UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games
- Thread starter Timothy Chang
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Terrible idea. While many parents are lazy, this takes away the decision of whether or not a game is appropriate for an individual minor AWAY from the parents. You know your 16 year old is very mature and reasonable and decide he's ready for GTA? NOPE, government knows your kid better than you do.
And how would they even enforce this? The government would have to monitor what games people buy and play.
And how would they even enforce this? The government would have to monitor what games people buy and play.
Yea yea I know everyone thinks this guy is a moron. But we also know lazy parents are the first ones to argue that violent games are damaging to children, when they refuse to even look at what they are buying their kids.
So, anyone got a better idea on how to punish them, or at least make them aware? I understand this guy is trying to get to the root of the problem, but this is not the way. I mean, finding out if kids are playing them in the first place is kind of intrusive in what goes on in people's households, and that's something we don't want isn't it.
So, anyone got a better idea on how to punish them, or at least make them aware? I understand this guy is trying to get to the root of the problem, but this is not the way. I mean, finding out if kids are playing them in the first place is kind of intrusive in what goes on in people's households, and that's something we don't want isn't it.
But how do you prove, beyond any doubt, that the game was behind the crime? Kids, if they possibly can, will blame someone else for their actions. Christ, even adults do that. If a kid steals, it is more likely it was the company he was with that influenced the act, not GTA. If he beats up someone, I highly doubt it was because he played Final Fantasy XIII when he was 15 or Skyrim, when he was 17.Jodah said:
I don't believe violent games lead to violence. I believe there are crazy people out there, who will do crazy shit regardless of the entertainment they had. There are thousands of criminals in the world who have committed crimes and never played M-rated video games, as there are thousands of people in the world who have played violent games and never even ran a red light.
Parents need to take responsibility when they buy games for their kids, but they should not be blamed if a kid commits a crime. With your suggestion we could always blame parents for anything anyone does, because we could just swing "bad parenting" at them. Someone stabbed a fellow commuter? Must be bad parenting, lock up mum and dad. They should have done their job better.
Why the child? If the parents are responsible for giving a game to the kid, then surely by your standards, the kid is innocent.
I don't think the mature themes are a problem at all. But I think there's a number of problems that all seem to merge together. In my opinion, they are:
1.) The fallacy (or phallus-y *rimshot*) that children can't handle the imagery and themes.
Children with good parents can indeed handle it - This is nearly all children. It's the ones with chavvy and neglectful parents who allow their games console to become the childen's nanny.
2.) How to separate idiotic children from the rest of us:
There's no workable way to keep games away from impressionable children with neglectful parents other than allowing retailers to refuse sale if they think that sloppy parenting is going on. Parents get the final say in their purchases - but the neglectful ones - parents of screamin' kids only see the game as a means to keep little Johnny Boy out of their hair and ignore it when they make a nuisance of themselves for others.
The screaming shitheads we see on X Box Live aren't raging about war, sex, violence or anything like that. They're just raging that they got beaten by better players. This can be remedied by not including headsets in the next console or by putting in an auto-mute function.
I do think that ideally, idiots shouldn't be playing the games as they cannot take being bested by others.
3.) If all else fails:
If there's enough legitimate complaints about a single gamer from the community at large, their console gets banned from Live. While this system is already in place - it's simply not staffed by enough people.
Failing that, if gamers cannot be trusted to play the game without turning into arseholes - we're all going to have to rely upon referees and adjudicators. Someone glitching, bitching, boosting, cheating or generally being an arse - Ref'll boot 'em out of the lobby and hand down a three day ban or something.
Why not invite these various moral guardians at PEGI or wherever it is to monitor exactly what goes on in the games - should be an eye opener for them and a corrective jolt for any griefers or screamers.
While my ideas are ham-fisted and possibly ill-concieved - it's still better than sending folks to prison for sloppy parenting.
1.) The fallacy (or phallus-y *rimshot*) that children can't handle the imagery and themes.
Children with good parents can indeed handle it - This is nearly all children. It's the ones with chavvy and neglectful parents who allow their games console to become the childen's nanny.
