The People Vs. Common Sense 580
Mogg writes "GamerGod.com has a new article up entitled "The People Vs. Common Sense, A Citizen's View at Michigan's SB-0146 Law," commenting on the new Michigan state video game law. "Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??" Very nicely written piece.
Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank God there's nothing like that in the Holy Bible!
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
When we kill then, we're good and holy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The critical point is
A "good" man is NOT one who does not kill.
A "good" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (as long as the rest of the winning society believes the same).
A "psychotic" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (but the rest of the winning society does not believe the same).
A "bad" man is one who refuses to kill as "god" dictates OR who kills the "good" people because he is fighting for the wrong "god".
Witness wars and executions for real world examples of the above.
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if you don't believe in God, what in the hell are you reading the Bible for?
Most of us were raised Christian. Some of us are able to remember six, sometimes seven months into the past if we try real hard.
Re:Thank God... (Score:4, Funny)
Just askin...
Re:Thank God... (Score:4, Funny)
No, but it's probably a violation of that big, fat EULA (a.k.a. "The Bible").
Re:Thank God... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the religion of peace, don't you know...
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if I ever find myself a few thousand years in the past, I'll encourage people to read it. But for now, I'm going to ask that people watch the much more enlightened "Sesame Street." All the best parts of the Bible, none of that crazy crap about raping people.
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many countries out there are majoritarily christian, but they don't seem to have the American fixation with the Bible. The main reason for this is that most versions of christianity that can be found outside the US teach that you have to read the Bible understanding its historical context. No modern catholic priest will tell you that Earth was created in seven days or that Moses opened the Red Sea. Those same priests will also tell you about the process through which we ended up with only 4 Gospels, and how the modern Bible was standardized. If even old, conservatite catholic church takes the Bible as an infallible document, why should anyone?
The Bible is a dangerous book, but only for people that take it literally, thinking of it as an infallible source of knowledge. It just happens that America has more than its fair share of ignorants that refuse to understand history.
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds great, i'm all for it.
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Then why does it call for the deaths of all the men, including any who did not or could not fight?
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank God... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just as an aside. Slavery in the ancient world WAS NOT like slavery in America. It was not a permanent situation. Slaves were still paid, if menially, the children of slaves were not slaves but citizens of the country, city, state of the owner. Most slaves were taken from an enemey ravaged by war and would probably have starved to death if left in their own country considering it was standard practice to loot all food stores and destroy the rest during an invasion.
Slavery is not a terrible thing. And is it any different than paying someone such a small wage they never have the means to improve their life? The type of slavery that is bad is slavery just based off of race or religion. Which allows for absolutely no hope of ever being anything other than a slave. During the Roman empire 1 way for someone not born a citizen to become one was to become a slave. And yes there were reasons people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery to become a citizen. Ask yourself if the people hoping the border into the EU or US wouldn't do the same?
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Informative)
Not as they pleased so much. "Slaves" of the time were usually either too poor to support themselves, and instead worked for food and shelter, or debtors to rich landowners unable to pay back their debts, who instead work for the landowner.
However, the bible does make mention of slaves being dismissed from service, and makes c
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Informative)
No they don't, there are some proofs of some troubles with some new tribes coming to the area about the 1200BC, but there is no proof of the Exodus, what, by the way, is nothing strange, since Egyptians are known to register only victories, and probably the Jews were a small group of people when they left Egypt.
I must say I agree with you that slavery is not the wors
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
I had prepared to respond with information about roman slavery, I was even going to expose my own biblical ignorance and ask when we started talking about rome and not jews, but I realized that the heart of this debate lies in the last part of your comment.
So, you should think of ancient slaves as sort of adopted people along with contracted workers.
This is where you show your
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
False. Forcing them to have sex with you was explicitly permitted, and there were rules governing it:
You will note that there is no mention anywhere of the woman's consent. Ergo, this is nothing but a permit to rape, so long as you let your rape victim mourn her dead family for a month. And if you didn't enjoy raping her it says you can kick her out of your house, but not sell her into slavery.
Look at it from her point of view: you've over-run her city, killed her family, taken her captive, left her alone for a month and then forced her to have sex with you. Forcing someone to have sex without their consent is rape. Rape by elaborate rules is still rape, and the Bible clearly and unequivocally condones it.
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
God is only as wise as the people who created him, after all.
the bible is getting old (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not the point...
If one thinks we should ban violent media to protect children, then we should ban the bible. The hypocrasy of those who would ban games and "unworthy" books while allowing "worthy" books is the point.
