Moral Kombat... this is bad, really bad...

[Curt-Man]

Best picture EVAR Tie23. I agree with mostly everyone on this, especially MasterRoss08. He makes a good point. Blame should fall on the parents and the people who sell teen and mature rated games to little kids. Failed.

[Samuel Dravis]

Do notice that they never say "violent video games", just "video games". And every single clip is from one of the violent games...

Well, I did see a halfsecond clip of Myst: Revelation. That's about as non-violent as they come without being kiddie games (quite an interesting game, but the puzzles are a bit hardcore).

 

I enjoy the bit "terrists learned how to fly on a sim." Well, actually they learned to fly with an instructor at a flightschool. They might have used a sim to learn the controls configuration, but even that can be found easily elsewhere. I daresay that the comparison is not exactly apt.

 

My view of the entire trailer is that it presents a single view, that games are questionable at best and criminally irresponsible to allow people to own at worst. Jack says at the beginning that never before has violence been seen in a positive light. I wonder where he's getting the idea that it is. Never to my knowledge has actual violence been requested or encouraged by any videogame. Perhaps he gets confused about what 'reality' is himself, but all studies done on the topic have not shown any direct correlation between playing games and physical violence. Real people are apparently not having trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

 

And so, based on this mountain of completely circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, these people intend to... what, exactly? What is the result they want? Oh yeah, lol. That's right.

 

It's called censorship.

 

How nice of them to think of the children.

[Ray Jones]

Blame should fall on the parents and the people who sell teen and mature rated games to little kids. Failed.

I'd like to point out that my parents never ever bought one of the "violent" games for me and yet, I played many of them. I seriously doubt many people sell "violent" games to little kids. However, often most of the "little kids" know more about how and where the can download those games, than their parents do. So yes, one possible point of view is: blame the parents. And there is surely some truth to this. But on the other hand, it's the hell of a job to keep stuff away from your kids when the whole world is almost "forcing it down their throats". Also, why not blame those, who give a reason to the industry to produce "violent" media? I mean, no one offers ketchup-onion-vinegar-coffee-flavoured milk shakes to the public. Hm. Or blame the weapon industry. Or those who invented microprocessors. Yes, that's real democracy: freedom of choice who's to blame.

[MasterRoss08]

Yes I agree with your points there Ray. I agree with that almost all video

games have some form of violence in there games. But not all games

have violence in them. So the game industry shouldnt be stopped

over some peoples quick and biased to judgement that video games are the cause

of all the violence that some kids do when they dont have concrete evidence

linking the violence in video games to the conduct that some kids do in real life.

 

The video game industry isnt only for kids is one thing they should

learn first off. Alot of adults also play video games. There is a big variety

of games meant for enjoyment of kids and adults alike. It all comes down to

the parent on what there kids should and shouldnt play.

 

Now on that one comment on the cashiers of stores.

Basically my oppinion on this is what are they there for? They are there to just

check off what you have bought and make sure you payed for there products.

I agree that they shouldnt be selling teen and mature games to kids which

is why thats been taken care of already. There is some law or some regulation

stopping the selling of mature games to underage kids. (just like beer,wine etc)

But the problem here is(ive read this in gameinformer magizine)when kids

go to there parents if they cant get what they want and have there parent come

back and buy the game for them. So in this story the cashier does warn the

parent on the conduct of the game but the parent still buys it for

there child.

 

So what have we learned here?

1 Kids are not stupid. if they cant get what they want they go to there parents

 

2 Either the parent doesnt know the conduct of the game or they just dont care

or they that the conduct in the games is ok for there children.

 

So basically it is all up to the parents in my oppinion. They need to either

be educated if they dont know whats going on.

They need to know what the child is getting out of playing video games(behavior wise)

And of course teach there kids that violence isnt aceptable in society

and isnt right morally to hopefully end all this violence that kids are

getting themselves into.

[Grey Master]

In the end, it's up to the person that plays the game to be intelligent enough to realize that such behavior is not appropiate in real life, but some are dumb enough and they try to copy it and give us game players a bad reputation.

[BongoBob]

but some are dumb enough and they try to copy it and give us game players a bad reputation.

 

As well as give jackasses like Tack Jhompson their fame ><

[TiE23]

Dude, at my school, the only entertainment that seems to affect my fellow students is the **** they see on MTV when they were 12 years old. I've never seen anyone affected by videogames in any negative way.

 

I just think that these people have a personal vendetta against video games but I have no idea why. But mostly, Jack Thompson is just an ambulance chaser who looks for anything offensive and sues them in name of those "effected" by the stuff.

[Ray Jones]

So what have we learned here?

1 Kids are not stupid. if they cant get what they want they go to there parents

 

2 Either the parent doesnt know the conduct of the game or they just dont care

or they that the conduct in the games is ok for there children.

3.) Children do things, without their parent's knowledge?

 

And of course teach there kids that violence isnt aceptable in society

and isnt right morally to hopefully end all this violence that kids are

getting themselves into.

