NationStates

Do kids not realize the difference between fiction and reality?

Do these parents even care what they but their kids? Or do they use games as a pacifier to shut their kids up?

I remember the first time I committed an act of violence because of a game. I was six and I headbutted another boy because he was cheating at Uno. The lesson here is that the catalyst is irrelevant, the issue is a lack of supervision and parenting in general.

Des-Bal wrote:I remember the first time I committed an act of violence because of a game. I was six and I headbutted another boy because he was cheating at Uno. The lesson here is that the catalyst is irrelevant, the issue is a lack of supervision and parenting in general.

I think we can all agree here that the bets lesson to draw from this is that we should ban Uno. And card games in general.

The Corparation wrote:I think we can all agree here that the bets lesson to draw from this is that we should ban Uno. And card games in general.

Not before we ban monopoly. I have seen exactly two people get their noses broken and both times were during games of monopoly. I would wager Monopoly is right up there with crack and rabies for "reasons people bite other people."

Saint Jade IV wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
The gladiator games were just a quick fix to cover up how the whole empire was rotting. The term "bread and circuses" comes from the habit of giving away bread and having gladiator games to keep the public distracted.

You would think people would actually know their history before posting "facts".

You would think people would understand the difference between the creation of the system and the systems meaning in the end.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Corparation wrote:I think we can all agree here that the bets lesson to draw from this is that we should ban Uno. And card games in general.

Not before we ban monopoly. I have seen exactly two people get their noses broken and both times were during games of monopoly. I would wager Monopoly is right up there with crack and rabies for "reasons people bite other people."

Fun Fact: The Royal Family of Britan isn't allowed to play Monopoly, to quote Prince Andrew "It gets too vicious."

Nothing about this type of story suprises me anymore.

Is that bad?

Bad parents and a bad kid. A bitchslap for each and every last one of them.

That being said...video games by themselves don't incite violence...but online gaming? Online gaming turns kids into deranged, blood-thirsty, foul-mouthed assholes.

Ban online gaming. Single-player gaming never killed anyone.

Qazox wrote:Nothing about this type of story suprises me anymore.

Is that bad?

Yes, and you should feel bad.

Probably won't be the last victim of that kid's rage.

Tells you a lot about that kid's parents, huh?

Who's parents are you talking about? The slasher's or the victim's?

Either way, it doesn't tell us lot's about them.

Rationallia wrote:
Who's parents are you talking about? The slasher's or the victim's?

Either way, it doesn't tell us lot's about them.

If your child slashes someones throat over a video game dispute then yes it tells us alot about you.

Grocery Store Music wrote:Probably won't be the last victim of that kid's rage.

They stole his doughnuts, and now they all gotta pay.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Corparation wrote:I think we can all agree here that the bets lesson to draw from this is that we should ban Uno. And card games in general.

Not before we ban monopoly. I have seen exactly two people get their noses broken and both times were during games of monopoly. I would wager Monopoly is right up there with crack and rabies for "reasons people bite other people."

Not before we ban Diplomacy. It's my expert opinion as a Board Game Violence-ologist that Diplomacy has caused at least 132% of all wars waged since its inception, and that 54% of all civilian murders can be brought back to conflict between Russian and Turkish players. 96% of STI transmissions can be attributed to 'enhanced bargaining' during intermissions, and 67% of all illegal weapon purchases later used in at least one murder have occurred within 24 hours of the purchaser losing to Austro-Hungary.

That's before we get into its later-life influence on rates of fraud, blackmail, incest, bestiality, and incestuous bestiality used to commit blackmail against fraudsters.

Des-Bal wrote:

Rationallia wrote:
Who's parents are you talking about? The slasher's or the victim's?

Either way, it doesn't tell us lot's about them.

If your child slashes someones throat over a video game dispute then yes it tells us alot about you.

Sorry but i just don't believe that. Anyone could really do something this violent and horrible if the case was right. It doesn't mean that the parents condone it or did anything to support an action such as this in anyway.

