Another example of...

[StSanta]

Deja, I don't agree with that decision *at all*. But it is to be *expected* in a country where big daddy State takes care of everything that is remotely dangerous. That combined with a low tolerance of violence and a population that is very unused to children killing children added to that decision.

One I disagree with.

Still, a country like the US, with a much less intrusive state and a philosophy surrounding personal freedom, in such a country, you'd expect personal responsibility to follow personal freedom, no?

I ain't critizising the US system - on the contrary.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up space"

[Toad]

The question put before us here REALLY is whether or not this type of material actually influences a child's actions. Secondarily, if it does, what should be done about that unhappy circumstance?

Haven't really seen it addressed that way so far. But I'd like to.

Please continue!  

[Fury]

I don't see what all the huff is about.

From what I could tell in the article and the link, they are only talking about advertisements.  I believe word-of-mouth advertisement is the biggest way these things get around; I don't think that limiting advertising will affect any game in any way.  Sounds to me like people are throwing up a bunch of smoke in a huff about nothing.

BTW when is the last time you saw an advertisement for smokes on American TV (or even a billboard?).  When is the last time you saw hard liquor advertised on TV?  Playboy magazine?  These products sure are not seeing a sales decline from restricted advertising; in fact many of these products get into the hands of kids under 17.

My kids already cannot go to the local store and buy an M rated game.  They also can't walk into an R rated movie, or buy smokes or liquor; they can't even buy a Playboy (although they can surf porn sites at the local library -- go figure).

I'm all for parental involvment when it comes to stuff like this; I don't need the government's help.  I just don't see where restricted advertisments will have any affect on the popularity or sales of M rated games.  Like I said at the beginning, word-of-mouth is the biggest and free-est form of advertising.

Fury

[Kieren]

Where do I stand on this?

Do we really think for one second we, as human beings, animals, or whatever we are, are not influenced by what we see and hear? Do we, with all our scientific research into animal behavior, believe that play isn't linked into our adult patterns? That patently goes against every bit of evidence we have.

You guys that are complaining about any form of censorship, let me ask you; if you were in a position (let's say for the sake of argument... a teacher) of working with children, and some student begins to describe explicit sexual acts to other students (acts he should have no knowledge of at his age), begins to fondle the girls, expose himself, etc. What would you think? What if you then investigated the case and found out that mom and dad had sex on the floor of the living room every night, right in front of the family? That dad had a voluminous porno film collection that he shared with his children?

Nah. The kids only watched that stuff. There is no evidence that it actually influenced their behavior...

We de-sensitize ourselves to violence in the same manner. We watch it every day on TV, movies, etc. We allow our younger children to view it, then marvel at how kids emulate the behavior they see.

I come from a rural town, 99% white. With the advent of MTV we suddenly had a lot of white kids who thought they were black rappers, language and all. There is no way in hell they could have picked it up on our streets, we didn't have that stuff here then.

"I'm frum da eas' si'e uf Be'ford. You all bettah step, be-FO I get my CREW!"

Nah. No way TV helped that happen.

Shootings amongst teens have risen how much in the last ten years? How many school shootings in one year, the year of Columbine, 5?

We are in denial. There are some forms of entertainment that are of dubious value to society to begin with; as adults we have the right to choose for ourselves. As far as children are concerned there should be a way to keep a lot of this crap out of their hands. Parents should be the answer, but aren't (trust me here). As conservative as I am, this is an area I would welcome government intervention.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Kieren:
Parents should be the answer, but aren't (trust me here). As conservative as I am, this is an area I would welcome government intervention.

Kieren I know you are a teacher, and I find both surprising and sad that you say that government intervention is necessary in this thing. Maybe I am a bit wrong but to let the things to be done by government is a lazy way to avoid the truth.

Lets see, if your kids see a TV show orientated to an adult audience, the TV is not responsible for the things your kids can do after watching it...it would be you as a parent. To blame the TV, marketing,films, computer games, even music and ROLEPLAYING GAMES (ROFL),  is an easy,lazy, and unresponsible way to get rid of the responsabilities as a parent. If a kid sees an adult program where a specialist lits himself up in fire, and then the guy does the same, the problem is not the specialist that has done it, it is both the stupid kid (hey, at 13 age I already knew that fire...BURNS!  ), and the irresponsible mother that let his kid see adult TV programs.

Personally I think that any kind of government intervention and censorship is bad. Maybe the problem is not the education of the kids, but the education of the PARENTS!.

And censoring TV, Marketing or Computer games wont solve the real problem, but only be a shameful patch to the real problem.

[Kieren]

From an idealogical point of view it is easy to say that parenting is the solution; I would even agree that it is the parent's responsibility. We are talking reality here, and the reality is that parents do not take that responsibility, and my career has proven it to me over and over. The scenario I described, though not common, has, is, and will happen again.

It finally comes to the point where you must look the problem straight in the face and decide what realistically can be done. My view of governmental influence is that you keep government out of any situation until it is proven that the problem is so invasive that no other means has any hope of resolving the problem. I think censorship in the media is approaching that level.

All the finger pointing in the world will not solve this problem we have, that is, the influence of the media over the behaviors of people, especially younger viewers. IMHO time enough has been given to the various outlets to self-regulate, and they have shown the propensity to point to everyone else but themselves. The fact is as long as the industry is allowed to make money giving people, no matter what their respective ages, anything that will sell we will see the influence of sex and violence in our media.

As an analogy, look at the tobacco industry here in America. "Joe Camel" was targeting younger Americans, as the user base of tobacco was aging. Tobacco knows that if the current trend of turning kids away from their product persists they soon will have no market at all. Though they denied it, the "Joe Camel" image was designed to be attractive to younger people. Alcohol fairs little better, always showing attractive young people having the time of their lives, enjoying friendship and wine, intellectual conversation, tasteful entertainment. Too bad those commercials don't show the drunk uncle at the family reunion pawing his neices, the winos littering the streets of many urban areas, or the wife-beating beer drinker.

Sooner or later we have to face the reality that we are doing it to ourselves, and that we have to accept that eliminating some of the violence and other garbage that is rotting our society begins with a more pro-active approach.

[CavemanJ]

I gotta go with RAM on this one kieren (that's a first   ).

Parents should be the answer, and they should stand up and take responsibility for what they allow thier children to see/hear.  Yes I'm aware that there are a great many things parents have no say in whether or not thier children are exposed to because they are exposed out of the home enviroment.  In those cases parents should take the time to explain the rights/wrongs thier children have been exposed to.  Many dinnae, and you see what we have today.

MTv is a pretty good example.  When MTv aired I lived Forsyth County, Georgia.  A 100% white county and in the mid-80s was fairly famous with Josea Williams and his "brotherhood marches" (which needed "brotherhood cleanups" before they got on thier buses to leave).  I saw the same things Kieren.  But it just added to a trend that had already started.  The teenagers going down to Roswell/Alpharetta/Atlanta were bringing these trends back with them.

As for games influencing kids, I'm sure they do to an extent I believe should be set by the parents.  I play games with my 4yr daughter alot.  She's even got some kills in AH sitting on my lap.  She's played Q2, UnReal, and a host of games on the PSX with me.  She's downright blood thirsty about killing "the badguys" (especially in AH, if it's red she starts hollerin   ).  But she understands that it's all just a game and nothing in the game applies to the real world.  It's all done in fun.  And she'll jump up, go outside, and play with her little friends w/o any kinds of incidents, save the typical 4yr-old scrapped knees and stubbed toes.

She also understands the difference between killing in games/on TV and in the real world (that one took a little doing   )