Then, if violence is not acceptable in society, why is it that a good number of video games offer several ways to perform violence in more or less realistic ways? Why are there games where the whole gameplay is based on the act of violence? And why is it the parent's job to teach that violence is not "acceptable" when everywhere else in the media and who knows where violence is shown as "normal"?

 

In the end, it's up to the person that plays the game to be intelligent enough to realize that such behavior is not appropiate in real life, but some are dumb enough and they try to copy it and give us game players a bad reputation.

No. It gives society a bad reputation.

[Samuel Dravis]

Then, if violence is not acceptable in society, why is it that a good number of video games offer several ways to perform violence in more or less realistic ways? Why are there games where the whole gameplay is based on the act of violence? And why is it the parent's job to teach that violence is not "acceptable" when everywhere else in the media and who knows where violence is shown as "normal"?

Um. Real violence is not equivalent to virtual violence. I see no one saying that real violence is acceptable (oh okay, political leaders, football/hockey teams etc., excepted). It's not real and it shouldn't be treated as real. Also, people shouldn't be treated as if they lack the capacity to determine what is real and what is not...because apparently they do have the ability. Their choices are ALL their own. Games didn't start violence. Games haven't been shown to increase real violence. Games don't need to be censored by anyone other than the legal guardians or the individual themselves.

[ET Warrior]

EU makes a GREAT decision...

Take that EU...I wonder how long the US can keep from following suit.

[Spider AL]

Ugh... I'm now depressed. This EU declaration may leave ban-related decisions to individual states, but it seems to be perpetuating anti-games sentiment.

 

No form of entertainment- no matter how fictionally violent- should be banned. Responsible adults should be allowed to entertain themselves with violent movies, violent literature and violent games. End of story.

 

Parents shouldn't be buying their children violent games NOW, and people have no right to restrict MY usage of violent entertainment simply because there are awful parents around.

[Ray Jones]

Um. Real violence is not equivalent to virtual violence. I see no one saying that real violence is acceptable (oh okay, political leaders, football/hockey teams etc., excepted). It's not real and it shouldn't be treated as real. Also, people shouldn't be treated as if they lack the capacity to determine what is real and what is not...because apparently they do have the ability. Their choices are ALL their own. Games didn't start violence. Games haven't been shown to increase real violence. Games don't need to be censored by anyone other than the legal guardians or the individual themselves.

I'm not saying people can't differ between reality and virtuality, nor do I say that games start, cause, increase or whatever violence. I just say that society sometimes isn't helpful, to the responsible and not awful parent, in keeping children away from "virtual violence", they're simply "forced" to deal with the situation (and kind of left alone with it), that their children are exposed to "adult content", that's all. I do not even limit this to games.

 

I agree with Spider's above post.

[Grey Master]

Ugh... I'm now depressed. This EU declaration may leave ban-related decisions to individual states, but it seems to be perpetuating anti-games sentiment.

 

No form of entertainment- no matter how fictionally violent- should be banned. Responsible adults should be allowed to entertain themselves with violent movies, violent literature and violent games. End of story.

 

Parents shouldn't be buying their children violent games NOW, and people have no right to restrict MY usage of violent entertainment simply because there are awful parents around.

 

Ditto. Just because a kid imitates something from a video game and gets injured doesn't mean that they all the gamers should suffer for the kids stupidity, but they should put more warnings so the parents could get an idea of what the game is about, and the developers shoul state that they are not responsible if people copy some thing from the game and get injured or killed.

[Samuel Dravis]

I just say that society sometimes isn't helpful, to the responsible and not awful parent, in keeping children away from "virtual violence", they're simply "forced" to deal with the situation (and kind of left alone with it), that their children are exposed to "adult content", that's all. I do not even limit this to games.

I still don't see what the problem is then. Why is it society's problem that you want to censor things for you children? That's a choice you make in their upbringing, and it's yours alone. If you really want "society" to be helpful (read: government impose bans on legitimate media), I figure you'll soon discover it is all too willing to help you. Though it might go a bit farther than you like. Consider the Bible - it contains parts that are certainly violent, but would you even dream of letting society be "helpful" in deciding who reads it? I wouldn't. People can read what they like, and more power to them. If you don't want your kids reading/playing/watching violent media, it's your responsibility to stop them.

 

This isn't to say that there aren't groups that you could join that might help you with your job, such as evaluating certain books, movies, music, games and whatnot. There are many such sites. Gamerdad.com is one (txa is a reviewer there, I believe). There's no problem using these services since no one's rights are being infringed by your choices. The moment people start trying to tell other people what to do, however, is the moment rights are infringed. If you enact a law saying no one under 18 gets into R movies, you've stepped on the parent of that child's rights and basically said you know better than them how to raise their own child. Is there a justification for that?

 

No, because there's no evidence that people become physically violent when they play games. Parental incompetence is hardly a reason to take people's rights away save when that incompetence poses actual danger to their children - and there is no reason to believe that there is such a danger involved in this case.

