I understand how quite a few game hackers would be in favor of a ruling like this, but if these are truly your convictions, I would like to see some video (not screencast, video) of your 12 year-old son playing some game with his mostly nude, thoroughly adult female character slavishly hacking on the corpses of other characters. Is that normal?
I was in an ethics discussion in my military surgical program and started to see how the effects of these policies. Full disclosure: a number of my friends have died in the current conflicts, starting with the Pentagon on 9/11. One of the situations we were posed with, by staff who were there, was this:
CIA officers approach you, as a doctor, in Kandahar, with a captured informant-turned-double-agent. They want you to give him Ativan so he'll talk. They tell you he knows where a weapons cache is that could be used against Americans. You say no, there's no medical indication. They say, if you don't, they'll torture him and get the information anyway. You're role will only cause him more pain or less.
The overwhelming consensus of medical students, interns, and residents was to give him the Ativan. Three of us took the opposite position: you can't let people cajole you into making moral decisions based on threats. Then your just complicit.
The irony was that the majority consisted of essentially everyone who hadn't thought about these problems before. In the minority of three were two of us with prior service, and the philosophy major.
Here's the point: video game violence develop a shitty moral compass. It's just shit. I don't care if it points in the right direction or the wrong direction. I, your comrade in arms, don't know where it's going to point next time. And that's not the guy I want be sharing a tent with.
So enjoy your expanded access to an audience willing to pretend they understand violence. Moral consistency matters. Reliability matters. You can look forward to further international embarrassment when they grow up to make the wrong, randomly wrong, decisions behind the trigger or, worse, at the voting booth.
Edit: Look, I'm all for the first amendment. I took an oath to defend it, and I carry a copy of the Constitution with me everywhere. I read it regularly. Genuinely, I support the ideas in the opinion. My concern is that waiting in the wings around this particular opinion, there's a lot of unscrupulous adults salivating over the opportunity to take money from my kids in exchange for making my job as a parent, doctor, military officer, etc, harder.
Edit 2: For those asking for evidence: here is the American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Media Violence, which includes abundant (3500) references if you would like to dig deeper: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1222.ful...
Preview of that statement: "The strength of the correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior found on meta-analysis is greater than that of calcium intake and bone mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, condom nonuse and sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus infection, or environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer."
Edit 3: I would like to point out that here is a thread full of programmers justifying, essentially to themselves, why their industry is best off with less regulation. Do you extend your arguments to other industries gray areas? Meat processing? Tobacco? Defense? Isn't "corporate self-regulation" best for everyone?
While your point may or may not be true - I fail to see how this pertains to whether the state should be involved in legislating morality? I feel that if you picked some other moral issue - say gay marriage for instance - the majority of us would be of the opinion that the government has no business telling gays that they can't get married because its "immoral." But on this issue its okay for the government to dictate what's moral because you happen to agree with it?
How easily we seem to be willing to trade freedom for comfort when we agree with what's traded. Certainly I wouldn't want a 12 year old's perception of reality to be entirely shaped by video games, but that falls to sound parenting and not the government.
That being said - I'm not entirely sure I even agree with your premise, I grew up on Doom, Wolfenstein, etc which were graphically violent for their time and have turned into a successful well rounded "moral" person.
but that falls to sound parenting and not the government
Exactly this.
I recently found out that my 10 year-old was viewing online porn on my computer. I didn't go out and start lobbying the government to make porn illegal; instead I sat down with him and had a talk about it without freaking out.
The legality of any given act and how I want my kids to consider it are two completely different things. I think violent/sexual video games should be completly legal, but my kids won't be playing them (well, not in this house anyway :-) until I think they're ready.
I agree with this. Not only that, but isn't the whole reason game ratings are on the games, so that parents can know the intended audience for the game without knowing about it?
It's the parents responsibility. Plain and simple.
More than likely if the parents don't care if the children play it, odds are they're not doing a lot of things as a parent. It's not the responsibility of the government to become parents. Look at the mess they've made trying to do that with other things that obviously don't work, the drug war for instance.
