Poll: Protect the Children?

[aba1]

You want to expose children to sex and violence before they even posses the brain necessarily to understand and comprehend their full impact?

Well, that's a terrible idea. Christ.

This, no offence anyone but I'm guessing most of you don't have much experience with children (not talking about teenagers here). There's a big difference between teaching them that death and sex exist and showing them inappropriate media. Children have very little self-control, will usually copy what they believe to be adult and cool, and often don't understand the consequences of their actions. A child does not have the capacity to decide whether he or she is ready to experience certain things and so those things should be kept firmly out of reach.

It's kind of terrifying how many people think... so grotesquely. Hell, there's a seven-year-old girl who the police are looking into charging with murder. She was in the bath with her little brother and he was crying. What did she do? Held him under the water. Her reasoning? "I wanted to make him stop crying." The detectives are trying to decide if she knew what she was doing would cause him to die or not. And people want kids to be exposed to sex and violence? This isn't some hippy "save the kids" crap. Children will end up hurt over something like this. You know how many dumbass adults copy shows like Jackass? Now imagine the number of children, so naive they literally can't foresee long term consequences would hurt themselves and others if movies didn't have ratings. Christ.

This thread combined with the number of paedophiles that came to light in the "controversial opinion" thread might be enough to drive me away from this site. I dunno if I can be around this place any more. Seems like every day there is someone defending some disgusting thing or asking for another.

why were such young children left alone in a tub unattended esspecially when one was crying which is a clear sign of distress? Did the mother not teach the child that a person can drown I know I was taught that from a young age "always stay away from deep water if you get stuck under you will die" glad my parents told me when I was young so straight what not to do..

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

Snip.

I would disagree with you, largely because you seem to think that being exposed to sex or violence at all ever is absolutely going to turn kids into killers or rapists. If anything, I think your little anecdote proves that there are other factors at work that need to be addressed. How was the little girl's life at home? Was she abused? Did her parents nurture her properly? Was she taught that the best way to solve a problem was to hit or yell at it? Even if we assume that that little girl honestly didn't know that she was doing anything wrong, you can't say for sure that letting the same little girl playing Call of Duty would severely change her mental disposition in the long run. There are so many other factors that go into determining who and what a person becomes that you can't just blame one thing. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I think a seven-year-old should necessarily be allowed to play violent games. I'm just saying that I think what makes a person violent or not is a lot more complicated than that. For example, how do you know that violent games make kids violent? What if those children already had a disposition towards violence and that that isn't the very reason that they sought out those games in the first place?

You utterly missed the point.

Children are not physically capable of understanding consequences like adults can. They imitate what they see and hear on a daily basis, having no thought at all of the future. It's not that they simply choose not to care, or put too little thought into things, they simply CANNOT premeditate and predict complex consequences. That is why in civilized countries young children (and those shown to be mentally retarded, among others) cannot be found guilty of many crimes like an adult would.

The little girl isn't disturbed. She was never abused. She is a happy, healthy girl. She drowned her brother simply because she didn't understand that it would kill him. Hell, she doesn't understand what death truly means, beyond a dictionary definition. She still thinks her brother has just "gone away" because of her.

There is a reason these ratings exist.

And I'm done. I'm not talking about this any further. Go nuts.

 

[Kiefer13]

Children don't need to be "protected" (read: sheltered) from things like sex and violence in media. They need to be taught about them. Pulling the wool over their eyes until they hit a certain age where they're apparently going to become able to deal with them is ridiculous. Teaching them about things like that from an earlier age will only help to reinforce the differences between these things in reality and in fiction.

 

[JoJo]

You want to expose children to sex and violence before they even posses the brain necessarily to understand and comprehend their full impact?

Well, that's a terrible idea. Christ.

This, no offence anyone but I'm guessing most of you don't have much experience with children (not talking about teenagers here). There's a big difference between teaching them that death and sex exist and showing them inappropriate media. Children have very little self-control, will usually copy what they believe to be adult and cool, and often don't understand the consequences of their actions. A child does not have the capacity to decide whether he or she is ready to experience certain things and so those things should be kept firmly out of reach.

It's kind of terrifying how many people think... so grotesquely. Hell, there's a seven-year-old girl who the police are looking into charging with murder. She was in the bath with her little brother and he was crying. What did she do? Held him under the water. Her reasoning? "I wanted to make him stop crying." The detectives are trying to decide if she knew what she was doing would cause him to die or not. And people want kids to be exposed to sex and violence? This isn't some hippy "save the kids" crap. Children will end up hurt over something like this. You know how many dumbass adults copy shows like Jackass? Now imagine the number of children, so naive they literally can't foresee long term consequences would hurt themselves and others if movies didn't have ratings. Christ.

This thread combined with the number of paedophiles that came to light in the "controversial opinion" thread might be enough to drive me away from this site. I dunno if I can be around this place any more. Seems like every day there is someone defending some disgusting thing or asking for another.

That's terrible, I have a 7 year old sister and I could easily see a child of that age doing something like that without realising the consequences. I hope that little girl isn't charged as in my country the UK the minimum age for criminal responsibility is 10 and really I can't see what could be achieved by such a conviction, far too young to be seperated from parents it would just cause more problems for the child's mental state and a huge amount of anguish on both sides.

I can see why you might despair of the some of the opinions here, I often do too, but I've decided to stick around as somebody's got to be the opposition and I hang around along in the roleplay forum anyway. I have to admit I read a lot of the controversial opinions thread but I didn't see any paedophilia there, are you sure you're thinking of the right thread? As far as I know it's against the rules to admit to having that mental disorder, though you have to remember there is a difference between having that attraction and actually acting on it.