Besides, this child could have a mental condition or something along those lines. If the child is not right in the head then they will of course act unexpectedly and how could this be the responsibility of the parents and in turn tell you about them?

Ragnarsdomr wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
Not before we ban monopoly. I have seen exactly two people get their noses broken and both times were during games of monopoly. I would wager Monopoly is right up there with crack and rabies for "reasons people bite other people."

Not before we ban Diplomacy. It's my expert opinion as a Board Game Violence-ologist that Diplomacy has caused at least 132% of all wars waged since its inception, and that 54% of all civilian murders can be brought back to conflict between Russian and Turkish players. 96% of STI transmissions can be attributed to 'enhanced bargaining' during intermissions, and 67% of all illegal weapon purchases later used in at least one murder have occurred within 24 hours of the purchaser losing to Austro-Hungary.

That's before we get into its later-life influence on rates of fraud, blackmail, incest, bestiality, and incestuous bestiality used to commit blackmail against fraudsters.

I strongly, strongly agree with you.It's the same with Risk as well. Because of them I can now say I've missed death by "this much" (holds index and middle finger really close)

Another story that makes me afraid of human beings even more. Seriously, what's with the usage of a knife in Britain?

If guns were legal in the UK, would these crimes most likely involve a gun?

This wouldn't have happened if we had tighter knife regulations.

The Sector Union wrote:Another story that makes me afraid of human beings even more. Seriously, what's with the usage of a knife in Britain?

If guns were legal in the UK, would these crimes most likely involve a gun?

Yes, and they would happen much more often too.

Honestly why would you buy a 13 year old an M rated game? Expecislly with the content gears has. It not a bad by a long shot but yeah young kids are impressionable and will try stupid things because they saw them and this is not the games fault as a whole but only a part of it. That said the parents should have noticed something I mean there must have been some sort of mental issues around before hand. But again it may have not be prevalent enough to notice right away. There was probably a lot going besides the game and the argument that would have lead to this event.

Sedikal wrote:Honestly why would you buy a 13 year old an M rated game? Expecislly with the content gears has. It not a bad by a long shot but yeah young kids are impressionable and will try stupid things because they saw them and this is not the games fault as a whole but only a part of it. That said the parents should have noticed something I mean there must have been some sort of mental issues around before hand. But again it may have not be prevalent enough to notice right away. There was probably a lot going besides the game and the argument that would have lead to this event.

I don't mind 13 year olds playing an M-rated game, but if it's online, that's a different story. For whatever reason, these online game communities breed the most obnoxious, foul-mouthed, angry players I have ever heard. And it's the adults, mainly 20-something year olds that are behind this and kids just copy what they see.

I know these games are mean't for adult players but some of these adults that play these games online don't even act mature. I enjoy my online games like TF2, Counter Strike etc, but I never felt the need to scream, cuss and name call random people over the internet. Now and then, I troll for fun on the game's chatbox but never use voice chat to express my anger.

I don't even get angry because it's a game. This is why I don't play sports with people either because some people have really bad anger issues and doesn't make the game fun.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Saint Jade IV wrote:
Negative outcomes can run a whole spectrum. Some people don't even realise it's happened to them. Some people grow out of the problems.

Negative outcomes also don't mean that one is a bad person, you know.

You really think it makes someone a bad parent to not allow a 13 year old to pretend to kill people in realistic ways?

You really think that parents shouldn't inform themselves about the nature of the games their children are playing, and consider whether they are age appropriate or not?

I know plenty of parents who won't let their kids watch movies like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Three Kings" for example, but have no issue with them playing video games which are just as violent, because they are unaware of the content, the improvements in graphics over the last 20 or so years, and the level of interaction that players are now capable of. Their argument is, "They're just games."

I think my parents would have been aware of any negative consequences videogames would have brought to my lifestyle.

Really? Because I bet most parents, in fact ALL parents are not perfect, and do miss things that negatively impact on their child's development. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that their children are going to grow up into stunted, terrible people, incapable of interacting with the wider world without violence.

Soldati senza confini wrote:And negative outcomes, in all cases, it usually means it has warped a person's mind in a negative way. So would you kindly explain how that isn't a bad outcome? And how wouldn't that be discernible?

