reply to There are those who…

          I agree that some people have challenges dealing with making good choices. I would extend that I expose a person to choices to make, but I cannot choice for them. By the way, is your slapshot icon supposed to be “senseless”.

        • #3236352

          Reality intrudes

          by gdf ·

          In reply to “Absolutely” makes absolute sense

          While your example of the we–adjusted non-violent 13-year-old honor student who plays Grand Theft Auto is interesting, I would view it as a long way from the norm. I work on a regular basis with boys with few of those qualities, and whose parents (or parent) don’t have the luxury of constant monitoring of their activities. I’m not talking about the hood here, just typical midwest middle school boys. The reality of the situation is that television becomes more and more violent and adult-themed with each passing year,to the point where I’m not comfortable letting my youngest son watch TV sports events on Fox due to the graphic nature of their commercials. I think the sexual content of MTV videos – not to mention the sexist nature of the lyrics – is way off the charts. In the videogame space, it’s clear that violence sells and, like TV, the games depict and endorse a violence-steeped culture that is so far from our normal lives, you can’t see there from here. I think first-person shooter games should be rated M, not T. I think every boy who wants to buy one should be required to play it once with his mom in the room.

          Similarly, the notion of Free Will as the guiding principle of individual responsibility is only relevant in adult interactions. Kids earn the ability to exercise more personal freedom and responsibility as they grow up, but those privileges need to be given out cautiously and parents need to understand that they, moreso than their children, bear ultimate responsibility for their kids’ actions.

        • #3260430

          Let the parents regulate for their kids

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Reality intrudes

          I am not saying that all kids should be allowed to play violent video games, I am just saying it should be up to the parents to decide. Some kids may have problems with them, but it should be the responsibility of their parents to regulate that, not society.

          I still think Free Will applies to children as well as adults. Parents do have the responsibility to raise their children right, but the children still need to be held responsible for their actions.

        • #3260411

          Your Choice

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to Reality intrudes

          You may not feel comfortable allowing your kids to play certain games, watch certain shows, listen to certain music…etc, but don’t infringe on my right to do so.

        • #3260231

          Free will and kids

          by monkey-c ·

          In reply to Reality intrudes

          I agree that the concept of individual free will is relevant only in the adult realm. Kids need guidance from their parents. I think that parents should make the choice as to what is right for their kids. They should be the people who know their kids the best.

          With that in mind, I’m not opposed to society helping parents do that. I like the way my state (Idaho) does it. You can’t buy games rated M unless you are over 18, and the stores do card (I look young and enjoy video games). Most likely, anyone with a child old enough to play M rated games is over 18 and can buy the game (or show up with ID) for his or her child if it is appropriate.

          I personally am like that well adjusted honor student and my parents were aware of that. They were fine with me playing violent video games but there was a time limit for games. Maybe that’s part of why I stayed well adjusted…

          As for playing the game in front of mom, I think most boys could care less. It would probably just traumatize mom…

          I’ve noticed that video game violence was never an issue until the games started looking realistic. No one ever complained about Rampage, where the object of the game was to destroy cities.

          But now I’m rambling.

        • #3236334

          I agree in principle, but the GP does not live up to that principle

          by captg ·

          In reply to “Absolutely” makes absolute sense

          I agree with your principle of Free Will. However the choices we make are made based on the input we receive, and marketing agents and advertisers know this. They paint the products they sell as magic.
          While some of us have figured out that TV is the devil, most of the world disagrees. Many of the children of my generation grew up with TV as their best friend, me included. Many of today’s children contine to grow up with TV as their best friend. With this as the trend, rampant consumerism is inevitible, as is desensitization to dramatic events, and the blurring of the line between reality and fantasy. Advertisments, video programs, video games are all forced to become more sensational to get and hold our attention.
          Sure we as individuals are ultimately responsible for our choices, but look a the choices we are encouraged to make. At some point the government had to step in, and make sure that purveyors of harmful products were being responsible in their advertisments.
          Until about 20 years ago breweries, distilleries, and tabaccists were allowed to advertise thier products with out regulation. Nowadays the governments of several nations require that these advertisments be limited and include warning of the possible harmful effects of consuming these products.
          More recently producers of entertainment products are required to label the content of their productions. This includes video game producers.
          Without this regulation the general public would have no way to make a choice based on reality.

        • #3260460

          Parent Education is the Key to Save Our Children!

          by junk ·

          In reply to I agree in principle, but the GP does not live up to that principle

          I agree with your evaluation of the advertisment industry and I agree with some regulation regarding what is available to children. When a family can’t even watch the news because they are showing people shooting one another on the SIX O’CLOCK NEWS, it is time for some responsibility of decency to be placed on the media. Where I do not agree that these games should not be sold to those who are mature enough to handle them, I do think that stricter guidelines should be in place for this sort of media (as well as the media machine as a whole).
          Ultimately, it is up to the parents to become the filter to the outside influences that are not healthy for their child. I am a step-mother of an eight-year old and even though I have games like Hitman and Diablo in my repetoire, she is allowed to play PowerPuff Girls and Roller Coaster Tycoon. I know exactly what is on her computer at all times, have set up several filters on her computer to restrict her Internet access to only a handful of sites (nickelodeon and disney…). But even with all of these safeguards in place, I had to stop her from watching a cartoon that had zombie corpse parts falling from the sky! This cartoon was rated Y7 (meaning it was deemed acceptable for children 7 years and older).
          Parents cannot depend on the government to make choices about what is acceptable for their children. Being involed with your children and making sure that everything that enters your house for the children is acceptable to you and in accordance with the morals you have taught is essential for raising happy, healthy children. It does take a village to raise a child, however, it takes individuals to make a village.

        • #3260338

          I think we are missing the point…

          by jmd10k ·

          In reply to “Absolutely” makes absolute sense

          I think we are missing the point of the original post. The original post was talking about stores selling mature games to children. If there is a rating system in place then maybe it would be good to follow it. If the game is rated 13 and up then let a 13 year old buy it and the parents can say wether the games stays or gets returned. If a 12 year old tries to buy it then the store should say no. Its not that the store needs to force morals, they need to follow the rating system. I know that it is not the same as movie ratings, but I think it should be handled the same way. If the parent wants their child to go to a movie that is rated R then that is their choice. If the child wants to go they are stopped at the ticket booth. This isn’t a question about “the village” raising our children, nor the programmers getting sued for violent content, its about stores following the rating system that is already in place.

        • #3260304

          Kids love a challenge.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I think we are missing the point…

          Abolish the unenforceable, undefineable rules, they will quit the unproductive behavior when they notice their own boredom. I guarantee it.

        • #3256657

          I’m the one throwing a tantrum?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You utter such crap…

          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.

        • #3256606

          Maybe you should…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to I’m the one throwing a tantrum?

          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.

        • #3256601

          My intelligent opinion…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          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.

        • #3256586

          A scenario that involves a persons right to be injured…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          …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.

        • #3256581

          Fully cocked!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          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.”

        • #3256572

          It’s my opinion…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          …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.

        • #3256435

          But no one forced them, weak will is an excuse

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          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.

        • #3236595

          Deliberately harmfull acts

          by chaz chance# ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

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

          Can you say that about, say, cigarette manufacturers?

        • #3236548

          Reply to Slapshot’s “Its My Opinion”

          by kattoon ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          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.

        • #3236476

          kattoon, you’re too generous.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          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?

          🙂

        • #3260376

          IMHO (experienced)

          by edwardhnixon ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          Having raised 6 kids to adult, none in prison but 2 in the computer gaming industry – I guess I am ready to weight in on this issue.

          R&ian is ready for adult games – if he can stomach them.
          Slapshot (despite his euridite nature and non violent avitar) is not yet ready to handle posting to bullitem boards.

          As to the issue in question – the lawyers always go for everyone peripherally associated with their clients suffering by the thinnest of real or imagined correlation: that is WHY we shoot them first!

          Sims, shooters, or strategy…they are all digital nacotics and you should be watching closely what your kids are playing. Failure to do so – now That might actually be a valid cause of action.

          Ed,
          MCSE, MCDBA, CPA, MBA, YADA, Yada…
          Infection in EverCrack (Evernight)
          Pandemic in ToD

        • #3242458

          I just love it…

          by mr l ·

          In reply to Maybe you should…

          As soon as you say “I also didn’t want to enter into or attract personal attacks” you follow it up by calling him a “social aphid”. Great work, marvelously consistent.

        • #3256575

          Meaningless Profanity…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to I’m the one throwing a tantrum?

          … 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.

        • #3256534

          No offense

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          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?

        • #3256507

          Absolutely correct…

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          …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.

        • #3256430

          Hockey is an evil Canadian plot!!!

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          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!!!!

        • #3256411

          hey hey hey!!!

          by jck ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          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.

        • #3256408

          As A Canadaphile

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          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??

        • #3232117

          Eh, what are you talking about?

          by hockeyist ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          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.

        • #3249254

          Slapshot, the evil Canadian plot is working!!

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          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.

        • #3260225

          it’s not working in the US

          by monkey-c ·

          In reply to Meaningless Profanity…

          I hope the evil Canadians can get their act together before the start of next season. I miss watching my Avalanch play!

        • #3236594

          I agree

          by fitzmark ·

          In reply to I know the meaning of the big words you use

          Atlas Shrugged. Gotta love it.

        • #3236444

          Good call.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I agree

          Everything I really need to know about life I learned from Ayn Rand.

        • #3236577

          Absolutely Agree

          by kattoon ·

          In reply to I know the meaning of the big words you use

          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.

        • #3236377

          Yes indeedy!!!

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Absolutely Agree

          As a soon to be parent of 5 myself, we have 4 already, there’s just ONE in the oven now, I have to say, TALKING to your kids, and being INVOLVED in their lives does a WHOLE lot more for their social responsibility than does telling them they can’t watch an R rated movie, or play a “violent” game.

          And even within your own family, you have to gauge each child’s “readiness” for certain things. My two oldest children are 14 and 11. The 14 year old was emotionally much more mature at 11 than the 11 year old is now. There are certain things that the 14 year old was allowed to do at various ages that the now 11 year old has still not been allowed to do, like riding his bike by himself the mile to the gas station… he just doesn’t have the emotional maturity to handle a “situation” should one arise, and he’s not focused enough to avoid CAUSING a situation.

          There’s not anything “wrong” with either of these children. All children develop in their own time, and as a parent you have to KNOW YOUR CHILDREN well enough to know what EACH INDIVIDUAL is capable of, and not just assume that because one was able to do something at this age, that all the rest will be as well.

        • #3260457

          The problem is being honest about your kids

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yes indeedy!!!

          Your right Jess, but the problem is so many people are just oblivious to anything about their little blessed duplicate of themselves that could be of a negative aspect. How many time has the familiar “not my kid” been thrown out as pure reflex?

          Kids F up, and not holding them accountable for it is where they develope this idea that they are under no social restraints. They test the bounries, they get pulled back in. Instead of rushing in to keep their kids out of trouble, just a little disipline would go a long ways.

          But then, we aren’t supose to make any kinds of moral judgements anymore are we?

        • #3260435

          There’s your bloody Christianity again

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          with its “judge not” and “blessed are the merciful” garbage. Seriously, if you took every word of it at face value, you wouldn’t last a week!

        • #3260375

          R&IAN, your attack is about what?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          Are you implying that only Christians have any morals?

          I didn’t put ANYTHING of any religious nature in my post, so would you care to explain just what “There’s your bloody Christianity again” has to do with what I posted.

          If you mean that non-Christians are all immoral, then I think there are quite a few members here that would contend that notion.

        • #3260349

          Commenting about moral judgements…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          and the necessity of them. I was actually saying that Christians, with their belief that mercy is a virtue, are enablers of all they hold to be sinful. I was adding to your closing “But then, we aren’t supose to make any kinds of moral judgements anymore are we?”, which I hope was sarcasm.

        • #3242566

          Moral societies lead to moral judgements

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          which having nothing to do with religion.

          Your last post has thrown me some. Are you saying moral judgements are good or they are bad?
          Christians are NOT the cause of the evils and woes of the world. Everyone has their own share of the blame.

          You are not allowed to stand on a busy street corner and expose yourself. Why? That is morally unacceptable.

          You are not allowed to have sex with 12 year old girls. Why? That is morally unacceptable.

          You are not allowed to walk into a store and just take things. Why? That is morally unacceptable.

          Believe it or not, even non-Christians can be good moral people.

          And yes, when you lock up a thief or sexual preditor you ARE making a moral judgement.

        • #3242526

          Moral Judgements

          by jessie ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          I believe jd’s initial sarcastic “we aren’t supose to make any kinds of moral judgements anymore are we?” comment was more aimed at the Dr. Spock society, wherein feelings, behaviors and actions are neither good nor bad, “they just are.” We as a society have immersed ourselves in so much psycho-babble about not making our children feel guilt or fear in raising them, that we’re raising children who feel neither guilt at doing something wrong, or fear of consequences.

        • #3242507

          Oh sure Jess

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          cheat and give the readers digest version.

          Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was TRYING to say.

          There is nothing wrong with someone feeling badly when they do something bad.

          There has to be positive feedback for doing good and negative feedback for doing bad. This will lead to wanting the positive feedback and doing more good.

          The other problems is with so many working families you sometimes end up with invisible kids. Kids that only get some kind of response when they do something bad. Sure it is negative feedback, but they actually got noticed!

          Hug your kid everyday. I do.

        • #3242505

          Jess was able to follow.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          Like jd says, “There is nothing wrong with someone feeling badly when they do something bad.” In fact, there IS something wrong when people do something bad and are NOT punished. But if you obey the New Testament word for word you must love even your enemies and forgive everybody. Christianity, practiced honestly and consistently, would lead to chaos.

        • #3242496

          You are missing who is non-judgemental

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          It is the ACLU, and the EXTREME liberal progressive movement that is pushing this make no judgements crap. They are the ones that want the “anything goes” mentality.