Condensing constitutional law to the question of "legislating morality" is an incredible oversimplification. Of course the government legislates morality. That's why it's illegal to kill someone, make CP, and put certain context in broadcast media. The government is concerned with more than simply reducing social harm, which is often trumpeted as the opposite role of government instead of "legislating morality."
The real question is, can the government legislate this morality? How much protection is the legislated-upon action given by the Constitution, and how restrictive is that actual legislation?
Well this is taking a sharp turn into the legal and philosophical - both arenas in which my knowledge is woefully inadequate - but as I understand it, laws against killing people have nothing to do with morality. You can't kill a person (or make CP) because it infringes upon a certain set of "natural rights" which are supposed to be universal and self evident. There isn't a moral judgement involved. You are committing an criminal act by depriving the murdered/exploited person of their rights regardless of any moral context.
Now theoretically you could go a layer deeper and suppose that those natural rights are themselves based on a certain group or culture's morality judgement, although that would be contradictory to their essence as "natural"
"laws against killing people have nothing to do with morality. You can't kill a person (or make CP) because it infringes upon a certain set of "natural rights" which are supposed to be universal and self evident."
Governments kill people all the time, and do so quite legally.
Some governments do it more than others. But, as far as the US government is concerned, it happens to have the one of the world's largest contingent of hired killers. And they spend more money than all of the rest of the world combined to train them to kill and to facilitate killing and on giving them the means to do so.
And this doesn't even begin to cover the vast array of other people and situations in which killing is not only permitted, but considered a duty -- from police killing a some suspect trying to get away or resisting arrest to your average homeowner killing an intruder in their home, etc..
So when you talk about "laws against killing", you're really talking about "laws against certain kinds of killing in certain kinds of situations" and also "laws that specifically allow or even require killing in certain situations".
While most societies do have laws against "murder", what that usually boils down to is "certain kinds of illegal killing". Precisely what qualifies as "illegal killing" and what in which situations killing is allowed or even encouraged varies from society to society and certainly from individual to individual (take pacifists and believers in non-violence vs soldiers for example).
You're right, but there's a sliding scale of rights, which can't be better demonstrated better than in 1A law. The way that the scale, and many other gray areas of rights, is determined, is greatly influenced by morality.
I love the number of replies who have claim to be well-rounded "moral" persons. A little bit of selection bias there, eh? Granted I must be victim to the same bias. Thus the anecdote. The point is that if you haven't been faced with the actual situation, a video game can only be a bad substitute.
Ya, that is why I put it in quotes. Who is to say what truly is moral? I'm sure there are some things which we can universally agree on, but others maybe not so much. Morality is a relative thing. Personally I tend to follow the non-aggression principle which I feel puts me on fairly solid (though not infallible) ethical grounds.
Are movies or books an acceptable/good substitute? All this ruling does is give video games the same freedom of speech protection that movies and books have.
Agreeing with this decision doesn't mean that you believe that one's own 12 year old should be able to play the game. You can certainly believe that a decision about what games are appropriate can be left to parental discretion without believing that its the role of the state to act in loco parentis on video game selection and supersede parenting decisions.
And you wonder why you can't hire enough good employees, and why there's a mismatch between skills and jobs. It takes a village to raise a child. The village can provide an invaluable service in reinforcing parenting decisions.
If a village decides that, yes, it is a good thing to prevent kids from this and you should all do your part to help, how is that different from a government?
You can tell the members of the village to piss off if you disagree with them but government are the men with guns who can make you do whatever they want.
Alternatively any group of humans above the Dunbar number will be constrained to use blunt rule based systems, but below that you can take the circumstances and the persons involved into account.
That's assuming that being a programmer or whatever you're referring to is related to education and not something that you're born able to do or not able to do.
I just interviewed a CS grad from a great school with 10 years experience who could barely write a line of code let alone do something useful for my company. The village didn't do him much good from where I sit.
I'm less interested about his coding abilities, than his ability to lead a team in 3-5 years. Leadership requires a strong ability to do the right thing.