[Ray Jones]

the developers shoul state that they are not responsible if people copy some thing from the game and get injured or killed.

Better. How about that: the people who got injured had the choice not to get injured? I mean, all those victims from all those school shootings, it was their choice to be at school when the shootings happened. All they needed to do is not going to school. But nooo.

 

 

I still don't see what the problem is then. Why is it society's problem that you want to censor things for you children?

What's society without children? Where would society be without children? It's not society's problem that I don't want my children to watch violent content, or that I want valuable content for them, but it's society's problem if I simply cannot do this because everyone gives a damn about it and is broadcasting bull**** over all media available. I don't see why Spider's right for adult content entertainment should have an impact on my and my children's right to go without these things without that I have to take care of it. I don't want anybody else to take my parental responsibility for me, but society should sure as hell respect what I am doing as parent. Again, where would society be, if noone would take the responsibility to raise children. And, take a look where society currently *is* ..

 

That's a choice you make in their upbringing, and it's yours alone.

Whose right is it to determine that I have to shield my children from things the media industry finds appropriate for everybody to see?

 

If you really want "society" to be helpful (read: government impose bans on legitimate media)

I don't want bans on anything. I want the media to show a bit more responsibility when it comes to the public available broadcasting of things.

 

Consider the Bible - it contains parts that are certainly violent, but would you even dream of letting society be "helpful" in deciding who reads it? I wouldn't. People can read what they like, and more power to them.

The difference is, I don't have to buy/obtain a bible, it's under my control.

 

If you don't want your kids reading/playing/watching violent media, it's your responsibility to stop them.

It's also the media's responsibility NOT to provide/force it to anyone who's available for receiving. It's a bit like the question how a firewall's default policy should be. Should everything be opened and the user has to decide what has to be closed and left outside, or should all ports be closed by default and the user can open them to let the things through that he wants to.

 

The moment people start trying to tell other people what to do, however, is the moment rights are infringed.

The moment I am told that it is me who has to decide not to be exposed to something and have to watch my step so I don't get exposed, just to support your laziness to explizitly chose, and actively do something for your adult entertainment, my rights are infringed, because I have to take care of your ****. The other way around, I don't infringe your rights when I say, watch your stuff, but don't force it to me. But I don't want to cut anyones right to have horse sex porn up their anus if they want to, but I want a more responsible way it is made public through the media.

 

If you enact a law saying no one under 18 gets into R movies, you've stepped on the parent of that child's rights and basically said you know better than them how to raise their own child. Is there a justification for that?

No. And I wouldn't want such laws. The point is, here the parents are actively deciding to take their underage kid into adult movies, I don't even see a problem here.

 

No, because there's no evidence that people become physically violent when they play games.

There is no evidence that people become physical violent when they consume to violent media. I'm not talking about (violent) games only. Sure is, the game "Donald's quest for ant ****" won't cause it either. If you take game A which contains violent gameplay, and game B doesn't, by simple logic, which one is at least giving the example to act violent, even if it's only virtual?

 

Also everything in games is made as real as possible. Graphics, physics, environments, sounds, effects, and sometimes the way you can shoot people in the head - everything is as close to reality as technically possible. There's but one difference to reality: it is not real. But seriously, there are enough people who cannot even differ between the actor as person and the role he's playing.

 

But again, I'm NOT for banning violent content, porn or Bob Ross. I'm not pro censoring anything at all. All I want is that *YOU* have to switch it on, instead of that *I* have to switch it off.

 

Parental incompetence is hardly a reason to take people's rights away save when that incompetence poses actual danger to their children - and there is no reason to believe that there is such a danger involved in this case.

Parental incompetence? Danger to their children? - Peoples laziness to show responsibility, and to enhance society, to respect or even support those who take responsibility cannot be a reason to be forced to tolerate or accept those people's ignorance and arrogance.

 

 

I don't think banning or censoring something would solve the problem, nor do I think that violent media themselves cause those things in a direct manner, it's always the sum of several circumstances. The poor punk who decides to shoot the idiot who bullied him every day in school can't be blamed alone, nor can the games he played. Mainly the bully is to blame for being an asshole and showing asocial behaviour, and of course those who supported him, laughed or looked away. This is not the punk's parents incompetence, or a proof how bad violent games are. This is proof how poor, selfcentered and unsocial our society is.

 

What I think is a main reason, and often a big factor for such things is the lack of good role models and "better" examples that are more "powerful" and more valuable lessons than violent media possibly are. also, this common "this is not my problem" or "I don't care" attitude. Of course, it's much easier not to care, and in fact it may not be your problem. Until that exact moment where it is your daughter which's been raped and killed on a school toilet. Or when it is you looking down the barrel of a gun. Yes, all blame to the parents.

