How about, instead.

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my child's cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)


You're still putting some pretty harsh words in the mouths of others, utterly failing to prove any point at all other than that you'll start flailing your arms and making absurd and over the top statements when you can't get around common sense or point of law.

Originally Posted by OKCCrime http://www.okctalk.com/images/vbe2blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.okctalk.com/okc-underground/12806-violent-video-games-do-they-harm-our-youth-5.html#post142586)
How about, instead.

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my child's cold, dead hands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)



whoa. That was unexepected.

I'm pretty confident that that won't happen with me .... my supervised child will be in the house playing video games instead of out running the streets dodging gunfire.

making absurd and over the top statements

Hmm.. You mean like these over the top statements?



I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will
automatically make them serial killers.
[/QUOTE]



y'all know what would really be good for the children? We should require
all parents to mount security cameras in their homes so that the state may
monitor them to make sure they're being good parents. That'd be really
great for the children!


and ironically the worst over the top statement of all:



What's with the quest to blame a (relatively) new media on societal ills?
Are you Sam Brownback? ZOMG!!!GTA KILLS BABIES!OH NOES!!!!!


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The funny thing is that our statements taken out of context aren't nearly as silly as the ones you've made (obviously I'm being normative, not descriptive). For what it's worth, at the time, we were discussing the potential absurd results of "for the children" legislation.

My statement there kind of sums up the endgame of your line of thinking -- if you think it's a compelling interest of the state to protect children from maybe seeing something they shouldn't because you don't trust the parents to do it, what exactly makes you stop short of setting up cameras in homes?

Undoubtedly, if our homes allowed the government troopers to see in, the children would be safer. What articulable and predictable limitations do you put on your proposed "for the children" legislation?

-- at least no one accused you of being a fan of hard core porn.

Huh? I don't see anywhere in the article where the author states anything like "violent crime among those under 18 should double". Please point out where the author or any other respectable scientist makes such a prediction on crime rates attributable to increases in violent video game playing.


Page 12, the text and the graphs about predicted risks. Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that the text is saying that x number of kids are actually getting involved in fights, violent behavior, etc. and that it matches exactly the predicted risk of that occurring and that the predicted risks are greater for someone who is being exposed to violent media, especially for those with a predisposition.

Does anyone know the sample sizes here? Are we talking about 10 kids or 10,000?

The individuals most at risk (and the topic of discussion in the thread) are children. Adults may be able to better separate in-game learning, and real-world learning because most adults try and logically think through their actions in advance. Children tend to just act and those actions are based on their past experiences. It is not unreasonable to believe that past actions learned in a video game would influence real world behaviors, especially for younger children. As you argue, the evidence is flawed, but why take the risk when there are so many non-violent entrainment options for children?

Why take the risk of teaching a kid how to hunt when he might feel the thrill of killing a living animal and go on a murderous rampage later in life? Why not lock away all the guns? Why take the risk of teaching a kid how to swim or boat or canoe when he runs such a greater risk of drowning when out on the water? Why take the risk of letting a kid ride a bike or a skateboard when their risk factor of injury and death is so much greater, why not keep those things away from them? Why take the risk of letting a kid play physical contact sports when their aggressiveness might increase and the risk of them breaking their back or otherwise injuring themselves increases probably by double?

My point is that life is one big set of risks. Some handle it better than others. Some are dumb and take things more to the extreme than others. It's all one big series of trade-offs. With each risk there is some reward of some kind, even with video games. How about we all take the article and topic for what it is and we all control all of our own kids the way that works best for us and call everything good.

Computer geeks (http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/288096.htm) can be violent too.

"Computer geek robs liquor store!"

"Computer geek in hostage stand-off with police!"

"Computer geek involved in cross-town car chase!"

"Computer geek assaults innocent man!"


Yes after all we see these types of headlines every day. :) I'm being tongue in cheek. Sure there is some element in every crowd that has its violent riff raff. My point was that I can almost guarantee you that 0.000000000000000000000001% is about the size of that crowd in these computer gaming circles. That being the case, my conclusion is that the risk prediction for these groups would seem to be somewhat flawed.