It fascinates me that people think the government is some kind of replacement for the village. I grew up in a community. The community gave me access to many things but never coerced me to participate. I chose what I wanted to do.
What kind of childhood did you have where you think the same people that require you to act a certain way at the threat of violence should be your saviours?
Let's say your community had a store. And the town council voted that your store shouldn't sell violent video games to the children. Is that wrong? Conversely, would it be wrong to dissent?
"video game violence develop a shitty moral compass"
Do you have any evidence of this (a study, etc)?
Having played video games in my youth (and still dabble), I don't believe that it's affected my "moral compass."
In fact many "violent" video games are chucked full of ethical dilemmas (e.g. Dragon's Age, Mass Effect, Fallout). You're confronted by choices that have consequences. As a 15 year old in America, how many complex moral/ethical choices do you really get?
So, to lump in all games into one category b/c of violence or sex or whatever is ridiculous.
I actually have heard studies claiming the opposite, violent video games decrease violent behavior in real life. There're studies on the sharp drop of youth violence from late 80's to now, correlating to the surging popularity of video games (including violent games) during that period.
It cites studies from the '70s for its most important claim:
"Prolonged exposure to such media portrayals results in increased acceptance of violence as an appropriate means of solving problems and achieving one's goals.14,,15 "
It then spends several paragraphs treating the conclusions of these studies done in a very different era as a modern given.
And later:
"Research has associated exposure to media violence with a variety of physical and mental health problems for children and adolescents, including aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, fear, depression, nightmares, and sleep disturbances. More than 3500 research studies have examined the association between media violence and violent behavior; all but 18 have shown a positive relationship.26"
Look at the title of #26 and honestly tell me you'd trust its claims if you had access to it.
I don't know if I want to keep going with this. It doesn't seem worth the effort with how shoddy it is so far.
> Look at the title of #26 and honestly tell me you'd trust its claims if you had access to it.
because it violates your local social norms? What if I changed it to "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Smoke: A Call to Action Against Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco"?
I give people with an agenda less weight even if I agree with them. You're deriving weight from someone deriving weight from someone with an agenda rather than making your own arguments. It's a pyramid scheme of poor citation.
I would like to see some video (not screencast, video) of your 12 year-old son
(Note I have raised children who now range in age from 30 to 11, so I have dealt with things like this for a few years)
I am cautiously in favor of people selling a video game as you described to whomever they wish. Or not selling, if they have moral qualms about it.
I am not in favor of my 12 year-old son playing a game such as you describe.
You do see the difference between a parent making a reasonable and informed choice, and having it made for them?
hey want you to give him the Ativan
I am not a doctor, this is a question honestly asked. Wiki claims Ativan is not addictive for short-term use.
From my POV, you give the guy the stuff to relax his inhibitions, he spills the beans. Or you don't and some deniable non-Americans torture him for the same information.
Can you explain your thinking on this? If not, that's cool, but I am honestly curious.
It's not my place to make another parent's job hard. Or easy.
I don't expect or want the government to tell me what my kids can, and cannot see. That's my job, my burden. It's what I signed on for when I had kids and got married.
And part of our burden is having the conversation. Part of our burden is trying to make the society we want our kids to live in. I frankly have no problem with slapping Gamestop with some hefty fines if they decide to start selling scantily clad, dripping-with-blod warrior princesses to my kids for $19.95.
Do you apply this to other mediums, such as movies? They are also self-regulated, so theoretically your kids could also purchase "scantily clad, dripping-with-blod warrior princess"-themed movies from a video store that isn't following the industry regulations.
"I am not a doctor, this is a question honestly asked. Wiki claims Ativan is not addictive for short-term use."
The issue is that giving someone drugs without their knowledge or consent is akin to rape. Especially when you're talking about a drug that's fairly dangerous.
"I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your metaphor."
Why? When a rape victim commits suicide, is that somehow worse than when someone who was dosed with drugs without their knowledge or consent commits suicide? E.g. Alan Turing, Frank Olson, etc.
"I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your metaphor."