Additionally, the bible has been causally related, more often and more demonstrably, to more killings than every video game on the market combined. From the crusades to psychopaths, the bible is often used as justification for violent acts...
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, I'm not religous but I find ethics fascinating. Your argument is a common one, and not without merit, but it...
(i) makes the assumption that without organized religion these fundamentalist wouldn't be finding other reasons to kill each other. Using what we know if human nature, I suspect they would.
(ii) ingores any existing benefits chrisian ethics may have on existing practising societies. In other words, if the a moral doctrine says at times to kill and others times to not kill, how do we find out its net effect on the murder rate? Abrahamic religions allow violence in a few corner cases, but the overall very strongly discourages it.
These religions and also secular moral doctrines are tools, they have no conscious. Billions of people use these tools to pass along net beneficial ethics, moral doctrines, ideologies between generations.
Can you justifiably suggest that they abandon this approach because of the few Osama Bin Ladens of the world?
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:4, Insightful)
ingores any existing benefits chrisian ethics may have on existing practising societies.
Most stable societies have prohibitions on murder, robbery, and rape. It's not a religious thing.
Can you justifiably suggest that they abandon this approach because of the few Osama Bin Ladens of the world?
I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting we ban the bible (though I'd like it if we abandoned religion). What we're doing is pointing out that the bible fails to meet the standards put forth for video games.
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and have you not noticed, that's chump change.
Glancing at the Scoreboard [erols.com] and filtering out people who didn't write or use much in the way of books...
3) Adolf Hitler: ~15,000,000, author, Mein Kampf. His 15,000,000 score does not include ~10M German war casualties. (Perhaps he deserves a 25M score for the ~10M Allied war dead.)
2) Josef Stalin: ~20,000,000, ostensibly inspired by Das Kapital. H
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:3, Informative)
You either don't know much about Hitler, or you don't know much about atheists.
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:4, Informative)
I do not think his beliefs are relevent to arguments about Chrisitianity vs. Atheism.
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:4, Insightful)
But this is false. Some of the anti-violence crowd, it is true, are indeed the same old "family values" people who've been boycotting Disney since the 1990's over gay rights issues.
There are two completely different groups of people trying to take away your violent games. They may currently be allied against you, but eventually they will turn on each other, as they are still natural enemies.
The other ones are plain old socialists and hippies and other liberals. Violent games are bad because they go against the peace-and-love worldview. These people who want to remove violence from culture and ban guns and ban even remotely violent sports like (American) football... the guns and the football is where they part company with the right wingers.
You see the same two groups opposing porn. One hates it because it's a sin, the other hates it because it's sexist. Never forget or fail to note which one you are arguing against at any particular time.
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:4, Funny)
Problem solved (heh)
-nB
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:3, Informative)
WTF does socialists and liberals have to do with peace-and-love? I think you got your wires crossed...
Most "Socialist and liberal" countries have MUCH more relaxed sex and violence censhorship on entertainment.
Re:the bible-bashing is getting old... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I want to ban it because it's boring and always runs over onto shows I want to see?
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Funny)
I have other plans than beeing nailed to a cross...
Re:Thank God... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a circular definition which is a classic example of poor reasoning. There are many things that I would consider bad in the Bible which are not attributed to sin, they're performed by "godly" people and in many cases directly by God himself. Its only if you define anything approved by God as good and anything he disapproves of as sinful that "all the bad things" are attributed to sin. Of course, since this is exactly what you do when you adopt a Christian moral code, a Christian studying the Bible will naturally take away a completely different lesson than a non-believer. For example, when God descends from Heaven in person to fight alongside the armies of Israel, slaughtering "everything that breathes" in the various towns that committed the horrible offense of not being Jewish, the Christian will take away the lesson that killing the enemies of the faith is an honorable act of devotion, while the unbeliever may well take away the lesson that Christians worship and bloodthirsty death god and want nothing to do with it.
The Bible does not teach that God helps out honest and good people, at least not on Earth. In fact, God likes to test and challenge his strongest believers, so he does stuff like have them sacrifice their children, or he kills their family (if you're wondering how this is different from how he treats unbelievers, you may have been reading the Bible from a critical rather than a religious perspective. Congratulations!), in an attempt to test the limits of the faith and love they have for Him. Unquestioning submission to divine authority is the primary lesson of the Bible!