Can you give us some examples where horrible legislation aimed at protecting children has been passed into law?

You're joking right?

[QUOTE=OKCCrime;142529]I almost expect a post in this thread something like

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)[/QUOTE

Just about. The 1st Amendment, IMHO is much more important to liberty than is the 2nd.

(but they're both important)

There's a reason why it's #1.

Worse than stripper threesomes enacting lesbian sex? I guess that I'm really missing something by not watching TV.

Dear God don't turn on MTV then whatever you do. Tila Tequila would have you reaching for the glycerin pills.

Yes! Exactly the problem. It's subjective.

That's the problem with psychology as well... it is an art, not a science, because it is far too subjective to be described as such. Taking data samples and examining climate trends vs. trying to predict human behavior just aren't even in the same category. And even if they were, one peer reviewed study would not even be close to enough to sway the scientific community.

The funny thing is that our statements taken out of context aren't nearly as silly as the ones you've made

OGTS said "GTA kills babies" ... no context will help him out of that over-the-top statement.



-- at least no one accused you of being a fan of hard core porn.

I never accused you of such a thing. In fact, I apologized for not being specific enough in my statement. I see how my statement could be misinterpreted. If you can't accept an apology (a rare thing on this forum), I don't think we should continue.

OGTS said "GTA kills babies" ... no context will help him out of that over-the-top statement.

You thought he was being serious?

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

This has been a great discussion on a pretty sensitive subject (apparently). We could probably dissect everyone's argument line by line endlessly, but in an effort to maintain some semblance of civility perhaps we should all take a deep breath, step back and not let it get too out of hand or too personal.

Internet version of counting to ten ?

This has been a great discussion on a pretty sensitive subject (apparently). We could probably dissect everyone's argument line by line endlessly, but in an effort to maintain some semblance of civility perhaps we should all take a deep breath, step back and not let it get too out of hand or too personal.

Internet version of counting to ten ?


Karried, are you saying that the use of Internet message boards may increase the risk of violent thoughts and/or behavior? ZOMG what if there are children here?!

We need to pass some laws! The owner of this site should be forced to pay thousands of dollars to verify all of our ages! Laws should be enacted to toss anyone who doesn't do this in the slammer and throw away the key! If you don't agree with me then you are with the terrorists!

Do it for the children!

Okay there was actually a point to my last post. We've been talking a lot about risk factors here. Well let me give a brief lesson in Risk Management 101. It all boils down to exposure to risk, which quite simply is: likelihood of failure vs. consequence of failure.

Say you manufacture cars. There's a problem that occurs 1 in a million times, and if it actually occurs the consequence of that failure is that you might lose a few miles per gallon of fuel efficiency. Do you fix it? PROBABLY NOT.

Now say that problem occurs 1 in 2 times, but the problem is still just a minor fuel efficiency problem. Do you fix it? MAYBE!

Now say the problem occurs 1 in a million times but the consequence is the car explodes. Do you fix it? MAYBE. Maybe you mitigate it instead.

Now say the exploding car problem occurs every 1 out of 2 times. Do you fix it? ALMOST CERTAINLY.

The point here is that those in favor of increasing federal regulation are focusing entirely on potential likelihood of an increase in violent behavior (which I don't buy, but I'll accept for the sake of argument). The thing is, as best I can tell from what has been discussed here the consequence could be as mundane as a child 'acting out' or maybe getting into a childhood fist fight. I'm sorry, but those consequences are not significant enough to warrant a draconian increase in law enforcement.

We address one "pressing concern to save the children" after another and pretty soon we live in an Orwellian nightmare. So I (and many like me) choose to fight any and all oppression wherever it might be.

Midtowner,

When I first stated that "Alan Isaacman would be proud of you." I wasn't being sarcastic. We both know that Mr. Isaacman is a great defender of our freedom of speech. You have been vigorously defending the same rights in this thread, admirably so. I truly meant it as a compliment. I was hoping that it would end our sidebar on the topic of obscenity so as to get back to discussing violence.

