Most Parents Believe Games Contribute To Real Violence

[travbrad]

Some historians believe that such behavioral problems have been with humanity for a long time. Many of them believe that the people we know as psychopaths, sociopaths and serial killers would have been torturers, hangmen or inquisitors in centuries past. Now that such behavior is condemned, we're finally taking notice.

I hate to break it to you, but sociopaths hold some of the highest offices in government/corporate power. Their behavior is far from "condemned".

I agree with your general point though. The content of videogames (or any art/media) is a reflection of society, not to other way around. Actually discussing/addressing the shortcomings of society is a lot harder than just creating a scapegoat for political gain though.

 

[Azhar]

I think 75% of parents fail at parenting.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

You guys are all delusional if you don't at least admit to the fact that these ultra violent games desensitize you to the violence. Also, I can see an argument being made that games are actually worse than movies because of the interactive nature of them i.e. you are the one controlling the character doing the killing, not just a slave to whatever story is being told.

Having said that, most of us know the difference between reality vs. fantasy and know that when the game is over, we throw that proverbial switch in our minds. Small children and mentally ill/unstable folks may not be able to turn that off as quickly. I have a 3 and 6 year old and I can tell you firsthand, they have no idea the repercussions of the violence and don't fully understand the idea that when someone is dead, there's no reset button. My 6year old is starting to understand that through various pets that have died but still I don't think quite gets it 100% yet.

Either way, it's up to us as parents to teach our children. All these guys who are doing the massacres were/are all mentally ill and as a society, our systems aren't doing a good job making sure these people don't fall through the cracks and get the help they need.

Fact of the matter, there is no magic bullet one cure all for what we're facing though. We can look at guns, we can look at our Dr's and parents, we can look at society as a whole, but the bottom line is it's a combination of all of these and just focusing in on one area will not solve the problem.

No, you are delusional if you do. There is a giant leap of difference between killing digitally and reality. I have played ultra current video games since I was a child. I can watch death in movies and it doesn't bother me. However death and violence in reality bother me deeply. So no, it doesn't and the argument that says it does its utterly absurd.

 

[Alpert]

Looks like most parents are aware of violent video games. Lets just hope most are aware of the rating systems provided.

 

[kirbyrj]

No, you are delusional if you do. There is a giant leap of difference between killing digitally and reality. I have played ultra current video games since I was a child. I can watch death in movies and it doesn't bother me. However death and violence in reality bother me deeply. So no, it doesn't and the argument that says it does its utterly absurd.

Single examples are not representative of the whole. Just because YOU can do something doesn't mean society at large can.

There is a difference between the mind of an adult and the mind of a child. Can a 5 year old differentiate between reality and movies? (The correct answer is no, not in the same way an adult can). Would you want your 5 year old exposed to TV/video game violence? Whole training philosophies in military and to a certain extent para-military (certain law enforcement) are based on desensitization to violence and relying on training to overcome emotionally disturbing situations.

People here can argue all they want that it does not affect them, but a much more intellectually honest position is that it does affect them, but they don't care and are going to continue their practices.

 

[bastage]

Read the title to my wife and she responded with "then why aren't there more farmers" I can't fault that logic.

 

[collegeboy69us]

What us folks who are so damn tired of everyone minding other people's business except their own?

We've gotten to the point in this country where if you let a fart slip and it annoys someone, you can get sued into oblivion. You might laugh, but look at our patent system and our court system over some of the frivolous crap people bring. up.

I can't think of a single system or program the government has run from the beginning that didn't spiral out of control, lose money, and never accomplish it's original goal.

The solution is so god damn simple - but nobody wants the responsibility. If you want your kids to grow up and not blow up schools it has nothing to do with the games they play. This never happened in the 60's because parents actually paid attention to their children. And disciplined them when they acted up. Now they are stuck in day care for most of their childhood, you can't hit your own kids without getting thrown in jail.

Spanking a child is not abuse when they act up - just FYI. Teaching a child there are consequences for their actions is something that's been lacking for a decade or two now.

You reap what you sow -- and when you ignore your kids for 20 years, some shit is going to happen. I was lucky enough to have parents that cared enough about me to whoop my ass when I screwed up.

