Stu wrote:
I don't if you guys have figured it out, but there are enough people that buy into Yack Thompson's load that he can keep going. I.E. He has people supporting him.
We are an interesting bunch. We were gathered together out of a love of an online comic. AN ONLINE COMIC! Of course we are all going to be on the side of video games. But there are a lot of people (read, enough) that are willing to accept what Yack has to offer as absolute truth.
Personally, I can see the truth in what he is saying. People are a product of 2 things (at least that I can see)... their environment, and whatever genetics does to make us what we are. Most people aren't born violent, it takes years of training. Video games do help with this. But so does neglectful and/or abusive parents, poor choices in peers, and examples from others. Media (movies, tv, video games, books, etc) would fall into this category.
Kids, especially young kids, are impressionable. They are going to mimic the things they like. If that is playing violent video games, their is going to be that chance. It doesn't mean that you are going to simulate everything you do in a video game, but you might do something that you wouldn't do under normal circumstances.
Why do you think we have laws about where cigarette/alcohol advertisements can be placed. Why do you think we have laws placing age limits on cigs/booze. I haven't even touched the "S" word.
But the problem is with Yack's solution. We shouldn't be going after game developers. This is a free country, we have this thing called "Freedom of Speech". I believe that it also covers "Expression". To shut down the game companies would be the same as shutting down the tobacco farms or beer plants. (If they didn't fund so many politicians, I am not sure that they would still be around).
The solution in my mind is a couple things.
First, we need a real rating system. Something that describes to parents what is on that little piece of plastic (aka cd-rom).
Second, we need stores that will actively monitor this rating system. If a game is 16+, those kids had better be 16 when they buy the game. If they aren't 16, then their parents need to be the ones buying it.
Lastly, (if you couldn't guess) parents need to be more involved with their kids lives. They need to know the content of the game that they just purchased for their kid. They need to be able to say to that kid, "No you can't have that game, it is too violent for our tastes". I truly believe that it is a parents right to govern that part of their childs life.
But that rant was completely off-topic. Toastpainting...
I find it disgusting, but predictable, that Yack would attempt to turn something like this into another argument. Soon he will be filing lawsuit on behalf to the kid's parents against the forums. Ignorant people will get whiff of the errant yahoo story, and will follow along. I just keep hoping that people will figure it out. It isn't just the video games making your kids violent, it's you.
Woah, you just owned at being the devil's advocate. I agree that people
have to be buying this stuff or he wouldn't be quazi-famous. I also agree on the point of better regulation of the sale of violent video games, kids my brother's age (9) and younger emulate what they think is cool, if that thing is running over 10 people and then beating a hooker for money then we've got a problem but it doesn't mean that the sale of video games should be barred to people under a minmum age.
I think Jack should be forced to sample gamer culture and see that we arn't all degenerates living (or destined to live) in our parents' basement.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
do You live by a terrorist bunker or something?