However I can see that my second comment regarding Hustler readers was poorly worded. As I said above, I did not intend an implication that you were "a fan of hardcore porn". My only intention was to emphasis the point that in order to defend first amendment rights, you must fight to protect some of the, in my opinion, worst speech around - pornography (Huster magazine) and gratuitous violence (GTA). Similarly, my over-the-top use of Heston's trademark phase was not helpful to the discussion. I should have resisted but the thread was already littered with inflammatory and irrelevant comments such as those that I pointed out.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I'll agree that we shouldn't restrict first amendment rights based on too little evidence or solely on claims of potential harm. However, because of the potential seriousness of the harm, we need to give the issue at hand its due diligence in an impartial analysis and be willing to re-evaluate as additional evidence comes to light. Your fight against oppression through restriction of speech is honorable, but would be equally distressing to live in a society that overly favors individual rights to the detriment of the health and well-being of those individuals. A balance must be struck and zealousness on either side won't benefit anyone.

Thus, as I said before, I am honestly glad to have had the opportunity to discuss this issue. I am certainly leaving it with a broadening of my perspective on the issue.

While I believe in free speech, it seems there are more and more people collecting at the bottom of the bucket trying to make a buck, staying just on the right sight of the law by hiding behind the rights that you are vigorously defending.

Is that supposed to be a statement of irony, contradiction or one that is a downright oxymoron?

You've pretty much been championing censorship and campaigning in this thread to make all forms of entertainment and communication watered down to be friendly for a 5 year old audience.

A problem I see with GTA is that it contributes to an erosion of the notion that citizens and neighbors, i.e., should respect others as well as the law.

For a child who has not yet internalized that the people are to be respected; violence should be avoided when peaceful means suffice; and there is a smarter way to live besides having sex with as many people as possible and taking things just because you want them, there is a real danger that their judgment and moral development will be negatively impacted. You can't get those images out of your head once they are there.

Good parents will teach a child how life works and those same good parents aren't going to allow their child to be exposed to GTA when they are too young. Poor parents won't/don't and it is just one more way to train a child to be a savage. Is there going to be a crime wave as a result? Probably not. Is it going to change our culture? I'd say yes, particularly in the area of relationships between the sexes. For mature audiences, it is a fun fantasy. For kids, not so much.

I wish I could show the board members what I see at work. So many beautiful young girls are out there pandering their bodies for love and attention with anyone who will notice them. The disrespect the boys have for the girls is shocking. The girls think sleeping with any guy who asks them to is the way to be accepted. They are full of diseases, risking pregnancy, their self esteme is in the toilet, their education is being disrupted and they don't connect the dots to see that their lack of self control and discretion is ruining their lives. The boys think it is great. GTA encourages young kids to believe this is normal behavior but the kids frequently don't get it. Many girls are repeatedly used and cast aside. They don't understand it. They are filled with remorse.

Back in the day, most teen males wouldn't have gotten close to a self respecting female with a ten foot pole. These days, that same guy is bragging to his buddies in excruitating detail about what the girls do just because he asked. Buddies are lining up. It is soul killing.

It may not be a crime wave but take a look at the STD rates in teenagers and they tell the tale. Am I opposed to premarital sex? Not really. What I am opposed to is the exploitation of young females who don't have enough sense and dignity to understand that they aren't in control when they are sleeping with any guy who looks their way. They DON'T understand that. Unwed pregnancy is the number one cause of poverty. Abortion is no picnic, either and I listen to girls weeping over prior abortions on a regular basis (I just listen - ther is nothing to say other than I'm sorry). They are filled with guilt, remorse, second guessing, etc. A woman in her twenties/thirites may make an informed decision and not look back. A 14 year old generally is told what to do and spends years wondering if it was the right thing. She asks questions after the fact because no matter what information was given to her at the time, she is not able to really understand and make peace with the decision at her young age. Moreover, it usually is not really her decision in the first place.

