My 3 year old, Sabrina,is emotional and has a very vivid imagination. To her things happening on a screen are very real and no amount of reasoning can get it through to her that it is not. Other kids may be different. This is the reason for hands on. And believe me this isn't the "Soccer Mom" mentality you think it might be. I will not shield my kid from EVERYTHING, only that which I can control. In the home she will get stability and understanding mixed with a firm hand when needed. Overreacting and over shielding your kid makes them naive` and occationally resentful of that shielding. Not reacting or ignoring your kid makes a monster (and on rare occations makes a very independant well behaved young person who was never allowed to be a kid)
quote:
(and on rare occations makes a very independant well behaved young person who was never allowed to be a kid)
Hi.
Bloodsage, I've seen it first hand. I was on the front line of what you see as nothing more than "public child care", I was a teacher in a Public High School. I've seen how childern and teenagers are shaped by the enviroments and experiences in early childhood. I've spoken with parents about their childern and could plainly see how and why certain students acted the way they did. I've also taken enough Psy classes to know that childhood experiences are the number one shapers of adult personalities.
How does this fit into violent video games? I know you are smart enough to figure that one out.
I think we probably agree on a lot of things, but I know we have some fundimental differences in opinions on some things. I think perhaps you just got me off on the wrong foot with the NEA comments earlier, as they couldn't be further from the truth. Again I'm tired from another hellish day at the store, and still sick from the parent who believed her ten year old son over me when he convinced her to buy him GTA3. "No mom there really isn't any violence in the game, you just steal cars and try to get away." "Ma'am you are aware that this game is rated Mature for graphic violence, sexual situations, criminal behavior, and language. Yes Ma'am this is probably one of the most violent games ever released for the PS2." Makes me ill.
Violence will shape a kid, yes. That's a fact.
Video games can shape a kid, but it's up to the parent on how much they shape the kid. It all depends on how the parents raise the kid.
My sister is eleven years old, she plays Diablo 2 on a regular basis. Along with Metal Gear Solid and the Final Fantasy Series.
She is not desensitized to violence, and she's not a violent kid. She knows what a real gun can do to a real person, we take her to the shooting range with us often.
To sum it up for those of you with Ruvyen's attention span:
It's the parents' fault if that kid is warped horribly by a game. Pure and simple.
[edit]Where the hell did all them line breaks come from?[/edit] [ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Demitri ]
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister impressed everyone with:
Greetings,Bloodsage, I've seen it first hand. I was on the front line of what you see as nothing more than "public child care", I was a teacher in a Public High School. I've seen how childern and teenagers are shaped by the enviroments and experiences in early childhood. I've spoken with parents about their childern and could plainly see how and why certain students acted the way they did. I've also taken enough Psy classes to know that childhood experiences are the number one shapers of adult personalities.
How does this fit into violent video games? I know you are smart enough to figure that one out.
I think we probably agree on a lot of things, but I know we have some fundimental differences in opinions on some things. I think perhaps you just got me off on the wrong foot with the NEA comments earlier, as they couldn't be further from the truth. Again I'm tired from another hellish day at the store, and still sick from the parent who believed her ten year old son over me when he convinced her to buy him GTA3. "No mom there really isn't any violence in the game, you just steal cars and try to get away." "Ma'am you are aware that this game is rated Mature for graphic violence, sexual situations, criminal behavior, and language. Yes Ma'am this is probably one of the most violent games ever released for the PS2." Makes me ill.
I'll stand by the NEA comments, thanks. They're quite reasonably verifiable.
And, not to be insulting, or anything, but your personal observations as a high school teacher mean exactly nothing with respect to proving a link between cartoon violence and behavioral changes in children.
I suppose you're a qualified sociologist? Psychiatrist, perhaps? You ran a scientific study with sufficient safeguards to eliminate other environmental factors contributing to your observations? Your sample was sufficiently large, and sufficiently dispersed geographically to allow extrapolation to society as a whole? You've the education and training to interpret the data you collected under these no-doubt rigorous conditions?
In short, hogwash.
If you'd like to have a discussion, fine. But you'll really need to come up with something beyond, "I believe it, so it must be true," which is all your last two posts have really said.
Why should I, a responsible adult, be penalized because some morons refuse to rear their children properly?
Why should more effort be poured into reaping the marginal returns associated with saving stupid people from themselves than into programs designed to help the very best students?
Discussion is all well and good, but you've utterly failed to address a single substantive point I've made.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I went to 3 different ones before. (Hey it was free and i didnt have to go if i didnt want to so no loss) After 3 sessions i was told there was nothing notably wrong with me and i was a perfectly average person with a slightly vivid imagination. What a bunch of quaks can't they sense the evil coming off of me? 
Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
Bloodsage, you are not punished in any way by violent games being restricted from minors. I take it you are indeed over the age of 18, there is nothing preventing you from purchasing a game like GTA3.