Authority is different from morality (Score:4, Interesting)
The big difference for me lies in whether one regards morality as being inherent to things or not. Either actions are morally right and wrong owing to inherent qualities that make them so, or they're morally right or wrong because an external authority figure has decreed them to be so from above.
The latter position is essentially authoritarian; it's an argument from (God's) strength, not one about inherent justice or morality. The all-powerful God has said X is good and Y is bad, and our role is to follow orders, not to use our consciences to try to figure things out.
As a result of taking that stance, religious movements like American "fundamentalism" wind up talking a lot more about authority -- God's authority, which they claim for themselves based on interpretation of the Bible -- than they do about morality. My Southern Baptist relations' church sermons aren't about the struggle to figure out what's right and wrong, they're essentially about obedience and fulfilling a sort of contract for eternal life they think they have with God. I've sat through them, squirming.
The results can seem pretty arbitrary as they lurch around, can't they? One never knows what odd target their righteousness will light upon next. Will it be single mothers? But then the authority they claim is essentially arbitrary too. It's based on arbitrary force.
Of course, since this is exactly what you do when you adopt a Christian moral code, a Christian studying the Bible will naturally take away a completely different lesson than a non-believer.
It really isn't true that all Christians take the Bible in the way you're suggesting. Christianity is a big place. Every "book" religion has this tension about fundamentalist readings of the text, too.
Somehow my Southern Baptist relations have made Jesus into a figure shutting out everyone not in their congregation; they actually manage to have periodic schismatic breaks within their tiny, small town congregation. (The most recent one was about the role of women. Ugh.) My parents' Northern Baptist church couldn't be more antithetical to that narrow vision, and the sermons and forums there are truly about trying to be morally awake and alive. Both Christian.
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as everyone playing your game is playing voluntarily, sure. If you're going to force people to play, the morality gets a bit trickier (which, Big Guy, is not to say that I don't like your rules. If you could find it in your heart not to smite me, I'd be grateful).
Re:Job (Score:3)
God merely allowed Satan to bring the trials against Job.
Re:Thank God... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm. I think you may need to read some of it again.
Try the bit just after God giving the ten commandments (including the famous "Thou shalt not kill") to Moses, when the Israelites were commanded to enter the valley of the Canaanites and kill everyone there. Seems to me God was being a bit two-faced there, and I've never understood why more Christians and Jews d
Right - you're smart, and we're simple-minded (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that the King James Version of the english Bible translates that passage "Thou shalt not kill" but the NIV, NKJV, NASB and others translate that passage "Thou shalt not murder."
There's a distinct difference between murder and killing. God ordered the Israelites to kill the people in the promosed land because they rejected God and did what was evil. There was no hope of their turning to doing what was right, and God knew that the only outcome of leaving them alive would be to draw many of the Israelites away from God.
You don't have to agree with what God ordered them to do, but there's no direct contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and God's orders to His people.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Re:Right - you're smart, and we're simple-minded (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, I see you've met them.
think about when you were a kid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years later, they want kids. Being used to getting what they want, they proceed to spawn. However, neither of them want to work, being new-age, enlightened folks. "Why should I automatically have to stay home? This is 2005, for cryin' out loud," says the woman. "Well, I'm not quitting my job," says the man, "I make more than you. It makes sense for me to keep working." They crunch the numbers and realize that they both must keep working, in order to continue being able to afford gassing up their BMW SUVs and heating/cooling their 3000 sq. ft. mansion.
Kids are inevitably born, and a minimum-wage, immigrant nanny is hired, or the kid is shipped off to daycare, where he/she learns questionable value and is largely emotionally devoid of the individual attention he/she needs and deserves. But mom and dad, still working 8 - 10 hour days, only have to deal with Junior for a few hours a day, so they don't notice that Junior is starting to resent them. Feeling guilty, they buy him whatever he wants (after all, they're still "rich" enough to do so). Junior wants a cell phone. "It'll let us reach him wherever he is," the parents reason, and buy him the phone. Junior wants a car. "It'll free us from having to shuttle him around all the time," reason the parents. Junior wants GTA3. "It'll keep him out of our hair for a few hours a day," say the parents.
So junior, having been raised by an immigrant with poor english and questionable credentials, learns to entertain himself, and finds that he can spend a very large amount of time hanging out with his friends doing whatever, and his parents won't nag him about it. He doesn't really like (or know) his parents anyway. Eventually, they get divorced. Junior plays GTA4 with his buddies in his basement while his parents are at work, and they laugh every time they run over a hooker. Then they go out under the deck behind the house and smoke a joint. Mom and Dad won't be home for hours anyway.