> Why?
* People are dosed with medicine all the time without their consent, or rather with parental consent or others acting as guardians. Rape .. not so much.
* And visceral reasons that I acknowledge are not logical but are very real to me: rape is _the_ crime I loathe most of all.
There are other possible final outcomes to rape/drugging...
I too think that the metaphor sucks, not because one would be worse than the other, but because I don't think they can be compared. One is mostly physical, partially emotional intrusion, the other is intellectual... They are both about the most shitty things that can happen. You can only hope that the drugs are powerful enough that you don't really remember what happened.
"not because one would be worse than the other, but because I don't think they can be compared."
If you want to look at it qualitatively, I would argue that there are a wide variety of different types of rapes, and an equally wide variety of different types of forced drug consumption. So I'm not sure you can even compare within the same category.
But what I primarily meant when I said they were comparable is that one should approach them both from a similar normative ethical perspective.
> Here's the point: video game violence develop a shitty moral compass.
No, shitty parents develop shitty moral compasses. Take your pick about shitty information sources: TV, video games, the internet, trashy magazines/newspapers. If that's where you learn about normalcy, you're going to have a shitty moral compass.
Yes, there are also cases of great parents having shitty kids, parenting is a complicated and messy business. My point is that if you can actually say one source (e.g. video games) is developing a child's moral compass, that's shitty parenting.
I'm not vain enough to believe that my moral compass is The moral compass for all.
This is also not a community safety issue until I see the study that shows a statistically significant change toward aggressive/violent behavior in children who play violent video games.
I hope this doesn't mean that you're claiming one can't be a good parent (and raise ok children) in a shitty community...
I for one don't agree with what most people do in my community, and most everywhere around the world. Not that I'm a saint who never cheats, lies or steals, but I am true, I don't pretend I'm someone I'm not, and I don't much care about looks, money, fame and other irrelevant things in life. Most people around me do the opposite, and care only about their perceived status in the group, would sell a friend for pennies, and pretend they care, but never really listen. I filter most of these people out of my life, and don't have many true friends that I would spend a lot of time with.
This only makes me more motivated to instill really strong moral values in my future children.
I'm not arguing for imposing morality by means of physical violence. But you can be sure I would be happy to impose a hefty fine on Gamestop if they start selling AO games to my kids.
Additionally, good parents engage by example. I can't tell you the number of times people have asked how my daughter was able to do <awesome scientific achievement>.
Somehow, she managed even with the existence of and playing of (gasp) video games! And with such shitty parents that didn't have a well-meaning bureaucrat telling us what to do.
There is a big difference between having the freedom to do something, and actually exercising that freedom.
I find it extremely distasteful that the state thinks it can raise my children better than I can, and that it can decide what bad/good parenting is. That being said, obviously some parents are bad parents (by most standards), and would allow their kids to play very violent games, but a prohibition like this would do nothing to prevent this (bad parents would find innovative ways to raise their children in a bad way).
To give a similar example: from a very early age, I was taught how to properly consume alcohol by my parents (through moderation), not by the state (through prohibition). And I find such laws, e.g. in the US where kids are not allowed even to drink alcohol, ridiculous.
So if one agrees that drugs should be legalized then I should be excited about my 4 year old daughter using crack? They're not even connected things.
Games in particular would be easy for younger kids to get if they knew an older kid who could buy them. When I was 18 I would have bought anyone a game because I like games and don't seem them as harmful. Maybe that isn't the best thing to do (I wouldn't do it now probably) but I definitely would have done it at that age.
I don't think legalizing violent videogames for minors is equivocal to both a) legalizing drugs, dangerous ones (crack) included and b) legalizing drugs for minors, but I guess I do see your point.
At what point do we decide that someone is 'mature' enough to play a violent videogame? Is it a different age than when we think they could use drugs 'responsibly' (in a world where they were legal)? A more obvious example would be alcohol. I would let my children (n.b. I do not currently have children) play a violent videogame, but I would not let them drink a six pack. I see the drugs/alcohol as putting them more in direct physical harm (most likely where they would hurt themselves, or overdose, etc.) than violent videogames. People thankfully can't overdose on violent videogames (except the people who died in Korean internet cafes playing WoW, but I think that's a different topic altogether).