Any erosion of a young female's likelihood to think twice before sleeping around is not a good idea. This particular post isn't about a teen having sex after the prom with her boyfriend (a time honored lapse in judgment that is not the end of the world, usually). Instead, I am focusing on a culture of pervasive sexual promiscuity being promoted by some of these games and a lack of respect for women. Gangsta rap has a lot of the same themes. The girls are paying for it because they are too young and foolish to realize what they are doing. Moreover, the girls who are trying to use good sense have a much harder time saying no when so many other girls are out there going to town with whomever. Teens want to be accepted. That culture makes it all the harder for kids to make smart choices.

There was a line heard from an old man who said that boys will do what boys will do and it is up to the girls to sort them out. At the time, I thought that was an extremely sexist statement. However, the older I get, the more I think there is wisdom to it. The girls need to be sorting out the wheat from the chaff before they risk desease and pregnancy. Anything that erodes their self worth to the point where they aren't doing that is a problem for all of us. I worry that GTA is contributing to a culture that does not respect women and their right and reponsibility to make good choices. Boys should also make good choices but the fact is, they aren't the ones paying the price at the same rate.

Again, you make valid points.

However, I am just not sure that the scenarios above can be contributed to playing video games.

There are so many other factors involved.. it's unfair to point to one reason (video game play) being the culprit.

I agree with all you say about young girls being sexual objects at a younger and younger age. It's been a downward spiral since as long as I can remember.

Every day I thank God I have boys and boys that I can talk to ( much to their embarassment) about condoms, stds, unwanted pregnancies, you name it...

But I will say, having opportunities to have an open dialogue are often presented in the very medium that many don't agree with.. ie questionable movies, or even video games.

It's easy to say, ' you know that's the wrong thing to do don't you? You know the consequences of that action would be a lifetime of child support or stealing cars puts you behind bars".

OKCCrime, I will concede that I have honestly taken your arguments into consideration and will work more diligently with my youngest son to ensure that he isn't overly exposed to big brother's interests.

Simply put, the world can be a very ugly place.

One of the mandatory jobs of parents is to prepare their children to know how to live and thrive in a world that is frequently harsh, violent, over-sexed and ugly.

Simply hiding all the ugliness away from the kids is an absolute dereliction of duty and a profane insult against the dignity of those kids. At some point those kids have to be properly prepared in how to deal with all the negative imagery they will be bombarded with in life. That demands parental involvement and frank discussion about very uncomfortable topics.

If all a parent has done was hide all forms of sex and violence from their child until they were 18 and left that person who is now an adult to just find out about all that stuff on their own after being so suffocatingly sheltered then that parent is one worthless piece of garbage as far as judging parents is concerned.

Inform and educate your children. Don't just shelter them. Don't be a worthless COWARD.

I thought the book "Grand Theft Childhood" was a very good book on the subject, though it left a lot to be desired.

Some people are just too wound up... Saving our Children from the Bible: The V-Chip Applied to the Scriptures - By Brian McKinley (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/vchip.html) is what happens when you take protecting your children from sex and violence to its logical conclusion(You would need to censor the Bible).

The reality is, is that children are exposed to a lot more today than they ever were before. With the Internet and other technology, 14 year old children need to be able to deal with situations and people that our parents didn't have to deal with until they were out of College.

As a parent you have a responsibly to prepare your children, not shelter them.

Me personally, I have been playing violent first person shooters as long as the genre has existed. There are not many people in the world that has played them as much as I have. The last time I hurt someone was in the 4th grade, which was before I played wolfenstein 3d.

Every violent situation I have been exposed to since then I was able to keep my cool and find a way out of it. I have been assaulted 4 different times since then, and was able to protect myself and stop the assault each time without hurting the other person.

You don't win these violent video games by going crazy and mashing the trigger butter, you have to be able to think, plan, keep a steady aim, and not panic while being presented with violent stimulus. One could make an argument that the video games train you to suppress and control your violent nature.