 

[Axiomatic]

Speaking as as parent of an 19 year old and a 9 year old. You actually have to do some parenting sometimes. I know its hard work but scapegoats like blaming games or Elvis's gyrating pelvis are just that, scapegoats. Arm your children with knowledge. Talk to them about the meaning of these senseless acts of violence and assure them that no matter what their parents will ALWAYS come to their rescue and that nothing is ever so bad that you need to involve innocent bystanders in whatever problem you might be having. Speaking often with your children will also give you more opportunity to see if there is something physiologically with them so you can go seek help before the worst happens. But stepping back and blaming violent media after the worst happens is a hollow gesture. Where were you before you needed that scapegoat to absolve you of your parental responsibility?

I dont mean to offend anyone. Just my personal views. Cheers!

 

[Jagger100]

Really? I didn't know Fox News sided with purely left wing things.

http://kotaku.com/5968569/fox-news-links-connecticut-shooting-to-violent-video-games

FoxNews is run by the Social Conservative brank of Republicans. Social Conservatives only have a few things that seperate them from the Left. And they are usually as big Statists and those on the Left.

 

[Jagger100]

75% of parents want someone else to take away their kid's xbox for them.

 

[ballistic90]

Single examples are not representative of the whole. Just because YOU can do something doesn't mean society at large can.

There is a difference between the mind of an adult and the mind of a child. Can a 5 year old differentiate between reality and movies? (The correct answer is no, not in the same way an adult can). Would you want your 5 year old exposed to TV/video game violence? Whole training philosophies in military and to a certain extent para-military (certain law enforcement) are based on desensitization to violence and relying on training to overcome emotionally disturbing situations.

People here can argue all they want that it does not affect them, but a much more intellectually honest position is that it does affect them, but they don't care and are going to continue their practices.

How about you ask the military how easy it is to get people to modify their behavior based on exposure to violent media. A fact that is often glossed over is that even with all that "desensitizing" violent media, most new military personnel won't arrive to the battlefield with the instinct to kill. Many of them will purposely aim too high with the intention to miss, even at an enemy firing at them who doesn't intend to miss.

In the military, they don't "desensitize" you to violence to get you to fire on the enemy, they get you to de-humanize your enemy to get you to fire back at them.

Shit, I've never found a game I've had any problems playing due to graphic violence or gore, but I still won't watch certain movies. I still have no desire to kill or dismember people in life. That goes back to my parents ensuring I knew the difference between real life and fantasy. I might not have had the best parents, but they at least did that properly.

 

[Stiletto]

FoxNews is run by the Social Conservative brank of Republicans. Social Conservatives only have a few things that seperate them from the Left. And they are usually as big Statists and those on the Left.

Yep. That's why the whole "Democrat-Republican" labeling system is now utterly worthless. Even ideological labeling can be insufficient.

 

[Ashbringer]

75% of parents think that video games cause violence.... but more important how many of those have sons that play video games??? how many of them are retarded? 100%

Don't use that word. It would upset the parents to hear the truth. Better to burn a video game and avoid the truth.

 

[shifty68]

75% of parents don't play video games.

 

[Ashbringer]

Yeah, imagine that. People think guns are more important to own than video games. Nutty fuckers.

You mean guns vs 1st amendment, cause that's what we're talking about. The right to be able shot varmints and stop signs vs free speech?

What are you doing to do with a gun anyway? Hunting? Protecting your property? You can't ever use the weapon without going to jail, not unless the person you're going to fire at also has a gun.

So at this point the only reason to own a gun is to give nut jobs easy access to genocide.

 

[uberjon]

Most parents also think putting your kid over your knee is abuse. And having the kid be mainly raised by the school system and babysitters is proper parenting. .

 

[LeninGHOLA]

You mean guns vs 1st amendment, cause that's what we're talking about. The right to be able shot varmints and stop signs vs free speech?

What are you doing to do with a gun anyway? Hunting? Protecting your property? You can't ever use the weapon without going to jail, not unless the person you're going to fire at also has a gun.

So at this point the only reason to own a gun is to give nut jobs easy access to genocide.

That's exactly why I own guns, for the genocide. Don't be a doofus.

 

[Ducman69]

Did you misword this?