Welcome to 2005.
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Insightful)
Money does not equate happiness, no d
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:4, Insightful)
I have what would be considered a fairly decent job (not great, but decent).
I have two kids I love dearly.
The four of us live in white trash low rent appartments because we decided to give our kids more of our time than our money.
As a result My daughter (at barely over two) is starting to learn how to read, can speak excellent english (on par with 5 year olds), and is on track to outpace her peers by a huge margin.
My son, at 5 months old, still mostly eats and shits, but he's a happy food processor.
I think it is worth it.
-nB
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Insightful)
Living in low-rent areas might be good for the wallet and warm fuzzies about family and such, but it's still a crime cesspit.
Ther general thought about that is simple:
Get to know your immediate neighbors, sure they are trash, but "if you know them good and they know you good" then you immediately lower worries about crimes of indefferance. The goal (for my w
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you believe that in a neighborhood made up entirely of your ideal family situation (one parent at home full-time) will have less crime than a neighborhood where both parents work full time?
Explain how you think that a child goes from perceiving that his parents got an education and work hard to get what they want out of life to learning life lessons from video games.
Kids ha
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:5, Insightful)
My great-grandmother owned and ran a boarding house for miners in northern Minnesota for nearly 40 years. That was a 50 to 60 hour a day job. She also kept an eye on a series of young girls from the Old Country; giving them jobs as maids and helping them to meet and marry the better class of men on the Iron Range. The girls were her nieces, cousins, and daughters of friends of hers who stayed in Serbia. She got so good at it that many other families from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds came to her to act as matchmaker, too. Meanwhile, my grandfather worked 40-50 hours a week in the mines, then for the local school district as the general building supervisor/farmer.
They managed to put all 5 of their surviving kids through college. (4 died as infants or under 12. Not uncommon in the early 1900s. One of malnutrition in Serbia, one of polio, one of influenza, and one I'm not sure of.)
My grandfather was the first Serb in Minnesota to graduate from college. He was a full time teacher and principal, then a Red Cross senior instructor during WWII, then a principal again until illness laid him low around 1947.
My grandmother was a full time teacher during their entire marriage. She and my grandfather raised three kids who all graduated from college, even though they were hampered by being a single income family (with a very, very sick dad) for most of their high school and college years.
My mother was a full time RN and my father was a full time high school teacher. They raised three kids. All three of us went to college and got at least some certification. One of my sisters has a master's, one is close to getting her baccalaureate at the age of 42 with a 4.0 GPA, and then there's me. A geek who has a career as an ivory tower type enterprise architect working for one of the biggest banks in the country.
My second wife and I have 4 kids between us. All 4 kids live with us during the school year. I work full time, she works 25-30 hours/week two preteens and two teenagers. 3 of the 4 are B+ or better, and one is struggling, but maintaining a C-.
So. You have 4 consecutive generations of both parents working full time. Every single generation had two full time parents who also happened to work full time. Not one convict, not one welfare case, and not one deadbeat dad in 4 generations. I'm the unofficial family historian, so I've kept up with what's happening to the other branches of my family. The same holds true for all of them as well, and many if not most of them are either two full time parents. We do have a few single income, single parent families. Those kids are also doing quite well in school.
STOP ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN'T GIVE YOUR KIDS ALL THE LOVE AND DISCIPLINE THAT THEY NEED IF YOU WORK FULL TIME! It's simply NOT TRUE!
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because two parents work does not mean that the kids can't be well-raised. My wife worked in daycare for a while, and saw plenty of the "BMW" couples described above. She also saw plenty of two-job families with no BMWs and well-adjusted kids. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The difference is the first couple doesn't really care about their kids-- they're just fashion accessories. They think they do, but the amount of attention they willingly give them tells the real story. It happens more than you think. Congrats that your family didn't fall into that trap, but there are plenty others that do.
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:5, Funny)
I looked at your photos, can I get a date with your sister?
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Informative)
That was probably the best description of the biggest (family) problems northern New Jersey faces. Coincidentally, I was just having the same discussion with my wife last night about the "lock-in" people around here face, exactly as you describe.
With regard to the immigrant workers around here, many of them (at least the nanny types) have excellent value systems, but are afraid to impose them on the little imps they care for, fearing that the parents will disagree. From what
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Insightful)
If what you present is the "suburban nightmare scenerio", lighten up, things aren't that bad. Most people in history, and billions of pe
Re:think about when you were a kid (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, welcome to 1990 [favoritelyrics.com]...