My experience is just my own though, it doesn't apply to anyone else. :)

Kids are going to get exposed to sex and violence - no question. But the mere fact that they are going to be exposed to it, anyway, doesn't really change a parent's responsibility to practice discretion and good judgment. You don't want to take your 8 year old to an X rated movie, for example. How many of you would like to play a game that has X rated images and behavior, including the objectivication (I made that word up, I think - at least the spelling) of women, with your 10 year old daughter? Imagine the images blown up on a big screen TV in the middle of the living room - or perhaps the bedroom - just the two of you. If that creeps you out, you might want to think about how wise it is for young people who really haven't developed a sense of what is appropriate to be exposed to this stuff.

Saving our Children from the Bible: The V-Chip Applied to the Scriptures - By Brian McKinley[/url] is what happens when you take protecting your children from sex and violence to its logical conclusion(You would need to censor the Bible).

Ah yes.. that's a great point. The Bible itself is more violent than GTA IV -- it's filled with murder, genocide, brutal killing.

Maybe these parents ought to be protecting their kids from the Bible?

Ah yes.. that's a great point. The Bible itself is more violent than GTA IV -- it's filled with murder, genocide, brutal killing.

Maybe these parents ought to be protecting their kids from the Bible?

That is the best place I could find for "dirty" stories when I was a kid. I looked very religious sitting in the pew hunched over the good book reading about deviant behavior... EEEWWWW - they did WHAT? Gross. Okay, then what happened...?

Kids are going to get exposed to sex and violence - no question. But the mere fact that they are going to be exposed to it, anyway, doesn't really change a parent's responsibility to practice discretion and good judgment.

Some parents don't let their 9 year olds watch pokemon or powerpuff girls because it is too violent.

Some parents don't let their 9 year olds watch pokemon or powerpuff girls because it is too violent.

Parent's choice - that is a pretty harmless restriction and not one I'd bother to second guess. Now, Hannah Montana - if they kept a little girl from seeing HM, that would be child abuse!

I don't envy parents and the burden they have to carry in properly raising their children. Too many have their hard work undermined by the "cool kids" at school.

But at the same time, we have "been there, done that." Those of us who are old enough to have kids reaching high school graduation age know a lot of the lines of B.S. and other games because we played them ourselves. I think a lot of the matter comes down to most people choosing to avoid an unpleasant confrontation over doing something that is for the best interest of their child. Like I said, we are cowards when it comes to raising our kids.

You gotta have the "stones" to be willing to let your teenager hate your living guts for a few months on end -and even push things farther than that. As long as you don't let up the lessons will eventually sink into their thick skulls.

Teenagers think they know everything and believe they are experiencing something completely different in their time of growing up versus that of any previous generation. They think us "old people" don't know s#!+. It takes balls to tell those kids they're being stupid fools for believing that nonsense. Setting those kids straight is even more important than ever before because in this globalized world economy any mistakes on their part are going to cost them more dearly in the future than what their parents and grandparents had to pay for the same stupid mistakes.

What about all the children who were not properly raised(if raised by anyone at all), yet did incredibly well as adults?

Terrific post, Bobby!!

As to the question of why some kids make it with terrible parenting - my personal opinion, based upon my work, is that it is impossible to tell. However, some things I see are that kids who tend to do well and overcome lousy parenting share the following characteristics (these are things that exist as a shield even when the parents are lousy):

They have good basic protoplasm (i.e., they aren't bipolar, primarily, but depression and other mental illnesses are also a problem. ADHD is highly overated, IMHO, as something that causes a child to fail. It DOES make things harder. All the same, I personally think a lot of parents use that as an excuse for junior being out of control and nothing you can say will change their mind because they don't want to face the fact that they aren't doing their job and have given up. That last about ADHD will set people off, I'm afraid.

They manage to avoid substance abuse (this frequently goes hand in hand with basic good protoplasm since you avoid the need for self medication).

