the army uses it to train people!thejccalhounAugust 26 2006, 13:53:27 UTC
"If you can train a military-type person using these video games, you can do it to kids," Burrell told the newspaper.
I always love that line of reasoning. That's why I never make my bed -- after all the military really emphasises making your bed as part of their training. If the military uses bed making as part of their training, I'm afraid that if I make my bed I'll go crazy and start to kill people!
These people need to stop and think for a moment. Even if videogames do "teach you to kill," there is a big difference between knowing how to do something and wanting to do it. My high school English teacher taught me how to diagram sentences, but that doesn't mean I want to do it...
Re: the army uses it to train people!mcfly0612August 26 2006, 17:37:30 UTC
Why do they always bring this point up? The only way I've heard the military uses games for training is to teach communcation skills between squads. And that's just something I heard, I don't even know if it's true or not
( ... )
Re: the army uses it to train people!xwaixAugust 26 2006, 22:46:25 UTC
Yet they always make it sound like new recruits show up and the drill instructor goes "You will each be issued a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas edition, Halo and Doom. You will train on these for three months, one month each. After that you will be combat ready and sent to fight."
While the idea that those games could assist with training is utterly ridiculous (sitting in a room with a controller in your hands playing a game involving carrying a gun and shooting people is a far cry from actually being in a war zone, carrying a gun and shooting people), if I enlisted and my DI said that to me in basic, my immediate and enthusiastic response would be "SIR, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY MY HERO, SIR!" =P
Re: the army uses it to train people!dustin1986August 27 2006, 04:50:50 UTC
It's kind of stupid to think that the military uses videogames to desensitize troops to violence. I shouldn't even have to say that it's stupid because it is very obviously stupid.
The way the military trains you to kill is to have drills with a target and a bayonet. You scream KILL as loud as you can and bury the knife into it. I think I saw something about it on the Discovery Channel. The only thing that a videogame could hope to replicate is strategy. You know that game Full Spectrum Warrior? It was based on military training software. You don't actually control the gun in that game. All you do is call out orders.
Yeah, it would have saved a lot, but saying "Hey Parents, stop being morons and how about you actually talk with your children instead of having the government try to regulate your lives" doesn't go over well with poll groups. So yes, instead of being responsible parents, its everyone else's fault, it would seem.
Re: Nitpicker at workbrokenscopeAugust 26 2006, 16:58:36 UTC
I'm sorry, don't blame guns for this, I went through a living hell in middleschool, the admin never did a thing about it. My day revolved around staying in the field of view a security camera at all times and running like hell when one wasn't around. Like many kids who got bullied i was suicidal and on meds and it was somehow all my fault, because i wasn't ignoring the bullies i was responding and that was making them do it more
( ... )
Re: Nitpicker at worknightwng2000August 26 2006, 18:12:19 UTC
For the same reason you didn't do it even if you played video games, lived in poverty, were an abused kid (including having been bullied), a victim of bigotry and hate (or even taught to hate others), had your rights violated by authority figures. Because you are an individual.
But when dealing with issues that have a direct impact on the lives of individuals, which makes more sense: Dealing with the REAL world impacts of abuse, hate, weapons, poverty, etc, ect. Or dealing with the fictional virtual world exposures of video games, books, TV, movies, etc etc.
Even if the varius issues of the REAL world don't affect every individual, solving those problems FIRST makes more sense simply because those problems have a more direct impact on EVERYONE than the fictional virtual exposures do.
Re: Nitpicker at workillspiritAugust 26 2006, 20:02:17 UTC
I understand you're just saying we should worry about the real world before policing fiction, however, methinks Brokenscope's point got lost in the fray.
Kids with legal access to and proper training with guns (be it for hunting, target shooting, or even drills/field stripping deactivated rifles in JROTC or whatever) are far less likely to misuse guns, or even commit other crimes in general. You can tell kids that guns are dangerous all day, but unless you take them out and splatter a cantaloupe or something in front of them, they'll just think it's just like on TV. Just like everything else in life, respect is earned. Showing a kid the right way to handle (or exactly why they should avoid) a firearm is far more effective than simply declaring it another "forbidden fruit."
The last DOJ study I could find was from 1994 (link, page 25), and the pretty graph says 0% of juveniles with legal guns committed gun crimes. Bear in mind this was the Clinton DOJ, at the height of the anti-gun panic. 'Tis the last DOJ study of its kind, AFAIK,
( ... )
"I'm calling on all parents to diligently monitor the video games that their children are allowed to play. If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence," she said.
Choice quotesandrew_eisenAugust 26 2006, 15:47:00 UTC
"I'm calling on all parents to diligently monitor the video games that their children are allowed to play. If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence.” - Blanco
I know, it sucks. The mean old government won’t parent your kids for you. I guess you’ll just have to do it yourself.