Given that someone can't physically hurt themselves with a violent videogame, I would allow a much younger child access to them than I would drugs or alcohol. We could argue whether or not there is any mental/emotional damage, but I think we can agree that whatever mental/emotional damage there could be from playing violent videogames at the age of 12 as much as one wants, it would be much less than the mental/emotional damage of letting a 12 year old have unlimited access to drugs.
It's a bad idea to keep citing the same thing over and over, especially without tying it into the discussion. Otherwise people will focus on the rampant flaws in the link and ignore what you're saying.
I disagree with your assertion, but fair enough. Done. Why don't you actually go find any evidence at all. Show me that violent video games make my kids better citizens.
Edit: it's not a strawperson. People are biological systems. Spending 3 hours a day with something makes one better or worse, stronger or weaker, faster or slower, never the same. It's sort of like a business: if you're not making money, you're losing it.
"Edit: it's not a strawperson. People are biological systems. Spending 3 hours a day with something makes one better or worse, stronger or weaker, faster or slower, never the same. It's sort of like a business: if you're not making money, you're losing it."
I'm not going to say "violent games good, you stupid. Me win argument." I'm going to say they can be good or bad depending on circumstances, just like any media.
The phrase he uses statistics like a drunk not for illumination but support comes to mind. Look at the methodology and read the original research it is inadequate.
oMG do it for the children is no reason to abandon the scientific method.
Right, but is it your premise that 4-year-olds should legally be allowed to purchase crack? That's the relevant discussion, not crack availability to adults.
There might be some good to it... Making drugs legal makes drug business less dangerous and risky, which in turns makes drugs cheaper, which in turn lowers the dealers margins, which in turn makes them less interested in selling drugs... Not saying that this will reduce the access to drugs, but it will probably reduce the active search of new users
It takes a village to raise a child. At some point I, and every other parent in every part of every city, needs to send my kid out to pick up a gallon of milk as a test of their maturity, and know that they're relatively safe from having to make other very costly decisions along the way.
On his way to get milk, if your son stops along his way, a movie theater won't let him in to see an NC-17 rated film, and they won't let him see an R-rated film alone without your consent. A video game retailer won't sell him an AO-rated game, nor will they sell him an M-rated game without your consent. Online game marketplaces have parental controls and gates which rival those used to block streaming of R+ rated commercial films. Why should the law have to double enforce this already deemed successful institutionalized self-policing?
I think, then, that it is the duty of the parent to prepare them for those decisions deemed likely to be encountered. Restricting the potential moral dilemmas that a person (child) may encounter does no more to prepare them for that eventuality than does exposing them to the risk of that experience without adequate preparation.
If we protect them from making difficult decisions when they're 12, they'll be forced to learn to make difficult decisions when they're 18 or 21 or 22, when bad decisions have MUCH worse consequences.
> If we protect them from making difficult decisions when they're 12, they'll be forced to learn to make difficult decisions when they're 18 or 21 or 22, when bad decisions have MUCH worse consequences.
But, when they are 18, 21, etc., they will have developed more mentally and emotionally, and should (should) be better equipped to make those decisions than when one is 12.
(note: in this post I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the topic at hand, just providing a counterpoint to what you said)
Development that has been stunted by forcing a child down one path without critical thinking and active decision-making on their part will _not_ result in an adult equipped to make difficult decisions.
That's very interesting, Neils. I think medical ethics are the toughest I've ever been exposed to, exactly for situations like this.
I think that we could be doing everyone a favor if there was more education in ethics starting at a younger age. I don't necessary mean "philosophy" classes, discussing teleology and things like that, because I don't think that would have any effect and students would space out like they do in any other class. But I would want an education that directly addresses ethics: posit a situation to your students (preferably one that they can be familiar with at their age, at least to begin with), and then open a discussion. Young students are not very enthusiastic about class discussions, but I think by putting them in a situation like this, someone will say something because they disagree, and that will get the ball rolling.