2.) How to separate idiotic children from the rest of us:
There's no workable way to keep games away from impressionable children with neglectful parents other than allowing retailers to refuse sale if they think that sloppy parenting is going on. Parents get the final say in their purchases - but the neglectful ones - parents of screamin' kids only see the game as a means to keep little Johnny Boy out of their hair and ignore it when they make a nuisance of themselves for others.
The screaming shitheads we see on X Box Live aren't raging about war, sex, violence or anything like that. They're just raging that they got beaten by better players. This can be remedied by not including headsets in the next console or by putting in an auto-mute function.
I do think that ideally, idiots shouldn't be playing the games as they cannot take being bested by others.
3.) If all else fails:
If there's enough legitimate complaints about a single gamer from the community at large, their console gets banned from Live. While this system is already in place - it's simply not staffed by enough people.
Failing that, if gamers cannot be trusted to play the game without turning into arseholes - we're all going to have to rely upon referees and adjudicators. Someone glitching, bitching, boosting, cheating or generally being an arse - Ref'll boot 'em out of the lobby and hand down a three day ban or something.
Why not invite these various moral guardians at PEGI or wherever it is to monitor exactly what goes on in the games - should be an eye opener for them and a corrective jolt for any griefers or screamers.
While my ideas are ham-fisted and possibly ill-concieved - it's still better than sending folks to prison for sloppy parenting.
I don't think you understand the situation. Those people aren't the people that would be effected by this. Those are the victims they're trying to defend. The people this is trying to fight against are people who understand and trust their children enough to know that they're probably not going to turn into sociopaths by playing mature games, and that when they were a kid, they watched movies they probably shouldn't have, and they turned out fine etc etc.RatRace123 said:
IE, all the sane people.
In the end, it should be the parents call what's right for their child. Alcohol is one thing, it actually kills, all the time, and can wreak havoc on a developing person, and we have years of impartial evidence to support that. Pornography? Sure, it's crude, but I imagine any kid that wanted to look at porn was physically ready to look at porn and I honestly don't think it hurts as much as people say, but I'll grant them that.
But R-Rated movies and Video Games?
Seriously? Sure, they may seem distasteful, and if you want to raise your child in such a way that is opposed to such things, more power to you. But every piece of evidence they have against movies/games is spurious at best. The best research indicates there's no real solid causal link, and the fact that violent crime goes down and down as the game industry gets bigger and bigger, it's easy enough to argue a case that violent games are GOOD for children. I wouldn't make that case, but it could be made, with more actual evidence then the current anti-games lobby has going for itself.
Parents need to be informed. They need to make informed choices about the things they buy their kids. That's why these rating systems are a good thing in principle, because before the rating systems, there was really no way to know except maybe the box art. Now every questionable thing in the game (broadly speaking) is put right on the box, so you can make an informed choice. After that, it's really up to the parents, and unless they can show hard evidence that violent games in fact lead to prolonged violent behavior, fuck them for even suggesting such a brain dead idea as arresting parents over this shit - as people have no doubt said, your parent getting arrested has a much stronger causal link to criminal behavior later in life then video games ever could.
And a bit of a jerk as well. I mean: "Innapropriate for the kids". I feel that is up to the parents to decide. Continue running campaigns to increase awareness is good but prosecuting parents, who I feel should decide for their child, is taking it a step too far. There are irresponsible parents, sure, but prosecuting them will just throw the whole thing into contention again. Parents will say "we didn't know" or "why do they even make games this violent" and someone will suggest an even more radical thing to do. So yeah, I'm against this.The Lunatic said:
Buying your child violent video games is not bad parenting.
Not properly teaching your child how to handle those, ignoring your child or simply not caring, however is. And that you won't be able to prosecute parents for, unfortunately.
Not properly teaching your child how to handle those, ignoring your child or simply not caring, however is. And that you won't be able to prosecute parents for, unfortunately.
The problem here is idiots having kids in the first place. license to breed is the only real answer.