Negative impacts don't mean this at all.

Soldati senza confini wrote:No, I just think it's stupid to think videogame violence = real life violence. It doesn't work like that if the parents educate the child about the games. I would let my children play any kind of games, but I would have a talk with them to not be idiots and attempt these things out of videogames, which is what a parent should be doing anyways, fucking educating their children instead of thinking their children can do nothing wrong.

How about "Ethnic Cleansing"? Nothing possibly wrong there. Or "Rapelay"? You cool with your kid playing that at 13?

Would you let them watch porn, or read Hustler too, at 13?

I never said that children that play violent video games will engage in real life violence. At any point. Some will, some won't. But that is not the only potentially bad outcome from playing age-inappropriate violent games.

Soldati senza confini wrote:I have watched and played violent videogames and movies since I was a child, and there is still not that correlation, so I don't see what the point is of saying "oh no! We should ban all games from children's consumption!" Please, like children are stupid.

I also at no point ever advocated for banning video game consumption in children. Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote, instead of making strawmen.

Soldati senza confini wrote:Also, as for your snarky comments, I know I am not very social. Do you really think I care? Absolutely not, but I don't blame my lack of social skills to playing videogames, I correlate them to my bad experiences with people.

Your point being? I'm not sure how this relates to anything I have posted.

Soldati senza confini wrote:And I am not so shallow as to think I am perfect, which is of course, another thing you should be teaching your children anyways. I am humble enough to not think I am perfect unlike some people in here.

Your posts would suggest otherwise.

Soldati senza confini wrote:However, I can't think of a single negative correlation between videogames and IRL violence in my case, and I have asked the same thing to other gamers who say the same thing, therefore it isn't just a group of us who turned out to be fine.

Again, not something I have ever argued at any point in this thread.

Soldati senza confini wrote:As for the "life" inference, you may think that, however nobody is entitled to have life just handed to them. No way in the history of the world has it been that way that we can be efficient at everything we can possibly do. We are just better at certain things and we suck at others but that's life. We don't live in this fairy-tale world where candy canes and blankets are there for us whenever we need them. Life is cruel, and we just have to work around the bad things and move on.

I never argued that. Seriously, try reading what I actually wrote.

Gauthier wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Really, people need to be a less sensitive about suggestions that the content of games can be bad for younger kids instead of jumping right to "Oh, well I didn't turn into a homicidal maniac!" shtick, as though someone somewhere was actually saying something that absurd.

It's like someone complaining about showing porn to kids and then someone else jumping in with "I watched porn when I was a kid and *I* didn't turn into a rapist!"

It's like that's the only possible negative outcome from viewing age-inappropriate content.

That's the problem with some people. They think in extremes.

The God-Realm wrote:

Grocery Store Music wrote:Probably won't be the last victim of that kid's rage.

They stole his doughnuts, and now they all gotta pay.

A lack of confectioneries is no laughing matter.

Costa Alegria wrote:

Saint Jade IV wrote:It's not necessarily the fact from fiction. I just think it's somewhat unnecessary to expose them to the ultra-realistic violence in these video games so young.

Oh please. You've got kids going around stabbing other people and pretending to be gangsters at that age without the help of video games. Violence is something kids will inevitably see and experience at any time of their life and sometimes commit it themselves.

So because they will inevitably see it, we shouldn't at least try to shield them from those examples of it that we can? We shouldn't, as parents, be aware of the nature of the content our children are consuming, and place limits on what we can control?

And again, children turning to violence is not the only possible negative outcome from age-inappropriate exposure to violence.

Saint Jade IV wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
It's like someone complaining about showing porn to kids and then someone else jumping in with "I watched porn when I was a kid and *I* didn't turn into a rapist!"

It's like that's the only possible negative outcome from viewing age-inappropriate content.

That's the problem with some people. They think in extremes.

Because that's the only way they can mount a defence against most arguments. If there's one thing I've learnt on NS, it's that most people would rather be idiots rather than wrong.