DepricatedZero
New Member
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.lrkun said:DepricatedZero said: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.
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.