Yes, so right but I think next time someone gets stabbed we need to sue the shit outta every knife manufacturer in the world, after all they are supplying deadly devices to anyone with some cash. Same goes for gun makers, car company's and booze barons. If it wasn't for a-holes like this guy, we'd be able to build The Device and all would be right with the world but no, this twat thinks he can solve every little problem that doesn't exist.Torrasque said:
ps The Plunk I would like it if retailers had the power to refuse a sale to a parent that they have reason to believe is buying a game for their under-age kid. (e.g. if the retailer saw one saying "Is this the one you wanted, Timmy?)
I've seen Game and GameStation do that here in Scotland, so they can but just won't.
As has been mentioned before, many parents seem incompetent when it comes to parenting and then proceed to blame all their bad decisions on others.
I really think that imprisoning parents is hardly a sensible thing to do. But on the other hand, I think we're all a bit sick of parents buying their kid a violent game and then blaming ALL gamers when their little Johnny goes out and tries to cut someones fingers off saying "the game made me do it".
I think it should simply go like this-
If you buy your 10 year old a hyper violent game which is rated for 18 year olds, you waver all right to complain when your kid shoots you in the leg with a nail gun.
I really think that imprisoning parents is hardly a sensible thing to do. But on the other hand, I think we're all a bit sick of parents buying their kid a violent game and then blaming ALL gamers when their little Johnny goes out and tries to cut someones fingers off saying "the game made me do it".
I think it should simply go like this-
If you buy your 10 year old a hyper violent game which is rated for 18 year olds, you waver all right to complain when your kid shoots you in the leg with a nail gun.
yes! because raising your own kid is your own responsibility, as long as you follow our precise instructions and take all the blame when shit hits the fan!
ratings are cool tool for a parent - not an ultimate guideline.
my parents were very wise when it came to restricting my games - they were fine with games like baldurs gate when i was 9. because they knew i could take it. they took interest in games that i played, even tried some out. they saw my reactions during gameplay. they were actively searching information about games in game magazines. they didnt mind me playing above my "age bracket" as long as they thought it wasnt mindless violence, but actual mature content. i actually think it helped me grow up.
now here comes SOME person who obviously believes HE KNOWS BETTER THAN ALL, who will take no responsibility for his actions AT ALL because why should he - its not his kids.
see, im for blaming parents when their kids does something stupid because of bad parenting, but RESTRICTING parents will not help. if a parent thinks his kid can handle a mature book, he can allow his kid to read it - none will stop him, hell, some schools will even FORCE the kid to read mature books. but games, whoooo its so different. because we know kids dont give a damn about books right? so it wont leave an impression.
even issuing a fine would be stupid. they do that already for "adult" adult stuff now dont they? why wont we leave it at that?
ratings are cool tool for a parent - not an ultimate guideline.
my parents were very wise when it came to restricting my games - they were fine with games like baldurs gate when i was 9. because they knew i could take it. they took interest in games that i played, even tried some out. they saw my reactions during gameplay. they were actively searching information about games in game magazines. they didnt mind me playing above my "age bracket" as long as they thought it wasnt mindless violence, but actual mature content. i actually think it helped me grow up.
now here comes SOME person who obviously believes HE KNOWS BETTER THAN ALL, who will take no responsibility for his actions AT ALL because why should he - its not his kids.
see, im for blaming parents when their kids does something stupid because of bad parenting, but RESTRICTING parents will not help. if a parent thinks his kid can handle a mature book, he can allow his kid to read it - none will stop him, hell, some schools will even FORCE the kid to read mature books. but games, whoooo its so different. because we know kids dont give a damn about books right? so it wont leave an impression.
even issuing a fine would be stupid. they do that already for "adult" adult stuff now dont they? why wont we leave it at that?
Agreed. It's getting a bit ridiculous how many different restrictions and punishments governments are trying to bring in lately for things like this. I understand he's trying to make parents take responsibility for what they let their child do but why punish them because their kid might become abusive and violent and all that other stuff.Berithil said:
I sincerely hope not. Then again, I heard that we're going to start legally enforcing the 12 rating, so maybe society is collapsing after all.Nicolaus99 said:
OT: That is the most asinine, completely fucking mad idea ever. If this law was to be implemented, surely any parent who lets their child watch the news should be arrested because of the fact that that has violent material in.