1). I was trying to point out how stupid it is for video games to be blamed for someone's choices, rather than the parents. If a parent buys a child a violent video game, and then the child does something wrong, who is to blame?: The parents (who gave into the child's pestering, and bought them the game that "trained" them to do what they did), or the video game itself. While someone is fully responsible for their own decisions, there are factors which strongly influence their decision-making ability, and personal ethics. A child's parents are (or should be) the main source of influence for a child's ethics. If you are going to blame something or someone for "making" a child do something terrible, then you should first look to the parents and analyze their parenting techniques.JimmyBassatti said:My mom bought me M rated games and told me this "It's just a game. Everything you see in it is something you should never do in real life".irishdelinquent said:This is the problem that faces all modern parents: the "Pester Power". In the old days, if I begged my mom to buy me a video game (or something like that), she'd say no and explain why I couldn't have it. If I continued to press the issues, she'd give me a reaffirming smack upside my head. Now, I'm not trying to say I approve of violence towards children, but I'm saying that when used correctly it had it's place. Nowadays there's no ultimatum for children; they can either bug their parents until they get what they want, or the parents ignore them until they leave the mall (causing them to get a stomach ulcer).Bob_F_It said:I didn't hang about for the conclusion of whether the mother would give a yes or no (there certainly wasn't an immediate no), but given the influence of pester power there must exist a fair number of parents who would buy it for their children.
However, the ratings system is entirely for the parent's discretionary purposes. Store employees can abide by the ratings, and make customers show I.D. in order to purchase a game, but they aren't a hard and fast law. The purpose of ESRB ratings is to advise parents that the game is not appropriate for their kids. It's the PARENTS responsability to monitor the games that their children are playing, much like it should be the PARENTS responsability when a kid does something terrible, and violent video games are blamed.
So,yeah. Let them have the game. If they show any agreesion, take the game away, teach them that it's just a game, and get them counciling.
Don't go all pro-parents are to blame.
If YOU , someone who has NO right to critize people because of their parenting decides to do so to said parents who actually HAVE kids,you basically just should wear a sign reading "Why yes,I am an asshole! Thank you for noticing" .
But seriously, you have no right to judge someone's parenting until you can prove you are the high and mighty parent.
2). People make mistakes. That is the human condition. The point of mistakes is to learn from them, not to find who/what is to blame (watch the South Park episode Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow for the moral of my point). The fact is that if a child does something wrong, they made a mistake. We move on from there.
3). I may not be a parent (next time, don't assume someone is or is not a parent), but I do know a thing or two about parenting. It's called common sense. If you buy something for a child, who then goes out and kills someone, you cannot then place the blame on the thing that you bought them. The fact is you bought the game for them. You had the chance to notice that the game contained innappropriate content. So you can't really say that it is the game's fault.
4). I am an asshole, thanks for noticing.