          I am not sure what your Christian hate is about or how you got that way but you will find your hating a lot of people with no provications. That makes as much sence as any other hate, directed towards race, gender or religion.

          How about Muslums? There is a lot in their faith that could make any non-muslum very nervious. Do you hate them too?

          Should everyone just run around believing in nothing and no one?

          Chill out. Lots of good people come from all walks of life.

        • #3239217

          I don’t hate Christians.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          I try to tease them until they think. I have a lot of work to do 🙂

          My disagreement is not specifically with Christianity, but with the doctrine of faith that is common to all religions.

          Stop believing blindly.

          THINK.

          I command you!

          ROTFLMAO

        • #3181608

          Just teasing?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The problem is being honest about your kids

          Hmm, if came off as much stronger than simple teasing but if that is all it was intended then no harm, no foul.

          But I hope you agree that the “anything goes” mentality of the progressive liberal is going to lead to more harm than “love thy neighbor”, and “turn the other cheek” ever will.

          Well, I am off to think……

        • #3260223

          i agree

          by monkey-c ·

          In reply to Yes indeedy!!!

          I could not have said it better myself!

        • #3260169

          Monkey doo

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to i agree

          How is it possible for you to agree with Jessie on the individuality of kids, and with government regulation, which of course will treat all kids of the same age exactly the same as one another?

        • #3236268

          Just curious…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to Absolutely Agree

          …but who decides what’s mature content and who’s a minor? Either you want censorship or not, make up your mind!

        • #3242524

          The village

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Just curious…

          If I’m not there, I don’t want my kids to be able to buy something that says it’s for “mature audiences.” In this instance, I want the video store owners, the police, the neighbor lady, whomever, to prevent MY child from partaking of something that may have Mature situations. However, if I AM there, I can decide to go ahead and let my mature child partake.

          Basically, I want “the village” to say, “You’d better ask your Mom and Dad if it’s okay for you to have that.”

        • #3239022

          Life may have Mature situations.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The village

          Somewhere in your village is the creator of the game you want to withhold from your children. Worse, somewhere in your village is the real thug that inspired the fictional Mature situation. As a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, the village is no better than its dimmest idiot. Rules based on individuals can work, rules based on perfectly homogeneous villages cannot.

        • #3236463

          I could not agree more

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to I know the meaning of the big words you use

          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.

        • #3242515

          Bravo

          by mr l ·

          In reply to I know the meaning of the big words you use

          As I cannot elaborate meaningfully on your statements, the value judgements contained therein, or the moral/ethical foundation you laid them on, I’ll simply applaud quietly and go back to taking care of my own life instead of asking someone else to do that for me.

        • #3239212

          Hello, friend.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Bravo

          Pleased to make your acquaintance.

          Actually, respecting my right to make my own decisions without your help is only the first requirement of the respect that is the basis of friendship. But these days, that’s rare enough.

        • #3236607

          point about manhunt

          by eastmann ·

          In reply to All for one…

          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

        • #3236597

          the point is…

          by uca ·

          In reply to point about manhunt

          …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

        • #3260478

          small point

          by eastmann ·

          In reply to the point is…

          he did’nt use a gun, he used a claw hammer, i did’nt say the motive was only robbery the police report said that, the point i was making is that the newspapers immediately grabbed on to the part about video games and said it was the fault of violent games because he committed the crime in a way shown by the game, even though it was the victim that had been the one playing the game, read another report on the story here for a different view on what happened

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/3538066.stm

        • #3236490

          no storyline violent movies

          by erich1010 ·

          In reply to All for one…

          “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.

        • #3236446

          Gee Whiz

          by wjstroup ·

          In reply to All for one…

          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.

      • #3236508

        Why can’t one single person…?

        by propellerheadus ·

        In reply to big words/small ideas/philosophical evasion

        …America stand up and say “I did it”.

        We are all responsible for our own actions.

        It’s not someone else’s fault.

        • #3236387

          vChip for games???

          by dustintabor ·

          In reply to Why can’t one single person…?

          It would make the most sense for the video game box makers to allow parents to censor games on there own. A sort of vChip for set top boxes.

          If the parent doesn’t want mature games being played, the kids could still rent them but they just wouldn’t work until they have their parents’ permission.

          This would take the burden of the video stores and place it on parents, where it should be.

        • #3260420

          It isn’t my fault

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Why can’t one single person…?

          that it isn’t my fault!

          Oh, that isn’t what you were asking for. OOPS!

          Personal accountablity? I don’t see it happening. Partly because if you do stand up and say “I did it” you get nailed hard. Deny deny deny. Too many people are just looking for someone to blame for everything and you make yourself an easy target.

          What would happen at work if you stood up and say “yes, I am the one that crashed the server”? You may feel guilt free as you stand in the unemployment office.

          And I AM in favor of accountablility, it is just stacked against the moral and honest. Only the weasles advance. Look at your boss.

        • #3260195

          This is terrible!

          by gazoo ·

          In reply to It isn’t my fault

          Where do you work? It is normal in my IT unit to say ‘I did it, sorry’ when something like that happens. One can only be fired for willfull sabotage.

        • #3242555

          Are we talking Earth here?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to This is terrible!

          “One can only be fired for willfull sabotage”.

          People are fired for making mistakes all the time! If you make a mistake and it costs your company thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, you will NOT be around to do it again.

      • #3236424

        Yes and no

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to big words/small ideas/philosophical evasion

        First, are the makers responsible for the actions of people that use the games? No.

        Should people be held accountable for their own actions no matter where they got the ideas from? Yes.

        Making this available to minors who are NOT able to make good judgements yet is an issue.

        I personally do not allow any games in my house that glorify being a scumbag. This means all the grand theft games in particular. And I have explained this to my boys that I will not tolerate anything in anyway that glorifies this. This also includes the vast majority of rap “music”. Not in my house.

        • #3242645

          Good for you

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Yes and no

          You made the choice for your children, and that is your right and you should be able to raise them as you see fit. You made the right choice, because it is your choice for your children. For parents who have no problem with violent games (like my brother and his 13 year old well-adjusted honor student son who plays “Grand Theft Auto”), let them raise their children as they see fit, also. My brother made the right choice, because it is his choice for his son. I do not want to see government appointed censors make the decisions for parents. The parents should be able to make their own decisions for their children.

        • #3242551

          Making sure minors can’t buy or rent

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Good for you

          keeps the control in the parents hands. Not letting minors rent R rated movies is also keeping the control in the hands of the parents. Then the parent is the one that can choose if they think the glorification of drug dealers, car thiefs and murders is acceptable wholesome family fun.

        • #3242476

          The supreme court

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Good for you

          is hearing a case this year about parental notification in abortion cases. I agree with you, but I’m afraid the courts are going to erode parents’ rights even further.

        • #3242459

          shouldn’t a 12 year old be in charge of reproduction?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The supreme court

          Shouldn’t a 12 year old be in charge of reproduction? Don’t they have the RIGHT to decide if after having sex if they should carry that baby with no imput from the legal gardians of that 12 year old?

          That is just crazy talk! Or is it?

          If the parents are responsible for that child, why are they not notified?

          If that child can’t get a tattoo without perental concent, how can they get an abortion?

          If they can’t go see an “R” rated movie, how can they get this damaging process with no counciling to help them cope with it? And this is not a process without the risk of complications either.

          I don’t understand the argument of allowing CHILDREN to do this unless it is just another way for people to validate to themselves that there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting abortions and the more people that do it the better?

          Should not become an issue that is taken lightly. Even if you don’t believe that is a life that is dieing, there are still a lot of emotional issues that people that have abortions go through. Who would wish that on a kid?

        • #3239200

          Because a pregnant 12-year-old…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to shouldn’t a 12 year old be in charge of reproduction?

          means that the parents of the 12-year-old have not already failed miserably in their role as parents. After such expert guidance that a child barely physically capable of pregnancy has become pregnancy, it is clearly the expectant grandparents’ right to botch yet another life.

          You are not the brightest bulb are you?

        • #3239070

          Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because a pregnant 12-year-old…

          When those parents have been legally determined unfit, we’ll talk. Otherwise, they’re the ones who have the say.

        • #3181596

          Took to an extreme to make a point

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Because a pregnant 12-year-old…

          First, kids will make mistakes. It isn’t only “bad” kids or neglected kids that have sex and with the way they dress now it is no wonder they are having sex earlier and earlier. Between that and everyone keeps saying to hand out condoms because they are going to have sex anyways instead of telling them why they should wait to have sex.

          So you are saying that after making a mistake all is lost? They should never consult with their parents to try to fix mistakes?

          Anyone who thinks that a child of this age should be able to run out and have a medical procedure without the concent of their parents is part of the problem.

          Better start handing out better condoms in the grade schools if the best arguement is “they are going to do it anyways”.

          Should YOUR kid have sex anytime they want, with as many partners as they want? (assuming you have kids, if not, pretend how you will teach them). If you are going to tell them not to run around like animals and have sex any and everywhere with anyone, the question is WHY?

          Kids from rich and poor families alike make mistakes. From good “villages” and bad.

          Shine some of your light this way.

        • #3239071

          Who would wish that on a kid?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to shouldn’t a 12 year old be in charge of reproduction?

          Indeed. Who?

        • #3235825

          You are the only one to speak of wishing that on anybody.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          “When those parents have been legally determined unfit, we’ll talk.”

          I look forward to the day when failure is legally considered just cause for removal of power, parental or otherwise. The world will be a far more just and efficient place.

        • #3254903

          re: R&IAN

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          What standards are you going to use to define failure? Children are different, and what you might think is in the best interest of one may not be possible or practical for another.

        • #3254864

          Individuality does not support your conclusion

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          “Children are different, and what you might think is in the best interest of one may not be possible or practical for another.”

          So let the children decide, not the State. Pregnant 12-year-olds have bad parents. Keep trying to evade that, I like watching irrational people squirm.

        • #3181620

          What’s irrational?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          “So let the children decide, not the State.”

          The child’s bad judgement (usually) is what got her into the pregnancy in the first place! And it’s not the State’s place, it’s the parents’ (unless, as I’ve said, the parents have been determined legally unfit).

          Children displaying bad judgement (or in cases of rape, misfortune) does not necessarily equate to bad parenting. Are your children robots, with perfect programming whom you can simply turn off whenever they are out of your sight.

          Irrational? What’s that mean? someone who doesn’t agree with you?

        • #3181723

          Irrational, defined:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          “not governed by or according to reason”.

          The case of a raped 12-year-old does not impeach the parents of the pregnant girl, I agree. But rape was not the original premise of this offshoot discussion, so can we first address the case of pregnancy through consensual sex, since it is more often the cause of pregnancy?

          This side-track began when it was suggested that the parents of a pregnant 12-year-old have a moral right that government should recognize and enforce, to decide for that 12-year-old whether to give birth or have an abortion. That is the issue I find ridiculous, not the underlying notion that 12-year-olds need parental guidance, instead of condoms and abortions-to-order as if it were McDonald’s. I don’t mean to dismiss the rape scenario or to suggest that rape is trivial, but it is not the norm, and the norm should not be governed by the worst-case scenario, although law ought to recognize its occasional occurrence and be prepared to accomodate it when it happens. I think that is what reason requires.

        • #3181373

          the rub

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          “This side-track began when it was suggested that the parents of a pregnant 12-year-old have a moral right that government should recognize and enforce, to decide for that 12-year-old whether to give birth or have an abortion.”

          The government cares squat about morals per se, the parents have a “legal” right to determine what is in the best interest of their child, unless and until the child either reaches majority or that right is removed by due process. Several learned jurists have commented on exactly this issue over the last century, and this right has been upheld every time it has been challenged, the Court repeatedly applying “strict scrutiny” to whether to remove that right.

          You or I might not agree that a particular parent is doing right by their child, but unless you can “prove” that the parents’ decision would be harmful to the child, it should be the parent’s decision. I mean, you or I may thing every good parent should send their child to college, but would you actually suggest we remove the parental rights of those parents who can’t or don’t?

          “I don’t mean to dismiss the rape scenario or to suggest that rape is trivial, but it is not the norm, and the norm should not be governed by the worst-case scenario, although law ought to recognize its occasional occurrence and be prepared to accomodate it when it happens. I think that is what reason requires.”

          I agree, however, the legislature is seldom reasonable in these matters. Most laws are their response to the worst case.

        • #3181351

          Now we are beginning to communicate :)

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          “The government cares squat about morals per se”

          Perhaps. The government is still answerable to us, the people, occasionally, although I’d go for more decisions by referendum and fewer paid “public servants”. Still, we have ways of giving input.

          College…I could write a book, but not on this string.

          “I agree, however, the legislature is seldom reasonable in these matters. Most laws are their response to the worst case.”

          There are enough pragmatists in DC making problems. I propose we drop the assumption that the present state of affairs is the only possible way things could be, and discuss the best possible ways of dealing with human nature as we all know it to be. “Imperfect”, yet not without intrinsic virtue.

        • #3180474

          Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Who would wish that on a kid?

          THe “best possible way” is only someone’s opinion.

          12 year olds are usually not the best people to make these decisions for themselves (16 year olds, however, are often wiser than their parents, and are often “emancipated” for such reasons, giving them nearly all the rights of an adult), nor are most of them ready to handle the consequences of THEIR decision (meaning that if someone else makes it for them, the burden of responsibility is less).

          An abortion might be the best answer, as well, giving birth might. It depends on the child. Could be that the baby would actually motivate the child to improve her lot (I have seen one such, though 14, not 12 at the time… 26 now with 11 year-old twins and makes more than I do), but there are too many variables and the faceless social services case worker is almost never going to get it right. Keep government involvement to a minimum, they always muck it up.

        • #3235678

          Sarcasm

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to shouldn’t a 12 year old be in charge of reproduction?

