Seriously?again with this sh!t?

[DepricatedZero]

Yet research has shown that, and I'm quoting myself here, "violent children like violent games, but non-violent children do not become violent." These games, indeed, help prevent acting out by being a source of catharsis. Children who would become violent, would become violent without video games. It's a matter of good parenting, not enforcing your morality at the point of a gun.

Prevention is better than cure. ^,,.^ I'm sure there are other factors out there, but this law helps prevent teens who are already violent from engaging in more violence of which will suggest they do more violence.

Yes your quote actually cites the same source I do in my paper - Grand Theft Childhood, which concludes that the link-as-cause is a cum hoc fallacy. The link, they detail, is that violent kids are likely to play violent games - but most importantly that violent games do not make non-violent kids violent. Another important point is that it provides a cathartic outlet, for both violent and non-violent kids. For violent kids, this catharsis can be the difference between hospitalizing a kid after school and running home to play GTA.

But beyond that, why is it the governments job to parent for you? If your morality holds that violent games are wrong, it's your place to pass that on to your kids. It is not, however, your place to force your morality on to me at gunpoint.

 

[lrkun]

Yes your quote actually cites the same source I do in my paper - Grand Theft Childhood, which concludes that the link-as-cause is a cum hoc fallacy. The link, they detail, is that violent kids are likely to play violent games - but most importantly that violent games do not make non-violent kids violent. Another important point is that it provides a cathartic outlet, for both violent and non-violent kids. For violent kids, this catharsis can be the difference between hospitalizing a kid after school and running home to play GTA.

But beyond that, why is it the governments job to parent for you? If your morality holds that violent games are wrong, it's your place to pass that on to your kids. It is not, however, your place to force your morality on to me at gunpoint.

It's the government's job to ensure that the future generation will be of benefit to society and themselves. Likewise, the government, through the law can force it's morality upon you.

Why is the goverments job to parent for you?

Social contract theory. You give up some of your rights in order to enjoy some of the benefits from the government.

If your morality holds that violent games are wrong, it's your place to pass that on to your kids. It is not, however, your place to force your morality on to me at gunpoint.

I'm not forcing my morality on you. I'm replying on this thread where I agree with the law. It's you who think I'm forcing my morality upon you.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I am not forcing my morality at you, however, it's the government's job to ensure that the future generation will be of benefit to society and themselves. Likewise, the government, through the law can force it's morality upon you.

When it comes to morality, the government stands low on my list. Most things politicians do isn't in the interest of the people of their country but rather their interest is with themselves. Pretty much any person who has done any research on recreational drugs know that marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol yet it is still illegal in the most of the world. The last thing the government should be doing is to push its morality upon us. More important things are making sure schools, roads, and hospitals and others are working properly and getting desired results. It should also punish those who are guilty of crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and others. The government should not stop the sale of a video game because the parents aren't mature enough to not buy their kids violent video games.

 

[Yfelsung]

Violent videogames are probably a contributing factor to why I have NOT killed anyone yet.

If I couldn't hack people to pieces in Fallout and set up their bodies in grotesque totems that herald my personal glory, I'd snap, I really would.

 

[lrkun]

When it comes to morality, the government stands low on my list. Most things politicians do isn't in the interest of the people of their country but rather their interest is with themselves. Pretty much any person who has done any research on recreational drugs know that marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol yet it is still illegal in the most of the world. The last thing the government should be doing is to push its morality upon us. More important things are making sure schools, roads, and hospitals and others are working properly and getting desired results. It should also punish those who are guilty of crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and others. The government should not stop the sale of a video game because the parents aren't mature enough to not buy their kids violent video games.

The highlighted portion is something that the government does.

The government isn't stoping the sale of videogames. Like tabacco and alcohol, they're doing their job and following the rating.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Going after games lets politicians pretend that they care about children without, you know, DOING THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HELP CHILDREN, like raising taxes on billionaires so that kids don't have to bring their own toilet paper to school.

 

[borrofburi]

Hmm... On the one hand it gets tiring to hear the same old "it's obvious it's evil". And on the other hand I really am bothered by the idea of selling a game where you can commit sexual assault to children...

The reason I think there's not too much of a problem with video games is that I personally have a very strong division between fantasy and reality; for me it's quite obvious that video games are fantasy and that fantasy rules and behaviors do NOT exist or belong in the real world. But it would be the typical mind fallacy to say that my division proves video games aren't a problem.

And I do have a problem with selling Postal 2 to, say, a 6 year old; and I question that young children have or even can have the strong sharp division between fantasy and reality necessary; I know at the age of 9 I had troubles not because I wanted to act out violence, but because I was having difficulty with the knowledge that aliens (I watched the movie Aliens when I was 9) were not real (and I spent like a month with semi-usual fear of the possibility of an alien hatching near where I lived and then stalking me).

So I guess even with the typical mind fallacy I have some reservations about the possibility of kids of all ages being able to purchase all video games.

This is a good law. It's better that kids play in the real world rather than play in game.

Err... No. Or more precisely: who are you that you get to determine what is better for kids and what isn't? Why do you think it's right for the government to legislate what children should be doing (without any evidence)?

 

[borrofburi]

Yet research has shown that, and I'm quoting myself here, "violent children like violent games, but non-violent children do not become violent." These games, indeed, help prevent acting out by being a source of catharsis. Children who would become violent, would become violent without video games. It's a matter of good parenting, not enforcing your morality at the point of a gun.

