[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3934277.stm

Am i the only one that gets annoyed with the moronic statements that come out whenever it emerges a young criminal had a computer game?

I mean, firstly it's an 18 rated game - he shouldn't even have the ****ing thing.  And if he does, it's the fault of the parents / seller.

Secondly, if it was possible for a computer game to somehow warp people into killers (etc), surely we'd all have been killed by a crazed 12 year old by now?

Finally, how you could place the blame on one thing?  Why this game, and not a movie he saw when he was 16, or watching too many episodes of Neighbours (which would induce just about anyone to a homicidal rage)?

It really pisses me off, because it's not even worthy of a debate.  Every time this comes up, it's always because some kid got allowed to play a game, or watch a film, which he or she was too young to legally own.

 But someone always takes the easy option of scapegoating a faceless corporation, rather than the parent / guardian (i.e. the person that bought the game for the kid), or the shop / shopworker who sold it (i.e. if the kid bought it themselves).

[kasperl]

aldo: You forget one thing: who said anyone bought it?

Seriously, this is redicioulous.

[an0n]

To be fair, I currently agree with the morons.

If you expose children to things and they commit a crime, it's the fault of the person who exposed them and everyone who allowed them to be exposed to it. Though I wouldn't put it down to a single game, rather a general haze of violence.

So, I'd blame the corporations for targetting violent scenes at children (and it's a computer game, so they obviously were) and I'd take the kid away from the parents for the gross negligence they've shown.

[Turnsky]

ah, this old rhetoric.

y'know, if the stupid parents for these equally stupid children actually took the bloody time to actually see what their kids are buying out of video game retailers, perhaps a lot of this useless *****ing would be avoided..

that said, for pete's sake, it's only a ****ing game, that boy's prolly a fair few beers short of a carton to NOT tell fantasy from reality..

[an0n]

I'd like to point out the relaxation of censorship laws on TV (IE, more tits and ass) and a rise in teenage pregnancy.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by an0n
To be fair, I currently agree with the morons.

If you expose children to things and they commit a crime, it's the fault of the person who exposed them and everyone who allowed them to be exposed to it. Though I wouldn't put it down to a single game, rather a general haze of violence.

Which would be whoever was responsible for buying it / allowing an underage person to play it.

Originally posted by an0n
So, I'd blame the corporations for targetting violent scenes at children (and it's a computer game, so they obviously were) and I'd take the kid away from the parents for the gross negligence they've shown.

I would think that it's a fallacy to presume every game is targeted at children, especially given the fact that the 18-25 (and older) age group is becoming a key demographic (especially when you consider said age group doesn't usually have to rely on pocket money).... the fact that you're getting games like Manhunt is evidence of this area being targeted by publishers / developers.  

 Regardless of that, there's a rating/control system in place, same as anything else with a potentially damaging influence upon the young (movies, Tv watershed, alcohol, arguably driving, glue/solvents, etc).

If a 16 year old gets pissed and stabs someone in a pub fight, you don't sue the beer manufacturer, you sue the person who sold them that beer. ( If you really want to sue someone, that is ).

And of course, there's this other case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3680481.stm - which is even dafter.  Why, for example, were a 13 & 16 year old allowed to not only play a game above their age limit, but also able to get hold of guns?  

More importantly, how ****ing stupid would you have to be to not realise that shooting wildly into cars, or smacking someones head in with a claw hammer, was somewhat dangerous and wrong?  If anything, games show the consequences of such actions - a fairly horrible death - in a way that people can't otherwise experience (excepting the obvious way of actually doing them for real).

The question is, do we ban violent videogames becomes some already mentally imbalanced adolescent may - illegally - obtain and play them and develop a bizarre blood lust?   And if so, does that mean we ban driving games (encourage speeding),  football games (could lead to dangerous tackles), RPGs (could lead to multiple personality disorder), etc?

[jdjtcagle]

...
That's stupid

[kasperl]

I'd like to point out a lack of sex-ed and the amount of teenage pregenancy.

[jdjtcagle]

There is NO lack of Sex-Ed here!!
We use to have teachers every Wednesday and Thursday

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by kasperl
I'd like to point out a lack of sex-ed and the amount of teenage pregenancy.

Arguably, the latter is evidence that some people do fine without the former (?!)

[kasperl]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
There is NO lack of Sex-Ed here!!
We use to have teachers every Wednesday and Thursday

US or UK?

And was it any more ed then "don't do it"? Or actuallly "If you do it, use a rubber, and here's how you put one on."

[karajorma]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
There is NO lack of Sex-Ed here!!
We use to have teachers every Wednesday and Thursday

Sounds like you have a child abuse problem then Teachers should not be "having" pupils on a bi-weekly basis. Even if it advertised as a perk of the job

[Col. Fishguts]

He said they "have" the teachers....so it's more of teacher abuse problem

[an0n]

Sex education at my school consisted of (it's paraphrased, BTW):

Nurse> So, I need a volunteer to.....*pulls out the plastic dong*
an0n> Metcalf! Oh, dear God! Somone hold back Metcalf! I do NOT want to see him give a detailed demonstration of how to properly fellate a plastic penis. For the love of GOD, someone stop him! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
* an0n falls to his knees, screaming at the sky
Nurse> Do you want to come up here and teach this?
an0n> Nah. Too lazy.

Then there was some stuff about a monk and her husband. I forget the specifics.

[Flipside]

The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - killing people using weapons like hammers and knives.

I may be being a big Mr SIlly here, but surely there are lots of murders commited with these weapons by people who have never played this game, they are sort of 'standard murder kit'.

[an0n]

[q]The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - killing people by leaping into the air and bouncing off their heads while making a strange, musical tone.[/q]

[Flipside]

The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - by digging a large hole under his victims feet and once they have fallen in, pushing a large rock on top of them

[an0n]

[q]The way Warren committed the murder is how the game is set out - killing people by consuming a large, white ball then turning and pursuing his victims, stopping only once he had devoured them whole, leaving only the eyes.[/q]

[Gloriano]

Well sometimes games affects to kids so much that they want "test" usually those kids already have some mental proplems and when they play Violent games something happens.

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah. Once again I see this as a case of putting the cart before the horse. I think we need to be honest with ourselves: Young boys like to kill and destroy things. I'll bet you anything that if most of those kids didn't have violent video games, they would just run around with toy weapons pretending to kill each other, because I know that's what I did. At the same time, though, I never would have dreamed of actually hurting someone. A kid who actually goes out and kills people is mentally disturbed, and probably could have been treated beforehand.