They are the types that seek out a mentor if their parents are crappy, i.e., a neighbor, aunt, grandparent, etc.

They can read and enjoy it (being able to read sometimes indicates a brain circuitry that gives them the ability to think things through instead of just reacting). This is huge.

They are healthy, in general.

They were full term at birth.

They like school or feel successful in school.

They believe in something beyond themselves, be it a religious belief, an altruistic streak, the desire to help others less fortunate, animals, etc.

They have younger siblings whom they try to protect (develops a sense of responsibility and empathy - not that they should have this heavy burden).

Their defective parents are too strict rather than too lenient.

They tend to be empathetic and kind from an early age.

They don't become sexually active before about age 15.5 and when they do, it is with a peer in a romantic-type of situation rather than something casual.

Also - they aren't sexually abused at an early age. A lot of kids "function" after this happens so it is not exactly on point to the post. However, their internal happiness level is severely and negatively impacted even as adults. After being sexually abused, a lot of kids begin acting out - promiscuity, substance abuse, hating school, etc.

My two cents.

Now what about the children who were raised in a perfect home with perfect parents, yet are total screw ups today?

Or.. what about identical twins with the same genetics, same environment, yet totally different?

Heavens, I don't know other than that it happens. A lot of times mental illness hopscotches through a generation hitting one brother and leaving the other - maybe that might contribute. Some kids are favored while some are the target child for abuse. We see parents coddle and spoil a particular child to the point where he/she simply can't function on his/her own all the time. It drives the responsible siblings nuts.

I think personal responsibility is the key.

Perfect example: Teens Steal From Girl Scouts from That Happened! (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/470f7bf1c2)

There is nothing a parent can do to raise a child as bad as that, some people are just bad cause they want to be.

It doesn't matter what happened to you, someone had it worse and still managed to make better choices than you did.

Even if I am wrong and it is 100% in the parenting skills, than my pushing of personal responsibility happens to be a pretty effective way to parent. The only screwups in this world are people who want to blame other for their own choices.

One of my grown kids once thanked me for not making excuses for her when she messed up. She was distressed that a dear friend was completely messing up her life and that her friend took no responsibility for her own choices - it was always someone else's fault, fate, life or whathaveyou. Daughter pointed out that unless and until the friend realized that she had control over the decisions she was making, the friend was just a floating target for misfortune. By taking responsibility, you have power to change. When we teach kids they are victims, you take away their intiative and realization that they can take steps to fix a bad situation and make their lives better.

I went back and watched the tape. Sadly, that is not really surprising, to me. A lot of kids that age lack a sense of decency. I honestly think part of it is that their brains are not developed. Get them in a room, apart, away from each other and the tv cameras (on camera, they can be rock stars) and the remorse will probably kick in. Or not.
It honestly doesn't shock me. I see this all the time working at court. It is one of the reasons I tend to be fairly conservative - I see everyday how depraved people can be. I used to believe that people who were poor were primarily victims and the poor things would be nicer if life was just nicer to them. Not anymore, at least not without more information.

Hard to feel bad about the sucky lives of so many who are NOT victims of misfortune - Many are stone cold, mean spirited, predatory cons who won't work and don't care for their families and not because they are downtrodden. In the paper we read about "assaults," taking place, for example. What we don't read are the details - horrific, humiliating, mutilating attacks inflicted out of pure meaness. Most of us are nice people. We tend to not believe that people standing right next to us, who seem pleasant, may not be. They may lack a conscience, entirely. The percentage of sociopaths in our society is a lot higher than the public realizes. They don't take responsibilty for their children, they don't consider the needs and happiness of their mate, they'll steal from their neighbor or employers and they'll con grandma out of her last nickel if someone isn't watching them. And sleep soundly at night.

Most people are poor because they are mentally ill or because they choose to be by not working. At the same time, I see people being wonderful on a regular basis, too so I don't want this post to be completely negative.

Do games harm our youth?

I'm only 12 but if you keep asking these stupid questions I'll cut you.