Originally posted by StarStorm
[b]ACtually, I belive it IS banned in several schools, RPT.
B]
Oh, it is. Sad, isn’t it?
Sometimes people just fail to make the connection between that type of established thing (where they think “what were they thinking?”) and a new issue like banning FPSs.
The problem with blaming it on the parents that is the fact that some disorders that cause such violence may not be psychological, but rather biological. An overabundance of testosterone in the womb (a child receives ‘baths’ of either estrogen or testosterone when in the womb, it determines their sex as well as other things), or just overproduction, can cause excessive aggression in a child. Now, tell me what the parents did wrong there?
Personally, I think there is no good solution other than to leave it up to the parents to decide. All the arguments here are all good and well, but there are just so many exceptions to those that there is no way to stop it except a ban that effectively stops all production of things that are deemed morally wrong. In other words, it ain’t happening any times soon.
Originally posted by Evangelion
And comparing video games to cars is quite extreme, because driving a car is more convenient and necessary than playing video games.
Not to mention more dangerous than playing games.
Originally posted by Steve
(a child receives ‘baths’ of either estrogen or testosterone when in the womb, it determines their sex as well as other things),
I believe the sex of the child is determined by the sperm.
If the baby gets a X gene, it’s a girl/ If it gets a Y gene, it’s a boy.
Ah, I said that wrong. I meant those are the compounds that make the physical sex organs appear.
Originally posted by Steve
Ah, I said that wrong. I meant those are the compounds that make the physical sex organs appear.
Ah.
Gotcha.
Originally posted by Evangelion
[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. [/b]
I know it wasn’t a personal attack, and yes, yes I do know that comparing video games to cars is a bit extreme, but they’re just as nessecary to get to places as videogames are to our lives. They’re just faster and more convienent.
I do see your point, and actually had a hard time rebutting it except fr the mental health part.
Teenagers make dangerous descicions. That’s a part of being a teenager: testing what you can and cant do. IT’s the parent’s job to do thier damnedest to make sure they don’t end up killing themselves.
No…I am going to blame the parents for this one.
Wait, this has to do with first person shooters…
Something I’d like to add to the whole violent video games leading to violent behavior or encouraging violent behavior, and the rating system and what not…
As usual, I notice that it’s the GTA games that are held up as the examples of violent and hence “bad” video games.
And not, you know, something like Socom: Navy Seals, which as I understand actually has a “join the navy” recruitment pitch in its opening credits. That’s a pretty darn blatant endorsement of exhibiting violent behavior if you ask me… 
I’d be interested to see what the rating on that game is…anybody know?
Originally posted by StarStorm
[b]I know it wasn’t a personal attack, and yes, yes I do know that comparing video games to cars is a bit extreme, but they’re just as nessecary to get to places as videogames are to our lives. They’re just faster and more convienent.I do see your point, and actually had a hard time rebutting it except fr the mental health part.
Teenagers make dangerous descicions. That’s a part of being a teenager: testing what you can and cant do. IT’s the parent’s job to do thier damnedest to make sure they don’t end up killing themselves. [/b]
Very much agreed.
Originally posted by Amerycinsycho
<B>No…I am going to blame the parents for this one</B>
How insightful and expected of you!
Originally posted by Curtis
Wait, this has to do with first person shooters…
Gee, what gave you that impression?
Originally posted by KaiserVonAlmasy
[b]Something I’d like to add to the whole violent video games leading to violent behavior or encouraging violent behavior, and the rating system and what not…As usual, I notice that it’s the GTA games that are held up as the examples of violent and hence “bad” video games.
And not, you know, something like Socom: Navy Seals, which as I understand actually has a “join the navy” recruitment pitch in its opening credits. That’s a pretty darn blatant endorsement of exhibiting violent behavior if you ask me…
I’d be interested to see what the rating on that game is…anybody know? [/b]
Rated M for Mature.
I don’t think you or your ideas are stupid, Eva, but remember that your suggestions, if applied, would kinda overprotect children. They would grow in a world of flowers and hearts, and wouldn’t be prepared to face the violence of the real world later on. When people see blood, even if only in a screen, in a regular basis, they tend to be less sensitive (in a negative way) to it when they see someone bleeding IRL.
Um… and what exactly is wrong with wanting them in a world with flowers? Time was “childish innocence” meant something. Nowadays kids know all about violence and drugs and sex, even if they live in upper-class neighborhoods and have never seen a real gun in their lives. Why should they be exposed to this kind of stuff if they don’t have to be? How would playing these games better “prepare” them for life? So they’ll be more callous to people dying? This is a good thing? People should be feeling very strongly when they see injury or death. They should be sensitive to it.
Frankly, I think kids need a little space to be kids, not to be prepped for adulthood. There’s something special about childhood that I think should be treasured. That means not showing them the great ideals of blowing things up, not letting them dress up like sluts, and not allowing them to swear every second word. I know that compared to everyone else on this board I’m ultra-conservative, but I feel very strongly about that.
However, I’m not sure a ban is the right way to do things. To be frank, we’d then have to ban 90% of television programs shown after 6 PM, as well as not letting them browse the Internet by themselves. Obviously, as RPT said, I can’t impose my own morals on other people, much as I’d really really like to. So it really does all come down to the parents’ choices and actions in this.
Note that I’m more against this not because I really think that kids will play GTA3 and then go around shooting prostitutes, but because I just don’t like the mindset that it would be giving them.
Originally posted by Cidolfas
[b]Frankly, I think kids need a little space to be kids, not to be prepped for adulthood. There’s something special about childhood that I think should be treasured. That means not showing them the great ideals of blowing things up, not letting them dress up like sluts, and not allowing them to swear every second word. I know that compared to everyone else on this board I’m ultra-conservative, but I feel very strongly about that.However, I’m not sure a ban is the right way to do things. To be frank, we’d then have to ban 90% of television programs shown after 6 PM, as well as not letting them browse the Internet by themselves. Obviously, as RPT said, I can’t impose my own morals on other people, much as I’d really really like to. So it really does all come down to the parents’ choices and actions in this.
[/b]
I do agree with you Cid: Kids need time to be kids. I classify oversheltering though as keeping they away from the bad things that happy. Death, sadness, and so on. They’ll have to deal with that as adults, but not so much as kids.
As I said, no law, rating or fliter can match a good parent.
I’m glad I don’t live in California. Thank goodness I didn’t listen to my mom when she wanted me to apply to some colleges over there.
Originally posted by Jiharn
I’m glad I don’t live in California. Thank goodness I didn’t listen to my mom when she wanted me to apply to some colleges over there.
Man. I’m now glad my parents didn’t want me leaving Florida for college.
Edit: Oops. hit post reply by accident