I feel like adults making unethical decisions do so because they don't truly understand personhood, because they've never had an education in it. Because they don't understand why a captive has right not to be drugged, even if it could mean that they don't get tortured (or at least, why you as a doctor have the right and/or duty not to drug them).
I don't know that I agree that videogames mess up children's moral compasses and I don't think that restricting them would do any good (as an example, take the War on Drugs). But I think that a mandatory discussions in ethics every couple of years (as the children grow up and face new sets of problems) could do a world of good.
> I don't know that I agree that videogames mess up children's moral compasses
The problem is that the believe they have developed their moral compass. So, when faced with real questions, they proceed with confidence when they should have deep doubts about their own abilities and proceed with the utmost caution instead. A Duning-Krueger effect.
Here's the point: video game violence develop a shitty moral compass. It's just shit. I don't care if it points in the right direction or the wrong direction. I, your comrade in arms, don't know where it's going to point next time. And that's not the guy I want be sharing a tent with.
That doesn't seem to be the point of your anecdote at all. You just magically created a correlation between the anecdote you started with and your suggestion that "video game violence develop a shitty moral compass".
If the human race is to develop anything it has to be the ability to create ethical and moral structures without some higher order whether that is religion or the state.
Your argument pales in comparison to what the state teaches.
Just to give you one example.
It's ok to mold truth into whatever your political needs are. I.e. how the western countries basically hand picked data to claim that Saddam had WMD
Games aren't isolated silos anymore. They are social spaces where the same issues we deal with in our every day life unfolds. To claim that the game mechanics or the game theme is the moral compass is simply missing the point.
> video game violence develop a shitty moral compass.
You know, I think it depends on the message, not the medium. Books as a whole are an unreliable source of training, but there are some that we take seriously. I think great literature is better training than experience, as it reflects great insight.
You could say the same thing about movies, to a lesser degree. Some are 007, and some are Shawshank Redemption. I've heard of college level ethics courses being taught by watching and discussing heavy movies, and I don't think that's inappropriate.
Gaming as a genre is pretty young; it's only just beginning to cross the threshold of serious art. I think it has the potential to be serious literature as well; the single player mode of Starcraft 2, for example, struck me as though it was attempting to actually grapple with serious issues related to warfare -- and unique to games, it did so by asking the player to make serious choices. I won't say it crossed the threshold of great literature, but I will say it was heading that way.
Not to be dense, but I think that publication agrees with my point. The abstract advocates the responsible use of media, not its abolition, and about midway through the piece draws this distinction:
It is not violence itself but the context in which it is
portrayed that can make the difference between learning
about violence and learning to be violent. Serious
explorations of violence in plays like Macbeth and films
like Saving Private Ryan treat violence as what it is—a
human behavior that causes suffering, loss, and sadness
to victims and perpetrators. In this context, viewers
learn the danger and harm of violence by vicariously
experiencing its outcomes.
. . . which is more or less what I was saying. It's not the medium, it's the message.
Certainly, it makes the point that taken as a whole, media like television and video games don't treat violence well, and hence if you track how much kids are watching without being concerned about what, you see negative consequences. And I'd certainly agree with that. But I don't think such an average figure merits demonization of the medium as a whole.
I still think the crucial point is whether you're writing about and exploring life; whether you're doing philosophical teaching -- in a word, whether you're consuming literature -- or whether it's just entertainment. I hold that the vast majority of works in any medium are just entertainment, but that there are worthwhile ones, even in video games.
I agree with your point that video games can lead to improper unconscious decision making. This follows a lot of the thoughts in the works of Lt Col Grossman if you have read them. However, I believe that the answer is not removal of the video games but training in conscious decision making.
Like in your Ativan example. Those who chose to dope the subject didn't actually think about their action, but instead made a decision based on emotional response. Part of the purpose of the exercise was to teach them to consider the implications of their actions and then make a proper decision that could be defended at a later point in time.
