- Dec 19, 2004
- Reaction score
Good point about Star Trek TNG. Of course keep this in mind. Why did they tell their son to take a good look? Because they are a warrior society, and he wanted to prepare the boys for a violent existence. The same reason Samurai boys were exposed to violent death from an early age, to desensitize them to it and prepare them for a life where violent death was normal. Not sure we want to teach our children this lesson.MACaver said:If you had a 12 year old child and you came across a grisly murder scene of violent death and dismemberment, would you allow your 12 year old child to view that scene if you could prevent it? Why or why not?
If I can prevent it of course I would do my best to avert their eyes, turn them away, send them out of the room ... whatever! In a scene from Star Trek TNG The mother of Worf's child was brutally murdered. Worf and his son walk in the room and see the body. Instead of turning the child away he told his son to take a good look. Well, that's Klingon culture for you. But we're human and while we (seem to be) a very war-like species we still would not (and should not) allow children to see such things. For me it's not civilized and it's not moral. Kids know there's a war going on in Iraq, they know that people are being killed everyday by suicide bombers. They know this information.... surely they don't need to see it (the images available on the internet) do they?
MACaver said:Still, the ultimate problem is parents not parenting. Of course, that's fine for me, I parent. I have no control over how the morons down the block raise their children.
Not quite the point. I'm not concerned with my children playing with the kids down the block, because they are not going to. It's what the children down the block begin doing at 12 or 14 whenever the parents that have never controlled their behavior let them run free, namely steal my property, burglarize my house, rob the liquor store on the corner. Them playing with my children isn't even on the list. What they think of me is pretty clear. My real moronic neighbors don't think of me as a moron, they think of me as an ******* for my lack of "tolerance" of their state of being.MACaver said:No, you don't... but you DO have control of who's kids your kids play with, don't you? Mebbe you cannot prevent them from associating with them while at school. But you can forbid and hopefully they'll obey. You can deny them sleep-overs and visits. You still retain the right of who your kids play/associate with.
Oh and remember this... the "morons down the block"... they might think the same of you. :wink1:
That's exactly my point. Just as I feel it should not be illegal for adults to purchase adult pornography, I believe that violent video games should be treated as what they are....adult games. Children should be shielded from those games until they are adults.Tulisan said:Absolutely....boy, talk about pointing out the big pink elephant in the room...
I'd like to add that given my fairly libertarian viewpoint, I am not for outlawing violent games. Just let parents do the parenting, propigate the warning labels that are in place, and don't let kids under 18 buy games with certian labels. All this is mostly to make parents aware. I feel that a major problem is that parents aren't aware of the effects that these games might have on the developement of their kids, so they pretty much let their kids own whatever games they want.
But to seriously argue that games like these don't play a role in desensitization to violence is silly and irresponsable in my opinion. Why not just simply tell the truth, and say something like, "Violent video games could play a role in desensitizing people to violence, which is why that even though I like to play them for a variety of reasons outside of the violent nature of the games, I don't recommend them for kids or teens." That, to me, would be much more of a responsable arguement.
And there is a fine line between the two. Violence is not just simply violence. I've played Halo and Halo2. You kill aliens who are invading your planet. That's violence on one level. Then in Grand Theft Auto you play a criminal who shoots police, has sex with hookers and kills people for enjoyment and personal gain. There is a qualitative difference between types of violence. I tried playing GTA. On a personal level I don't enjoy "role playing" the kind of character glamorized in the game. It's kind of morally repulsive, even as just a game. If I find the actions being role played morally repugnant, and I find myself morally resisting the actions of controlling that character, what are the effects on a 12 year old boy who learns to view those actions as enjoyable?arnisador said:We let my son get Halo and Halo2 this weekend. But, I might've drawn the line at Grand Theft Auto. No theory, just a parent's intuition about the effects of such influences.
Sure, we as parents become concerned when our children enjoy role-playing the idea of killing even obviously evil enemy characters in a game, such as Halo. How much more disconcerting is it to hear them enjoying the death of a police officer or a hooker in a game like GTA. There seems to be an invisible line there somewhere that we have crossed well over.arnisador said:I suppose so...but, my wife and I hear them saying Kill This, Kill That for hours on end. It's bothersome. They generalize it--they talk about killing in Pokemon, where of course they merely 'faint' (to keep it PG), or killing robots.
We speak to them about their choice of language, but it's hard to fight it.