No, why would you think I did?

IMO, no one is "good" or "evil" like a binary one or the other state, and good and evil are subjective anyway as the old expression goes "one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

I think people are complicated and everyone is a different shade of gray on any kind of perceived "good or evil" scale, not white or black.

 

[Stiletto]

You mean guns vs 1st amendment, cause that's what we're talking about. The right to be able shot varmints and stop signs vs free speech?

I like how you use the term "1st amendment" vs "guns", instead of vs "2nd amendment". Way to show your bias right off the bat, especially right before you define what you refuse to identify as "the right to be able shot varmints and stop signs". Yeah. That's what it was all about.

What are you doing to do with a gun anyway? Hunting? Protecting your property? You can't ever use the weapon without going to jail, not unless the person you're going to fire at also has a gun.

Hunting, protecting property, target shooting, and self-defense at all levels. And yes, you can use the weapon without going to jail without the other guy having a gun. Doesn't matter if he has a gun, a knife, a bat, or even if an assailant simply grabs or punches me. Every law-abiding American citizen has the right to defend their life from those who would try to harm or kill them.

So at this point the only reason to own a gun is to give nut jobs easy access to genocide.

Actually, the second reason is to kill kittens and puppies, and the third reason is to drink the blood of infants. Thanks for your glorious insight.

 

[MasonD]

↑ Hunting - and I don't want to hunt with a fucking slingshot, bow & arrow, or a musket, seriously!

LEGITIMATE PURPOSES

 

[MasonD]

No, why would you think I did?

More than likely because it's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen vomited on this forum IMO. So I had to confirm.

 

[GotNoRice]

I always assumed that parents being against video games were due to parents being older. Baby boomer parents who if they were lucky maybe played pong once or twice before they were 30.

But we are getting to the point where Today's parents should have grown up with Nintendo, Sega, etc. To still see this ignorance about video-games still so prevalent is truly saddening.

 

[Stiletto]

So at this point the only reason to own a gun is to give nut jobs easy access to genocide.

Here's a question for you, since you're making up stupid bullshit strawmen.

When an unarmed man overpowers a woman and tries to rape her, her best defense is a firearm. Why are you labeling future rape victims "nutjobs", and labeling their self-defense against rapists "genocide"?

Did this woman commit genocide when she shot the guy who invaded her home and tried to subdue her? Was this man committing genocide when he shot the guy trying to rob him in his own driveway while he had his 2-month-old baby just a few feet away?

Herp derp shootin' varmints.

 

[GotNoRice]

So at this point the only reason to own a gun is to give nut jobs easy access to genocide.

No guns are for defense. And even if I end up in jail for defending myself that is still preferable to allowing anything to happen to the other members of my household.

When someone breaks into your house, what is your plan? Huddled in the corner cowering in fear begging the 911 operator to make the cops get there faster?

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I always assumed that parents being against video games were due to parents being older. Baby boomer parents who if they were lucky maybe played pong once or twice before they were 30.

But we are getting to the point where Today's parents should have grown up with Nintendo, Sega, etc. To still see this ignorance about video-games still so prevalent is truly saddening.

My dad is apparently in the 25%. He is getting close to 60 and plays Skyrim every weekend. In fact, when I was growing up most of my friends parents played games.

 

[Inu]

No guns are for defense. And even if I end up in jail for defending myself that is still preferable to allowing anything to happen to the other members of my household.

When someone breaks into your house, what is your plan? Huddled in the corner cowering in fear begging the 911 operator to make the cops get there faster?

I'd rather invest in anti-break-in reinforcements than a gun, safer, and more reliable.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

My wife doesn't want me to own any guns but she has no issue with gaming. Since my wife is pregnant, I intend to be an awesome parent (that loves gaming & technology) rather than so many deadbeat idiots that bring their families grief in so many ways.

 

[Stiletto]

I'd rather invest in anti-break-in reinforcements than a gun, safer, and more reliable.

I'd like to know what anti-break-in reinforcements are either safer, or more reliable, than most handguns and long guns. The most popular firearms are popular specifically because they're reliable. Glock enthusiasts, for example, have done everything from dropping their pistols from planes, encasing them in ice for six months, burying them in sand and mud, running over it with a tank, etc. After dusting them off and racking slide a couple of times, they still fire, and fire accurately. You know how many people own rifles or shotguns that are a century old or more, and they still are in perfect working order? How many other kinds of technology are still useful after that long a timespan? Not too many.