As for my "hunches" and personal "experiences" being worthless. Here are a few tidbits of reading for you.
This is a very good article, and well worth the read for anyone who is interested in the subject. There is less scientific information, but it's an enlightening article.
http://www.wa.gov/ago/bruised.html
This is also a good read, they have taken a somewhat more scientific approach to things. Some people might find the article biased in some ways as it was written by an activist group. They quote several studies on connections of violence in teenagers and video games.
http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/research/vgrc/2001-2.shtml
Enjoy the reading, it's quite interesting, reguardless of your overall viewpoint.
As for your silly comments about the NEA, I found it comical. The NEA is little more than a lobbying agency, all the real power within public schools is at a state and local level. If you have a problem with the public schools in your state take it up with the local school board and beyond that the state education departments. The vast majority of teachers wish to be left alone to do their jobs, and the vast majority of them if left to their jobs will help educate those who enter their classrooms. If you want to know what pisses them off, being asked to teach in classrooms designed for 25 students, yet crammed with 50+ students per class. Being paid less than the janitors who clean the halls of the schools they teach in, yet constantly asked to do the hardest job a person could possibly do. Teachers get pissed off when parents go off ranting that the teachers aren't good enough when the real failing is that the parents haven't taken an active enough role in the education of their child. They hate it when school districts cripple them by giving funds that should be going to new textbooks, computers, class room media improvements, etc, instead go to porkbelly sports programs. I feel strangly better now, ranting feels good. =)
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Tegadil ]
Shows ya whats kids want nowadays.Game:
Rating:
Platform:
Grand Theft Auto III M PS2
Return to Castle Wolfenstein M CD ROM
Max Payne M CD ROM
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty M PS2
Silent Hill 2 M PS2
Twisted Metal: Black M PS2
Time Crisis 2 T PS2
Conker's Bad Fur Day M N64
Devil May Cry M PS2
Soldier of Fortune Gold M PS2
Serious Sam M CD ROM
Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister had this to say about (_|_):
As for my "hunches" and personal "experiences" being worthless. Here are a few tidbits of reading for you.
I believe a wise ape once said:
quote:
anyone if they try hard enogh will come to the conclusion they are looking for anyway
Will I buy my kids violent media? Will I guide them responsibly like a parent should? Yes and yes.
Will they be more responsible, more capable, and wiser because of it?
Yes. [ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Maradön? ]
Of course the majority of games are bought by adults, childern rarely have the money avaliable to purchase games on their own. Also while the majority of games are purchased by adults, the age group that plays the most video games are 8-12 year olds.
I'm 16, and I feel that, with out being influenced to do violence, I can watch R rated movies and play GTA3. I admit, I enjoyed the game. But I have no disire, what so ever, to hurt anyone. Hell, I haven't seriously hurt anyone in a long time. GTA3 doesn't desensitize me to violence, because, I think, I've already formed my views on violence as a person.
I believe in ESBR ratings, because they have a purpose, just like movie ratings. They're there to make sure children who aren't ready for the material aren't exposed to it. This is good.
Little kiddies shouldn't be allowed to run cops over in cars, in video games. Nor should they be allowed to watch people getting gunned down on a big screen, merely because their parents are to lazy to leave them home. However, a mature, normal, older teenager can handle hitting cars with his Jeep, and still go to school the next day.
And if the janitors are paid better than the teachers, that's just funny.
If, as you say, you've been on the inside, you know the bullshit that passes for education these days. And a good portion of it comes from the national agendas of groups like the NEA--it tends to be local groups that moderate it, if anything. Like, for example, the ridiculous nationwide trend toward "self-esteem" over actual accomplishment. Or the stupid idea that competition is somehow harmful, and children shouldn't be graded or compared to their peers.
I won't even go off on my normal rant regarding the fact that much of what is pushed upon our children is simply incorrect information, adjusted to fit liberal (and sometimes conservative) notions of the way things should be, rather than what actually is.
As for those "studies," I find it odd you even mentioned them, as neither is anywhere near scientifically or sociologically valid with respect to drawing the conclusions they do. The first, especially, is just full of the same, "It's obvious," crap you've been repeating.
The point is, as I've been saying, that real sociological studies have found no link between cartoon violence and real violence.
Nor do you seem the least bit aware of the ramifications of the nonsense you keep repeating. Since, as you keep mentioning, irresponsible parents let their kids play these "harmful" games anyway, the only sensible option, if you are correct, is to ban them entirely.
That's why that affects me as an adult.
Among other things. Remember the Hamms Bear? Remember Joe Camel? All casualties of assaulting the rest of society because some parents are too stupid to rear their children properly.
And you've not addressed the most important point: so what?
Why should my tax dollars go toward vain attempts to make the government babysit for bad parents? Why wouldn't the same tax dollars be better spent helping those with more potential?
