Originally Posted by Luvian (Post 1211804)

Taken at face value the question doesn't make any sense. After all if they are not exposed to it how can they be affected?

But that's not the point since this is a trick question. The person answer yes then you'd say "Har har! Secondary exposure through society! You see you were for banning games all along and you just didn't know it!"

Which is a ridiculous argument. Would you stop using firearms if it was proven they could harm children's health? Would you stop drinking if it was proven it could harm their health? Would you stop driving? Would you stop using fire? Would you stop using electricity? Cutlery? Pretty much everything can harm children.

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1211784)

<font color="plum">My comment was that games are marketed towards teens and young adults and I stand by that. To claim otherwise is naive. I don't think GTA is aimed for the "middle-aged gamer" in any shape, form or fashion.</font>

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1211784)

<font color="plum">I think we have effectively concluded these measures do not work well, if at all.
What else could game manufacturers do? Simply STOP making games that require such measures in the first place. If you don't make a game that requires an "M" rating, you don't have to worry about some underaged teen skirting the system and buying it.

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1211784)

<font color="plum">The boy in question was 18, which technically makes him an adult. So he can ignore the "parenting" he has been subjected to. This is even more true for young adults who don't live with their parents.

So, to restate my own quote - "Playing games is fun. Shifting blame is easy."

A young adult imitates a game? Well that kid must have been nuts already before ever playing the game, cuz the game certainly couldn't have had any bearing on his actions. So don't take away my game cause I like playing it and I don't want to find a different game that doesn't emulate breaking society's rules cause I think it's fun and besides I'm not going to REALLY go out and try to steal a car to see if it's as easy as it is in the game. Did I mention the kid who DID do that must have been crazy already? :rolleyes:</font>

Originally Posted by Yorick

That sounded like a suggestion from Cerek, not an advocation of banning things from being created. What he said is true. The simplest solution IS to not create irresponsible games in the first place. SELF-REGULATION trumps all.

However, people won't self regulate, so there's nothing against banning stuff from sale. Create all you like, we just won't distribute it. This is the thinking behind hate crime laws. "Say it in private if you must, but don't try and foist such venom in the public sphere where it damages people."

Originally Posted by Yorick (Post 1211807)

As for all your questions, yes I would stop drinking if it harmed my kids health. My wife stopped for pregnancy, so it's obvious people do such a thing.

Originally Posted by Luvian (Post 1211792)

All rules are useless if you're willing to commit a crime to break them, it doesn't have anything specific to do with video games.

Kids manage to get their hands on alcohol, so I suppose we should stop creating alcohol too? Oh, they also manage to get their hands on firearms! I guess we need to stop creating firearms!

Oh no! Some kids could get his hands on his parent's car keys and go for a joyride, let's stop creating cars too!

What about lighters? Some kid could set fire to something. Let's stop creating lighters!

Do I need to go on, or can we simply agree "Let's stop creating things because a kid could get his hands on it" doesn't make much sense as an argument?

Originally Posted by Luvian (Post 1211812)

My position is that the current system works.

I think parents can control what their kids are exposed to while in their house. I think parents can educate their children, <i>explain</i> to them what is right or wrong, and why. Not tell them, <i>explain</i>. So they understand the reasoning behind it, so they can reproduce that reasoning.

The first time kids have to be out of the direct supervision of their parents and in "the village" as you call it is for school. You've got five to six years to build a good base in them before that. And you can always chose the school.

You control who your kids hang out with. You can investigate them, their parents, you can decide if they are a good influence for your kids. You can also chose what extended network your kids will be exposed to. Send them to church if you want. Send them to a religious school, send them to private camps, to the sport team approved by your moral group.

School is really the only outside factor in a growing kid's life. You control the tv. You control the computer. You control who he sees, what he does.

You talked about positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is probably the parent's most powerful tool. Through all the above you shape his life. You shape his background, you shape the lens by which he sees life.