          “Don’t they have the RIGHT to decide if after having sex if they should carry that baby with no impute from the legal gardians of that 12 year old?”

          Were those legal guardians of the 12-year-old incompetent as role models, or jsut unconcerned with that child’s womb BEFORE she became pregnant? The fact of the pregnancy negates all your claims of the expectant grandparentss rights.

      • #3260222

        I agree and have one thing to add.

        by rowman ·

        In reply to big words/small ideas/philosophical evasion

        When you play a violent game and pretend kill a lot of people, just hit return and every one is alive again. Real life is way more violent.

      • #3260217

        Among other things..

        by pwor ·

        In reply to big words/small ideas/philosophical evasion

        Violent Games ‘specifically’ do not incite violence, but could be an influence among many, and given the right conditions. Insults for example may provoke the temper of one individual but not necessarily the next guy. I’m not aware of any gospel evidence to prove that it directly causes it…But ultimately its how the individual reacts to that kind of stimulus. Some people are just obsessive.

        Parents should be careful though…kids absorb very well and are usually curious enough to imagine or experiment. Who knows how they process the violence they see on video games.

        • #3260168

          Who knows?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Among other things..

          Kids process the violence they see on video the same way you and I did when we were kids. Sheesh.

    • #3256474

      It Really is a Matter of Degree

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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??

      • #3232406

        Columbine happened ONCE.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to It Really is a Matter of Degree

        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.

        • #3232292

          A Lot More than Once

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Columbine happened ONCE.

          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.

        • #3232109

          fine, guns have been fired in schools on other occasions

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A Lot More than Once

          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.

        • #3236291

          Less than before…

          by erich1010 ·

          In reply to A Lot More than Once

          Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2000, the third in a series of annual reports on school crime and safety from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics, presents the latest available data on school crime and student safety and contains the following statistics on school violence:

          In 1998, students were about two times as likely to be victims of serious violent crime away from school as at school

          Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students who reported being victims of crime at school decreased from 10 percent to 8 percent
          Ninety percent of public schools reported no violent crime incidents in 1996-97.

          Forty-three percent of these reported no crimes of any kind

          Forty-seven percent of these reported at least
          one nonviolent crime, but no violent crimes.

          The most prevalent type of youth crime is theft, and the most common types of violence are fist fights, bullying and shoving matches.

          Overall, about 1,000 crimes per 100,000 students were reported in public schools, 950 of which were not serious or violent.

          The ratio of serious violent crime is lowest in elementary schools, with 13 violent crimes reported per 100,000 students compared with 93 per 100,000 students in middle schools and 103 per 100,000 students in high schools.

          Schools that reported serious discipline problems were more likely to have experienced one or more incidents of crime or violence, and were more likely to experience serious violent crime than those with less serious discipline problems.

          The rate of serious crimes is fairly small when compared to the number of students-approximately 54 million-in public schools.

        • #3235771

          “worldwide” ? ? ? ? alas no

          by 2wired ·

          In reply to A Lot More than Once

          Well done, you copy and pasted from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html or
          http://www.knowgangs.com/school_resources/timeline/schooltimeline_001.htm
          or any of the other websites that show the same data in the same format, could have just given us the link.

          Oh, by the way, you can hardly call them worldwide school shootings, when all but 3 of them occurred within the USA, while Dunblane and the Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri shootings were shootings in which a school was targeted, rather than shootings within a school carried out by school kids…
          so, it would appear that out of the 37 valid cases listed, 36 of them occurred within the USA, leaving me to think that its got nothing to do with video game violence (as violent video games are everywhere, in every country) but with Americans insistence that every house should have a gun but no one should train there kids to leave the damn things alone.

          I for one grew up with a father, who owned a rifle, was instructed at an early age that rifles are bloody dangerous, and it?s a bold thing to play with them, as it would be to play with a power tool. I was also taught in a round-about way that killing someone with a rifle etc was bold, as would killing a person with a power tool be bold. I learned respect for life and respect for weapons, and I’ve never shot anyone 😉
          I started playing video games at the age of 6, and playing “violent” first person games as soon as wolfenstien came out…as did many. I love fps (first person shooter) games, the bloodier the better, but though a child of TV and computers, I was always able to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

          So grow a pair and accept it, it?s far more likely that youth are growing up disillusioned and separated by reality due to less care being put into their parenting, less time spent within the family unit (both parents working, relying on the TV to educate and amuse etc) than just because of violent video games. Ask yourself the question: why is little Johnny spending 90% of his free time locked in a dark room escaping reality in the first place, or even better, where the hell is little Johnny???

          oh, yea, LOCK YOURE GUNS UP, YA STUPID HICKS! ! !

          Its 10pm, do you know where YOURE children are?

        • #3235691

          if “youth are growing up disillusioned”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “worldwide” ? ? ? ? alas no

          How do so many people convince themselves that the solution is to shore up the illusion?

        • #3232253

          Columbine – enforce

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Columbine happened ONCE.

          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.

      • #3236581

        I agree, for different reasons

        by chaz chance# ·

        In reply to It Really is a Matter of Degree

        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.

      • #3236512

        I agree with you, for different reasons.

        by chaz chance# ·

        In reply to It Really is a Matter of Degree

        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.

    • #3232112

      How is it any different than TV?

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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!

      • #3249513

        Here! Here!

        by black panther ·

        In reply to How is it any different than TV?

        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.

        • #3249492

          Caveat Emptor

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Here! Here!

          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?

        • #3238318

          Yes on what you say , but..

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Caveat Emptor

          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.

        • #3260236

          Some Trust

          by black panther ·

          In reply to Yes on what you say , but..

          All our movies are rated in Australia and yes they do get it wrong sometimes!

          If there is no rating system then would there be pornography sold in the Department stores ( or is that the case in the U.S. ) similiar to alcohol?

        • #3260172

          yes they do get it wrong sometimes!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Some Trust

          Also here in the US the ratings are frequently considered “too lenient” by the busybodies, who mysteriously conclude that the solution is more regulation since the existing regulations do not work to their satisfaction, never noticing the flaw in their logic.

          And yes, I can stroll down to a department store and buy a gallon of distilled spirits and a sackful of pornography with young girls shopping for knickers within pinching distance. There was a great uproar at first when this was made legal, but nobody had the moral fiber to boycott the places that did business this way, so in the end it was just as the Christian fundies feared. Yay Satan!

      • #3249486

        No ratings

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to How is it any different than TV?

        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!

        • #3235960

          Yes, but give them less to complain about!

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to No ratings

          Just use the ESRB rating on every game. Then parents can’t claim “I didn’t know.”

        • #3236462

          less to complain about…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Yes, but give them less to complain about!

          “Ignorance is no excuse.” How’s that for less to complain about?

        • #3260358

          Works for me, but…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to less to complain about…

          You will still have the idiot parents. I mean a Mrs. Ayala stick a finger of a co-worker in her Wendy’s chili and SUE Wendy’s.

          My point: People are stupid and letigious. Nip it in the bud now.

        • #3260351

          More pampering of idiot kids…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Works for me, but…

          and catering to idiots of any age, just encourages more idiot parents and their waste of skin idiot kids. Stupidity should be PAINFUL, not enshrined into law!

        • #3260268

          While I agree…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to More pampering of idiot kids…

          Reality dictates otherwise. There are too many stupid people floating around…

      • #3249250

        Exactly

        by salamander ·

        In reply to How is it any different than TV?

        [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.

        • #3238611

          The “importance of community”?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Exactly

          “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.

        • #3238561

          The value of control.

          by salamander ·

          In reply to The “importance of community”?

          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?

        • #3238330

          I think Dr. Spock has something to do with it

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to The “importance of community”?

          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.

        • #3235994

          Never trust a Vulcan!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I think Dr. Spock has something to do with it

          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.

        • #3260155

          Yes there is

          by gazoo ·

          In reply to Never trust a Vulcan!

          I honestly disagree with your idea that spanking is a good idea. The Golden Rule cannot be taught by spanking, children rarely spank their parents. The Confucian expression of the Rule perhaps can (he is credited with ‘Don’t do unto others what you don’t want them to do to you’). Physical discipline doesn’t have to include pain. I also disagree that punishment is synonymous with discipline.
          Another mode of child-rearing is the use of love, justice and the inculcation of the concepts of mercy and interdependency to effect reasonable behaviour from children. It works, but may not be available for a person with your character (as evinced through your previous posts in this thread). I have five children and know what the results of both these modalities are. I come down on the side of Love (as was taught me by my wife) as opposed to Fear (which is what I had learned as a child).

        • #3242704

          No there isn’t.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Yes there is

          But thank you for pointing out my use of a religious doctrine in a (sometimes) logical debate. Totally inappropriate. “The Rule” in any culture is the best, or most widely accepted, description in whatever culture of the concept of reciprocity, a condition that might never be attained between parents and their offspring, but is the ideal of a civilized society. It is for parents to teach their children that principle with their authority, not to be their children’s peers, unless and until the children are able to behave without supervision.

          Love and justice are not incompatible with an occasional spanking for serious misbehavior.

          Mercy means to equate good with evil by treating both identically. Mercy is evil.

          Interdependency is communist nonsense. I don’t depend on you and you don’t depend on me. If you do, you’ll find yourself in need. Fair exchange among equals is not interdependence because there are always other trading partners available to replace somebody who wants to make us “dependent”.

        • #3242456

          You may be right,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yes there is

          but in my experience, parents who don’t punish their children, often don’t do anything else for their children either.

          Oh, and be careful using the J word in front of children. Too often, they confuse the related words Justice and Justify (fied, fiable), sometimes with disasterous results.

        • #3260159

          Read the book

          by gazoo ·

          In reply to I think Dr. Spock has something to do with it

          I think you would be surprised if you would only read the book.

        • #3242460

          Unfortunately

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The “importance of community”?

          A lot of people think that “importance of community” means making sure the neighborhood hoodlums don’t break into their garage.

      • #3238546

        You’re right but…

        by dmambo ·

        In reply to How is it any different than TV?

        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.

        • #3235977

          Do you mean that…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You’re right but…

          regulation of people who do obey the law is justified by the fact that other people do not?

        • #3338985

          I’m no philosopher

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Do you mean that…

          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.

        • #3338971

          You don’t need to be.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m no philosopher

          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.

        • #3236576

          Solomon – Bad Joke

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to You don’t need to be.

          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.

        • #3236433

          Solomon

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Solomon – Bad Joke

          Solomon WAS known for his wisdom but your story was incorrect and, as recorded in the bible, doesn’t make your point.

          When two women claimed that the same baby was theirs, Solomon proposed that the baby be cut in half and half given to each. He had no intention of doing it but it forced the “real” mother to give up her claim so that her baby might live. Solomon then gave her the baby and punished the other.

          What he specifically didn’t do was “force the parties to come to a solution of their own”. Quite the opposite. Solomon would have cut off the hands of any programmers responsible for programs that he didn’t like. You can do that sort of thing if you’re an absolute monarch.

          😀

        • #3236396

          Thanks, Neil. I knew I was wrong.

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Solomon – Bad Joke

          Should have paid more attention on Sunday afternoons as a kid.

        • #3236370

          Soloman

          by jwarmath ·

          In reply to Solomon – Bad Joke

          You were on the right track.

        • #3242392

          Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Solomon – Bad Joke

          Actually, both women claimed a child as theirs, and Solomon’s proposal uncovered the truth, as one woman (the real mother) was going to give up the child, rather than let it be cut in half.

        • #3236569

          Hey, Absolutely, One more thing –

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to You don’t need to be.

          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.

        • #3236509

          Where is your documentation?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Hey, Absolutely, One more thing –

          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.

        • #3236297

          In response to Absolutley

          by captg ·

          In reply to Hey, Absolutely, One more thing –

          Absolutley,
          The documentation exists in the sections of the Constitutiuon of the United States of America that: created a legislative body appointed by popular election, an executive office held by representative appointment in popular election, and a judicial body appointed by said executive officer, and approved by said legeslative body.
          These mechanisms are echoed by each state in the Union. At the local level the members of these governing bodies are appointed by popular election. Hence we are regulated by generally accepted social and religious mores.
          The regulations both protect and limit the inalienable rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, which if you really pay attention does not actually guarantee any freedoms, only the rights to them.

        • #3236293

          Edit

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Hey, Absolutely, One more thing –

          My post should have read “social and religious guidelines”. Without doubt, social and *legal* guidelines are permitted, but not “social and religious guidelines”.

          The prohibition of government support for an establishment of religion in fact denies the possibility of “religious guidelines” for interpretation of law, as well. Otherwise, every Act passed by Congress IS “respecting an establishment of religion”.

        • #3242714

          The Constitution

          by gazoo ·

          In reply to You don’t need to be.

          The US Constitution (to form a more perfect union) is actually all about curtailing your individual liberty, in an way acceptable to the representatives of the several states.

        • #3242597

          I’m not surprised

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The Constitution

          that you offer no factual support for that claim. None exists.

        • #3236376

          Regulation

          by jwarmath ·

          In reply to Do you mean that…

          With no regulation/laws then I think it’s called Chaos. With any group of people you have to have guidelines (read laws) for the whole. And, these guidelines have to be agreed upon by the majority (read democracy).

        • #3260365

          Be careful

          by jdchapman ·

          In reply to Regulation

          Be very careful how much authority you give and to whom. You may not like the results and it’s very hard sometimes to take the authority away. It’s certainly easier to get by if the govt. tells you what you can and can’t do by taking away the means to do it. It’s a slippery slope you want to walk on though.

        • #3242395

          Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Do you mean that…

          Justified? No, but does it happen? Absolutely.

        • #3239193

          Killer tsunamis happen too.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

          That doesn’t make them good.

          World War II happened. That doesn’t imply acceptance of Nazism.

          So what is the point of the question “does it happen?” and the answer “Absolutely.”? Is there or is there not moral significance at issue? This would be much easier for me if I were to stop analyzing what is morally appropriate, and just catalog what happens.

        • #3239052

          Moral Significance

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Killer tsunamis happen too.

          “Is there or is there not moral significance at issue?”

          The answer you’d get to that from various people depends wholly on whose ox is being gored, I think.

          When I was in second grade, I disliked the fact that the teacher kept all the kids in from recess when one kid got caught chewing gum. It’s only gotten worse from there. Example: I haven’t used a sick day in almost 20 years, but if I should acquire an extended illness or injury, my second week would be at a 30% pay reduction. This policy was put into place to discourage sick leave abuse, but in fact has had no effect what-so-ever, except to penalize those who don’t abuse it should they really need it.

          You’re not going to be able to do anything about it. The mediocre, the lazy, and the perpetual victims are in full control of this country and they will continue to be as long as there are people of high personal ethics who keep doing the work that needs to be done. I feel like such a sucker sometimes.

        • #3235613

          Causality is a fact.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Moral Significance

          If “The mediocre, the lazy, and the perpetual victims are in full control of this country” it is because people who claim to have “high personal ethics” keep moping about their daily chores instead of doing something about it. The day I believe “You’re not going to be able to do anything about it” is the day I suck the business end of a shotgun and squeeze.

        • #3242398

          We call it negligence around these parts.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You’re right but…

          And it’s just one more layer of failure to take responsibility. I wonder what would happen if we started holding parents responsible for children’s misdeeds.

      • #3260412

        TURN OFF/ PURCHASE

        by lymon1 ·

        In reply to How is it any different than TV?

        A TV program, most which are not fit for human consumption, can be turned of or blocked. I have the worst of mine blocked and I will not give anyone my code. A video/computer game has to be bought. So to buy or not to buy that is the question?? TV channels can be blocked or turned off. Most parents buy the games for their children not even knowing what the game is about nor do many even care. The society we live in proves that conclusion.

    • #3338845

      The blame game

      by brent84 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3236421

        RE: The Blame Game

        by edward18 ·

        In reply to The blame game

        You saved me from typing that over again. What point do parents start getting yelled at? I mean seriously little billy whines and you give him the violent game.. Seems to be your inability to raise a mild tempered child is at fault.

    • #3338831

      Get back on track

      by mikefromperth ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3338830

      brother’s keeper

      by pivert ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3236606

      Undoable (hopefully) and has more impact than you want

      by adwhaan ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3236554

        Run away!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Undoable (hopefully) and has more impact than you want

        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.

    • #3236601

      Semantics… “incite”

      by canada_yoda ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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

    • #3236583

      hhhmmm… Lets see

      by nh ranger ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3236579

      how right-wing is this question?

      by brian ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3236533

        You have to recognize

        by gitmo ·

        In reply to how right-wing is this question?

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

        • #3236514

          I have to?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You have to recognize

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

      • #3236478

        I am about as Right Wing as they come..

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to how right-wing is this question?

        ..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.

        • #3236441

          Protection racket.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I am about as Right Wing as they come..

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

        • #3236410

          Right Wing protection?

          by pashippert ·

          In reply to I am about as Right Wing as they come..

          Such doing away is not limited to leftists, as anyone in the allegedly leftist education profession could tell you. “No Child Left Behind” is another in a growing string of mandates placing all accountability for student achievement (and personal responsibility for all sorts of behavior) on someone other than the student. If Johnny and his friends don’t pass the [dubious] standardized test(s), it’s the school’s fault, and they are the ones “reconstituted” as a penalty. I agree with a number of posters who have suggested that what’s needed is personal accountability, sound parenting, and a recognition that with “rights” come responsibilities.

        • #3236278

          off topic

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Right Wing protection?

          but since you brought it up, being offended by the left does not necessarity imply lock-step approval of whatever today’s Republicans call the “right” wing.

      • #3236344

        WHY does everyone equate Conservatism with Fundies?

        by lwebb ·

        In reply to how right-wing is this question?

        To the main question: video games don’t “incite” violence any more than movies, Television, rap music, etc. One could argue the opposite in fact, that due to the interactive qualities of video games they allow one to “let off steam” in a fantasy setting rather than in real life.

        Any Columbine-like incidences are, were and always will be the failure of parenting. Sorry to step on anyone’s sensitivities, but it’s true.

        The Bible and the Quran have incited FAR more killing than video games ever will.

        Listen, you’ve got your ESRB ratings in place, game reviews, and you’ve got the description on the box. What more do you want? What the hell happened to personal responsibility? Liberal 80’s pop-psychology happened that’s what!

        If you let your kids buy this crap, if you let your kids play their computer in their room where you can’t see them, if you let it dominate your kid’s psyche, it’s YOUR fault as a parent. That doesn’t give the government the right to censor the material.

        Censorship leads to the Dark Side, and while it may be the Christian thing to do, it is very UN-conservative.

        I’m a conservative.
        I’m a Deist.
        I manage to support school prayer, “In God We Trust”, “Under God” and STILL think Jesus, Budda, Mohammed etcetera should be barred from politics.

        Don’t stick all right-wingers in with Pat Roberson’s facist crew.

        • #3260432

          Pat Robertson and similar theocrats

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to WHY does everyone equate Conservatism with Fundies?

          will be the public face of your party until it presents more sane perspectives as frequently, consistently and earnestly as the wing nuts.

        • #3220546

          Possible answer to your question.

          by vanight ·

          In reply to WHY does everyone equate Conservatism with Fundies?

          Here is my take on your question and why things are the way the are with the stereotypical view you speak of.

          I would completely agree that people can be fiscally conservative, believe a strong military and not be socially conservative. However, that being said. Most liberals who group folks that believe in God as Socially Conservative and those who do not, as liberal, actually make sense in a way. Here is the reasoning. Morals that come from an Absolute or a Sovereign God as commandments given to man, gives a compelling reason to obey those commands. Without consequence, Morals and Ethics (yes, they are very different) become simply a matter of personal preference. Once something is personal preference and there is no consequence (at least in the persons mind) then there is simply no reason for ethics. You might as well, get all that you can get, because once you die, its over. I believe that is the fundamental reason that most people associate, Judeo-Christian ethics with Social conservatism. Now, I am not saying that Atheist can’t place on themselves personal preferences on social issues. But lets be clear, that is ALL they are, personal preferences. Which mean, they can change or be omitted at any point, without cause or reason. Yes, very convenient, but how would you build an ethical society on something that is merely someone?s idea at any given time. Here is an excellent essay written by a former Atheist that goes into much more detail. (if your interested) I would encourage you to read it with the open mind that “Progressive Thinkers” claim to cherish and boast that Christians lack.

          http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm

          I would agree that the assumption that a person has to believe in God to with some of the common conservative talking points, like Fiscal, Government, Military, education, is absurd.

          Sincerely,

          David
          http://vanight.blogspot.com

      • #3236332

        twisted london bobbie

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to how right-wing is this question?

        Hey, pal. Keep the crap local. We quite like our London Bobby – twisted or untwisted – not being able to blow the sh:t out of us.

        By the way, I think, as a country, you have you priorities wrong. You can have any level of violence in games, TV shows and even your sports and yet if Janet Jackson lets a nip slip loose during the Superbowl…

        Lets have MORE reality. Lets see the consequences of violence as graphically as possible. Lets have people DIE in the A-Team with their guts hanging out after BA throws them through a plate glass window.

        Above all, lets have more SEX.

    • #3236573

      Ai Carumba!

      by mollenhourb9 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3236530

        Correlation does not imply causation.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Ai Carumba!

        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.

        • #3242452

          Bad kids come from bad parents.

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Correlation does not imply causation.

          So you are saying you had bad parents because you were bad when you pulled the other kids hair.

          An action that you learned by observing. Much like kids with violent video games?

          Hmmmm.

        • #3239198

          And bad villages.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Bad kids come from bad parents.

          I know you don’t believe that playing video games will make the same impression that physical discipline will, so I will not explain how your reasoning is flawed, as if it were an honest mistake on your part.

        • #3254707

          It was your reasoning

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And bad villages.

          just taken a step further to join with your other posts.

          Villages. Someone living in California is more likely to grow up with bad influinces than someone living in a place like Montana, but you can only BLAME external factors for YOUR choices so much. Not everyone in Detroit has killed someone or done drugs, but some have. Parental guidance.

          As for video games making an impression, I have already posted that I do not allow in my house games, movies or music that glorifies being a scumbag in anyway. The rule is set and explained WHY the rule is in place.

          Taken to the extreme arguement though, you would be banning even the “need for speed” games where there is no violence, sex or drug reference BUT they do break the law by driving at excessive speeds on the streets.

          At some point you need to just chill a bit.

        • #3254698

          input on societal factors

          by jck ·

          In reply to It was your reasoning

          The reason that there’s more crime and more bad influence in Detroit as compared to “podunk, OR” is that…there are far more people.

          I can see both your points, but lemme tell you about growing up in B.F.E.

          I grew up in a rural city of about 14,000 people in rural Oklahoma. You’d think quiet country life with little bad influence. Right?

          Well before I was graduated from high school, I’d seen more cocaine than most people who snort it see in their life. One of my class mates was running random shipments from Dallas to Oklahoma City. One day, he had 20 kilos in the trunk of his monte carlo.

          So although small-town America means less frequency, don’t think it means zero chance.

          Also, I believe it does take more than just the parents to raise a kid. If the kid knows that once he/she gets outside of the house unless the police catch him/her that they won’t be held responsible for doing wrong, they will be more likely to be “daring” around their friends. If other adults could grab a kid by the arm when they see them doing wrong without fear of legal tort from the parents, I think this nation would be a lot better off.

          I’m not advocating abuse. Just to teach children real discipline.

        • #3181441

          My reasoning

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It was your reasoning

          seems to be beyond you. I made it very clear that I credit my parents with appropriate use of physical discipline, which was legal then and would not be now. You have been basing your responses on the opposite conclusion, and have been correct in no subsequent reference to anything that I have posted so far.

          Try to steer clear of polygraph machines.

        • #3181325

          polygraph

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to My reasoning

          only shows if you are lieing, not if you are correct or not.

          While I am sometimes wrong (or so they tell me) it is never a lie.

        • #3181319

          Please dear God

          by jck ·

          In reply to My reasoning

          Don’t tell me that I now have to pass a polygraph and quote 5 sources to prove myself.

          two words: kangaroo court

          I’m going socialist. This two party system sucks.

        • #3181255

          Don’t worry jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to My reasoning

          Polygraph machines don’t work if under the influince of Guiness so your good! Drink up and quit whinning about stuff that doesn’t matter anyways!

          Jager bombs all around!

        • #3181209

          seriously

          by jck ·

          In reply to My reasoning

          if you’re gonna feed me Jaegermeister, make sure you have Brass Monkey for me to chase it with.

          Even though my ancestry is mostly German, me and ole Jaeger don’t get along. Or at least, it makes me REALLY hard to get along with.

          You’re right…more Guinness for me. It keeps me happy and my ancestors too 🙂

    • #3236571

      censorship

      by barryaaa2 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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!

      • #3236559

        bigger problem

        by viztor ·

        In reply to censorship

        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.

    • #3236565

      Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      by datamordechai ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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

      • #3260444

        The better to deceive you with, my dear!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

        How many posts would there have been if SlapShot had just said “It’s not my fault”.

        To paraphrase Tucker Carlson, any claim that cannot be made with a simple declarative sentence is an attempt to evade the necessity of understanding, either the speaker’s or the audience’s. Both are immoral.

    • #3236534

      YES

      by acrie ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

      • #3236516

        well, obviously…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to YES

        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.

        • #3236418

          RPG Reference?

          by tlea ·

          In reply to well, obviously…

          Maybe this is in reference to RPG games like Atari’s Temple of Elemental Evil? (Not to be confused with the computer language RPG which has such stellar titles as ‘Find the missing inventory’ and ‘Reconcile that Report!’)

          The game refers to some “made-up” (read as not yet accepted by the main stream media as actual all powerful beings) deities from the Dungeons and Dragons universe. Though they may be refering to Oprah…

        • #3236296

          I have no doubt that is what he meant.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to RPG Reference?

          My point is that Sauron of the LOTR stories is no less an invention of a human mind than Jehovah of the Bible.

          Moses, or at least that was his pen name, invented Jehovah.

          The inventor of Allah is known to have been Mohammed.

          Anybody who claims to believe in fairies, pixies, nymphs, or other “supernatural” characters can be committed and locked into an asylum for life.

          Why do Christians receive unlawful protection against the diagnosis of insanity? Is the key to get “accepted by the main stream media”? Oprah has been…

        • #3260212

          Good one

          by monkey-c ·

          In reply to well, obviously…

          >> “I before E…”, like so many rules, does not apply to god.

          Hey, I never noticed that before…

        • #3260165

          Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all day!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Good one

          Did you know that Oprah is God?

          That’s right, the Eternal Supreme Dieter has revealed her identity to all!

      • #3236380

        Being a little overweight

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to YES

        – OK, well a lot! – I think that made-up dieties sounds like a good idea!

        Neil 🙂

        • #3260468

          Troublemaker!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Being a little overweight

          🙂

          However, a real diet will help you lose weight better than an imaginary diety, or deity!

      • #3242418

        Oh no you don’t…

        by mr l ·

        In reply to YES

        Your morals are not mine…never will be. Don’t even think about coming into my living room and telling me what I can and can’t do to entertain myself in private. If I want to amuse myself with a video game that features a death match between two made up dieties who tortured each other first and then had sex, followed by a rollicking slaughterfest, that’s my perogative. Don’t like it, don’t buy it…but keep your nose, and your morals, out of my business.

      • #3235752

        wow

        by 2wired ·

        In reply to YES

        Two sentences, 5 spelling mistakes and a claim that your imaginary friend is better than some programmers? imaginary friend (condemning the use of ?made up deities? all in the one breath. Impressive. But I?m still a little confused?who are you claiming never had sex, the characters or the programmers????

    • #3236526

      Get a Life

      by wcp83 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3236511

      You gotta be kidding me!

      by tiddles ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3236503

      Self proclaimed experts

      by drcard.dana ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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:))

      • #3236416

        another possible reason for school violence

        by grimsqueaker ·

        In reply to Self proclaimed experts

        I agree. To expand on what I think you were saying: It is my impression that students in school are forced to be “mature” and have to deal with issues and situations which would have been unthinkable several, maybe 20 years ago (thumbsuck value), possibly due to higher moral standards and ethics. This kind of violence would also have been unthinkable then. Maybe this is the cause rather then the magic computer games which somehow remote control people to be evil… 🙂

    • #3236494

      Your right…

      by eng21 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

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

    • #3236471

      Take resposability for your own actions…

      by orion215 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3236436

      I hate generic “ALL”

      by acmbruch ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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

      • #3236290

        It doesn’t get clothes clean, either!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to I hate generic “ALL”

        As the most outspoken “soap box” type of all TR members I’ve encountered, I agree with analysis, but as an opponent of the regulation solution I see no need to address specific games. Also, I don’t play many, but my experience with Nintendo games is that it was an escapist activity with no application or relevance to reality.

        Are today’s games really so much more “life-like” that they are confusing today’s stupid kids? I know SAT scores are re-inflated annually, but come on, we’re still talking about homo sapiens. Aren’t we?

    • #3236434

      Witch Hunt

      by tlea ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      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.

    • #3236426

      Popeye was Violent too!

      by fgi57 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Since when does the constitution protect your right to be offended? I remember the freedom of speech part, but offend? That part I do not recall. You probably watched Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and Popeye as a child. Were they not violent? Of course they were, but you turned out OK didn’t you? Currently, what exudes more violence now then the War in Irag? Please, for once will you parents take some responsibility for what you and your children watch by adding parental controls and blocks to computer systems and televisions. Discuss these games that offend you with your family and explain your concerns to your children. Computers should be located in a comunal space where you can monitor what web sites your child is accessing anyway. Get a life and stop trying to censor everything.

      • #3242461

        Popeye also promoted drugs

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Popeye was Violent too!

        Popeye always had a stash of “spinach” with him, and took a hit of it when he needed to feel strong.

        • #3242450

          The real bad example was

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Popeye also promoted drugs

          Underdog.

          He kept the pill in his ring and would pop that for a good time.

        • #3242435

          Scooby Doo

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to The real bad example was

          You can’t tell me (or anyone else for that matter) that Scooby and Shaggy weren’t eternally stoned. Paranoia and the munchies constantly.

        • #3242401

          And you say that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Scooby Doo

          like it is a bad thing?

          Ohhh, nachos…..

        • #3181583

          Harvey Birdman and Scooby

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Scooby Doo

          There was a hilarious episode of “Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law” on the Cartoon Channel Adult Swim where Scooby and Shaggy were arrested for possession of marijuana. You got to see it, I cannot give it justice from a description.

    • #3236415

      Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      by crazijoe ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      I guess that is the answer to everything. More regulation. The government needs to baby sit us because we don’t know our own good. I think we are all responsible adults. And as adults we are responsible, not only for our actions, but for our childrens actions as well. I get tired of parents pushing their kids in front of a computer or video game as a babysitter. You better watch what them kids are doing, because you are responsible for them.
      What cracks me up is the parents will blame the programmer for creating such a violent game and it cause their child to kill someone. Soo, where were you (parent) when this child was playing this game? If you don’t have time to spend with your child, then you should of never reproduced.

      • #3236358

        Responsible Adults?

        by jwarmath ·

        In reply to Reply To: Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

        In an ideal world, yes, we would all be responsible adults. This is certainly not an ideal world. And, there are a lot of adults who are not responsible, in the sense of doing right from wrong. Responsible people wouldn’t go out and steal, kill, and take all kinds of advantage of other people. Yes, they should be held accountable for their actions. So, yes, we have to create and enforce regulations for the whole.

        • #3236287

          Wrong.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Responsible Adults?

          Your reasoning is flawed. The fact that the world is not ideal is not an excuse to add regulations that move society farther from the ideal. It is not, in fact, the purpose of law or government to create an ideal world, but to take into account the ideal and protect it, should it exist. That ideal IS personal responsibility based on personal liberty.

    • #3236403

      Video Games aren’t the Issue

      by iwfish ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Saying video games incite violence and immorality is yet another example of how certain individuals in today’s society will do anything and blame anybody to avoid putting the responsibility where it actually belongs. It’s always something. Rock and Roll, satanic messages secretly embedded into heavy metal albums, Teletubbies…; the list goes on ad nauseum. Where should the self righteous really focus their attention? It’s a little thing I like to call RESPONSIBLE PARENTING. There’s a rating system on video games that allows parents who actually take the time to pay attention to determine whether or not the subject matter is suitable for the child. Also, the retailers should be held responsible for carding minors. Of course, most children I know don’t have jobs. With video games costing an average of $50, I wonder where the kids are getting the cash. Could it be that, once again, responsibility falls to the parents?

      I’ve been playing video games and D&D for, literally, decades. I’ve never killed anyone, stolen a car, robbed a bank or solicited prostitutes. I don’t believe I can turn myself invisible or cast a fireball. That’s why they call it fantasy. I work for a living and am a productive member of society. Most of the people I associate with fall into the same category. I don’t need some sanctimonious, self-appointed moral compass telling me how to enjoy myself or live my life. As long as I’m not impinging on someone else’s personal space, I don’t expect anyone to be impinging on mine. If I would rather unwind after a hard day at work cutting down hordes of orcs instead of tying one on at the local tavern, that’s my business and I would ask “you” (“them”, “they”)to stay the hell out of it.

      • #3236357

        Right on!

        by jesuss ·

        In reply to Video Games aren’t the Issue

        You hit the nail in the head with this post. I couldn’t have said it better myself. 🙂

      • #3181453

        Thank you..

        by marionuke ·

        In reply to Video Games aren’t the Issue

        I thought none of the people would ever hear it this is what needs to be said to all the people trying to censor television you freaking don’t have to watch it and guess what guys your TV has a V chip they all have since 1995(?) can’t remeber the exact year thay started that

        • #3181717

          This post was started by an Australian…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Thank you..

          who, if you look very closely, has never quite “advocated” anything. He has speculated on the nature of future regulations, but not spoken in favor of them, nor against.

    • #3236371

      Nothing wrong with getting help

      by sql_joe ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      There are some things that are meant for adults, and not appropriate for children. As a parent it is my responsability to ensure that my children do not get exposed to the things that I feel are inapropriate. I do not think its fair, or proper to expect everyone or anyone else to do that for me.

      However, there is also nothing wrong with me, as an adult, getting help. Ratings schemes, with defined criteria are one way to help the me with this. If I see an “M” rated video game, I know there is something in the game that has an adult theme, just the same as if I saw an “R” on a movie. I now have a choice of allowing it, dissallowing it, or previewing it first to determine if it is appropriate or not in my own judgement.

      Stores selling these games to my child (or movies letting them in) without my consent is actually DEPRIVING me of the ability to make those choices in regards to my children, since the child can obtain the item (or view the movie) without my knowledge. If I want to allow my child to play the game (or view the movie) then there’s nothing wrong with me signing a release, or buying the game for the child; it is, after all, my responsabilty as a parent to remain involved. Am I so lazy that I want these things made freely available so I don’t have to lift a finger?

      Not allowing a child to obtain possibly objectionable material is not censorship, nor does it infringe on rights of freedom of speach since the materials are not banned, are freely available to adults, and are available to children by parental consent.

      There is nothing wrong with the community, manufacturers, movie makers, game programmers, and even the government from HELPING a parent, but lets also not go so far as to make any of the previously mentioned BE the parent, by deciding for us what our children do or do not see.

      • #3236304

        Existing Barriers

        by techrepublic ·

        In reply to Nothing wrong with getting help

        Though it has already been pointed out, it bares repeating…

        There is an existing barrier to childrens’ access to video games, the $50 dollars it costs to buy the game. Where on earth is a 13 year old going to get $50 to buy the video game? Here in the US, it’s illegal for a child of that age to work. If parents do not give children the money, they can prevent their children from making choices about how to spend that money, be it on a video game or anything else. My child cannot buy a video game “whithout my knowledge” or consent, if I’m holding the wallet closed.

        I agree that there is some value in the video game seller prohibiting the sale of adult video games to minors, but that should be thought of as more a second line of defense. To effecitvely rely on this method, we would have to enact laws that treat video games like alcohol (here in the US) with licensure to sell the material, dedicated enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and sufficient incentive for complaince. I hope you see how there are inherent problems with that approach.

        To your overall point, I do say however, that I agree. Help is good, so long as it is not depended upon.

      • #3236280

        If that help is voluntary

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Nothing wrong with getting help

        If that help is legislated, it is an un-Constitutional abridgement of my right and the rights of everybody else whose commerce is “regulated” in favor of your wish for help in fulfilling responsibilities which you volunteered to undertake along with the decision to reproduce.

    • #3236366

      Responsibility: Personal/Parental/Governmental

      by captg ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Games don’t ‘incite’ violent behavior, they portray & reward it.
      That said, responsibility for exposure to the content of these video games lies with the individual or thier parents if under the age of majority, not the producers. Their responsibility ends as it should with accurate content labeling.
      Auto & consumer product manufactures are held responsible for flaws in the design and construction processes involved in thier products. They are generally not called to action until an independent agency (usually government funded or controlled) finds that a particular problem is the fault of the manufacturer, and beyond the scope of what the consumer is aware of.
      Entertainment is a very different story. All types of entertainment now require content labeling to inform the consumer what it is they’re getting. The consumer knows that they are getting a game or film that contains violence, sex & drug use. The producers know how much violence, sex, & drug use is in their product, and very intentionally control the levels according to thier audience.

      • #3236298

        Here here… see my similar post

        by vanight ·

        In reply to Responsibility: Personal/Parental/Governmental

        I agree with your position and have posted.

      • #3260482

        Instead of trying to “control” kids

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Responsibility: Personal/Parental/Governmental

        Why don’t more parents do more to inform them? Assuming that civilized behavior is *better* than violence, why not convince your kids of this simple fact and demean games or any form of entertainment that are offensive? My parents simply pointed out that gratuitous sex, violence and drug abuse are trite, meaningless, brainless activities to be shunned, and practitioners of such lunacy are akin to simians. It worked wonders. I’m totally uninterested in any form of frivolity, including violence for any purpose but self-defense.

        When all else fails completely–and it nearly has–try logic.

        • #3260462

          Inform Kids: Parents vs. Popular Media vs. Live & Learn

          by captg ·

          In reply to Instead of trying to “control” kids

          I’m all for informed decision making. The trick is making sure that the information you want decisions based on gets the most air time.
          Seems like your parents did a good job of that.
          Logic is probably the easiest form of thinking to manipulate through propaganda.

          Personal life experience has the greatest impact on learned behavior. After that it’s a matter of what you’re exposed to the most.

        • #3260439

          If your kids have no brains…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Inform Kids: Parents vs. Popular Media vs. Live & Learn

          then the most important parenting challenge “is making sure that the information you want decisions based on gets the most air time.” If, on the other hand, they are capable of cognition, then hours of video gaming are successfully combated with a succinct analysis of the stupidity of the idea that stealing police cruisers (GTA) is a type of good idea. We are talking about young humans, not young border collies. Give me a break.

        • #3260377

          Border Collies, Kids & Grown adults

          by captg ·

          In reply to If your kids have no brains…

          I agree, we’re not talking about border collies. They probably have a much more realistic and pragmatic view of the world than we do. Brains or no brains, if parents are concerned about their kids making ‘good’ choices they’d better get a handle on the information the kids are exposed to, and make sure that it gets the message they want across.
          How much control do you think a child has over the information that’s presented to him? How about his parents? Or the church or shcool he attends? What about the radio station on the bus, or the TV station on in the waiting room at the doctor’s office? All kinds of information about what’s good and bad gets barraged at us constantly. Kids tend to get more exposure than adults.
          If no one bothers to have that conversation about stealing police cruisers with a kid, how will they ever have the concept that it’s a bad idea. It becomes irrelevant, if no one tells him why stealing is bad in the first place.
          The fact is that any decision is only as good as the information it’s based on. You can control how a man thinks and acts through the information presented to him. This is why we have protections for freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. It’s why advertising works, it’s why propaganda works, it’s why Christianity was unified until the printing press was invented, it’s why ‘brainwashing’ and ‘indoctrination’ are very real and frightening things.

        • #3260343

          Spookier than the Jolly Roger.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Border Collies, Kids & Grown adults

          “You can control how a man thinks and acts through the information presented to him.” I’ll try that, and see if I can really control you. I’m dubious.

        • #3260320

          Spookier than you think… & way off topic now.

          by captg ·

          In reply to Spookier than the Jolly Roger.

          But you don’t need spend your hard earned time & money for that.
          History has plenty of examples of how well it works.
          After all Hitler didn’t start out with a nation full of anti-Zionists.
          The Protestant Church would never have had anything to protest if Guetenburg hadn’t made his press, the Bible would have never been available to the common man so he could form his own opinion of how Christianity works.
          Even our modern day democratic elections are influenced by this strategy. It’s a foregone conclusion that campaign adverts only give the information that’s needed to get the ‘right’ idea.

        • #3242667

          It’s Sad That The Personal Life Experience…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Inform Kids: Parents vs. Popular Media vs. Live & Learn

          …of so many kids today is dominated by electronic entertainment devices.

        • #3242422

          Sad is one way of looking at it

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to It’s Sad That The Personal Life Experience…

          But if you flip to the other side of the coin it’s amazing how much they can learn from these “electronic entertainment devices” It’s how these devices are used. They are tools, knowing how to use them is the key. Simply having a hammer doesn’t necessarily make you a carpenter.

        • #3239110

          It’s sad that their lives are centered around them

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Sad is one way of looking at it

          This is totally anecdotal, but I’ve seen more than one kid whose parents allow them to spend 10+ hours a day watching movies, playing video games, surfing the web. It’s the domination of the media that I find disturbing. Just my opinion, but I believe a kid who has never played PS or X-Box is luckier than a kid who has never hiked the Appalaichian Trail (for example).

        • #3235724

          And it will compound…

          by captg ·

          In reply to It’s Sad That The Personal Life Experience…

          as those kids raise kids of their own. Robots may never get to be nannies, but XBox might.

    • #3236360

      Violent Video Games

      by jesuss ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      In my opinion, manufacturers of video games are not responsible for any actions their customers take. When a child goes “Columbine”, it is not the video game’s fault. It’s lack of parenting. I started playing “violent” video games when I was 10 years old. I have never in my life gotten into a fight. I have never felt the urge to go postal on someone. Why, because my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong.

      If anyone feels offended by these video games, then they shouldn’t buy/use them. It’s as simple as that. And yes, this type of censorship would constitute a violation of the first amendment.

    • #3236359

      The problem with your conclusions…

      by cio at alphabetas ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      … Are that they are based upon fallacical arguments. There is not
      one study that has proven to conclusively provide a substantive link
      between video games and violent behavior in anyone previously not
      a violent person. Someone who is already violent in expressing
      their angers and frustrations is just as likely to be motivated to
      conduct such behavior by anything in their daily lives.

    • #3236341

      Your Icon..

      by joe ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      depicting a hokey player’s head exploding after being impacted with a hokey puck has ?incited? me to throw a hokey puck at a co-worker. Sadly, his head did not explode. Instead he yelled ?Fatality!? and attempted to yank my spinal chord from my body. You will be hearing from my lawyer 😉

    • #3236316

      9 years as an Arcade mangaer…

      by todd ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      I was puzzled by this post, until I discovered your ‘down under’.

      In the U.S., game manufactures have voluntary, which is to say the government gave them the choice of co-operating or have the industry regulated by law, placed ratings on their products. Most of these ratings are based in part on the movie rating system and for the most part it seems to work.

      (http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp) for more information on the ratings.

      These ratings are generally applied to the ?store bought? video game, where an adult can ?question? if a sale may be inappropriate. In the Co-op industry, where video games are in specialty cabinets and bought directly from the manufacturer, they usually do not have a rating on them.

      Lawsuits have been filed when the operators of the game rooms, have allowed inappropriate images or actions to be displayed on the games were underage patrons are on the premises. All arcade games have a ?violence? level that can be set and locked in place. The same is true for store bought games. If a sale was allowed to a minor, the parent could file a lawsuit against the store.

      As for games that are sold over the internet, I do not believe there are any regulations. At that point, it would be up to mom and dad to determine what their child is doing on the computer and if it is appropriate.

      • #3242616

        what I have read

        by wolfpac1151 ·

        In reply to 9 years as an Arcade mangaer…

        If I understand what I have read about the ESRB, I dont think it is illegal to sell the game to a minor. The whole ESRB participation is voluntary. I dont know if I am reading it right though.
        http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp#9
        If you look at the second paragraph of that question it says: Although the ESRB does not have the authority to enforce the ratings at the retail level, we do work closely with retailers and game centers to encourage them to display ratings information and not sell or rent certain product to minors. In fact, many retailers have signed up for ESRB’s Commitment to Parents program in which they pledge to use their best efforts not to rent or sell M-rated games to children under 17 without parental consent.

    • #3236299

      Its irrelevent because I am in control as a parent..

      by vanight ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Regulated or unregulated really makes no difference for my house and many others who have decided to actually learn the proper way to parent. I do not allow any brainwashing mass broadcast media into my house, nor do I allow any game that I don’t choose to have MY children and I stress MY, not the “Village’s” children to be exposed to. So in my humble opinion, the real question is that of constitutionality and from that stand point I do not believe the government should or has a constitutional right to do anymore than require “disclosure without exposure”. In other words, to require that producers of a product or service disclose to potential customers the nature of their product or server, without requiring that one see it first hand. If one chooses to buy a product or service after receiving said disclosure of the potential of negative affects, then TOO FRICKEN BAD. Its called personal responsibility something quickly fading as the Educationally Elite Left (and the Canadians) plot to sell the American soul which is “Freedom of individual choice and responsibility” to the Internalionists who would love to see the United States be absorbed into the European Union.

    • #3236288

      Irrational Assumptions!

      by john_galt9 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      “Certain types of games that incite violence and immorality are rife and readily available.”

      Perhaps the above quote, was used to promote a discussion or provoke a comment, which in my case the latter.

      If, as a rational adult, you made a conscious decision to raise a child, then…that became your primary objective.

      If at some point, you’re not happy with the results of your objective, remember…until that child is capable of cognitive choices, he/she is what you created, and those choices he or she makes before that point and after, will be the result of the “guide” you offered.

      Just like the irrational assumption that opened this discussion, is much like telling a child they are ‘born with original sin’, then telling them, they ought to be good.

      Look at the world around us, and tell me “humans..sic” more than generally speaking, are not “jokes!”

      JG

    • #3260473

      My thanks to SlapShot

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      You’ve brought many like-minded people to my attention with this discussion of misplaced moral obligation.

      BTW, notice SlapShot does not actually advocate a view, only presents one. I suspect he actually prefers violence, and is enjoying all this arguing much as he would enjoy the vicarious violence of a fight during a hockey…match? game?…farce? whatever

      • #3260465

        Don’t go Dissin’ Hockey Again.

        by dmambo ·

        In reply to My thanks to SlapShot

        A lot of us are still fighting withdrawl during this time that should be the end of the playoff season.

        Hey, what happened to Absolutely??

        • #3260449

          “Absolutely” present

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Don’t go Dissin’ Hockey Again.

          Both names are inspired by Ayn Rand, who emphasizes, particularly in Atlas Shrugged, the importance of absolutes in life.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=170685&messageID=1774290

          I don’t understand your use of “should be”. Is there a strike? Or did they all knock each other unconscious?

          🙂

          I do not like hockey. You are free to enjoy it, but don’t expect me to agree with your enjoyment until you can prove to me rationally that it is more productive than pastimes that do not involve clobbering.

        • #3260448

          PS

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Don’t go Dissin’ Hockey Again.

          Please, do not pronounce this new handle “Rampersandian”, it sounds silly.

        • #3260418

          No, I Get It

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to PS

          It’s pronounced Randian, right? I may not know about Solomon, but I do know that Rampersandian was a mystic advisor to the last Tsar of Russia. I’m not TOTALLY ignorant.

          Play hockey in a fat old man no-check league, like I do, and you’ll learn to love and appreciate it.

        • #3260405

          I hope you’re joking.

          by jdchapman ·

          In reply to No, I Get It

          The last Czar of Russia was advised but rasputin.
          Who had no access to television, the internet or violent video games and still managed to arrange the deaths of an entire family of well protected royals.

        • #3260386

          Absolutely joking.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I hope you’re joking.

          I’m now calling myself Randian, but used the &, then made stupid joke “Don’t call me Rampersandian”. You had to be there.

        • #3260364

          I got that, was the next guy I was wondering about.

          by jdchapman ·

          In reply to Absolutely joking.

          I got yours. It was the guy talking about the advisor to the last tsar of russia.

        • #3260346

          jdchapman got it

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Absolutely joking.

          The joke was calling Rasputin, a real historical character, “Rampersandian”, which is unintended pronunciation of the full name of a punctuation character.

        • #3260314

          Randian?

          by john_galt9 ·

          In reply to Absolutely joking.

          She never liked that term, since it implied a ‘cult’ which reared it’s ugly mentality, and she rejected. How about the term she coined for her philosophy, “Objectivist!”

          JG

        • #3260307

          I enjoy the irony…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Absolutely joking.

          of irrational people who use the concept of a cult to belittle the only philosophy I know that holds reason as an absolute. The only absolute, in fact.

          Hysterical, if you ask me.

        • #3242713

          Hey, jdchapman…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Absolutely joking.

          Yeah, it was another bad joke. Just like the one I WAS going to use telling you that R&IAN’s handle can’t be rasputin because there’s no “asput” character on the keyboard. I thought his comment about rampersandian was funny because that’s how I thought Ayn Rand might want it pronounced. I see now that this forum is way too high-brow for me. Well, I’m off to the Spongebob chat forum.

        • #3181579

          Rampersandian was a different guy

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to No, I Get It

          He was the little gnome that changed straw into gold for a young woman in exchange for her first born child, unless she could guess his name.

        • #3179657

          You’re Wrong

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Rampersandian was a different guy

          You must be confused with RumpledSuitian. The guy played by Peter Falk on Columbo.

        • #3242414

          Agreed

          by njack2004 ·

          In reply to Don’t go Dissin’ Hockey Again.

          Damn I miss my hockey.

          Although there was alot of good hockey seen this year (college, World Cup, junior hockey)

    • #3260456

      Sure… I’ll do the judging

      by shraven ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      1st – by whose view of morality would we measure? Dr James Dobson(Spoonge Bob is gay)? Larry Flint(Hustler publisher)?
      2nd – not a new idea, but how about the person who takes a particular course of action being responsible for it? It’s nice to blame my bad on anything other than me, but how realistic is that?
      3rd – why stop there? What about movies, TV, books… all media. Anything with violence, immorality or sex should be banned for the good of society… shouldn’t it? Of course we’d have to ban the Bible too… it’s full of all of these.
      4th – programmers? Uh, does that mean we should sue the printing press operators, key grip, janitor in the TV studio? Wouldn’t this ridiculous overbearing cencorship be better aimed at the company publishing the offending software, not the guy who programs 3D shading on the rocks used in the background of Grand Theft Auto?

      Ah screw it. Let’s just lock up everybody since we’ve all had bad thoughts and it’s only a matter of time until we do something wrong.

      • #3260437

        But first…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Sure… I’ll do the judging

        wouldn’t we have to ban war? Unless it’s the fictional character of the violence that is really bothering these God-botherers…they should start with REAL violence, right? Am I missing something?

    • #3260436

      I never heard of that.

      by go_browns_01 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Video games inciting violence, I mean.

      I did see a tv preacher inciting his followers by saying it would be okay to kill men. “If any man ever looked at me that way I would kill him and tell God he died.” The parishoners thought it was real cute, hahah, chuckles all around.

      So if a man “looks at” your sister “that way” and she kills the guy, I suppose this tv preacher should take some responsibility.

      But I guess that’s not the same thing as a video game.

    • #3260347

      Different Country, Different Rules.

      by steve.harbron9 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Here in the UK, all recorded media is treated the same, be it video game, DVD or CD.
      If it has a BBFC certificate it is illegal to sell it to someone underage. The fine can be up to ?5000 and is given to the person selling the item, not the store.
      When I used to work for a computer store the policy was that if they wanted to buy a certificated game, they had to produce ID showing their age. No ID, no game. Some companies also include the ELSPA rating in this requirement.
      We got a lot of abuse from kids trying to buy games like GTA. The law is there for a reason, if the kid wants the game the parent would have to buy it and would be informed of the rating and the reason for it.

    • #3260345

      I wrote a paper games and violence

      by mathias58 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Video Games for the Youth
      Video games today are one of the youth of America?s greatest forms of entertainment. On the other hand, many adults shun games across the country. Why has this come to be? Games are not a new concept. Board games are a harmless enjoyment that could not possibly be dangerous and have been enjoyed by many for years. Then we had the great games of the Roman Empire, such as the gladiators, which could easily end your life in a cruel manner. We are not talking about any of these though but about the digital images on a computer screen or television. It is these games that the new generation plays, the ?game generation”.
      The majority of these electronic games are harmless. However, some youth cannot tell the difference between reality and imitation. Only at this point can games start to become hazardous for human kind. Who knows what an infant adult might determine to do? Even though this case is exceptionally rare, it makes you contemplate about the movements of light that run across your television or computer screen. Video games can be a positive or a negative thing depending on each adolescent, but parents must keep an open mind and realize what the game really is to their young person.
      Games of the modern era come in many forms of style such as RTS, FPS, MMO and RPG. We will start of with an RTS (Real Time Strategy). With this form you control a civilization or country and collect resources. By the collection of resources you are able to boost your economy and build armies to dominate one?s enemies. Hasty decisions are required when playing an RTS, for if a player does not research technology and keep up with their hostile targets they will merely get squashed by superior high-tech units. If players remain head-to-head you must simply out smart and out maneuver your enemy to create an advantage, which is easer said than done. Many players will build up strong defenses before they go on the aggressive. Usually people will never defeat their opponent on the first siege of his city or stronghold. Many cycles of attacking are taken before your opponent is weakened and then can be terminated. Destroying them the majority of the time consists of taking out all buildings or units left breathing. By the time that objective has been completed a RTS game lasts an average of an hour or more per game depending on the game speed and a few other random factors.
      FPS, or First-Person Shooter, is exactly what it sounds like and probably remains the most played style of game in the industry. The main goal is to kill the enemy using an assortment of arms including: assault rifles, sniper rifles, grenades, sub-machine guns, pistols, shotguns, melee weapons, and rocket launchers. For the reader?s information, a melee weapon usually consists of your fist, end of your gun or a knife. That is your arsenal; you have your enemy, good luck. As you guessed you take a firearm and start pulling the trigger towards the opponent. Victory normally requires one to take out the enemy at all possible costs. While gaming online players go head-to-head. The mission being to cap/ kill each other for points or to capture the other teams flag. Online games of today almost must be played with a high-speed Internet connection (DSL or Cable). Otherwise you will develop a lag time in the game. Lag is when your computer cannot keep up with the game causing everyone?s game to run slow. Most gamers get frustrated when this occurs and will start booting gamers out of the game server.
      On a server players will do battle with other members of the gaming community in a competition that the gamer will constantly struggle to win. Gaming with one another allows gamers to ?express their violent impulses in ways that are not antisocial? (Costikyan). The game becomes a stress reliever that is more productive than punching a pillow.
      The next form is the MMO, Mass Multiplayer Online. Obviously some form of broadband will be required. MMOs are probably one of the ultimate feats in the gaming industry, taking a game and instead, making it a world with other players. Gamers constantly are playing with other gamers all over the world in an attempt to complete thousands of quests and continue to scale up the level of a character. People can even group with one other to go united and trample the despicable inhuman bastards. The legacy of the machine brain versus the complexity of the human mind will unravel. But even with all this intense storyline and fighting you can still play in peace. In Everquest 2, a very popular MMO, you can be a blacksmith or a seamstress, can go fishing and gathering, players can even buy a house and furnish it. MMOs have brought forward a world that will never end, just like life itself. There is always another quest to do, place to explore or person to meet.
      Lastly we have the RPG, or Role-Playing Game. RPGs are the games probably most known to people that are not considered ?gamers?. There titles include Mario, the Zelda series, and the Final Fantasy series. In these interactive fantasy stories individuals become the heroes and go swiftly go around defeating the dark forces of evil. While being the hero, the person in control is brought unto a very in-depth story line. From what I have played, some of these storylines are easily television show quality. They are a riddle that does not get solved until the final battles, which constantly keeps your drive going. Progression and finding out the riddles that ay before you clearly becomes your goal and keeps the game zesty. Many levels require additional thinking to move on, and you must do it all by yourself. RPGs are single-player games. The players hunger for the storyline makes you strive for victory and will create a drive that will go on for hours.
      RPGs are usually one of the most difficult genres of games to beat. ?Getting past all the puzzles, obstacles, and hidden clues takes critical thinking, deductive reasoning and problem solving?(Kalinske). Kalinske, who was the former CEO of Sega and now works for Educational Technology, knows how games help children as well as others in academic and day-to-day skills. The numerous amount of mind-boggling riddles and puzzles gives you the bases of problem solving, a helpful skill for anyone. Players begin to find solutions by thinking outside of the box. That form of thinking will help everyone get through school, college and everyday life.
      Interactive competition is magnificent for everyday life, but games offer even more than that. Games are able to speed up the neural pathways within your brain (Deutsch). Of course this makes absolute sense considering a lot of games have puzzles or complex storylines, which always keeps a person on their toes. Then, unlike movies where all one gets to do is go through and watch the storyline from a third person view, in games people actually get to live it through in-depth interaction. A player is the character, and he must go through figuring out the problem ahead of him/her. With this interactivity gamers also learn problem solving from the numerous questions and problems they have to seek solutions for.
      For example, communications is an interactive part of a game. Games help kids develop these communication skills and therefore help them develop socially (Kalinske). Team play in almost every game, except the RPG, is a must if one plays with friends or online. Cooperation requires speech in the form of typing or talking. Yes, believe it or not, there are ways to talk to other gamers through your computer or XBOX. In first-person shooters talking is essential for giving away enemy targets as well as correlating attack plans. MMOs it is inevitable to use communications, for in many cases you must form groups with other players just to defeat the objective. In real-time strategy games allies must form strategies and a lot of the time must undertake unison and organized attacks to defeat your foe. Gamers that reside in clans, which are teams of gamers, become more than just random people online chatting, but become close friends. Teammates like clan mates will have gained social bonds from the rigors of competition just as if the two of you were active in sports together.
      Another synonym for a game should be an excellent stress reliever. Kids today have a higher amount of stress then ever. When you play games you get biofeedback. Biofeedback is created when you force a normally involuntary body mechanism to behave in a controlled manner. Doctors to help control stress and tension have used biofeedback for many years (Beyond Online Limited). Pressure in children is constantly being applied, and eventually they may need a way to dispose of that enormous build up. Violent games where people do get to kill digital object on your screen or television might just be the perfect solution. Sometimes even being able to see the blood and watch the bullet casings fly off just makes a guy feel better. Than a stressed human can imagine whatever he/she is shooting at is their stress, and they just get to blow it to absolute smithereens. As a gamer might I say I will never have a need for a punching bag again.
      Not only are games a marvelous relief for those who play them, but for patients as well. ?Video games can be used to distract patients form physical pain and reduce levels of stress? (Beyond Online Limited). If pain is an unnecessary negative, why have it? Playing a game and not feeling the pain seems a lot more pleasant. That also reinforces how great and in-depth the story-line for some games really are.
      Games may end up requiring a change in schools and teachers as well. The ?game generation? is a whole new kid. This kid in particular can multi-task like crazy, being able to e-mail, instant message, type a paper, listen to music and browse the Internet simultaneously. That is all able to happen since the game generation can process information extremely quicker than the older generations (Hostetter). In result of these teens being able to process all this information so much quicker, students often will get bored in class by their teachers. All these current teachers are not part of the new game generation and are still adapt to the old step-by-step learning process that can dull these kids who play games. Students are changing, when are teachers going to change?
      Here comes the big question, why do people think games are so bad? Like many of today?s questions there are several answers. Are the reasons logical though?
      Probably the ultimate reason for games being stereotyped as evil is the point that many people bring up about the excessive amounts of violence in their contents. ?Video games like DOOM and MORTAL COMBAT can increase the players aggressive feelings, thoughts and behaviors (Muscari).? Hmm let us be logical for a minute. When it all comes down to it there are numerous amounts of situations that can increase one?s aggression. Receiving a bad test score can increase ones aggressive feelings. Does that mean students go murder their teacher? When a person?s Ford F-150 breaks down do they go and bomb the Ford factory? Usually not right? Do video games force you to walk into your school and start shooting people? Let us be realistic. Why don?t we ban high school football or wrestling? The whole point of these sports are to generally hit the other guy harder than he can hit you. Players can even bleed on the field in real life or fracture a bone. Aggression can become apparent and grudges begin to be held. That being said, why don?t schools ban those sports. Then the logical solution presents itself being that these physical activities already are socially accepted, were as being a gamer and playing constant games still has not walked into that path of social acceptance. Slowly though, games are becoming more and more commonly seen throughout the country.
      Directly connected with violence is the ability to tell the difference between real and make believe that resides within this form of entertainment. All responsible studies that have taken place between violence in games in comparison to violence in children have determined that children can differentiate between actual violence and fake violence (Kalinske). Today, games with their realistic 3D graphics take you into a new paradise of evil or magnificence, but you must always remember everything in that new world is an illusion. All the living and moving objects condenses down to an electronic signal interpreted by a digital display. Players never really kill anyone in life, just an animation made by programmers and then brought to live by modern day computer technology. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS REAL. Even though most people understand the game is not real, not all children do understand this. When our young generation are playing games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and do not understand that it is not an actual part of history, they become a hazard to society.
      The final reason for people thinking games are so treacherous comes from parents themselves. ?Parents invariably view the new medium as threatening,? which clearly creates the problem (Costikyan). Since children of the future are becoming so game involved parents have been afraid and frightful. The cause of this fear is simply from parents and others have been attaching a bad reputation to games. Games have been one of the newest scapegoats for parents. If a child is getting fat, it is the games fault. When they are not getting A?s in classes, it is because they spend too much time playing games. The exact moment a kid requires glasses the cause comes again from sitting and watching the screen too much. Obviously, parents think games are unhealthy for us. Why do parents blame games? The blame comes from fear it self. A majority of people fear things they cannot comprehend and because they do not understand the game, they fear the game, making it automatically the opposite of a great thing (Muscari).
      Parents must open up their minds to this greatness. Today parents seem like they are very isolated. We know that parents fear games because they do not understand them, therefore maybe we can even let some parents try playing a game or two. Being a gamer myself I know some gamers that happen to be 30-40 years of age. When mothers and fathers play maybe they will enjoy the game instead of despise it. After that maybe they will have an epiphany and realize games are a great tool and have an extensive amount of interactivity. Even a parent can learn something from a game I imagine.
      Yet the children?s creators must know how their children react towards violent games. All the above information will help children only if they know what is fake and what is real. If they cannot tell the difference between the two have no business playing such a game. The solution to the question of are violent video games dangerous for your children, falls to the responsibility of parents knowing their kids. According to an IDSA (Interactive Digital Software Association) research in 1999 parents were asked who should take responsibility of what their kids play. The majority of parents said it is the parent?s job to control such things (Lowenstein). Now if a child can tell the difference then let him have at. If he can?t, make sure you keep him/her away from it until you are certain he/she can distinguish the difference of the two. Just keep reminding your kid that it is not real.
      Video games are played primarily for relaxation, not agitation, that they sharpen rather than dull the mind, and develop rather than retard social skills?(Kalinske). Violent games and the amount they can be played depends on the young person. Can or can?t they handle the violence? Honestly, parents need to start taking responsibility and taking more responsibility for their own child?s actions. Parents just need to start becoming more responsible and learn to tell what their child can handle or in this case tell if the child can understand and clearly recognize the differences between the fake and the real. If the kid cannot tell the two apart do not allow him/her to play the game. Start taking action before you watch the action evolve into a problem. Parents should not blame everything but themselves for not paying attention to your kid. Be honest to yourself parents. In the end maybe it is the parents of today that need to change instead of the gaming industry. Games are not for everyone, and the amount of violence in a game will always depend on each child on an individual bases and parental units must realize this.

      Works Cited
      Beyond Online Limited. ?Video Games Can Be Used For Therapeutic Purposes.? Fighting For Survival. Sept. 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington, WA. 24 Mar. 2005 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>
      Costikyan, Greg. ?The Problem of Video Game Violence is Exaggerated.? “Games Don’t Kill People–Do They?” 21 Jun. 1999. Opposing Viewpoints. Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington, WA. 24 Mar. 2005 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>
      Deutsch, David. ?Playing Video Games Benefits Children.? Taking Children Seriously. 1992. Opposing Viewpoints. Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington, WA. 15 Mar. 2005 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>
      Kalinske, Tom. ?Video Games Do Not Cause Aggressive Behavior in Children.? “Technology and Its Post-positive Impact on Kids.” 18 Aug. 1994. Opposing Viewpoints. Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington, WA. 24 Mar. 2005 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>
      Lowenstein, Douglas. ?The Video Game Industry Regulates Itself Effectively? Excerpted from Douglas Lowenstein’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce. 13 Sept. 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington, WA. 15 Mar. 2005 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>
      Muscari, Mary E. ?Media Violence Causes Aggression in Children.? Not My Kid: 21 Steps to Raising a Nonviolent Child. 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington, WA. 24 Mar. 2005 <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>

      • #3260321

        new direction

        by unomas ·

        In reply to I wrote a paper games and violence

        I think game developers need to take a new direction. How about games that not only entertain but teach as well. Even in a violent war game there should be scenarios where a user may have demolished a building but before they can proceed they have to repair a water main so now they need to utilize engineering skills and not just weaponery use. Also if the foe speaks a foreign language, make the user translate the phrase before they can proceed. And how about using medic or nursing skills to take care of a fallen comrade before proceeding with the game? Where is all the creativity of the gamers in this?

    • #3260303

      Where to draw the line

      by speet ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Yes. Alot of games are violent and immoral. But the same violence and immoralities can be found in comics and books which are just as accessable to young minds. So where do we draw the line. Is it right to make the developers responsible for the content of their programs? Do we make authors responsible for their writing?
      Maybe an easier solution would be to have an independant board that censors and rates these programs. Putting inforcable restrictions on the age limits of the end user.
      But face it. A fragile mind, is a fragile mind, regardless of age. The wrong type of person can take a tv show, movie, book or video game and be violently influenced by it, where others just take it as it is meant to be.

    • #3260290

      Games, certification and bans

      by apomdu ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      I am not an advocate for banning games, my suggestion like others are enforcement of laws. A child should not be able to buy cigarettes if a place sells and gets caught they get find. The same should be done with game retailers and renters. Catch the sellers in the same way you do with cigarettes and soon they will learn not to sell. Of course it will not stop but may deter sellers to think again. I will not speak of parents responsibilities in ensuring they know what their kids are doing simply becuase that’s sadly something that will never change.

      • #3235714

        It’s wishful thinking…

        by captg ·

        In reply to Games, certification and bans

        That parental attitudes won’t ever change. Things did to get to this state in the first place.
        Kids will find a way around age checking. Fake id’s will have yet another use.