Addendum: A quick search on Google (I only looked at the first hundred hits) shows no study linking video game violence to real violence. There are many which count the hours kids watch tv or play games, then attempt to blame the alleged "violent content" for associated behavioral problems, but these tend to be secondary analyses without the rigor, and don't address the fact that massive hours in front of the tv or playing games represents parenting or environmental problems quite apart from the content of such entertainment--at least the original studies tracked only hours involved, and didn't break down content at all. A current Harvard student doing doctoral work in the area was attempting simply to categorize the type and amount of violence across different ratings, stated rather explicitly that there was no study showing a link, nor could there be without such groundwork. Given Harvard's general outlook on things, that says quite a bit.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
And I have to say I agree with Bloodsage on all this. The responsibility lies in the hands of the parents. I'm a little tired myself of being restricted in my daily life because other parents are too lazy to want to keep up on what their kids are doing and being exposed to.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Why? Because I didn't understand sex, despite having had the state-mandatory sex ed. seminars for two years. You see, legally, we had to be given the class--but also, "to preserve morals in children", it wasn't actually explained. 7th grade, no clarification; buzzwords, let it go. 8th grade, no sex ed. whatsoever. I went into junior high not knowing what an "erection" was; I went into high school having never heard the words "condom" or "birth control" from a teacher. Why?
Because a group of adults thought it best that we not know.
Now, I have not had sex, haven't done anything remotely close to it. But you tell me--what if, not knowing anything about birth control and its ilk, I had? What if I Had become sexually active with only the knowledge my school system gave me?
You want to know the truth? According to the FUSD, we (as in high school students) are infants. It's illegal to talk about homosexuality or birth control, and teachers can be fired for bringing the topic up.
The best example: This summer, the district board passed a new section on training teachers on how to counsel students who are contemplating suicide. One of the subtopics of the counselling was on how to deal with students contemplating suicide due to their homosexuality, or the belief that they are so. When this section was passed, that portion of it was removed--because a few bible-thumping members of the board, conveniently the most powerful, though the students shouldn't be speaking of it at all, no matter what the circumstance. Eventually, enough parents and teachers complained that the board reinstated the section--but only with the stipulation that as wel as advising that homosexuality isn't a bad thing, the teachers would be legally obligated to point out the "scientifically proven" method of curing homosexuality--shock therapy.
What, you might ask, is my point?
Not a single one of the teachers will mention that, despite the law--and you know why? Because they're close to the students. They actually talk to them every day, and they know which ones are mature enough to really handle the topic and which aren't; which are seriously considering suicide. And they're mature enough to know that a downright sickening 'quick fix' like that won't do anything.
That is the only system that could truly work--one wherein children and their parents would actually be directly evaluated by someone impartial, where their maturity could really be seen. The censorship of video games based on age is our country's shock therapy--it's nigh-impossible to evaluate people, and as such, we need an all-encompassing answer.
Even if it doesn't actually work.
So there's no right answer. Ah, well. Pardon me while I go back to playing GTA3.
-Carl.
quote:
Bloodsage wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Why should my tax dollars go toward vain attempts to make the government babysit for bad parents? Why wouldn't the same tax dollars be better spent helping those with more potential?
[/QB]
I find this statment rather shocking, are you suggesting that institutionalized discrimination be setup to make sure "stupid people" don't have access to public services like education? Or are you perhaps just suggesting that the childern of "poor parents" just be shelved as worthless due to the faults of their parents? It's beyond shocking, it's downright scary.
You don't know what you are talking about Bloodsage, every single state has laws that require some form of background check for public educators. Pedophiles, cultists, violent criminals, and even communists don't get hired as public school teachers unless there is a breakdown in the hiring process due to incompentence. Do teachers unions oppose adding more more background checks, psych evals, closet sniffing, yes they do, those things were already done when they were hired, why should they have to put up with it again. I worked in three different high schools when I taught, two in Texas one in Colorado, all required criminal, psych, and education background checks before a formal contract was offered. The last one even required I visit a Psychologist of their choice for an evaluation before I was hired.
As for continuing education for the educators themselves. This is something many of them would absolutely love, but alas on the salary they are asked to live on, and the time requirements needed to actually function make it unrealistic with the demands already placed on them.
Just as an example, when I graduated from college in 1982 and took a job teaching world history in a high school in Texas, I was paid exactly 10,250 dollars for my first year. Even though I taught for nine years in public schools, if I were to go back now and teach in a Texas public school I would still only make roughly 17,600 a year, and that is taking inflation into account.
Lastly almost all material is again not determined by the federal government, again each state sets it's own standards of education. In fact to date every single attempt to force a national standarized method of study has been defeated. If you have a problem with what is being taught in your local schools take it up with the state and the local school district, they are the ones who determine what is taught in the classrooms, not the federal government.
Ok now that I'm done ranting about something that has nothing to do with the topic, back to the subject at hand.