An M, or Mature, rating means the games are not to be sold to anyone under 17. - Advocate
No, an M rating means most store policies will dictate said game is not to be sold to anyone under 17. The rating symbols are simply a suggestion of age appropriateness. Nothing more.
However, there are no penalties for merchants who [sell an M game to a minor]. - Advocate
Not by the ESRB. They have no authority at the retail level.
“We knew it was going to be an uphill battle. We want to defend the statute ... but the issue is something that needs to be brought out, that these games are dangerous and damaging to our kids.” - Wartelle
If you can’t provide any evidence that these games are “dangerous
( ... )
Re: Choice quotesmcfly0612August 26 2006, 19:08:39 UTC
If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence.
It's been awhile since I've taken US history so correct me if I'm wrong here. Wasn't one of the main reasons the United States was formed was because the colonists were pissed off that the Britich government was forcing its way into everything? And the colonists wanted to make a type of government that didn't have the power to force its way into everything? I'm pretty sure they wanted a form of government that didn't have the power to tell them how to run every aspect of their lives, including but not limited too, how to raise children. I mean, call me crazy but I don't think the courts, or any branch of our government, has ever had the power to "protect our kids" nor were they ever meant to.
Comments 38
I always love that line of reasoning. That's why I never make my bed -- after all the military really emphasises making your bed as part of their training. If the military uses bed making as part of their training, I'm afraid that if I make my bed I'll go crazy and start to kill people!
These people need to stop and think for a moment. Even if videogames do "teach you to kill," there is a big difference between knowing how to do something and wanting to do it. My high school English teacher taught me how to diagram sentences, but that doesn't mean I want to do it...
Reply
Reply
While the idea that those games could assist with training is utterly ridiculous (sitting in a room with a controller in your hands playing a game involving carrying a gun and shooting people is a far cry from actually being in a war zone, carrying a gun and shooting people), if I enlisted and my DI said that to me in basic, my immediate and enthusiastic response would be "SIR, YOU ARE OFFICIALLY MY HERO, SIR!" =P
Reply
The way the military trains you to kill is to have drills with a target and a bayonet. You scream KILL as loud as you can and bury the knife into it. I think I saw something about it on the Discovery Channel. The only thing that a videogame could hope to replicate is strategy. You know that game Full Spectrum Warrior? It was based on military training software. You don't actually control the gun in that game. All you do is call out orders.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
But when dealing with issues that have a direct impact on the lives of individuals, which makes more sense:
Dealing with the REAL world impacts of abuse, hate, weapons, poverty, etc, ect.
Or dealing with the fictional virtual world exposures of video games, books, TV, movies, etc etc.
Even if the varius issues of the REAL world don't affect every individual, solving those problems FIRST makes more sense simply because those problems have a more direct impact on EVERYONE than the fictional virtual exposures do.
nightwng2000
Reply
Kids with legal access to and proper training with guns (be it for hunting, target shooting, or even drills/field stripping deactivated rifles in JROTC or whatever) are far less likely to misuse guns, or even commit other crimes in general. You can tell kids that guns are dangerous all day, but unless you take them out and splatter a cantaloupe or something in front of them, they'll just think it's just like on TV. Just like everything else in life, respect is earned. Showing a kid the right way to handle (or exactly why they should avoid) a firearm is far more effective than simply declaring it another "forbidden fruit."
The last DOJ study I could find was from 1994 (link, page 25), and the pretty graph says 0% of juveniles with legal guns committed gun crimes. Bear in mind this was the Clinton DOJ, at the height of the anti-gun panic. 'Tis the last DOJ study of its kind, AFAIK, ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I know, it sucks. The mean old government won’t parent your kids for you. I guess you’ll just have to do it yourself.
An M, or Mature, rating means the games are not to be sold to anyone under 17. - Advocate
No, an M rating means most store policies will dictate said game is not to be sold to anyone under 17. The rating symbols are simply a suggestion of age appropriateness. Nothing more.
However, there are no penalties for merchants who [sell an M game to a minor]. - Advocate
Not by the ESRB. They have no authority at the retail level.
“We knew it was going to be an uphill battle. We want to defend the statute ... but the issue is something that needs to be brought out, that these games are dangerous and damaging to our kids.” - Wartelle
If you can’t provide any evidence that these games are “dangerous ( ... )
Reply
It's been awhile since I've taken US history so correct me if I'm wrong here. Wasn't one of the main reasons the United States was formed was because the colonists were pissed off that the Britich government was forcing its way into everything? And the colonists wanted to make a type of government that didn't have the power to force its way into everything? I'm pretty sure they wanted a form of government that didn't have the power to tell them how to run every aspect of their lives, including but not limited too, how to raise children.
I mean, call me crazy but I don't think the courts, or any branch of our government, has ever had the power to "protect our kids" nor were they ever meant to.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment