Games are just that, games. They aren’t supposed to be teaching kids anything, they’re there to be enjoyed… You can’t ban a genre either, cause then they’ll just start banning another genre, and eventoully people won’t even be able to play games. Heh, or something like that.
Originally posted by Gila-Monster
cause then they’ll just start banning another genre, and eventoully people won’t even be able to play games. Heh, or something like that.
NO!!!
They can’t take my Dating Sims away!
locks himself in closet
Next, at Evo2K4, we’ll see a bunch of angry parents trying to shut the event down. When asked for comment, the players only said : “Someone should RTSD their asses.”
Originally posted by Xwing1056
A ban on video games would convince many parents that their children shouldn’t own them. If non-adults are banned from buying first-person shooters, they could easily be banned from buying other genres with mature themes - RPG’s, for instance.
That’s what ratings are for. They don’t always follow through, obviously. But you’re talking about non adults. Are you speaking of teenagers, or kids under 12? Because kids under 12 shouldn’t be playing what is greatly defined as a bloody and violent video game. Kids 14 and up are another matter, but lumping the age groups together just for personal reasons (as we are all gamers here) wont do any good because a 15 year old bending the rules isn’t as “threatening” as an 8 year old doing the same. Mind you, at 15, yeah, some teens are still messed up enough to take things seriously, but it would be more common with a child.
Originally posted by Evangelion
That’s what ratings are for. They don’t always follow through, obviously. But you’re talking about non adults. Are you speaking of teenagers, or kids under 12? Because kids under 12 shouldn’t be playing what is greatly defined as a bloody and violent video game. Kids 14 and up are another matter, but lumping the age groups together just for personal reasons (as we are all gamers here) wont do any good because a 15 year old bending the rules isn’t as “threatening” as an 8 year old doing the same. Mind you, at 15, yeah, some teens are still messed up enough to take things seriously, but it would be more common with a child.
So you’re saying that it’s more likely for a 5-year-old to re-enact Grand Theft Auto than it is for a teenager? That makes a lot of sense.[/sarcasm]
Originally posted by ahkeeyuu
So you’re saying that it’s more likely for a 5-year-old to re-enact Grand Theft Auto than it is for a teenager? That makes a lot of sense.[/sarcasm]
You obviously have only been half listening. 5 year olds are more prone to accept things they see on tv and video games and experience negative effects from it later on growing up, than say a teenager, who is older, and should know better, genius.
Originally posted by Sinistral
This is another example of people avoiding the blame for their fucked up kids. Kids don’t want to kill because of games. They want to to kill people because of a fucked up psychological development you can blame on their environment and culture.
This is about where this discussion should have stopped.
Yes, because everyone else’s opinions are hereby null and void according to that then.
They need to blame somthing, thats all.
Watch “Bowling for Columbine”, no there aren’t any sword fights in it, and yes it is a documentary, but its extreamly well done and if you are interested in this subject on violence in america, you should check it out.
I could not agree more with what you said StarStorm
Originally posted by Mastermune
I could not agree more with what you said StarStorm
I played mortal kombat when I was at least 8. I seriously don’t think that a kid can be completely influenced by violence. I know of NO game where it tells you to go out and go shoot someone in the face. Really if a parent cares, then the parent will fix the problem. Not some damn government regulation. It is a restriction of free speech (in someways). The video game rating system is enough.
I wonder how many different ways we can say: “Blaming video games is a cop out.” “Kids know better.” and “Parents should be responsible.”
There should be no ban at all. If kids are buying MA rated games, thats a problem with retailer not kids. Like Americin Phsyco, i played the shit out of Mortal Kombat when i was about 6, and I’ve been allowed to watch rated R movies my entire life. I’m not fucked up. much.
The parents are the ones responisble. Its not like drinking alcohol like the man says, if your kid is playing a videogame all the time, most likely you’ll KNOW. Why don’t they just ban TV.
Demigod: because its true -_-;;
Originally posted by Amerycinsycho
I played mortal kombat when I was at least 8. I seriously don’t think that a kid can be completely influenced by violence. I know of NO game where it tells you to go out and go shoot someone in the face. Really if a parent cares, then the parent will fix the problem. Not some damn government regulation. It is a restriction of free speech (in someways). The video game rating system is enough.
Excuse me, what is with all the PARENT BLAMING? Everyone’s bitching about parents refusing to place the blame on themselves, and I see a bitch of hypocrites just saying the exact same thing! Games CAN be a problem, and they have been.
You obviously have missed something if you’re saying, " Video games dont tell you to go out and shoot someone in the face". Obviously NOT, but they imply that it’s OKAY sometimes. Geez. I hate to make a fool out of myself and get personal, but comments like this are ridiculous. if you haven’t met someone influenced by violence (it’s human nature!) at least a little bit, perhaps you’re walking around with your eyes closed.
Not every caring parent CAN fix the problem. Some parents TRY and FAIL because their kid is soooo far past helping through no fault of their own. I can’t believe the only excuse here is “Oh if the kid is messed up, the parent has to move heaven and earth to fix it because it’s obviously their fault”. Some kids are just born psychologically impaired, for lack of better words. Sometimes kids refuse to accept their parents, and sometimes kids don’t want to be helped. In situations like that, you do NOT blame loving parents for failing. That’s disgusting. Yes, many kids today are messed up because of neglect and poor parenting, but many kids today are also messed up because that’s just their world and the way they are. Nothing a parent can do can change them, and there, folks is your tragedy. It’s not always the <i>parent’s</i> fault and maybe you’ll know by ending up in the same situation someday, with a child, and unable to do nothing.
Originally posted by Evangelion
[b]What is so stupid and pointless about wanting to protect young kids from things they shouldn’t be exposed to? Just because the rest of us here are “all growed up” and (some of us) may have a good grip on reality doesn’t mean others will. I hate to play the single opposition here, but I’d like to point out that just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it stupid and pointless.Maybe the whole thing can’t be done, and it’ll be rejected, but anyone should see the morale behind it, if they want to. [/b]
The whole idea of moral protection is arbitrarily based on your own morals. To have a meaningful ban on anything, then, it would seem to me that you would need a set of morals that everyone shares, right? Unless we manage to become robots or everyone suddenly believes and acts out pure loging, that’s not going to happen. Until then, any prohibition established infringes on a person’s freedom. If the activity established isn’t hurting anybody, why ban it? 'S why I think drinking & drugs shouldn’t be illegal (but bloody stupid), but, say, drinking and driving should (since you’re directly endangering people). <small>Forgive me if my opinions on this freedom vs. safety subject aren’t too well thought out or refined. Someone should bring up the Patriot Act in this discussion. That would be fun, since so many people have written about freedom vs. safety since September 11.</small>
In my view, banning FPS games is just the same as banning, say, <i>Huckleberry Finn</i> from a high school library (could teach people the word “nigger,” ohno!). Now then, how many people here are into burning and banning books? Anyone?
Edit: And, just to add, and this shouldn’t be taken as a personal jab, Evangelion, because I thought this up long before you were even on the boards and your post just sparked the inclination to post it, “it’s just human nature” is a terrible argument for anything. If anyone knew what human nature was we’d have a terribly easy time of solving any problem in the world simply because we’d all know how each other would act. Far as I can tell there is no “human nature,” just a bunch of animals who happen to act in a certain way and tend to give certain responses in certain situations. And if it’s the argument that it’s human nature that causes people to somehow inherit tendencies from violent games or other media, then it’s bad argument. If that’s the case, then those people are the exceptions to and aberrations of that human nature which governs the rest of us. In rambling brief, human nature is a bunch of bologna.
When I was little, my dad had Doom. He didn’t let me play it or watch him play it so that I wouldn’t be negatively affected. He also wouldn’t let me watch The Simpsons (even though he admits now they weren’t that bad). And like RPT said, it’s not up to the government. If we’re going to have moral laws concerning FPSes, then I see no reason why we shouldn’t have moral laws concerning prostitution (let the whores get paid), drugs (wanna smoke marijuana? Fine, do so. Just don’t commit any crimes), or even sodomy laws. And given that politicians are human too, I see no reason why too think they are better moral guides than parents (Lewinsky anyone? Condit? Gingrich?).
Originally posted by RoguePaladinTrian
[b]The whole idea of moral protection is arbitrarily based on your own morals. To have a meaningful ban on anything, then, it would seem to me that you would need a set of morals that everyone shares, right? Unless we manage to become robots or everyone suddenly believes and acts out pure loging, that’s not going to happen. Until then, any prohibition established infringes on a person’s freedom. If the activity established isn’t hurting anybody, why ban it? 'S why I think drinking & drugs shouldn’t be illegal (but bloody stupid), but, say, drinking and driving should (since you’re directly endangering people). <small>Forgive me if my opinions on this freedom vs. safety subject aren’t too well thought out or refined. Someone should bring up the Patriot Act in this discussion. That would be fun, since so many people have written about freedom vs. safety since September 11.</small>In my view, banning FPS games is just the same as banning, say, <i>Huckleberry Finn</i> from a high school library (could teach people the word “nigger,” ohno!). Now then, how many people here are into burning and banning books? Anyone?
Edit: And, just to add, and this shouldn’t be taken as a personal jab, Evangelion, because I thought this up long before you were even on the boards and your post just sparked the inclination to post it, “it’s just human nature” is a terrible argument for anything. If anyone knew what human nature was we’d have a terribly easy time of solving any problem in the world simply because we’d all know how each other would act. Far as I can tell there is no “human nature,” just a bunch of animals who happen to act in a certain way and tend to give certain responses in certain situations. And if it’s the argument that it’s human nature that causes people to somehow inherit tendencies from violent games or other media, then it’s bad argument. If that’s the case, then those people are the exceptions to and aberrations of that human nature which governs the rest of us. In rambling brief, human nature is a bunch of bologna. [/b]
I see what you’re saying…and I accept and totally understand it since you added some argueable points in there. I’m looking at it from a different point of view I guess, maybe because I’ve seen and heard too many disgusting things resulting from video games and stupid people. Your first sentence says it all.
And about the human nature thing…well yes, I worded it horribly, and you’re also right about that. I should have added in, that people are easily influenced and therefore easily corrupted. To say that no one at ALL reactes negatively to video games (and I’m not applying that to anyone here, because obviously, RPGC is full of mostly sane, and well thinking gamers) is a stupid statement, because obviously they effect us somehow. No it’s not human nature to be influenced by violence, it’s <i>normal</i> is what I should have said, and anyone who believes that no one benefits negatively or postively from video games or the media for that matter is atrocious and just…downright false. A gamer saying, “Video games don’t influence me and my opinions on this matter” to me, is like a crazy man saying, “No, I’m not insane.”
ACtually, I belive it IS banned in several schools, RPT.
Originally posted by Evangelion
[b]Excuse me, what is with all the PARENT BLAMING? Everyone’s bitching about parents refusing to place the blame on themselves, and I see a bitch of hypocrites just saying the exact same thing! Games CAN be a problem, and they have been.You obviously have missed something if you’re saying, " Video games dont tell you to go out and shoot someone in the face". Obviously NOT, but they imply that it’s OKAY sometimes. Geez. I hate to make a fool out of myself and get personal, but comments like this are ridiculous. if you haven’t met someone influenced by violence (it’s human nature!) at least a little bit, perhaps you’re walking around with your eyes closed.
Not every caring parent CAN fix the problem. Some parents TRY and FAIL because their kid is soooo far past helping through no fault of their own. I can’t believe the only excuse here is “Oh if the kid is messed up, the parent has to move heaven and earth to fix it because it’s obviously their fault”. Some kids are just born psychologically impaired, for lack of better words. Sometimes kids refuse to accept their parents, and sometimes kids don’t want to be helped. In situations like that, you do NOT blame loving parents for failing. That’s disgusting. Yes, many kids today are messed up because of neglect and poor parenting, but many kids today are also messed up because that’s just their world and the way they are. Nothing a parent can do can change them, and there, folks is your tragedy. It’s not always the <i>parent’s</i> fault and maybe you’ll know by ending up in the same situation someday, with a child, and unable to do nothing. [/b]
There are always exceptions. And I’ve never said noone is influenced by violence. I just believe the influence attributed to it IS BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION.