Did you read those two articles? Perhaps you missed a few of these.
<==The research base on the effects of exposure to violent video and computer games continues to build. Anderson and Bushman (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 35 different studies to see if these reveal similar patterns in their findings. They identified a consistent pattern in five areas. Exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal, aggressive thoughts, aggressive emotions, and aggressive behavior, and decreases prosocial behavior.==>
The solution isn't to ban or sensor games like GTA3. The solution would be to put laws in place that a> address the marketing of such games to minors, and b> force retailers to adhere to certain standards when selling games rated Mature or higher. Just like it is illegal for an adult to buy booze for a minor, such should it be for Mature rated games.
Well I'm done for the night, I'll check again before I head to work tomorrow morning.
quote:
Lyinar had this to say about John Romero:
Watch the stereotypes, Kag. Deth is a hell of a lot more emotional than I am, and I'm a lot more rational than he is. There's no set sex to be a certain way.
I revel in being irrational.
On a serious note, though, for one thiing I think parents need to have arrangements made as far as their kids are concerned. Parents and the family are the most influential unit of social construction in a child's life. It doesn't matter what friends they have later in life, they build from the initial model the parents provide. Therefore, parents need to take responsibility for their child's actions, even if taking that responsibility means putting the care of the child in someone else's hands. That's what the idea of a boarding school is. Parents put the emotional, societal, and educational growth of their child largely in the hands of someone else. It's not immature or wrong, either. It's a responsibile attitude to have if you aren't going to rationally raise the child yourself.
That having been said, I'm studying to be a teacher myself. Let me point out a few things Tyewa and Gloria hinted at. You don't get into being a teacher for money, or glory, or to gain power (there has never, to my knowledge, been a President who was a teacher, and very few political positions have been held by former teachers). Teachers who teach solely because they love their subject are doomed to burn out because they seldom have the heart for the job.
In short, you become a teacher because you care about kids.
Parents seem to forget that. They seem to forget that teachers are often forced into the position of making up for whatever (pardon the language) fuck-ups the parents make. They're often saddled with teaching children etiquette, hygiene, sex ed, and all sort sof other things parents are too busy to teach or can't be bothered to do. And then parents give teachers grief over it when teachers don't teach the kids what they think the kids should be taught. So they pressure the school boards to tie a teacher's hands more and more til nothing's getting done, and then they shovel MORE expectations on. And yet the teachers stay.
Kloie once had a sig that said "If you can read this, thank a teacher" and it's true.
My point is...Parents need to make the decision that their kids have to act certain ways, and there have to be criteria that everyone plays by, or no-one plays at all. Things like the ESRB ratings aren't meant at their core to be laws. They're supposed to be (like movie ratings) guides for parents to decide what they should expect their kids to be exposed to. Unfortunately, parents are often like Tyewa's 300lb assailant, putting the responsibility on someone else, expecting others to give in to their irrational, irresponsible demands. That's why things like the movie rating code are laws now rather than simple guides. "CHILDREN UNDER 17 NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT ADULT CONSENT". That's not a suggestion anymore, folks, that's an edict.
And in the end it means exactly dick what you'd do with your kids if you don't have them. Your kids don't live in your world. They live in THE world, and in THE world they aren't going to get the freebie, laissez-faire (I know I spelled that wrong) attitude they get at home.
Do I think games that aggrandize the slaughter of police officers and innocent people are good? Nope. But this is the world we live in. No-one wants to take responsibility, or tie the hands of people in a position TO be responsible, and you end up with things like this. Are the games harmful? Maybe. Maybe not. Fact is that the problem doesn't start with games. Doesn't start with what they "pick up in school". Starts with parents who don't take responsibility for their kids, and who keep passing the buck to others, repeatedly, without ever solving anything. And it's disgusting.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister had this to say about dark elf butts:
Greetings,<==The research base on the effects of exposure to violent video and computer games continues to build. Anderson and Bushman (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 35 different studies to see if these reveal similar patterns in their findings. They identified a consistent pattern in five areas. Exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal, aggressive thoughts, aggressive emotions, and aggressive behavior, and decreases prosocial behavior.==>
I first played Wolfenstein 3d when it first came out, I was young, no doubt about it, and I have been playing Violent games (I rather enjoyed Kingpin) ever since. Do I have agressive thoughts or emotion or behavior? No. Am I antisocial? No, far from it in fact. Why? Because my parents taught me that that Nazi in Wolfenstein is
A) A bad guy and
B) FAKE FAKE FAKE, he is not real, and I was told that doing that same thing in real life is BAAAD. So am I a psychotic killer? Hell no. I think that we need to have parents to be go through some kind of test or mock-parenting to see if their kids are able to be raised correctly and to understand the difference, if they pass, give them something on their liscense or profile or whatever that game stores have acsess to that says their kids can buy M rated games. But, that'll never happen, so, it's just wishful thinking
quote:
The solution isn't to ban or sensor games like GTA3. The solution would be to put laws in place that a> address the marketing of such games to minors
Marketing to minors? Excuse me? Are you talking about advetising in a Gaming magazine? Or during Barney or Kids WB or something? Most game advertisments are generic...you can't tell me GTA3 was marketed to kids
quote:
b> force retailers to adhere to certain standards when selling games rated Mature or higher. Just like it is illegal for an adult to buy booze for a minor, such should it be for Mature rated games.Well I'm done for the night, I'll check again before I head to work tomorrow morning.