 

[SkribbelKat]

I'm okay with RFID-tagged children. Kids need to get used to being part of an institutionalized society where they're pretty much treated like a UPS-tracked package or a moo-cow out grazing because that's what mostly they turn into unless they end up as like one of the tiny handful that are super-mega-awesome rich. They need to learn how to be tagged and how to be okay with being tracked just like they need to learn to identify themselves by broad, easily ingested group labels like "gamer" or "libertarian" or "yes man" because that's where they're almost all going anyhow. This gets them used to real life and also protects the schools from liability and stupid parent lawsuits. I say implant the ID chip and give it GPS tracking. Go big or go home.

 

[SkribbelKat]

I'm okay with RFID-tagged children. Kids need to get used to being part of an institutionalized society where they're pretty much treated like a UPS-tracked package or a moo-cow out grazing because that's what mostly they turn into unless they end up as like one of the tiny handful that are super-mega-awesome rich. They need to learn how to be tagged and how to be okay with being tracked just like they need to learn to identify themselves by broad, easily ingested group labels like "gamer" or "libertarian" or "yes man" because that's where they're almost all going anyhow. This gets them used to real life and also protects the schools from liability and stupid parent lawsuits. I say implant the ID chip and give it GPS tracking. Go big or go home.

Wow, wrong thread...I'll be over there thanks --->

 

[Stiletto]

I'm okay with RFID-tagged children. Kids need to get used to being part of an institutionalized society where they're pretty much treated like a UPS-tracked package or a moo-cow out grazing because that's what mostly they turn into unless they end up as like one of the tiny handful that are super-mega-awesome rich. They need to learn how to be tagged and how to be okay with being tracked just like they need to learn to identify themselves by broad, easily ingested group labels like "gamer" or "libertarian" or "yes man" because that's where they're almost all going anyhow. This gets them used to real life and also protects the schools from liability and stupid parent lawsuits. I say implant the ID chip and give it GPS tracking. Go big or go home.

I notice two things:

1. Your signature disclaimer is gone.
2. You're in the wrong thread.

 

[dremic]

"somewhat of a role"

Question: What made men and boys want to see the gladiators kill each other with sharp objects or get eaten by a tiger in Rome days?

Human nature or video games?

this is the stupidest fucking post i have ever read on hard and that says a lot haha


absolutely retarded


television, movies, video games have influence over people, some more then others.

 

[MasonD]

I'd rather invest in anti-break-in reinforcements than a gun, safer, and more reliable.

It might work.

Well unless they do 1,001 different things in which you can't put a lock on. Like while they're standing there holding your keys (plus everything else) to your locks because they pointed a gun at you in your driveway, Have fun man, it's an adrenaline rush at the least (drain at the worst).


However if you mean just being poor (as a deterrent) with nothing to steal, STILL MISTAKEN, poor people are robbed more than wealthy people.

 

[MasonD]

this is the stupidest fucking post i have ever read on hard and that says a lot haha


absolutely retarded


television, movies, video games have influence over people, some more then others.

1. Copying my post.

2. Violence never existed before media of any kind? Wow, never knew that!

3. Next!

 

[SkribbelKat]

I notice two things:

1. Your signature disclaimer is gone.
2. You're in the wrong thread.

1. It's because I'm soo not doing that stuff anymore.
2. Yup, I noticed and facepalmed.

 

[Ashbringer]

I like how you use the term "1st amendment" vs "guns", instead of vs "2nd amendment". Way to show your bias right off the bat, especially right before you define what you refuse to identify as "the right to be able shot varmints and stop signs". Yeah. That's what it was all about.

2nd amendment specifically points at owning guns, where are first is a lot more broader. Which sounds better, freedom of speech vs bear arms, or 1st vs 2nd amendment?

No no, lets make it sound stupid and make it video games vs guns.