You have all the tools you need to raise your kids. The same tools which all parents have, have had since the beginning of humanity. If in his first fifteen years you haven't be able to instill a sense of right in your kid, well you failed.

You chose who you hang out with and where you live. I see nothing wrong with Mature games because it isn't a problem in my direct family, it isn't a problem in my extended family, it isn't a problem in my circle of friends and it isn't a problem in my local shops as they would not let a minor have access to such games. In short, it isn't a problem in "my village". Mature products are only a problem if you can't trust your kids to make the right choice and if you played your cards right you shouldn't have to doubt them.

Do you doubt your kids? Have you failed to pass on your moral values?



You are exposing your child to alcohol. Society is exposing your child to alcohol. How do you know they won't become drunkards? Alcohol IS harming your child's health, as much as violent or sexual products are. Probably even more, as they are much more likely to start drinking than they are to start killing. Why won't they become drunkards? Because you sensibilized them against alcohol. Who not just sensibilize them against violence? Against casual sex?

Originally Posted by Yorick (Post 1211805)

I don't think it's an issue of blanketly banning the game, but perhaps declaring culpability where provable situations are beyond a doubt?

Dunno...

If that ever happened that would create some self-regulation pretty quickly I'd say.

At least we need to create bigger hurdles for mass distributing games that have the protagonist rewarded for illegal acts. Banning or limiting public advertising, like we do for cigarettes would be one such idea for example.

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1211813)

<font color="plum">...the industry chooses NOT to regulate themselves, so the government has to create some type of regulation.</font>

Originally Posted by Luvian (Post 1211816)

No Cerek. Your government has decided it does NOT have to regulate this. It has even decided doing so would be unconstitutional, they have decided that the rating system is enough, that the industry is doing enough to regulate itself. Your Judges have spoken. The people who's whole education, whole career is based on interpreting the constitution have ruled that doing so would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1211813)

<font color="plum">One thing getting lost in this discussion is the fact that these games don't harm JUST the child, but other members of society as well and - by extension - society as a whole. You can claim (rather pompously) that I am trying to force my own set of values on others. I see it as common sense that a game designed to reward the protaganist for breaking laws of society is a bad idea.</font>

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1211818)

<font color="plum">No, <font color="red">Luvian</font>. Our court system determined it was uncostitutional to censor these games.</font>

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212037)

The Irony of coming to a video game website and crying out for a video game to be banned. I cried a little.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212044)

So the sociopath who stabbed somebody while stealing their taxi is an expert on whether or not video games cause harm to society? It must be true because he said so? Classic. LOL

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha (Post 1212038)

You make my point beautifully Chewie. As sensationalist as I could ever hope for. I don't recall anywhere in this thread that anyone declared the need for a ban on any games. The need for better regulation in a system that obviously is flawed, yes. That, perhaps the creators of games might entertain some notion of self-regulation in releasing content into a system that is KNOWN to be flawed in it's regulatory powers, yes. But I haven't seen anywhere that someone has said BAN GTA or anything of the sort, aside from Cerek's post at the beginning. As for why GTA is linked as part of the problem, read the bloody article!

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212052)

What system is flawwed how?

Are crimes committed before GTA also caused by GTA through some mysterious time warp?

Which parts of the brain are altered by GTA thereby causing anti-social behavior?

What processes are used to determine a cause and effect relatioinship between GTA video games and societal violence? What independent experts and associations agree with these processes and their findings?

Have any of you actually playyed through a GTA game?

Anyone have more than hot air?

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212052)

What processes are used to determine a cause and effect relatioinship between GTA video games and societal violence? What independent experts and associations agree with these processes and their findings?

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha (Post 1212038)

I don't recall anywhere in this thread that anyone declared the need for a ban on any games. The need for better regulation in a system that obviously is flawed, yes. That, perhaps the creators of games might entertain some notion of self-regulation in releasing content into a system that is KNOWN to be flawed in it's regulatory powers, yes. But I haven't seen anywhere that someone has said BAN GTA or anything of the sort, aside from Cerek's post at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel (Post 1212065)

I think Cerek's post at the beginning counts, actually. Can't think of any reason it wouldn't. And many here have called for some kind of regulation, which, I think, is "anything of the sort".