How are you going to force them to do anything? With booze, you can suspend a liscense, but...not so with games. I dunno...it's late (early?...) and I'm tired, I'll probably have more to say about this tommorow.
quote:
Punky Brewster:
Ah, yes: blah blah blah blah "self-esteem" blah math sucks blah blah blah its greek to me blah blah blah eat more chiken blah liberal (and sometimes conservative) blah blah moo That's why that affects me as an adult blah blah doaliens like cheese blah babysit for bad parents blah blah Given Harvard's general outlook on things, that says quite a bit.
'Greetings,
You sir, are a very respectable fool who knows nothign!'
'I am not a fool, and you are foolish to call me so, my good friend. I would be pleased to argue this point over some tea and nice crumpits!'
'Greetings,
Of course I will! However, I will only spill the tea on your doilies and make rude comments on your, I'm sure, horrible home decor. I am right, because I lived in the 70's, I know about bad taste.'
'Aha! My ruse has worked most honorable opponent! I have gotten you to point out logistical flaws in your own malignant plot! I, too, have lived during the 70's, and can tell you MUCH of bad taste! In fact, I can prove it with this chart!'
'Greetings,
I have found some crapily funded websites [ed note; Home State Rule, I can pick fun at my own state, so stfu! ] proving that black is white! How dare you try and say they are different! You must be a fool. I mean that in the most polite way possible.'
quote:
Marketing to minors? Excuse me? Are you talking about advetising in a Gaming magazine? Or during Barney or Kids WB or something? Most game advertisments are generic...you can't tell me GTA3 was marketed to kids
Just as an example: On Thursday night's showing of WWF Smackdown, a show marketed to childern and teenagers, there were five commercials for GTA3, two for Metal Gear Solid 2, and two for Silent Hill 2. All three games are rated Mature, so tell me again these are not marketed to childern? Not only are they marketed to age groups between 10 - 18, but they are marketed to teenagers in that age range who are already drawn to violence. It's irresponsable.
quote:
It's funny reading the debates between Tyewa and Bloodsage.
'Greetings,You sir, are a very respectable fool who knows nothign!'
'I am not a fool, and you are foolish to call me so, my good friend. I would be pleased to argue this point over some tea and nice crumpits!'
'Greetings,
Of course I will! However, I will only spill the tea on your doilies and make rude comments on your, I'm sure, horrible home decor. I am right, because I lived in the 70's, I know about bad taste.'
'Aha! My ruse has worked most honorable opponent! I have gotten you to point out logistical flaws in your own malignant plot! I, too, have lived during the 70's, and can tell you MUCH of bad taste! In fact, I can prove it with this chart!'
'Greetings,
I have found some crapily funded websites [ed note; Home State Rule, I can pick fun at my own state, so stfu! ] proving that black is white! How dare you try and say they are different! You must be a fool. I mean that in the most polite way possible.'
ROFL!!!
It's an interesting point of view both sides take... yet an entirely pointless one. Because those who want the game badly enough get it. If not your house, little Jimmy's down the street. If your parents won't buy it for you, try the Internet - if you can't get a cracked copy, you'll likely find something more atuned to your tastes anyway.
Think about how much time and money the government and non-profit organizations have spent trying to stop other things pronounced officially "bad for you." Think about how many people still do those same things.
Think about how many people still come to "rolling stops" at a stop sign, even though it's illegal.
Both sides can argue until they're blue in the face, and it changes absolutely nothing. Because if what's "right" is not supported by a significant percentage of the population, it's still going to be done in massive quantities anyway. Just there will be a few incidents now and then so people can sigh, mutter "what is this country coming to?", and then do nearly-identical things daily in their own lives.
But please, keep trying to get those important things done and those important lessons taught. Because republics rely on the careful balance of all their fanatics to keep them from doing anything - when there is a failure in the system, and they actually DO things, it never fails to harm a significant portion of the population.
I'll just keep ignoring the parts I don't agree with. Like everyone else does. Oh come now, you really don't think that the incident in the mall discouraged that family? They went to another store with a more lenient policy, most likely, or simply got the game free through more morally-suspect means. If anything, that entanglement with the father turned him from a simply uncaring father to one determined to get his son the game.