    • #3260289

      Violence?

      by rattyratt ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Speaking for myself, I think many people here miss the point of the discussion. I think you are all falling into moral, legal & social issues.
      When I was growing up, the amount of violence around was still a reasonable amount, however what happened was it was not ‘flaunted’ in your face ie: explicit & focused, with the intent to disturb or impact the viewer. Kids would play cops & robbers (sure… no problem) but did you see kids perhaps whipping out the tomato sauce and spraying it everywhere?? no, of course not – their mum’s would get pi**ed off for wasting the sauce. Now, however the violence itself has become a important medium in conveying the plot to the viewer. The difference between perhaps “The Longest Day” and “Saving Private Ryan” is the probably the most profound contrast. As humans do, we will grow up learning combative techniques that have instinctually been bred into us (natural selection, alpha male, etc.) BUT… we do overcome these most of the time through social & cultural indoctrination. Now… hypothesis: What if the social and cultural indoctrination said – It is ok to work 9-5, mon-fri, earn a wage, have a car, buy a house, etc…. and be happy. (BTW: This is the garbage that is shovelled down peoples throat!) Now, any psychiatrist can tell you “US HUMANS CAN’T LIVE LIKE THAT” not really. Perfect world?? yeah right. So throughout the ages – the imperfections of humanity have come through (crusades, ww1, ww2, other horrid events, apartheid, etc.) So, what you ask is how to release controlled agression in people, (ergo: Cops & Robbers, cowboys & indians…etc) That unfortunately was then.
      NOW: pose this hypothesis – today’s violent movies are more violent from older movies (hollywood loves blood & guts) more sexual & lasvicious content, more intensive gore & horror themes, (ahh, love that skin peeling & brain eating fun….NOT) and finally as the games are the same, you can turn off the tv & find it on the internet and your computer.
      (Sorry if this is turning into an essay)
      Hm, will cut to the summary: I think ultimately societies social values & acceptance levels have become more compromised over time. (I see movies that came out and were rated R, 5 years later – MA, 3 years after that rated M, and I am sure that one day they will be PG.)
      Is this considered good or bad? I believe that the increase in society’s crime/violence and people hurting others around them (whether through verbal or physical means…) is on the increase. This is a subconcious dumbing down of social mores that obviously began back at the beginning of the 20th century.

      Other’s thoughts? (Ultimately – yes I believe that violent games lead to violent children – which leads to COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL events.)

      :

      • #3260287

        Now…

        by john_galt9 ·

        In reply to Violence?

        ask yourself ‘Why?’ “Hm, will cut to the summary: I think ultimately societies social values & acceptance levels have become more compromised over time”

        Go back to Kant, and you’ll find the answer.
        JG

      • #3260269

        No need to apologize r.young

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Violence?

        That was nothing like an essay. An essay supports a thesis with rational argument, your post did nothing of the sort.

        Addressing some of the points that were not lost in your poor grammar and run-on sentences:

        1
        “Speaking for myself”

        For who else would anybody assume that you speak?

        2
        “I think many people here miss the point of the discussion. I think you are all falling into moral, legal & social issues.”

        Ought we to be discussing the more “elevated” issues that you have emphasized with parentheses: “(natural selection, alpha male, etc.)…(BTW: This is the garbage that is shovelled down peoples throat!)…(crusades, ww1, ww2, other horrid events, apartheid, etc.)…(hollywood loves blood & guts)… (ahh, love that skin peeling & brain eating fun….NOT)”? I honestly thought that moral, legal and social issues were crucial to a discussion of deontology/consequences/virtue.

        3
        “This is a subconcious dumbing down of social mores that obviously began back at the beginning of the 20th century.”
        How would a subconscious process be even identifiable without knowledge of the minds involved that is, by definition, impossible? Then how could such a process have a beginning that is “obviously” identifiable?

        4
        “So, what you ask is how to release controlled agression in people”

        Nobody else has asked that. A few posts have speculated, but you are the first or among the first to have posed the question. Or are you suggesting that is the question we should ask?

        5
        “US HUMANS CAN’T LIVE LIKE THAT”
        This is the basis of your argument, isn’t it? Original Sin?

        I really would love for you to organize your thoughts, because you see, I would demolish your case, absolutely.

        • #3255014

          Hmm…. mild insult? or point?

          by rattyratt ·

          In reply to No need to apologize r.young

          Hi R&ian,
          Thankyou for pointing out that it was not an essay, I can see my droll sense of humor will certainly be lost in this forum. (indeed if this is the case, the world is doomed as we know it!)

          However, back to topic – the seriousness of Slapshot’s question, made me think of writing a possible answer (one of many from reading this forum) to perhaps help him with a different perspective. The entire idea was to promote thinking and not actually require me to be ‘graded’ on my grammatical syntax. I am sure that many of you would agree that us IT people are not always correct when it comes to grammer.

          Anyway:
          1: Speaking figuratively.
          2: Of course. The entire point of this is to discuss moral/legal & social issues. Whether in ‘run on sentences’ or not… and if you don’t like someone bringing up these things – then perhaps you need to question your own being here.
          3: Okay, won’t argue on that. However bear in mind that while some may see shadows, others will see a monster. Not all you see/hear is heard correctly. This means that while some people may be intelligent enough to see indoctrination, others may be susceptable to it without ever noticing it. It’s like subliminal advertising? (Do you believe it exists?) I believe that if you sat down and spoke with a advertising person, they could explain the meaning of all this part of my post. 🙂
          4: Perhaps I should start a post about that? 🙂 or you can if you like. Perhaps it even is the point of my argument – or the answer to the question from Slapshot (heavily filtered) yet still a question in it’s own right. Ahh conundrums!
          5: No, the statement made was in regards to a ‘perfect world’ which was without anything in it other than total happines and bliss… You say I should organize my thoughts – you should read my post better. 🙂 Looks like that you skipped a bit… TSK – FAIL!!

          I can see you are a person that simply see’s posts as something to take apart, demolish arguments and otherwise turn everything someone says around on them… tell me are/were you in the skeptic’s association? (I believe they do the same kind of thing.) Or is it simply that you like to create unrest? Hmm, maybe you just can’t stand to lose? Hmmm…. interesting case.

          Cheers

        • #3254866

          when it comes to grammer

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Hmm…. mild insult? or point?

          *We* IT people also need to learn to spell.

          A droll sense of humor would not be lost on the forum, it was absent from your disorganized, train of consciousness presentation.

          “see’s [sic] posts as something to take apart” – unnecessary in this case, yours was never assembled. I have, however, seen your “it’s not a perfect world, we can’t have perfect laws” argument enough to recognize through your elementary school level grammar errors.

          Your premise, that the purpose of law is to enshrine the status quo, is flawed. The purpose of law is to enforce justice. I defer to john_galt regarding the philosophical cause of this phenomenon in our society, but practically it has occurred precisely through the repetition of the argument that we humans are not good enough for perfect laws. In fact, we are too good for anything else, but if you are too careless to spell grammar without an “e”, I will not expect you to analyze ethical issues any more rigorously.

        • #3181506

          Pointless!

          by rattyratt ·

          In reply to when it comes to grammer

          No point in arguing. Since we have university professors of English in this forum, I am sure we are doing just fine. After all, I think most of us need to be picked up on our grammer using Sarcasm, rudeness & general antipathy towards the poster. (Ie: forget the grammer ‘problem’ and think of the content… But you can’t I am sure!)

          Cheers R&ian..

          BTW: I thought americans sucked at sarcasm?? (I would guess that that is correct still, LOL!)

        • #3181727

          You are indeed clever.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Pointless!

          But you are not intelligent. Obsession with wit is a concession that your position is not supported by the facts.

          Cheers r.young.

      • #3260265

        Poor Parenting lead to Columbine

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Violence?

        Doom/GTA/CSI/X-Files/ did not lead to Columbine, poor parenting did. These kids were picked on in school and they did not have the tools to overcome the abusive high school they were in. Their parents did nothing and the kids decided the best course of action was to kill other students.

        We need to start placing blame where it is due: On the individuals and on the parents!!!

    • #3260260

      use common sense

      by dv13 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      If you buy an immoral or violent game don?t expect some happy go lucky character to keep appearing on the screen with niceties. Remember the first rule as a consumer?use common sense?

    • #3260249

      Short answer

      by awforrest ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      OK, I couldn’t read every post to this topic but I’ve heard the same old tired arguments before, so here goes:

      VIDEO GAMES AND TV ARE NOT BABYSITTERS OR PARENTS!

      If you don’t want your child playing a game with violent themes or images, get a BACKBONE and take away the PS2, remove the TV etc.. The creators of video games are not here to raise your children, you are!! Start doing it.

    • #3260246

      A no-brainer if I ever saw one

      by fp88 ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Censorship of any type is one of the first steps on the road to tyranny. Ergo, people should be allowed to produce any types of games that they wish.
      For those who my disagree: What or whom, in any given era, is to be the arbiter of what is “offensive” or “non-offensive”?
      Indeed, what if the arbiters are a group of Christian or Muslim fanatics, or perhaps communists or nazis?
      Think about that before you draw a conclusion; history is replete with those who wished to force their views on those in their charge.

    • #3242619

      consequences

      by nyllram ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      i think it would totally wrong to do so, after all i have not seen or heard of anyone from smith & wesson, sig-sauer or anyone else go to jail for their products use. besides maybe parents today should just be parents instead of trying to blame everyone for their failures. not to get too off0topic but interesting parralell, does the rise in teens getting pregnant stem from t.v. or videogames? or maybe from the parents of them not taking the time to talk to the children? i have played plenty of violent video games, including GTA 3, mortal kombat, you name it but i never had a desire to go kill my entire school, oh yeah i listen to heavy metal as well, all of that is a BS excuse for parents not doing their job.

      Wm

    • #3242594

      Parents should be responsible for their children

      by air navigator ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Parents should monitor the content of the games, videos, music, books, TV, etc. used by their children. It is up to the parents to teach children what is right and what is wrong. Granted, different parents will draw the line in different places but that is what pluralistic (or diverse) societies are all about. With my own children I monitor the media they are using and don’t hesitate to draw a line separating what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I also do not hesitate to indicate that I don’t approve of behaviors depicted in some of the music, games, video, etc. that I allow in the home.

      My biggest problem, as a parent, with government guidelines is that they can change with administrations. Marajuana is a good example. It was bad and the laws against it enforced in the Nixon administration. In the Carter administration the U.S. Surgeon General was saying it was cool. The Regan administration said it was wrong. And then we had Bill who said it was ok if you don’t inhale.

      • #3242486

        Children…

        by john_galt9 ·

        In reply to Parents should be responsible for their children

        Children are not robots who see violence and thus become violent people, but individuals with free will who need to be taught the difference between moral and immoral violence.

        “The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life?by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past?and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.”

        At every moment of life, choices are made…right? or wrong?…either…or! The choices that any individual makes, child or adult,were taught and learned, and the philosophical guide, whomever the mentor, was the mechanism for those choices.

        The Comprachico’s of the mind, such as Dewey have done the job well, and violence as a ‘game’ or a ‘reality’….its’legacy that you observe.

        JG

    • #3242479

      Sense of hte debate

      by gazoo ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      The violence of the video games may be caused by the general acceptance of violence in society, not vice versa. I think that the general idea of a voluntary rating label (shades of the comics code) combined with active parenting is the available answer to this ‘problem’.

    • #3242441

      Violent games don’t make kids violent

      by mattcalled ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      I am a Christian and one would think I would be on the “morality” soapbox with other “christians.” The truth is that my son has been playing so called violent games since he was pretty young; he doesn’t have a violent bone in his body. Gee, maybe it isn’t the game that’s the problem; maybe it is a parential problem. What I am absolutely certain of is that we were ALL born with the blame virus (gosh God, if you hadn’t given me this woman…Hey, it was the snake…etc.) Sooo, why don’t we all take personal inventories and first ask God to correct that stuff in us before we try to legislate morality; which is an exercise in futility anyway.

      Sincerely,

      Matt Galbraith

      • #3239196

        If we do not legislate morality…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Violent games don’t make kids violent

        then what exactly do we legislate?

        Unlike many of my posts I’m not trying to offend right now. I know what distinction you mean by the phrase “legislate morality”, and my point is that what you are asking others not to legislate in this case is not morality at all.

        It is much more difficult to make your case clearly with figurative language than with literal language. I mention this because I agree with your position and I think you have the patience, which I lack, to make it convincingly to audiences such as this one, but only if you stop giving the other side the “benefit of the doubt”.

      • #3180508

        Violent games don’t have any effect?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Violent games don’t make kids violent

        If you take kids to see a “rocky” movie, lot of them come out boxing each other. Same for a karate movie.

        My boys are we behaved and I am told this all the time (so it isn’t JUST my bias). I have had to take some games away because they would tend to go after each other more after certain games.

        If a kid listens to “music” with crude language, will they be unaffected or will they start to talk in a similar way?

        And yes, the age of the child does make a difference, but would you have let your child at a “pretty young” age watch the more violent movies of today? How about the ones with “strong sexual” warnings?

        Why is this even a religious question? Do non-Christians sit and watch porn with their children? No. (at least I hope not) So if they wouldn’t then it isn’t a religious issue anymore.

        I think the main thing is just make it so a child has to go through their parents to purchase the game/video and let the parents step up and be responsible for raising their kids.

        • #3181107

          Be clear, Sirrah…

          by cio at alphabetas ·

          In reply to Violent games don’t have any effect?

          I think you are missing an important distinction. When your kids
          saw the Karate movie they were PLAYING karate when they came
          out, right? Or, did they actually execute a roundhouse kick to
          the jaw of their friends?

          You see, HOW kids act out after exposure to violence and sex is
          the issue, not that they do act out.

          After I saw Gone in Sixty seconds it was easy to (at hte age of
          39, mind you) FEEL like the guy in the movie and PRETEND I was
          in that Charger, but I DIDN’T steal a car and ACTUALLY race
          around at a Hundred+…

          The point is, kids will play cops and robbers, one has to be the
          bad guy, right? Is that child more or less likley to follow a life of
          crime? The answer is neither.

          Pretending violence is actually a good thing- it shows you that
          your kids CAN tell the difference as to whether they SHOULD
          hurt each other- or if it truly doesn’t matter. If they play and
          hurt other kids (more than once) while pretending or acting out,
          THEN you have an issue- but it was ALREADY THERE.

          Now, go do the right thing…

    • #3254721

      Wow look who’s talking

      by cduckadm ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      Have you looked at your very violent avatar?

    • #3181459

      Not anyones place to decide what others can and can’t watch and play

      by marionuke ·

      In reply to Deontology/Consequences/Virtue

      It’s no ones place to say what I can’t play or watch. Just like it’s no ones place to make you play or watch something you don’t want to. That’s why you have the choice to not buy or watch movies/games that are violent or in anyway offencive to you. And if anyone has a problem with them being on sale… You don’t have to buy them so deal with it.