[MasterRoss08]

I don't think banning or censoring something would solve the problem, nor do I think that violent media themselves cause those things in a direct manner, it's always the sum of several circumstances. The poor punk who decides to shoot the idiot who bullied him every day in school can't be blamed alone, nor can the games he played. Mainly the bully is to blame for being an asshole and showing asocial behaviour, and of course those who supported him, laughed or looked away. This is not the punk's parents incompetence, or a proof how bad violent games are. This is proof how poor, selfcentered and unsocial our society is.

 

What I think is a main reason, and often a big factor for such things is the lack of good role models and "better" examples that are more "powerful" and more valuable lessons than violent media possibly are. also, this common "this is not my problem" or "I don't care" attitude.

Agreed there Ray. Society isnt helping to stop all this violence when they keep on

showing all this violence. And how should all this stop?

 

I agree that everything isnt

the parents blame but I think some of this blame does go to some parents.

Like the parents of the bully or some other examples. Where were the parents

to help stop this bullying even before it began? Or the teachers,principles

and the one or more friends of the people that got bullied? Its just not one

thing that causes these things but a multiple of little things that dont want

to intend harm in there views but little by little helps it along till it becomes

these big tragedies.

 

I dont think society as a whole is bad but there is alot of uneeded things

that dont need to be aound IMO. There are good things in society as well. Like for one instance Ive seen

comercials that provide programs for tvs for parents to block programs

that parents think are uneeded for there kids to watch. These and many other

programs provide help to parents to make there jobs easier.

[Spider AL]

But again, I'm NOT for banning violent content, porn or Bob Ross. I'm not pro censoring anything at all. All I want is that *YOU* have to switch it on, instead of that *I* have to switch it off.

I'm confused by this statement. You DO have to buy games before your kids can play them. Nobody's forcing you to let your kids play violent games...

 

So what are you trying to say? I mean, are you still talking about video games, or are you referring to something else?

[Ray Jones]

Well, due to my incoherent nature, I guess I was generalising a bit towards all the other media that could also be violent. Last week, for instance, I was cowardly attacked by a DVD I burned myself. I mean, I almost got seriously injured through my own DVD!! Because it fell on my bare feet. Shocking. But all was good when I put it into the player and could watch 3 hours of legally downloaded, high quality electric sheep pron.

 

Nah, seriously, yes, I was not talking about games only anymore.

[Spider AL]

Ah, fair enough. I did wonder.

 

I hope this event didn't result in an irrational fear of shiny circular objects.

 

I'm also curious as to what violent media you WERE referring to, specifically. I mean, what is it that your kids can get hold of without you being able to vet it?

[Samuel Dravis]

What's society without children? Where would society be without children? It's not society's problem that I don't want my children to watch violent content, or that I want valuable content for them, but it's society's problem if I simply cannot do this because everyone gives a damn about it and is broadcasting bull**** over all media available. I don't see why Spider's right for adult content entertainment should have an impact on my and my children's right to go without these things without that I have to take care of it. I don't want anybody else to take my parental responsibility for me, but society should sure as hell respect what I am doing as parent. Again, where would society be, if noone would take the responsibility to raise children. And, take a look where society currently *is* ..

 

Whose right is it to determine that I have to shield my children from things the media industry finds appropriate for everybody to see?

So you find certain things offensive and/or inappropriate, which does not apply to everyone. Okay, that's fine. I have no issue at all with your authority to prevent your children from seeing this kind of media. HOWEVER:

 

I suggest that NOTHING on Cable/Satellite/etc (basically any type of voluntary media) has anything to do with your rights. If you try to restrict that without a reason beyond your personal dislike then I've gotta tell you, you're simply wrong. Free speech doesn't depend on your personal likes or dislikes. People can put whatever they want on anything they like as long as it's opt-in and is not immediately dangerous.

 

In fact, I'm not sure of any media that's not opt-in except for advertising and perhaps public television (which is already under much more restriction than any private network). The decision to buy cable is made by YOU, and you should educate yourself on exactly what you're getting when you buy it. The company is under no obligation to do anything other than provide the content that you and it agree to. It owes you nothing. Private content is sold, and it's ONLY your decision to buy that content; no one's forcing you to do anything.

 

I see a lot of people complaining about MPAA/RIAA/**AA and how they're evil and should die. However, I see very few people actively boycotting the organizations they don't like. I don't know if this sort of mindset applies to you, but just so everyone knows - you have ZERO (0, none, nada etc) right to entertainment media of any type. The only rights you have to it are those that the author gives you, and that author is free to do with his/her media as she will, selling it to whom they choose. Now, when I see someone saying "Society is going to pot because **** and it should self-censor itself more" I get annoyed. Why? Because it's not the media that's the problem. It's the people that create the market for said media. If you're interested in historical research, you could look up the Prohibition amendment and the subsequent shenanigans. There was a famously effective law! LOL! And why? Because it didn't do a single thing about the demand for the product.

 

When people said "boy this will sure help our societal problems" and other such crock when the prohibition went into effect, well, it didn't. In fact, it created some of the most powerful criminal groups in American history, with figures such as Al Capone in charge.