It's a political game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a political game (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the fault of the politicians appeasing their consituents, or the voters who value style over substance? You can't blame the politicians for playing the game. They have to work within the system the people have constructed, or they won't be rewarded with subsequent terms.
Re:It's a political game (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a political game (Score:5, Interesting)
For the most part its this miniority that is at the hands of all this anti-game stuff, unfortnatly they are also the most vocal and of course the media just loves to run away with any oppertuntiy they can for a story coupled with an oppertunity to bash an opposing medium that is eating into thier bottom line more every year.
Re:It's a political game (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh it's not the politician's fault for lying. It's the fault of the people for believing him.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, what I'm saying is politicians are partly responsible (I'd say the greater part myself).
Re:It's a political game (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, I'd say you were on target if this was the 80's or the mid 90's. Now, I'd say most adults/young parents have most likely played video games and will use their sense in letting their kids play.
I have my N64 still hooked up mainly because the
Oh Please ... (Score:5, Funny)
I have been an avid video gamer for 30 years and it has not
Thesaurus whore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thesaurus whore (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thesaurus whore (Score:3, Funny)
Mommy knows what's right for you (Score:4, Interesting)
We'll ban that book and T.V. show,
Forget that movie, no you can't go.
Can't sell that record, don't like that song.
We know what's right we know what's wrong.
Can't have abortions, what's yours ain't yours,
Just obey the laws.
Too young to drink, say no to drugs
Bikers wear helmets, cars safety belts
You might hurt yourself.
We're watching out, We're watching out
We're watching out for you...
Well the new right's been at work some time
They ain't so new no more
Can you hear 'em knockin'
Knockin' down your door.
1984 has past, forget about Big Brother,
Welcome to the 90's where the government's your
mother.
They'll tell you - don't do that.
They'll try and tell you - it's for your own good.
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just disappeared
There it is - whoops it's gone!
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
All your rights just disappeared
Everybody stay calm.
Good stuff
Re:Mommy knows what's right for you (Score:3, Funny)
excuses (Score:3, Insightful)
Nicely written how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nicely written how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two wrongs do not make a right (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we have not made absolutely certain.
And we can argue that video games are not really damaging to kids. But can we argue that, if it is, allowing one industry to get away with a crime reason enough to allow another?
Assuming both violent video games and movies are detrimental to the well being of minors, shouldn't society be regulating both, instead of neither?
Re:Two wrongs do not make a right (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws and regulations just shift responsability from the one's that have the most direct impact in a child's life (the parents) to "society". For some reason everyone thinks it's better whan it is "our" problem.
Low hanging fruit... (Score:5, Insightful)
New target possibilities? Lessee... Video games. They're easy. P2P technologies... That has the bonus of getting your Hollywood and corporate buddies to apprieciate you more AND gives you something that doesn't require a lot of money or work on your part. Ain't politics grand?
The Real Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
State of Michigan (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government
The Michigan state government is not the same as "the American government" which would be the label for the Federal government. This is a good example of something that individual states *do* have the ability to regulate even if a lot of us think it's silly. All the people in Michigan who don't like it should direct complaints to their state legislator and not blame a vague "American government". All people who *don't* live in Michigan should direct comments to their respective state legislators insisting that our state should not enact similar.
If I had a dime for every... (Score:4, Insightful)
Serioulsy though, like it was mentioned in the article, these politicians are attacking video games because a lot of parents really aren't doing their job, and a lot of parents don't understand video games. By the time that the kids who were young when Nintendo first hit America (people like me) become the normal voting population, politicians will have to target something new because we'll all tell them that it's a load of crap.
In the meantime, I can only hope that enough states hop on the anti-gamer law bandwagon that Jack Thompson can't keep up with all of them. Then in the future, these laws may make it into the halls of www.dumblaws.com, pending we don't become a police state ^_^
deja vu all over again (Score:5, Interesting)
and from another time
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC).
When you're too old to know what it is to be young, it seems, you'll inevitably subscribe to an orthodoxy that sees children as wild and at risk of being irrevocably corrupted.
Kids are leaky hormone sacs. What you see them up to in public is nothing compared to what they do in private.
Its not what you do but the way that you do it (Score:3, Insightful)
What (IMO) often seperates children who grow up to "good" and those who do "bad" is how they are guided through events & situations that occur in their lives. If no-one is around to explain what is right, to explain why you should do the "good" thing; how the hell can you expect the children to learn?