If they needed psychological help, the parents should be doing everything in thier power to make sure they get the help they need (And to make sure they stay long enough to get the help they need… mental health laws are nuts, and I speak from experience when I say IT DOES WONDERS). And goddamit, the parents HAD BETTER BE MOVING HEAVEN AND EARTH WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
Not to mention most kids don’t reject thier parents if they are treated with respect, and reared with discipline. Most don’t ANYWAY. PRoblems will arise. They always do. But ti doesn’t mean the kid is going to go against everything thier parents have taught them.
And those who refuse to be helped… well there’s a sharp learning curve ahead, and life gives you only one chance.
True, there are things a parent cannot do. They cannot monitor thier kids 24/7. But they can do thier best to take advantage of the little times to talk to thier kids about stuf like this: If you want to talk to your kid about drugs, you don’t wait until you know they’re on drugs, you do so BEFOREHAND.
Ultimately, if we banned anything that was perceived unnessecary and dangerous to others, why nto ban cars? THOSE aren’t nessecary, and are a danger to other people. And before you argue that they are nessecary: you have the oldest form of transportation known to man: Your own two feet. People didnt’ NEED cars or planes to cross long distances.
Originally posted by StarStorm
[b]ACtually, I belive it IS banned in several schools, RPT.There are always exceptions. And I’ve never said noone is influenced by violence. I just believe the influence attributed to it IS BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION.
If they needed psychological help, the parents should be doing everything in thier power to make sure they get the help they need (And to make sure they stay long enough to get the help they need… mental health laws are nuts, and I speak from experience when I say IT DOES WONDERS). And goddamit, the parents HAD BETTER BE MOVING HEAVEN AND EARTH WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
Not to mention most kids don’t reject thier parents if they are treated with respect, and reared with discipline. Most don’t ANYWAY. PRoblems will arise. They always do. But ti doesn’t mean the kid is going to go against everything thier parents have taught them.
And those who refuse to be helped… well there’s a sharp learning curve ahead, and life gives you only one chance.
True, there are things a parent cannot do. They cannot monitor thier kids 24/7. But they can do thier best to take advantage of the little times to talk to thier kids about stuf like this: If you want to talk to your kid about drugs, you don’t wait until you know they’re on drugs, you do so BEFOREHAND.
Ultimately, if we banned anything that was perceived unnessecary and dangerous to others, why nto ban cars? THOSE aren’t nessecary, and are a danger to other people. And before you argue that they are nessecary: you have the oldest form of transportation known to man: Your own two feet. People didnt’ NEED cars or planes to cross long distances. [/b]
I wasn’t specifically taunting you, SS, but I was just mad at how some posts were worded. it seems like, despite everything it was the parents fault. Like I said, many times it IS, but there are cases when no, they’ve done all they can do, and the kids are just so far gone by peer pressure, media and who knows what else that they just don’t accept what they’re doing wrong, and they don’t accept help.
I’ll use myself for an example. My parents raised me right (or so I hope) and are extremely over protective and cautious, and due to a situation in the family that has caused a lot of problems between in laws and whatnot, I was told not to pull the same stunt in life. Well I have done the exact same incident, because I wanted to, not because my parents failed to educate me, or because I’m half crazy and deluded, but just because I feel it’s right for me. This may all sound stupid, but it’s JUST a truthful, vague example, though it’s a harmless one.
There are other cases like that, other teenagers have made dangerous decisions, and they had loving parents too. Though these types of cases, are obviously not common when it comes to messed up kids because, yes, I’ll say the parent is responsible. But sometimes the parents can only do so much as to give their life and all they know to their children and it isn’t enough.
And comparing video games to cars is quite extreme, because driving a car is more convenient and necessary than playing video games.