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel (Post 1212065)

And how is the regulation system obviously flawed? The games clearly state on them that they are not intended for kids. It is, in many places, illegal to give them to kids. The kids still play them, yes, but the system is not any more flawed than the system for the distribution of any other product. I have personally witnessed people under 18 drinking and smoking. How are video games different?

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212044)

So the sociopath who stabbed somebody while stealing their taxi is an expert on whether or not video games cause harm to society? It must be true because he said so? Classic. LOL

Your wrong FSA, I'm no sensationalist. I do appreciate the irony though.

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1212068)

<font color="plum">It does count, unless of course you look at all of my subsequent posts where my position changed to suggestions that manufacturers self-regulate and simply produce different games where the characters actions don't center around breaking established laws of society.

But I did say "banned" at first, so let's not consider anything said after that. :rolleyes:</font>

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1212068)

<font color="plum">This has been exhaustively addressed. Not all stores or merchants enforce the regulation system. Even if they do, there are ways around it. Since children will obviously get their hands on the games regardless of any regulations put in place, it makes sense that manufacturers should simply not produce these games to begin with. I realize that's a fantasy, but I can always hope corporations will someday develop a conscious.</font>

Originally Posted by Cerek

<font color="plum">Several studies show exposure to aggressive stimuli increases aggressive behavior and here is one example where that behavior was carried to the most tragic outcome possible. The child/young adult in this example was harmed by blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality.</font>

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1212070)

<font color="plum">Well, <font color="orange">Chewie</font>, you were the one who stated in a different thread that "ONE example of a child being harmed is too much."

Several studies show exposure to aggressive stimuli increases aggressive behavior and here is one example where that behavior was carried to the most tragic outcome possible. The child/young adult in this example was harmed by blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality.

Perhaps you should reconsider your position on this issue given your position on the earlier issue. ;)</font>

Originally Posted by Bungleau (Post 1212069)

For the record, I *have* played GTA. 3 or 4, I think... 'twas at my brother's, a couple of years ago. I did not play it through, so that will count against me, I'm sure. However, I did notice that after playing for a couple of hours, when we headed out to dinner, I drove *much* more aggressively than usual... kind of like I was driving in the game. One subjective incident, to be sure, but one that tells me that on some level, I was more into the game than I really realized.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212077)

Just like people get "amped up" after watching a movie, a concert, or a performance. You took resposibility for your amped up feelings and regulated your behavior like normal healthy people do all the time everywhere.

Originally Posted by Jaradu (Post 1212078)

And you can link to as many studies you want showing a correlation between video games and violence, but there are just as many studies concluding no correlation at all. At best, the research is inconclusive.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212076)

It's obvious you haven't played the game and that you don't know much about how video games are marketed or sold.

Originally Posted by Iron Greasel (Post 1212064)

Yorick: What was that first post about? The first quote seems to say, behind all the psychological terminology, that people can learn from example. The second seems to state that psychologists do not know how this actually happens. The third one describes "game theory", which, to my understanding, doens't have very much to do with violence in video games.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1212076)

It's obvious you haven't played the game and that you don't know much about how video games are marketed or sold. Correspondingly, comparing GTA with easy to use, widely available handguns is simply ridiculous.

Anything and everything aggresive may or may not influence people to be aggressive, but very little if anything can take away an individual's determination of choosing action.

Allowing sociopaths to blame their behavior on a video game( or anything else) and citing this a proof of a societal problem is a great victory for sociopaths everywhere.

Take Care!

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1212093)

<font color="plum">
As for the example of your stand on handguns, you claim that even ONE accidental death of a child is sufficient reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment, to simply erase a fundamental portion of our Constitution. If that's the case, it stands to reason that even ONE death attributable to a video game promoting agressive criminal behavior should be sufficient to halt production of that game. </font>