These parents who are say too busy working to bring in an income to feed their children and keep a roof over their head. Perhaps they should just take a wage cut, get a job with less hours. Less money correct; less money to just keep spending money on video games with no social interaction. So to offset that lack of money, sell off the expensively large TV, cable and the games console (which AREN'T essential) and spend some actual time with the kids.
Stylistic comments : The punch line is at the end. (Score:3, Interesting)
But the punch line comes at the end of the article, where the inflated language is dropped. It adds to the effect. If you didn't read all the way to the end, you missed the payoff.
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have kids, they're your responsibility, parent them. If you don't want to do that, don't have kids. It's not society's fault if your kid is a mindless twit who's never been brought up correctly.
Stop punishing the rest of us for the faults of dumbasses who can't teach their kids right from wrong. Decent society does not come from rules and restrictions. It comes from doing yer damn job as a parent.
Ignoring the crime rate (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the media likes to report stories about people doing bad things to other people doesn't mean it is happening more often. Information about far away places is more readily available these days and we are just hearing about it more often because we apparently like to hear about it. They wouldn't report it if it didn't get them higher ratings.
Media hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I do not blame the media owner or employees. Both are too inept. They just chase ratings. The fault lies with human nature, or at least the many people who are overcautious or like being scared.
In A Word... (Score:4, Interesting)
Much like the MPAA ratings, the ERSB ratings were put into place to arm the parents with the tools they would need to protect their children from inadvertently partaking in games that should rightly be marketed and sold to adults. Until the Illinois law went into effect, the public appeared to manage rearing their children just fine on their own. Law makers such as Senator Alan Cropsey, given the amount of thought, time, and taxpayer money that has gone into enacting laws that allow for punitive repercussions, have gone to great lengths to insinuate that parents have indeed failed their children by allowing them to do as little as glimpse at the packaging in which violent video games are sold. Is it that those parents are not doing their part, or that the ERSB has failed to properly warn parents about products which are appropriate for their children?
In a word, Yes. I've always felt that parenting should be active instead of passive. Children don't learn right and wrong from TV, music, or video games, but from parents. It's too bad that good parenting has been lost on this generation.
Idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rhetoric is for propaganda, not news. Get your facts straight before you start "reporting." Oh, and uh... look up Federalism while you're at it.
Parental Guidance and the Crime Rate (Score:3, Insightful)
Incidentally, video games have become more violent, and pornography is easier to access than ever. Perhaps this is a release of the violent or preverted urges, and as a result violent crime is at its lowest rate ever. Sure it's become more sensational, but the statistics don't lie. In terms of sexual crimes, the reporting rate is better than what it was, and the numbers across most western nations are still lower than ever. (Source: DOJ [usdoj.gov] )
Good Values, Bad Values (Score:3, Insightful)
Violence is everywhere. Television, movies, video games, comic books... and as many have pointed out, the natural and healthy act of sex is far more vilified. It doesn't make sense to me, but then not much does.
Do people learn violence from these sources? Wll, let's flip the question around. Do children learn good values such as sharing and cooperation from programs like Sesame Street? Do they learn lessons on family from such venerable shows as Little House on the Prairie?
If you believe that children have the capability of learning positive lessons from the media, then you cannot simultaneously believe that they are incapable of absorbing the negative ones. It's a huge contradiction, and it simply can't be right.
Children are sponges, as any parent can certainly confirm. They are constantly absorbing everything around them. There is NO way that a child can't be picking up the poison with the sugar.
The media is unlikely to change because adults - including me - want those violent programs. We like our fringe entertainment. Shows like CSI are popular for a reason. Likewise, video game companies are unlikely to change. The majority of video game purchases are made by people over eighteen, and again we like our combat simulations, crime wave games, and other adult titles.
So what can parents do? Well, for starters, they could turn on the content filters that have been included on new televisions for a number of years... but the best choice is to simply pay attention and stay involved with their children. I'm not a parent. I'm only a concerned citizen, so I know that's easy for me to say.
When I was a kid I don't recall reading about students shooting other students or teachers. Metal detectors in schools was a something that existed in the roughest of places in the United States. But the news these days scares me. I'm genuinely worried about what our children are learning.
We'd damn well better teach them compassion, because they will run the seniors homes that we will one day inhabit.
Taken from my blog, September 14. Yes, it's only partially on topic - I did read the FA.