If we spent more time teaching children subjects like philosophy they would be better prepared to consider their actions and the effects of media and peers would be greatly diminished. I think in the long run our society would be better served by this path than by a attempted (and most likely failed) removal of negative media.
Following your logic, books should be burnt as some of them are shitty moral compass and some certainly incite violence. Actually book burning had happened numerous times throughout history, indicating that this kind of thinking was prevailing.
Yes video game violence develop a shitty moral compass. So does Mein Kampf. So should we start banning books which we think develop a shitty moral compass?
I think the reality is that anything can develop a weak moral compass if allowed to. But anything can also contribute to building a better one with good structure. Anyone would benefit from looking at the works of history's worst dictators.
How about parent permission cards that parents can apply for with shiny holographs and such. That would not be first amdendment per say, and could apply to an entire category of shopping.
I agree with you more than most people in this thread. It's easy to turn our noses at "community values," but their absence, I think, can explain a lot of problems in this country.
>I understand how quite a few game hackers would be in favor of a ruling like this, but if these are truly your convictions, I would like to see some video (not screencast, video) of your 12 year-old son playing some game with his mostly nude, thoroughly adult female character slavishly hacking on the corpses of other characters. Is that normal?
If it is normal to sedentarily stare at a pixellated screen, it does not matter what is on the screen; you may appeal to whichever emotions you choose. Conversely, I would not particularly want to see my child grow up without a healthy respect for other people's freedom, and this seems to represent a greater danger when they are going to join the ranks of the voting public. Is it not equally void that a child should be forced to grow up under the spectre of some cult such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or similar nonsense? Violent video games and pornography pale in comparison.
>Preview of that statement: "The strength of the correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior found on meta-analysis is greater than that of calcium intake and bone mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, condom nonuse and sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus infection, or environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer."
From the article:
>Playing violent video games has been found to account for a 13% to 22% increase in adolescents' violent behavior; by comparison, smoking tobacco accounts for 14% of the increase in lung cancer.
This is one of the most misleading and intellectually dishonest statements I have ever had the misfortune of reading. It is true that an average tobacco smoker has approximately a 14% lifetime chance of developing lung cancer (it is closer to 17% for males and 12% for females), but this is absolutely not equivalent to a 14% increase in the chance of developing lung cancer. Rather, a nonsmoker has approximately a 1.5% chance of developing lung cancer: a smoker has nine times as large a chance to develop lung cancer as a nonsmoker. This is not a 14% "increase" in the same sense of a "13-22% increase in adolescents' violent behavior". It is an 800% increase! To assert that these risk factors are in any way similar is completely absurd and raises serious questions about your motivations.
>condom nonuse and sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus infection
In reality, the chance of HIV transmission in the case of unprotected vaginal sex is 1 in 1000. Considering the severity of the disease, this is absolutely not an acceptable risk, but it is kind of laughable to see this phrase so wildly bandied about.
>[rambling story about the CIA]
>Here's the point: video game violence develop a shitty moral compass. It's just shit. I don't care if it points in the right direction or the wrong direction. I, your comrade in arms, don't know where it's going to point next time. And that's not the guy I want be sharing a tent with.
I fail to see how your argument supports your conclusions. Rather, it seems to show that a lack of education is what leads to poor moral decisions, not exposure to violent video games. The people in your example were not stratified on the grounds of having played Grand Theft Auto, they were stratified on the grounds of having some knowledge of ethics and morality, the latter having basically nothing to do with Grand Theft Auto.
Let me tell you a story. It is an ancient story, and it is highly relevant.
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6."What are you doing?" asked Minsky."I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe," Sussman replied."Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky."I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play," Sussman said.Minsky then shut his eyes."Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher."So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
If you want a society of people that understands values, you have to teach values. You cannot hope for them to arise on their own by simply depriving them of whatever you consider a corrupting influence.
>So enjoy your expanded access to an audience willing to pretend they understand violence. Moral consistency matters. Reliability matters. You can look forward to further international embarrassment when they grow up to make the wrong, randomly wrong, decisions behind the trigger or, worse, at the voting booth.
