Poll: But What If They're Right?

[Rajin Cajun]

I bet I could say that nearly 100% of all cancer patients have eaten cheese. Thus, cheese could be a link to cancer. But, of course, that's ridiculous.

My favourite point along those lines is that 100% of cancerous tumour biopsies find Dihydrogen Monoxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide] (DHMO), an industrial solvent, in the tissues. So obviously we need to regulate dumping of this dangerous chemical...

-- Steve

Curse you, Dihydrogen Monoxide! You killed my great aunt! And you cause massive amounts of erosion and property damage every year. Bastard.

Didn't someone in Australia actually try to get that banned once after a constituent jerked them around saying how dangerous it was?

 

[Dealin Burgers]

Frankly, I'm in favour of such warnings. Parents may think twice before buying their twelve year old a violent game, and anything that decreases the number of sqweaky voiced mic-spammers is perfect in my opinion.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Then it goes back to kids shouldn't be playing those games, they have ratings for a reason.

No they don't. They have ratings for no reason and there is no reason whatsover why kids shouldn't play any game they want to. No one has ever found any causal link between violent videogame playing and real world violent behaviour - none at all. That means that videogames are no more dangerous than toy guns, G.I. Joes or action figures, all of which are toys built for kids to act out violent fantasies.

And while I wouldn't buy GTA IV for my five year-old daughter, I wouldn't avoid it because of the violence (which is in all likelihood completely harmless). I would avoid it because she is too young to play it. As soon as she's old enough to work the controls, she will be able to play such games BECAUSE THEY ARE HARMLESS.

When I see warning labels on action figures and toy guns, then I might be willing to consider warning labels on video games. But if it gets to that point I expect we'll see warning labels on everything, because everything under the sun has a potential danger associated with it, and a nanny state would insist on warning us of all the possible dangers, however unlikely.

Your point of view aside, the ratings DO have a purpose. They exist to give parents and buyers a greater degree of information regarding their purchase. The problem of course is that parents generally don't seem to pay attention to these labels or feel the same way as you. How many pre-pubescent children do you encounter in a normal game of Halo 3 or Call of Duty (both games are rated M)? I don't recall having any significant income other than that which my parents provided at that age and could only play what they would allow. If parents choose to let their children play the games then that's fine - I see no harm coming from it. If parents choose to ignore the issue altogether that's their perrogative. I only take issue when someone says "but we didn't KNOW it was violent".

First you pass responsibility to video games. Then parents absolve themselves with ignorance. As though ignorance were actually some sort of grand defense (I didn't KNOW it was illegal to write hot checks! Honest!)

 

[ForrestDixon]

If you look at video games and TV you will relize... If you dont like what you see trun it off and dont watch and play. Video games cant hold a gun to someones head and pull the trigger. In all realality its you that makes the final decision not the game. The game may make you think about violent things but cant make you do it in the long run.

Sorry didnt get to finish that yesterday.

"Here are the real issues here, parents in this generation didn't have parents to raise them so have no CLUE how to raise children. To top it off they don't want their children held responsible for their actions.

If a child (above the age of reason, I'd say about 10) steals a car and runs down fifteen people it's a mix of his parents and the child.

The kid might never have played GTA, but THAT'S what the news will blame.

Society is too soft on children now, I say we start smacking around the ones that need it again, some kids are too stupid to learn without the immediate physical pain (only thing that ever worked on me." asinann said


Yes thats all fine and dandy but you obviously have never been truely abused now have you???
Im not saying that it is abuse but if you have been abused its a totally different story.

 

[GonzoGamer]

After a long commute, video games help diffuse the pent up anger I have about needing to spend an hour and a half of my day on the subway in intimate contact with the biggest slobs in this city.

So lets review. Video games prevent random outbursts of violence. Stupid Politicians on the other hand are the leading causes of random outbursts of violence.

 

[swift tongued]

Its like the warnings on cigarettes just because some people say its bad doesn't mean everyone going to stop, smokers still smoke and gamers will still play video games.

You're probably right, but this way, if a little kid goes out and shoots up the neighborhood because he saw it on GTAIV, the kid's mother can't try to pin it on Rockstar.

Then it goes back to kids shouldn't be playing those games, they have ratings for a reason.

Of course not. I'm not arguing that. The way it stands, though, the ratings system is more of a suggestion than a warning. It says "Rated M, you shouldn't play this until you're 17", not "Rated M, children shouldn't play this because it contains violent content that has been linked to violent behavior in the real world."

It's a system that puts developers and gamers both at risk, and it needs to be changed.

A suggestion to whom? The kids can't buy a game by themselves. If the parents don't approve of the game the children can't buy it. In anycase my favorite part of the article is when the congressman say, "Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people." I love how general the statement is. People always say "research", but when ever they give an example it has mor holes in it then Pumice. I think the best thing to do is put differently rated games in different sections of the store. Even the stupidest of parents must get worried when they see their seven year old boy in the "Mature" section of the store.

 

[klarax]

I blame parents... Sorry, but if your kid plays a game, then kills someone, he/she is fucked up in the head. Games dont kill ppl. Bad upbringings do.

 

[Chickenlittle]

I'm for. Those who play games and are old enough to buy the games themselves have nothing to fear. This will, however, stop some of the 8-year-olds from getting their hands on Grand Theft Auto and Gears of War type games. Some, but not all. As for those of us between 8-16/18, Big. Fucking. Deal. Go on your computer to play games. You already are. Chances are you've found a couple flash sites, or some online 3D FPS games or such. I myself am 18, and haven't played a console games that wasn't made at least 4 years ago. Or go outside. Get a job. Study, it helps, I know. You can't just sit on your ass and be successful in life.

I agree that the parenting is the base issue, but Congress is highly unlikely to prevent adults from becoming parents. That would just increase the homicide and infanticide rates.

 

[Epifols]

Are you people serious?!

Just because overall crime rate went down DOES NOT MEAN THAT GAMES ARE NOT DANGEROUS! Hell, it's possible that every person that plays a violent video game 5 hours a week commits homicide and the overall crime rate could still go down. So that graph showing the crime rate going down is total shit.

Second of all,

There _is_ a correlation between being exposed to violence (TV, real life, video game, books) and being violent. But there _is not_ causation. This means that for all we know, being violent might make you a gamer, not the other way around.

Damn, I hate statistics and the people that use them to lie.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

for all the "proof" and "unbiased" info out there that everyone in the media seems to think proves kids are more aggressive and anti-social because of games needs to take a look at Grand Theft Childhood . This a book written on research showing the minimal effectsof videogames on thier players as well as some of the benefits.