Parents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why attack a law that works? (Score:3, Insightful)
When doom came out I was 14, I handled it well, there were others though that couldn't. The amount that couldn't handle it was very few, but there are those who just can't deal with this stuff. (Yes they might be mentally disturbed, maybe metally retarded, or perhaps just not mature yet. There's other reasons too.) But I think any law that requires a parent to actively consider giving a child a game that might be detremental (notice MIGHT) isn't a bad thing, it might actually help.
It needs to be a civil or criminal matter and that seems to refute what this law is. The problem is if it's just a 20 dollar fine, people will continue to do it. Look at minors and cigerettes. I don't think they are going to jail every guy in a game store who makes a mistake, but gamestores need to be held as responsable as anyone else. Does it take that much longer to take out a wallet and show id? I mean you have the wallet out for your money anyways, I take my ID out with my credit card automatically because the signature on the back was rubbed off. It's not hard at all.
Just to note, I'm not saying these games are bad, I'm not saying GTA ever should have got AO rating for code not native to the game, but at the same time GTA with a M rating shouldn't be easy to get for kids, just the same as cigarettes and R-rated movies should be restricted for them. Perhaps saying that it's easy for them to see this in R-rated movies means that those laws might need to be toughened a bit.
But that's just to say that's my opinion.
Interesting quote of correlation (Score:3, Insightful)
So... the gamer became a criminal and the outdoorsman became a model citizen. However, his story suggests no more proof then saying boy A became a criminal because he likes Doritos and boy B became a model citizen because he prefered Fritos Corn Chips.
Did he not stop and think that perhaps boy A became a criminal because he lived in a state of continual social solitude while boy B flourished because he interacted with people, the environment and his world? I'm sure I could pull some studies out of my ass to show a stronger correlation of my theory than of his.
The Government is not a member of my family... (Score:5, Interesting)
Children need to be governed and protected by their parents, not the Government! In most cases you will find that the root of the problem are the parent(s), sure, there are genetic dispositions that might make someone more succeptable to commiting violent acts, but for the most part, the way they deal and react in every situation is learned at a very early age and age where most kids are not playing video games. Unfortunately, the kids are thrown into daycare and the parents are too busy working late so then can pay off their $40,000 SUV. So, realy parenting is out of the question..
Where are the parents when these kids are playing the games? The kids are in front of their baby sitter, a video game or the television!
Enter the Governement..."We'll take it from here"
Parents! Pay attention to your kids! spend some time with them instead of shuffling them off to soccer, ballet, etc... and spend some time with them. What a simple concept!
It's not my fault!
What a common theme on our society, I got a question, if it's not your fault, than whose is it?
"It's your fault, or his fault, or her fault, or their fault!"
Enter some government official with an agenda ready to make hasty decisions and judgements about a situation without completely understanding it. "I dont' care whose fault it is, your both wrong"
The problem and the blame and the responsibility needs to be the parents and it is not the Governements job to raise our children.
Poor Video Game Developers...yeah, right!
Here is where I will more than likely get slammed, citing; "You can't be on both sides of the fence", well, yes I can.
There are some real crap video games out there! Grand Theft Auto is Useless. I've played it, I am a gamer, it is completely unecessary killing and violence and everything else rolled into a first person experience. Children should never be allowed near this kind of crap, however,it it not the Governments' job to decide this, it is the PARENTS.
Senator Dinosaur
Lastly, I will make this short and to the point' People over the age of 40 should not be able to make or propose ANY legislation that involves technology! More often than not, they do not understand it, they don't understand the implications, and they are incapable of making an educated decision, so they apply their old school, antiquated ideals and sometimes, bring innovation to a screeching halt.
Something I read in Reader's Digest... (Score:4, Interesting)
The point in the article was that the "shooting officers" was an automatic response, something he had learned by playing GTA.
And this makes me think that we've been tackling the violent videogame issue from the wrong viewpoint: It's not that certain videogames make us violent - violence is something we learn at home, but that we are more prone to repeat the actions learned in videogames, when we become violent. This is, learned behavior from the videogames. This contrasts with movies,books and TV, where we are only spectators and no automatic-actions (such as shooting someone) are learned.
And it makes sense now: Home/Family learned violence + Videogame-learned violent actions = dangerous person.
In other words, it means that videogames such as GTA, which portray realistic violence (against fictional violence like "Street Fighter II") can turn an already violent person into a potential murderer.
Opinions anyone?
The issue is not violence... (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe sex is a wonderful thing shared between people who love each other. Even in terms of pleasure shared amongst friends or consenting casual acquaintances for the more liberal thinking.