Hunting, protecting property, target shooting, and self-defense at all levels. And yes, you can use the weapon without going to jail without the other guy having a gun. Doesn't matter if he has a gun, a knife, a bat, or even if an assailant simply grabs or punches me. Every law-abiding American citizen has the right to defend their life from those who would try to harm or kill them.

The only reason this idiocy even works so far cause majority of Americans don't bear arms. I'd hate to see how everyone goes about their day if everyone did have a gun on them.

When an unarmed man overpowers a woman and tries to rape her, her best defense is a firearm. Why are you labeling future rape victims "nutjobs", and labeling their self-defense against rapists "genocide"?

Her best defense is a firearm? Seriously? There are no substitutes?

No guns are for defense. And even if I end up in jail for defending myself that is still preferable to allowing anything to happen to the other members of my household.

And this guy sees no problem accidentally shooting someone. All in the defensive of your family, even if the law disagrees with you.

 

[SonDa5]

Its a controversial issue. I don't think games lead directly to violence but I do think parents need to supervise their kids and teach them about the games that they are going to play. I grew up shooting real guns. I shot my first rifle when I was 2 years old with the help of my father. My father taught me to respect arms and how to safely handle them. I grew up playing good guy bad guy with make believe guns and toy guns. Played with toy water pistols. Played shooter games on Atari, Intelivision, Colecosvision, Vectrex and computers since I was a young child to today. I know in my mind what playing a game is and what the uses of real firearms are for hunting or personal safety. I have no desire what so ever to ever kill anyone. I love to play first person shooter games.


I don't blame games for violence I blame poor human behavior for violence.

 

[Stiletto]

2nd amendment specifically points at owning guns, where are first is a lot more broader. Which sounds better, freedom of speech vs bear arms, or 1st vs 2nd amendment?

Broader? It promises speech, press, assembly, and religion without government censorship. The second promises that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I don't give a shit which you think "sounds better". When you refer to the First Amendment as the First Amendment, and refer to the Second Amendment as "guns", you're clearly not putting them on equal footing, when they should be, as should the 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on.

No no, lets make it sound stupid and make it video games vs guns.

I wasn't the one who set up the comparison. I was responding to someone who did.

The only reason this idiocy even works so far cause majority of Americans don't bear arms. I'd hate to see how everyone goes about their day if everyone did have a gun on them.

First of all, what part was idiocy? Secondly, the majority of Americans don't bear arms? That's odd, since there is roughly 1 gun per citizen in this country. And if you're afraid to see how everyone goes about their day with a gun on them, just look the fuck around. Latest Government Accountability Office estimates eight million concealed carry permits in the United States. That's just over seven times the total number of people in the US Army, our largest fighting force. Where's the bloody shootouts? Answer: primarily in the inner-city of places like Detroit, Chicago, and DC...and no, they don't have permits.

Her best defense is a firearm? Seriously

Oh okay. You think a better defense than a lethal weapon is pepper spray, which is only effective if sprayed in an area compromising roughly 2% of body surface. Brilliant.

Or, you can take out a bulky electrical device that may, or may not, stop the person in question from assaulting you. Remember Rodney King? Remember how they beat him 53 times with metal batons? Guess what. They used tasers on him first. Twice. Both times, he got up after 2 or 3 seconds and kept rushing officers.

So yeah...the woman who is getting attacked by a rapist should clearly be using as little force as possible to defend herself. She should not risk using a firearm to stop a person who is attacking her in a way that is a capital crime. You clearly understand self-defense.

And this guy sees no problem accidentally shooting someone. All in the defensive of your family, even if the law disagrees with you.

He never said anything about "accidentally" shooting someone. News flash: if someone breaks into your home in most states, and you shoot them, you're blameless. Don't break into people's homes if you don't want to get shot. How about that?

And if you're going to question someone using a firearm against an intruder into their home to defend the lives and safety of their family, let me know, because you're not worth responding to further. There is no law that supercedes your responsibility to protect your family from those who immediately threaten them.

 

[Stiletto]

~snip~

By the way, I really love how you completely avoided your stupid "genocide" comment and refused to engage any of the responses. Did you realize you were trolling, or were you just trying to avoid revealing that fact to others?

 

[Outamyhead]

75% of parents have monumentally s#!te parenting skills, and blame something that can't argue against them.