 

I don't want bans on anything. I want the media to show a bit more responsibility when it comes to the public available broadcasting of things.

Who defines what is "responsible?" You? The government? LOL! No. Such self-censorship schemes are effectively the same as law, only they are even more apt to be abused because of their extreme vagueness.

 

While I might agree with you in principle, I would NEVER advocate restricting other people's rights to do what they will without an extremely good reason. And that's effectively what you suggest.

 

It's also the media's responsibility NOT to provide/force it to anyone who's available for receiving. It's a bit like the question how a firewall's default policy should be. Should everything be opened and the user has to decide what has to be closed and left outside, or should all ports be closed by default and the user can open them to let the things through that he wants to.

The media's responsibility extends only to the people who buy their media. If you don't like it, don't buy it. They don't have to do anything you say. If, however, enough people think like you, then they might decide to cater to your demographic, but that's as much as you're going to get.

 

The moment I am told that it is me who has to decide not to be exposed to something and have to watch my step so I don't get exposed, just to support your laziness to explizitly chose, and actively do something for your adult entertainment, my rights are infringed, because I have to take care of your ****. The other way around, I don't infringe your rights when I say, watch your stuff, but don't force it to me. But I don't want to cut anyones right to have horse sex porn up their anus if they want to, but I want a more responsible way it is made public through the media.

Public television/media: Complain to the FCC. Hardly anyone does though; a few hundred a month usually, until the Parent's Television Council does one of their stunts with automated letter form submissions where you just fill out your name and click send. However, campaigns like that are fairly dubious in nature and the FCC doesn't put much weight in them anymore, and rightly so (people's submissions only represent about .5% of the population anyway).

 

And pay-media, like I've already said above, is hardly under your control. You get what you pay for, and it IS your responsibility to know what comes with the contract.

 

There is no evidence that people become physical violent when they consume to violent media. I'm not talking about (violent) games only. Sure is, the game "Donald's quest for ant ****" won't cause it either. If you take game A which contains violent gameplay, and game B doesn't, by simple logic, which one is at least giving the example to act violent, even if it's only virtual?

This is completely irrelevant because it is your choice that your children play either game. I wouldn't dream of telling you which is better for your children - you would know best.

 

Also everything in games is made as real as possible. Graphics, physics, environments, sounds, effects, and sometimes the way you can shoot people in the head - everything is as close to reality as technically possible. There's but one difference to reality: it is not real. But seriously, there are enough people who cannot even differ between the actor as person and the role he's playing.

If people are so lax in their parenting that they do not notice that their kids can't tell the difference between games and reality, then they have more serious problems than how violent games are. Also, you expect everyone to suffer because of the small percentage of people that can't tell this difference?

But again, I'm NOT for banning violent content, porn or Bob Ross. I'm not pro censoring anything at all. All I want is that *YOU* have to switch it on, instead of that *I* have to switch it off.

Pay content media: you switch it on. Free media: it's your choice to watch/you switch it on. Publicly funded media: complain to the FCC. There, done.

 

Parental incompetence? Danger to their children? - Peoples laziness to show responsibility, and to enhance society, to respect or even support those who take responsibility cannot be a reason to be forced to tolerate or accept those people's ignorance and arrogance.

I am under zero obligation to help you with your parenting. Society leaves that, and rightly so, with the parents, because only you interact with your children often enough to know what is best for them. If you want help, there are plenty of organizations that will help you pick out games, books, movies etc which may appeal to you - but none will do the deciding for you. When I am a parent, I will want zero societal interference with my decisions, which are exactly the same freedoms that you currently enjoy. I'll be happy to have it, too.

 

 

This is proof how poor, selfcentered and unsocial our society is.

That's how it is. Your response to it regarding unnecessary restrictions of freedom would be as ineffective as the Prohibition was. If you want to cry about society's falling down the gutter, go ahead. Just realize that it's not a media problem and restrictions on media would have no effect, as well as being unconstitutional.

 

What I think is a main reason, and often a big factor for such things is the lack of good role models and "better" examples that are more "powerful" and more valuable lessons than violent media possibly are.

I wonder if that's not the fault of the people for not being as exemplary as they would want their kids to be? Parents are the #1 influence on their children. Practicing what they preach might solve the problem, but I doubt that will happen. ^_^

 

also, this common "this is not my problem" or "I don't care" attitude. Of course, it's much easier not to care, and in fact it may not be your problem. Until that exact moment where it is your daughter which's been raped and killed on a school toilet. Or when it is you looking down the barrel of a gun. Yes, all blame to the parents.

You're confusing "I don't care" with "I don't think what you suggest will do anything to solve the problem." And indeed, I have no reason to believe it will. Perhaps being a good example individually would work on the actual issue instead of the effects. Don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease. For myself, I have been exposed to horrible games, violent literature, evil rap songs and even bad examples before. However, I'd like to point out that as of today:

 

I have not ever used drugs.

I have not ever participated in a crime nor condoned one.