You may call me a cynic. I call myself a "realistic optimist." A lone person, if talked to on a level of common standing, is almost always a good human being. It's just when you start looking at PEOPLE that everything goes to crap.
I'm not planning on having kids. I don't want to be responsible for the misery in their lives.
And this isn't flame-bait. It's an attempt to instill the futility of the conversation on the lot of you. So you'll stop arguing about it, and enjoy yourselves.
But I don't suppose it'll do much in that factor, anyway. People tend to not like it when their beliefs get turned away with an "Eh." They much prefer an argument, so they can feel as if they've truly accomplished something by "beating back the hordes." I'm likely to get flamed for daring to suggest that people might drop their differences and get along.
So I'll try to rephrase it in a simpler manner - you all have good points. The way they intermesh may infuriate you, but the application of any of your beliefs in a fully-expanded view would cause as many if not more problems than you think it would solve. So don't argue over it. Just hold your view, discuss it if you wish, and act upon it. No violence in posting is neccessary. And if you don't like the way the law works now, there are a surprising number of ways around it. Use those, and wait a bit; most laws that actually affect a large portion of the population change dramatically from one side of the pendulum to the other every couple years or so.
I used to call myself the "Self-Appointed Voice of Reason," but it seems that other people have coopted that title. So let me just sign this a different way.
- Drakkenclaw Steeltalon
The Guy Who Hates Arguments
Greetings,
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister had this to say about Tron:
I find this statment rather shocking, are you suggesting that institutionalized discrimination be setup to make sure "stupid people" don't have access to public services like education? Or are you perhaps just suggesting that the childern of "poor parents" just be shelved as worthless due to the faults of their parents? It's beyond shocking, it's downright scary.
I believe what Sage was trying to point out is that why should his tax dollars go to instances of the following..
quote:
..(Teachers are).. often saddled with teaching children etiquette, hygiene, sex ed, and all sort sof other things parents are too busy to teach or can't be bothered to do. And then parents give teachers grief over it when teachers don't teach the kids what they think the kids should be taught.
Why should the tax dollars of any parent be spent on a government institution (read: school) taking over this part of a parent's role?? Or are you telling us that you believe it's a GOOD thing that schools do this? (Do away with those nasty parents, they dont know what's GOOD for their kids...)
Oh, and dont say it doesn't happen, because I was victim to it even when I was at school... my sister is also a teacher and she tells me frequently of how she is expected to do it also..
If a parent cannot teach their children responsibly, then the child should be removed and custody given to a family that CAN and WILL raise that child properly!! There is no "right" to be a parent, but if you are going to be one, then there is a right and a DUTY to do it properly... not some half-assed fashion cos you are too lazy/busy with work/watching the latest RikkiLake program on 'why children are so fucked up these days'..
It is a fact that schools everywhere, not just in the US but all over the world, have been "neutered" by continuious attacks by (mostly) left-wing sociologists and "do-gooders" until they now teach to the lowest common denominator.. effectively dumbing down all students to the level of the weakest of the class.
Until Political Correctness, in all its forms, is smashed the majority will suffer because "do-gooders" will continually try to protect the stupid from themselves, and force the rest of us who are mature enough, and do have the common sense God gave the common house flea, to lose out on what we might enjoy.. simply because some idiot (read: Darwin Award contender) can't figure out that coffee straight off the notplate might be a tad warm.....
Consider:
quote:
I found myself mulling over a discussion in our class (from High School). Mr Dubois was talking about the disorders that preceeded the break-up of the North American republic, back in the 20th Century. According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when such crimes as Dillinger's (murder) were as common as dogfights.... (snip)"Let's get back to these juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than this class... and they often commenced their lawless careers much younger. These children were often caught: police arrested batches every day. Were the scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely, News organisations and officials often kept their names secret - in many places the law so required for offenders under the age of eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent pyschic harm."
Anyone recognise that? It comes from a book written in 1959... Already someone had picked up what the trend of political correctness would lead to.
Hands up here all those folks born before 1980. *raises her hand* Keep your hand up if you were spanked, either at home by your folks, or at school by a teacher/principal, for doing something wrong. *keeps her hand up* Keep your hand up if you also watched Tom and Jerry, or Looney Tunes cartoons (particularly roadrunner). *hand still raised*
Now..
Keep your hand up if any of that turned you into a mal-adjusted, anti-social criminal...*lowers her hand, and peers around*
Anyone?? Anyone???
Bueller??????
Of course not!!
But nowadays what would the "do-gooders" have us believe? That violent cartoons/video games/nightly news service, even corporal punishment for a deliquent child is BAD.
Letting your child run rampant through the grocery store, then scream and yell because you politely but firmly said "no" when he demanded (not asked.. demanded) candy.... this is a good thing??