Hopefully they won't make the same mistakes as you.
> If you want a society of people that understands values, you have to teach values. You cannot hope for them to arise on their own by simply depriving them of whatever you consider a corrupting influence.
I think we agree that you have to do both: teach values and fight corrupting influences.
> I would like to see some video (not screencast, video) of your 12 year-old son playing some game with his mostly nude, thoroughly adult female character slavishly hacking on the corpses of other characters. Is that normal?
These two aren't even remotely related. Legislating morality is great for legislators, not for the citizens.
The point of the decision was aimed at "deviant violence". Combining sexuality with gratuitous violence is the most common form of deviance in the first-person shooters that I've seen.
Just how do you develop a moral compass if you are denied access to more than a single viewpoint? I suspect you have only the most superficial understanding of of modern video games. Try to play Heavy Rain and not be moved. I honestly think that the point of these laws are to limit access to views and ideas. Your own post supports this.
Should we bad trashy romance novels because they give women impure thoughts? This patrician attitude is unethical. Blocking people from conflicting views will only stunt their ethical growth yet you and others would promote a single unexamined view.
Please note a major retail store refused to sell me Heavy Rain dispute being twice 18 with a ID. There is no excuse for this.
Parental figures anyone? Kids are going to see violence and sexual acts if they really want to do it; and just as with adults prohibition does not help the problem.
Spot on. This isn't about prudishly getting rid of all nudity and violence. It's not about believing that people who play violent games necessarily become violent people. It's about the fact that our brains are wired to seek order and identity in the actions that we do repeatedly, and game mechanics are a poor subset of the way the world really works. They are a poor way to train your conscience.
I was in an ethics discussion in my military surgical program and started to see how the effects of these policies. Full disclosure: a number of my friends have died in the current conflicts, starting with the Pentagon on 9/11. One of the situations we were posed with, by staff who were there, was this:
CIA officers approach you, as a doctor, in Kandahar, with a captured informant-turned-double-agent. They want you to give him Ativan so he'll talk. They tell you he knows where a weapons cache is that could be used against Americans. You say no, there's no medical indication. They say, if you don't, they'll torture him and get the information anyway. You're role will only cause him more pain or less.
The overwhelming consensus of medical students, interns, and residents was to give him the Ativan. Three of us took the opposite position: you can't let people cajole you into making moral decisions based on threats. Then your just complicit.
The irony was that the majority consisted of essentially everyone who hadn't thought about these problems before. In the minority of three were two of us with prior service, and the philosophy major.
Here's the point: video game violence develop a shitty moral compass. It's just shit. I don't care if it points in the right direction or the wrong direction. I, your comrade in arms, don't know where it's going to point next time. And that's not the guy I want be sharing a tent with.
So enjoy your expanded access to an audience willing to pretend they understand violence. Moral consistency matters. Reliability matters. You can look forward to further international embarrassment when they grow up to make the wrong, randomly wrong, decisions behind the trigger or, worse, at the voting booth.
Edit: Look, I'm all for the first amendment. I took an oath to defend it, and I carry a copy of the Constitution with me everywhere. I read it regularly. Genuinely, I support the ideas in the opinion. My concern is that waiting in the wings around this particular opinion, there's a lot of unscrupulous adults salivating over the opportunity to take money from my kids in exchange for making my job as a parent, doctor, military officer, etc, harder.
Edit 2: For those asking for evidence: here is the American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Media Violence, which includes abundant (3500) references if you would like to dig deeper: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1222.ful...
Preview of that statement: "The strength of the correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior found on meta-analysis is greater than that of calcium intake and bone mass, lead ingestion and lower IQ, condom nonuse and sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus infection, or environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer."
Edit 3: I would like to point out that here is a thread full of programmers justifying, essentially to themselves, why their industry is best off with less regulation. Do you extend your arguments to other industries gray areas? Meat processing? Tobacco? Defense? Isn't "corporate self-regulation" best for everyone?