I am thoroughly against real violence in every unjustified form.

I would not ever think of doing such stupid things, even in the presence of so-called "peer pressure" (which is solely an excuse to escape thinking of the consequences of your actions).

 

Perhaps parental influence is more effective than previously believed? Perhaps instead of demanding things like the V-chip so that they don't have to watch their kids, they should spend more time with them. I never needed the V-chip, btw; my parents didn't even own a TV. Said it was a bad influence or some such foolish statement that can only come from parents. Gah. They don't know anything.

[Kjølen]

They said it themselves: 50% of America plays video games.

The other 50% remains happily alive.

[Ray Jones]

Now, when I see someone saying "Society is going to pot because **** and it should self-censor itself more" I get annoyed. Why? Because it's not the media that's the problem. It's the people that create the market for said media.

Well, that's my point exactly.. and it's one of the reasons why any kind of censoring is doomed to fail and why I'd never state that "Society is going to pot because **** and it should self-censor itself more".

 

Who defines what is "responsible?" You? The government? LOL! No. Such self-censorship schemes are effectively the same as law, only they are even more apt to be abused because of their extreme vagueness.

Self-censorship is crap. But responsibility is not self-censorship. Censorship is restriction per rule. Responsibility is normally somehow connected to thoughtful way of acting.

 

And who defines "responsibility"? Hmm, first of all - the dictionary. And then, maybe those who create and those who serve the market? Together that gives .. society?

 

While I might agree with you in principle, I would NEVER advocate restricting other people's rights to do what they will without an extremely good reason. And that's effectively what you suggest.

No, as I've stated so often, I did not suggest such thing. The opposite is the fact, I am against restriction of rights. I do, however, suggest, that people stop being all whiny about their oh so important personal rights for so-and-so, when somebody says it might cause problems in society. I think I am getting old, but I start to wonder why exactly do we need violent or adult entertainment to this extend? Why is "everybody" saying it's the parents problem when their kids are exposed to it "not mine".

You for instance, you stated that it's not the media's fault that they offer such contents, because "people" want that. So basically you say it's available because YOU want to. And yet you say it's within MY responsibility ALONE when my kids see YOUR stuff? Hm. I think that could be more of a reason why society is "going to pot".

 

The media's responsibility extends only to the people who buy their media. If you don't like it, don't buy it. They don't have to do anything you say. If, however, enough people think like you, then they might decide to cater to your demographic, but that's as much as you're going to get.

Oh, I think that sounds like a perfect marketing strategy here. An example: noone likes the oh so frequent raising of oil/gas prices, and yet noone really stops buying gas or driving cars; I wonder why?

 

And pay-media, like I've already said above, is hardly under your control. You get what you pay for, and it IS your responsibility to know what comes with the contract.

Paid media is pretty well under my control. And of course I'd know what I get, because, contract or not, that's actually the reason *why* I got it, isn't it?

 

This is completely irrelevant because it is your choice that your children play either game. I wouldn't dream of telling you which is better for your children - you would know best.

Oh, that wasn't my point here. I was trying to say, that regardless of the player and regardless of the actual influence it might have on the gamer, be it an 80 or 10 year old person, one game is "suggesting" violent behaviour and the other one not. That's all.

 

If people are so lax in their parenting that they do not notice that their kids can't tell the difference between games and reality, then they have more serious problems than how violent games are. Also, you expect everyone to suffer because of the small percentage of people that can't tell this difference?

Many "grown up" persons have problems with making a difference between real life and fantasy. And for children it is kind of normal to "mix" reality and fantasy up to a certain level. It has nothing to do with "lax parenting". And it has nothing to do with violent content. Kids just do that. And I don't expect everyone to suffer, although I wouldn't say, that a less violent content (for instance) would cause suffering? I mean, after all, all we need to do is create another, different market, eh?

 

I am under zero obligation to help you with your parenting. Society leaves that, and rightly so, with the parents, because only you interact with your children often enough to know what is best for them. If you want help, there are plenty of organizations that will help you pick out games, books, movies etc which may appeal to you - but none will do the deciding for you. When I am a parent, I will want zero societal interference with my decisions, which are exactly the same freedoms that you currently enjoy. I'll be happy to have it, too.

I don't want help. I don't need help. I don't have a problem with alco -- wait. Forget that.

 

Seriously, I know that, I know the places I could go etc, but that is not my point. I don't need help with parenting, I don't want anyone to do the deciding for me. When you are a parent, you might get an understanding of what I mean. Putting the media and contents aside, society is sometimes, to put it simple, an ignorant and self-centered asshole when it comes to parents and their children. I sometimes really have to wonder if some people really think that I got a child just to annoy them for this small amount of time when we "share" the supermarket, for instance.

 

That's how it is. Your response to it regarding unnecessary restrictions of freedom would be as ineffective as the Prohibition was. If you want to cry about society's falling down the gutter, go ahead. Just realize that it's not a media problem and restrictions on media would have no effect, as well as being unconstitutional.