Nor am I an absolute pacifist, I believe violence should be avoided when possible and used as a last resort. But I believe there are times when one must be violent; when one must defend themselves against the school playground bully. I believe there are times one must be violent to protect the weak from abuse.
A violent game like DOOM caused little issue for me. Shooting monstrous demonic creatures....no problem. Shooting each other in a gladiator style arena. Still not much problem. Not much reality there.
But there is a big difference between such and a game which exemplifies, even glorifies, the rape/killing or other abuse of prostitutes. That degrades women as objects. That outlines a fundamental philosophy that stealing/killing is acceptable.
I do not have children, but when I do, I want to instill in them that sex is a good thing...but to enjoy it wisely. That violence is a last resort but that there are times you need to raise your fists. Likewise, I do not want my son to be abusing & degrading women. I want him to be the type to respect women. I want him to be the type of guy who refrains from violence, but at the same time would be willing to use it to prevent some scum from being violent and degrading to a woman or anyone for that matter.
The issue, is "right vs. wrong" "good vs. evil" sure it get's grey sometimes. But how often is "rape" a grey issue? or mass genocide? or racism?
There is a difference between playing a character in a game such as a cop stopping violent criminals with violence, or even a vigilante who does such to protect more innoncent individuals than say "playing" the perpetrator. Sure "Wolfenstein" was violent with lots of gruesome death. But you were killing NAZI's and their evil creations.
So, no, I don't want my children (which I do not have) playing a game that displays such behaviors....not until their sense of morality and right vs. wrong has matured. Likewise, I don't even really want other children to play such. If I have a daughter, then no, I don't think I'd be too keen on a game that had kids "rampaging" a school shooting classmates and raping girls in the school bathroom. I'd be afraid of what influence that might have on a teenage boy and what risk that could pose to my daughter. Now, I don't think we're at a level were such a game would be tolerated by society. But it does pose the question of where does one or where should one draw the line?
I think most parents bringing up such issues are not concerned about their children, (as they're probably not letting them play GTA) but are more concerned about their children encountering children influenced by such games - and being harmed.
Now, is there conclusive proof of an association of violence. No...but it does not mean we should wait till there might be.
So my point in this....I don't know if there should be a law. But IMHO, would it really be wrong to list certain games as Mature and denote that such require the purchaser to be 18+ ??? This was commonly accepted for film.
The following is just my personal opinion:
General Audience (means content acceptable for all)
Teen (denotes violence, guns, deathmatch, etc.)
Mature (denotes strong sexual content, immoral violence, illegal acts (ie: drug usage - not powerup mushrooms but use of real life drugs), essentially, anything that is portrayed in a virtual environment of our modern day society which is illegal & felonious to the extreme. (ie: driving very fast would not be listed but driving drunk would, murder, rape, etc)
All of this is to say "there is a difference" between say a game called "8mm" in which a character plays a detective (a.k.a. Nicholus
Pot n' Kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
How can Game bans be okay when... (Score:3, Interesting)
And why is that okay yet showing a pink dot on a female chest is prohibited when showing the same pink dot on a male chest is okay?
Re:Video Games = Child brain rot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Video Games = Child brain rot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Video Games = Child brain rot (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, the youth of Socrates' time were suspicious of Democracy, and after the Peloponnesian War set up a fascist government that attempted to kill remnants of Democracy, as well as anybody who disagreed with their rule. Government head Critias was Socrates' associate and pupil and widely hated by Athenians, and his relation (and the entire movement's relation) to Socrates was probably the reason Socrates was later executed by the state. This relation to a much-hated movement would continue to be held against Socrates, much like (say) Mao's role in the Cultural Revolution would weigh negatively on anybody studying his writings or poetry.
Plato idolized Socrates, and was using the quote to disassosiate Socrates from a reign of terror that everybody hated. Without knowing your history you seem to interpret it as "ah shucks, even Socrates 2500 years ago could be an old codger!" which isn't at all the case, Plato wasn't one to tell gee-whiz anecdotes.
Re:Very nicely written... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Very nicely written... NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Media is the plural form of medium.
2. Effect and affect are not interchangeable.
3. Use spell check! How hard is this?
4.
HOLY CRAP! SO! GOOD! (Score:3, Insightful)
A) This thing should be an entire topic on its own.
B) This mother should be
1) Instantly yanking the power cord on this thing adan stuffing it in a locked cabinet
2) Slapping this child about the head and upper body with an open hand
3) Grounding hiim in his room with zero to do but read and fold laundry
4) Sending him to military school next chance there