But heaven forbid if you lift a hand and deliver a good swift smack to the backside... you'd have 90% of the people in the store ringing child welfare and calling you "child abuser"..... (not to mention face civil action from your own child for "assault and battery" as advised by a lawyer.. tell me... who makes money out of civil cases? the defendant, the plaintiff, or the lawyer.... of COURSE they're going to go straight to legal action... they get paid EITHER way...)
Yet the vast majority of those who denounce this practice were themselves disciplined in such a fashion... do they run around breaking laws?? Heaven forbid!!!
Has anyone watched the Popeye cartoons of the 30s & 40s? Popeye and Bluto going hammer and tongs at each other with fists, planks, cannonballs, you name it!! Did we see an upsurge in violence from the children of that generation??
How about the Tom and Jerry cartoons of the 50s & 60s? Dropping bowling balls on poor kitty, etc. Upsurge in violence in the children of that age???
What about the Looney Tunes of the 70s & 80s? Anvils/cannons on heads, etc. Upsurge in violence??
Now let us consider that the current "philosophies" of child-rearing (yes rearing.. they sure as hell ain't raising them.. they're only rearing the kids). Do we see un upsurge in violence after the removal of corporal punishment, and the intorduction of 'penalties' for spanking a child??
And you HONESTLY think it's violent cartoons/video games that are the cause of our current problems with the majority of the younger generation??
Good grief Charlie Brown, get your head out of the sand, wake up and smell the coffee!! (Careful though, it's HOT! Wouldn't want you to burn yourself...)
Game ratings are not going to curb violence in children, nor is stopping the production of said games. All that will do is 'dumb down' society to the weakest link..
Children need proper instruction and caring, and if that includes discipline through a spanking then so be it. I do not tell the government how to deal with the current account deficit, or the balance of trade... they should not tell me what I can and cannot enjoy (or how I can and cannot raide my shild) just because some moron from Dipshit, Alabama has fewer brains than the road-kill he/she just flipped on the BBQ for dinner....
Otherwise we all become the weakest link.... and we all know how THAT ends don't we?
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: AbbigailSD ]
Edit: cos speeling si hard.. 
quote:
We were all impressed when Tyewa Dawnsister wrote:
Just as an example: On Thursday night's showing of WWF Smackdown, a show marketed to childern and teenagers, there were five commercials for GTA3, two for Metal Gear Solid 2, and two for Silent Hill 2. All three games are rated Mature, so tell me again these are not marketed to childern? Not only are they marketed to age groups between 10 - 18, but they are marketed to teenagers in that age range who are already drawn to violence. It's irresponsable.
You do know that more adults watch professional wrestling than children and teenagers combined, don't you?
quote:
The solution isn't to ban or sensor games like GTA3. The solution would be to put laws in place that a> address the marketing of such games to minors, and b> force retailers to adhere to certain standards when selling games rated Mature or higher. Just like it is illegal for an adult to buy booze for a minor, such should it be for Mature rated games.
I thought about touching this one, but I won't. It's too juicy.
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Greetings,I'm actually an AS/400 Consultant.
AS/400's rock! I love those things.
-Tok
I find very little more annoying than being deliberately misread simply to have an excuse to call me stupid or heartless.
Consider this fair warning.
Despite your continuing willingness to trade upon your past as a teacher--which, logically, has no bearing upon the topics being discussed--and unwillingness to advance arguments beyond "It's obvious; I'm a Liberal," as if either of those actually meant something, I've tried to remain both polite and on topic. I'd like it if you'd try, just this once, to address the actual points brought up against you rather than dismissing them with, "I can't believe you even suggested that," followed by brushing aside a straw-man caricature of what was said.
For example, I said nothing at all about segregating children by income; you made that up simply to dismiss my point without addressing it.
Let me restate it: why should more of my tax dollars be spent on "special" programs aimed at the worst-performing students than to programs directed at top-performers? What, exactly, is wrong with segregating students based upon demonstrated ability and performance?
As for background checks, they tend to apply only to new hires, and, depending upon the particular contract, there may be no penalty for lying on the application. There was a recent news item here in the South where the union threatened to strike if the district proposed background checks for teachers who had been hired before they were required--in spite of one of them turning out to be a felon, and caught in another crime.
And don't regale me with the horrors of background checks; I've been subject to them my entire career, and even held positions requiring periodic polygraphs. If want to see "inconvenient," I invite you to work around nuclear weapons, or within the national intelligence community.
Nor was I speaking of continuing education, as you chose to misconstrue my statement. I was speaking of continuing qualification: tests, to ensure teachers have the same grasp of their chosen subject after 5 or 10 years on the job they did at the beginning, and have kept up with advances.
Now, as for the "studies" you mentioned. Of course I read them--rather closely. The second is clearly an advocacy piece, and assumes its conclusion that cartoon violence is somehow bad. It's also the one which references the "meta study" you mention. You are aware that 43% of the participants in the studies analyzed by Anderson and Bushman were over 18? You were aware, also, I assume, that some of the studies defined "increases in violent behavior" as such terrifying outcomes like "aggressive affect (e.g., anger),
physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate), and aggressive cognition (e.g., thoughts about aggression)"?