I did know all that before your post, thank you. And again, I did not demand to restrict anyone's rights or freedom. Because like you've said, that would lead to nothing.

 

I wonder if that's not the fault of the people for not being as exemplary as they would want their kids to be? Parents are the #1 influence on their children. Practicing what they preach might solve the problem, but I doubt that will happen.

That's basically correct, but again, once you're a parent, you will soon learn, that you're not the only influence, and as an example, to introduce the word "****" to a kiddo is very easy, it just has to hear it a couple of times from some random "unresponsible" strangers in public, who has ANY RIGHT TO SAY IT. But to "make it go away" takes a little longer, and as you've stated correctly before, it's the parents task ALONE to do that. And yes, "parroting" is very normal for kids who learn speech, "repetition is learnsome", says the scotsman. And please, do not suggest now, that parents should stay at home with their kids.

 

You're confusing "I don't care" with "I don't think what you suggest will do anything to solve the problem." And indeed, I have no reason to believe it will. Perhaps being a good example individually would work on the actual issue instead of the effects. Don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease. For myself, I have been exposed to horrible games, violent literature, evil rap songs and even bad examples before. However, I'd like to point out that as of today:

 

I have not ever used drugs.

I have not ever participated in a crime nor condoned one.

I am thoroughly against real violence in every unjustified form.

I would not ever think of doing such stupid things, even in the presence of so-called "peer pressure" (which is solely an excuse to escape thinking of the consequences of your actions).

I have done drugs, I have participated in crimes, and you know what? Not a single time because of the shooter games, violence, porn and rap I've been exposed to. I mean drugs doesn't mean violence. Crime doesn't mean violence. So what's your point?

 

Hm. Correct me if I am wrong, but you've stated several times in your post (and I agree on that) that "censoring" is not going to help, also and mainly because the problem is not the media, who's offering violent content, but the people, who demand it, or as you've phrased it "Don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease."

 

Without that you now start about how censoring and restricting wouldn't work, because I think we're past that point, HOW?

 

 

Perhaps parental influence is more effective than previously believed? Perhaps instead of demanding things like the V-chip so that they don't have to watch their kids, they should spend more time with them.

I totally agree. I mean, what's the point of having children, when you're not going to spend your time with them? Except the continuity of the human species, maybe.

 

But seriously, sooner or later kiddos watch tv on their own, for instance, and in the end it has nothing to do with "not spending enough time" with your kids, when you let them do things on their own, because that's also very normal when kids grow up.

 

I never needed the V-chip, btw; my parents didn't even own a TV. Said it was a bad influence or some such foolish statement that can only come from parents. Gah. They don't know anything.

Uh-oh, looks like someone's holding a parental grudge, and had to watch tv secretly over at his friend's house all the time.. XPPPPP

 

 

Ah, yes, parents don't know anything. But once you're a parent, you'll know they knew a lot more than you might have been thinking of.

 

Thought I put in another foolish statement that can only come from a parent. It's a conspiracy, y'know.

 

 

 

 

I'm also curious as to what violent media you WERE referring to, specifically. I mean, what is it that your kids can get hold of without you being able to vet it?

Basically, none. Unbasically, for instance, do I know what kind of content is displayed on the screens of a games store while we pass by? Do I know what's next on MTV which is on in the clothing store where I buy clothes? Do I know what kind of maybe non-violent-but-still-inappropriate advertisement there will be on the screens around the next corner? No, I do not know.

And although I do worry about those things, parents like me are still "accused" of "lax" or "incompetent" parenting, and it's expected that I respect everyone's rights and personal freedom, while most people are not even willing to give that back.

 

Maybe it's true and I fail at being father, because I do not really have an idea how to deal with this, except maybe, I could like cut down my right to visit public areas and such when I want to, maybe I could stay at home forever, and with that skew the need to get new clothes for my children. All the food I need I could grow in the bathtub, so I won't annoy people at the supermarket. Oh, I really hope I don't touch anyone's rights with this decision..

 

Granted, you cannot blame the media itself, but this is where responsibility comes into the game, for all of us - society, in other words.

[Spider AL]

to introduce the word "****" to a kiddo is very easy, it just has to hear it a couple of times from some random "unresponsible" strangers in public, who has ANY RIGHT TO SAY IT. But to "make it go away" takes a little longer, and as you've stated correctly before, it's the parents task ALONE to do that. And yes, "parroting" is very normal for kids who learn speech, "repetition is learnsome", says the scotsman. And please, do not suggest now, that parents should stay at home with their kids.

Okay, first of all, I empathise. I really do. But you must remember that almost ALL of us heard swear-words when we were young. And we didn't turn into profane, sweary people. In fact, it's arguable that hearing swear words and then being taught that swear-words are socially unacceptable in certain situations, is an indispensable rite-of-passage for a child, that teaches one about social structure and acceptability levels of language.