As much as I am inclined to disagree with Irkun, I find the concept of catharsis to be a very shaky foundation:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/08/11/catharsis/

 

[scalyblue]

Prevention is better than cure. ^,,.^ I'm sure there are other factors out there, but this law helps prevent teens who are already violent from engaging in more violence of which will suggest they do more violence.

/disagrees

/agrees

 

[scalyblue]

Oh, Kotaku did a piece on this recently as well.

http://kotaku.com/5678354/all-you-need-to-know-about-this-weeks-violent-video-game-case-in-the-us-supreme-court

 

[DepricatedZero]

Yet research has shown that, and I'm quoting myself here, "violent children like violent games, but non-violent children do not become violent." These games, indeed, help prevent acting out by being a source of catharsis. Children who would become violent, would become violent without video games. It's a matter of good parenting, not enforcing your morality at the point of a gun.

As much as I am inclined to disagree with Irkun, I find the concept of catharsis to be a very shaky foundation:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/08/11/catharsis/

Catharsis isn't limited to violence. While in this case I'm discussing violence, Catharsis is a term applying to any emotional release. Anger, in fact, isn't what I release when I blow through Prototype or Portal. Additionally, not all violence stems from anger. While feeding anger is destructive, releasing emotion is not. This article you link draws out the earlier mentioned link between violent kids and games. More pointedly - a kid who is already violent will perpetuate it with violent video games(this is simply bad parenting that has lead to a violent child) but a kid who is not violent does not become more violent - the release is from other emotions. Likewise these ridiculous reality shows are cathartic, but not because they're helping release anger.

Anger is only a small part of it, and violence stems from so much more than just anger.

 

[lrkun]

Hmm... On the one hand it gets tiring to hear the same old "it's obvious it's evil". And on the other hand I really am bothered by the idea of selling a game where you can commit sexual assault to children...

The reason I think there's not too much of a problem with video games is that I personally have a very strong division between fantasy and reality; for me it's quite obvious that video games are fantasy and that fantasy rules and behaviors do NOT exist or belong in the real world. But it would be the typical mind fallacy to say that my division proves video games aren't a problem.

And I do have a problem with selling Postal 2 to, say, a 6 year old; and I question that young children have or even can have the strong sharp division between fantasy and reality necessary; I know at the age of 9 I had troubles not because I wanted to act out violence, but because I was having difficulty with the knowledge that aliens (I watched the movie Aliens when I was 9) were not real (and I spent like a month with semi-usual fear of the possibility of an alien hatching near where I lived and then stalking me).

So I guess even with the typical mind fallacy I have some reservations about the possibility of kids of all ages being able to purchase all video games.

This is a good law. It's better that kids play in the real world rather than play in game.

Err... No. Or more precisely: who are you that you get to determine what is better for kids and what isn't? Why do you think it's right for the government to legislate what children should be doing (without any evidence)?

I am me. And I don't determine what's better for kids nor what isn't. Pay attention to the thread. I'm only agreeing with this, because I find it beneficial. Think. You're barking at the wrong tree (it's obvious that you can disagree with me or agree or do nothing/ just like depricatezero, you're assuming I made this law).

 

[DepricatedZero]

just like depricatezero, you're assuming I made this law.

I'm assuming you agree with the proposed law, and attacked your position. Of course, since you think your stance is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach, I've abandoned attempting to discuss it with you and moved on to others in the thread.

 

[lrkun]

just like depricatezero, you're assuming I made this law.

I'm assuming you agree with the proposed law, and attacked your position. Of course, since you think your stance is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach, I've abandoned attempting to discuss it with you and moved on to others in the thread.

I see. Choose your words better next time, because it doesn't reflect your idea.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I don't think it gets much clearer than:

lrkun, why do you think a law should be used to make up for bad parenting?

 

[lrkun]

I don't think it gets much clearer than:

lrkun, why do you think a law should be used to make up for bad parenting?

But beyond that, why is it the governments job to parent for you? If your morality holds that violent games are wrong, it's your place to pass that on to your kids. It is not, however, your place to force your morality on to me at gunpoint.

Need I say more?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Need I say more?

Which is what your stance advocates.

 

[lrkun]

Need I say more?

Which is what your stance advocates.

My stance advocates agreement to the law. It doesn't mean I'm forcing my beliefs upon you. It's up to you to decide whether it's applicable to you, however, kids will still be compelled to follow due to that which is written.

You can choose to fill your cup with tea, with water, or with anything else. Just be mindful, that you're stomach can only take so much. Hehe.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Which is what your stance advocates.

My stance advocates agreement to the law. It doesn't mean I'm forcing my beliefs upon you. It's up to you to decide whether it's applicable to you, however, kids will still be compelled to follow due to that which is written.

You can choose to fill your cup with tea, with water, or with anything else. Just be mindful, that you're stomach can only take so much. Hehe.

I understand that you think your stance is inviolable. Not trying to change your mind, wouldn't waste the effort. Just making sure I'm not misunderstood.

 

[lrkun]

I understand that you think your stance is inviolable. Not trying to change your mind, wouldn't waste the effort. Just making sure I'm not misunderstood.

You assume to much. I appreciate your clarification. Likewise, you didn't understand my position until I explained it on a later post. Anyway, there's nothing to change, because you were responding to a different issue. It happens.

I do hope this bill pushes through. Because it doesn't ban violent video games from being played. However, this can likewise backfire if kids will see this as the forbidden fruit, where they'd want to get these games more.

Either way, the person who benefits the most in this case will be the makers.