Rather skewed, in short.
As a matter of fact, the studies miss the same point I mention in my last post: they fail to mention the possibility that it's the lack of attention by the parents--whose symptom happens to be massive hours in front of the television or video games--is the true source of the noted behaviors. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out in my last post, many of the studies show that a lot of time spent watching television or playing video games, regardless of content, leads to the behaviors mentioned--which is then picked up by groups with an anti-game bias who point to the alleged majority of violent content as the culprit rather than non-involvement by the parents.
Now, let's look at your first "study." It consisted merely of interviews with kids, but, oddly enough, draws the opposite conclusion than the data would support. The section on games and music for example, showed that nearly all of the kids said that games and music had no effect on their behavior, yet the study concludes--with no other evidence--that they do, indeed, impact behavior. Hmmmmm. Think there might be an agenda there, as well?
Which, again, ignores the points I brought out in my earlier posts. History itself debunks the notion that "exposure to representations of violence" is harmful to children. Those who grew up in the '20s--quite the violent, licentious era, by all accounts--just happened to pull together and win a world war. Those who grew up with the deprivations of the Depression along with said world war also turned out just fine. And let's not forget my parents' generation, which not only grew up with the war in Korea, but got to fight the one in Vietnam--and they've turned out just fine. But wait! Let's look at our generation, which got to see Vietnam on television during our formative years, portrayed in some of the most graphic coverage ever at the time: we seem to have turned out quite all right.
And all of those were actual, rather than simulated violence. But now video games are a problem?
Makes one think. Or it ought to, at any rate. Perhaps mechanical babysitters of any kind are to blame for lack of social awareness in children. Which makes more sense, given the evidence.
And brings us right back around to parenting.
Which will not be affected in the least by harsh regulation of the video game industry. Or, as you suggest, by making it illegal for parents to provide their children with games rated beyond a certain threshhold.
Nor does it answer the other question I asked earlier: what will these draconian measures do that isn't already accomplished by simple enforcement of existing laws against violent behavior? Do you honestly believe sufficient prevention will occur to justify the massive cost in tax dollars and reduced freedoms for us law-abiding citizens?
Unlikely, and nearly impossible to prove in addition.
Now, why don't you set aside your ideology for a moment, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and apply your rational capacities to the problem at hand? You made your points; I addressed them. It's your turn to address mine.
And please keep teacher salaries out of it; they aren't relevant to the discussion. Unless you are asserting, again against all historical precedent, that teacher unions would all of a sudden become less self-serving if salaries would only increase massively so such things as continuous education were practical. Please. Personally, I'd federalize the whole damn system and set stringent qualifications, but that's for another discussion.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Demitri wrote this stupid crap:
You do know that more adults watch professional wrestling than children and teenagers combined, don't you?
My thoughts exactly, and adults LIKE games like GTA3 and MGS2. It just happens to be a coincidence that children watch it too.
That's like saying "No more beer advertisments in Rolling Stone/Maxim/PCXL/Whatever, some kids might be reading it despite the fact that it has partial nudity and language" Gimme a break here
When I was in grade school, I was in Indianapolis Public Schools. Now, I manged to get an education in these schools, but not much. They don't have much funding, because they're city schools, and the sad thing is that most of their funding had to go to the kids that didn't want to work, or wanted to make trouble, or numerous other bad seeds. They didn't spend their money on kids like me, rotting away bored in my classes because I picked up on everything the teacher taught and even knew things that weren't being taught yet. I had to go at their slow pace, because the schools allowed themselves to be dragged down by these kids. Now granted, there were "gifted" programs in some schools, and I was in one, and to be honest, it wasn't much better than if I'd just been a normal student. What was sad was the fact that because of these idiots that didn't want to work, didn't want to be in school, didn't want to do anything to try to educate themselves, I had to suffer for it.
I think we should institute a system like France, which I learned about in my French class my sophomore year of high school. Everyone goes to the same school up to a certain point. Then, everyone takes a test, and those fit for university go on to one sort of high school, and those fit for trade go to another. If someone doesn't do good enough in the university school, of course, they have the option of going to the trade. And if someone just doesn't take tests well and it's shown they don't belong in trade, then they can move to the university school.
But I like this idea. I once had a chemistry class in high school that had to be completely halted because two stupid football players did not understand what attraction was. And they weren't pretending, either. They had gotten to 10th grade without learning that opposites attract and likes repel. And of course we all had to suffer because of their stupidity. So I think a separation of those that really want to learn, and those that are just sticking around until they're out would be great.
Something like that would need funding, though. And I'd be quite happy to see my tax dollars going to a program of that nature, than one that drags the smart kids down kicking and screaming to the level of those that just don't give a damn.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