 

The idea that kids need to be protected from the reality of society is really a bit of a nonsense. Kids need to be protected from physical harm and those that would physically harm them. They need to be protected from organised religious and political indoctrination. But they don't need to be protected from say... hearing "bad language", in my view.

 

Basically, none. Unbasically, for instance, do I know what kind of content is displayed on the screens of a games store while we pass by? Do I know what's next on MTV which is on in the clothing store where I buy clothes? Do I know what kind of maybe non-violent-but-still-inappropriate advertisement there will be on the screens around the next corner? No, I do not know.

Well if the images on the screen are violent, then it's not (as far as I know) legal for those images to be shown publically, and therefore you can complain to the store-owners and/or law enforcement.

 

As for the advertisements, likewise, if there's anything truly inappropriate or disturbing shown on them, it's probably not legal, and complaints will fix that problem. So if parents think that adverts are inappropriate, they should complain. It's not up to the rest of society to help out, morally speaking.

 

And although I do worry about those things, parents like me are still "accused" of "lax" or "incompetent" parenting, and it's expected that I respect everyone's rights and personal freedom, while most people are not even willing to give that back.

Here's where I think Sam's problem with your contention lies (and mine), you seem to be suggesting that you have a "right" to walk around with your kid in a public place without hearing someone swear, or the "right" to walk around a public place without seeing something that offends your sensibilities.

 

Well in fact, the only "right" you have, the only right ANY of us has, is to walk around in a public place and not see or hear ILLEGAL things. And if it's not illegal we do not have the right to expect it to be removed.

 

I mean, campaign for standards to be changed. Campaign all you want, that's your right. But at the end of the day, (as a rule) your personal freedoms ARE being respected in society. Your rights ARE being respected. Its just your sensibilities that are being offended. And that's not anyone else's problem, morally speaking.

[Ray Jones]

Okay, first of all, I empathise. I really do. But you must remember that almost ALL of us heard swear-words when we were young. And we didn't turn into profane, sweary people. In fact, it's arguable that hearing swear words and then being taught that swear-words are socially unacceptable in certain situations, is an indispensable rite-of-passage for a child, that teaches one about social structure and acceptability levels of language.

And know that, but I used this as an example to get my point across: I have to "fix" what others have "broken", after they decided to break it, without asking me. Explain to a 4 year old what a dicksucker ([edit] Ah, soon the admins will be after me. ) is, and why it was said, and if all things are going well, you'll explain also to the kindergarden teacher why your kid, and now the whole group is using such wording.

 

The idea that kids need to be protected from the reality of society is really a bit of a nonsense. Kids need to be protected from physical harm and those that would physically harm them. They need to be protected from organised religious and political indoctrination. But they don't need to be protected from say... hearing "bad language", in my view.

That would be my view then, too.

 

Here's where I think Sam's problem with your contention lies (and mine), you seem to be suggesting that you have a "right" to walk around with your kid in a public place without hearing someone swear, or the "right" to walk around a public place without seeing something that offends your sensibilities.

Of course, I (and you) have the same right to walk in public without hearing someone swear, as you (and I) have the right to walk around in public and swear. Both rights infringe each other, now what? I also have the right to let one go in public, and you have the right to be in public without that one. Both rights infringe each other, now what?

 

Well in fact, the only "right" you have, the only right ANY of us has, is to walk around in a public place and not see or hear ILLEGAL things. And if it's not illegal we do not have the right to expect it to be removed.

No, I don't have the right to expect it to be removed, but like alcohol and cigarettes, legal doesn't mean good, of course, that's completely another topic, but still.

[Spider AL]

And know that, but I used this as an example to get my point across: I have to "fix" what others have "broken", after they decided to break it, without asking me. Explain to a 4 year old what a dicksucker ([edit] Ah, soon the admins will be after me. ) is, and why it was said, and if all things are going well, you'll explain also to the kindergarden teacher why your kid, and now the whole group is using such wording.

lol, but instead of teaching the child what the swear words mean, one can simply teach them what might happen if they use the swear words in polite company.

 

I knew that the 'f' word was socially unacceptable in certain circumstances WELL before I knew what it meant. And I think that's a pretty effective order in which to teach a kid these things.

 

Of course, I (and you) have the same right to walk in public without hearing someone swear, as you (and I) have the right to walk around in public and swear. Both rights infringe each other, now what? I also have the right to let one go in public, and you have the right to be in public without that one. Both rights infringe each other, now what?

No no no, I DON'T have a right to walk in public without hearing someone swear. I DON'T have that right. And neither do you. Neither does ANYONE.

 

The only RIGHT in the above paragraph, is the right to be able to swear in public. People have a legal and moral right to use whatever language they want to use, provided they are not inciting actual violence. And I may not like their language and I may disapprove of the circumstances in which they use such language... but I do NOT have the right to walk in public without hearing it.

 

So rights aren't infringing each other, there is ONE right, (the right to swear) and one socially subjective preference (the desire not to hear swearing). And sorry, but the right takes priority. The right is more important.