 

[commasplice]

Snip.

Part of the problem, at least in my experience, is that some parents just don't understand the ratings. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory, but . . . well, when I went to buy Fable 3, I stopped in at my local Target. While I was at the 360 shelf, a woman and her friend were having a discussion a few feet away from me. I could tell the woman was trying to find a gift for someone (she kept saying things like "should I get him this one or this one?" to her friend), so I decided to interject and see if I could help. I asked her who she was buying for. She said it was her son. I asked her how old he was. She said he was about 5 or 6. Then I looked at the rack of games she was trying to choose from. The games were Halo 3, Halo Wars, Modern Warfare, ODST and a few others along those same lines. I then spent the next five minutes explaining ratings to her and telling her that if she really wanted to pick from the games in that section, that Halo Wars would be the closest thing to age appropriate, though not by much.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

I can see why you might despair of the some of the opinions here, I often do too, but I've decided to stick around as somebody's got to be the opposition and I hang around along in the roleplay forum anyway. I have to admit I read a lot of the controversial opinions thread but I didn't see any paedophilia there, are you sure you're thinking of the right thread? As far as I know it's against the rules to admit to having that mental disorder, though you have to remember there is a difference between having that attraction and actually acting on it.

That's why they word it well enough to avoid mods. Check the thread. There's a shit ton. Look for people "defending" that kind, then look for people who quote them and agree. It's never an admission, it's a "I think it can be okay to find children attractive, so long as they aren't harmed." Or a "Paedophilia is just a fetish like any other." The latter of which is more or less an exact quote.

 

[Zantos]

Snip.

Part of the problem, at least in my experience, is that some parents just don't understand the ratings. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory, but . . . well, when I went to buy Fable 3, I stopped in at my local Target. While I was at the 360 shelf, a woman and her friend were having a discussion a few feet away from me. I could tell the woman was trying to find a gift for someone (she kept saying things like "should I get him this one or this one?" to her friend), so I decided to interject and see if I could help. I asked her who she was buying for. She said it was her son. I asked her how old he was. She said he was about 5 or 6. Then I looked at the rack of games she was trying to choose from. The games were Halo 3, Halo Wars, Modern Warfare, ODST and a few others along those same lines. I then spent the next five minutes explaining ratings to her and telling her that if she really wanted to pick from the games in that section, that Halo Wars would be the closest thing to age appropriate, though not by much.

Seriously? People do that? I mean, I had to check your profile to see if you're american, and granted yours is a harder system to follow. But it still isn't that difficult! In the UK it has a minimum age on it in a big red circle and everyone is taught how to understand that from a very young age.

Maybe she was just, ya know, really stupid.

 

[Kakujin]

I think children can safely be exposed to this kind of material, provided that they are also taught that violence and sex have consequences. Kids are smart enough to understand that violence on TV or in movies isn't real if someone tells them so, and that if they did things like that in real life, people would die. Death is not a concept that children need to be shielded from, but it is vital that they understand what it is and what it means.

Of course, this does not mean that "A Serbian Film" should be shown in kindergarten or anything, but merely that we might benefit from lowering the protective shield and letting our children be exposed to things that are actually parts of life.

 

[Darzen]

Well isn't a good way to raise kids in general to steer them away from overly inappropriate material,without completely shielding them?
It seems like all parents are trying to do these days are delay the "Big Talk" till the child figures it out themselves or just grows up really confused as sheltered. there is the option to only steer them away from things that are inappropriate for them and explain to them certain things as they get older or as circumstances bring them up.

 

[commasplice]

Snip.

Bro. Chill. I got your point, I just think you're wrong. I didn't mean to insult you or anything, though.

Now, I agree on the point that kids generally can't comprehend things as fully as adults can, but that doesn't mean that no seven-year-old can comprehend death. Even if the girl in your story didn't fully understand it, she's just one child and that is hardly a representative sample.

I knew what death was when I was that old because my grandmother's cat died. Even before that, I knew what pain was and I knew that it was wrong to hurt others because that was what my mother taught me. At the same time, though, she let me watch Jurassic Park enough times when I was five that it gave me nightmares. It didn't scar me for life. It didn't give me a thirst for violence. I just had a couple bad dreams about velociraptors.

Likewise, I would suggest that knowing what sex is at a young age would not ruin a kid. Now, if that kid was, say, molested, that's a completely different story. I mean, that would be downright traumatizing. But I seriously doubt that if a child under the age of 10 walked in his parents having sex, that it would ruin them forever.

All I'm saying is that I think that the effects of violent or sexual media on children fluxuates greatly depending on the kid, themselves, more than anything else.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Well I don't think it's up to us to say. I personally think children shouldn't be shielded from anything, but I'm not a parent, I'm sure others feel differently.

 

[commasplice]

Snippan'

That particular woman did seem incredibly stupid. Even after I explained how the games are rated and where to find the content labels, she still didn't seem to get it properly. She gave me a kind of "So, you're saying I should get Halo instead of Modern Warfare?" response. I think that instead of spending a bajillion dollars trying to pass this bullshit law, the government should just work harder to make sure parents are aware of how the game rating system works and what they can do to learn more. I mean, I have never once seen an ad explaining the ESRB ratings to anyone. I'm not even sure how I learned how the system works.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Children should be protected, yes.
But children should also be educated.
So the question stands, when does protection turn into neglect of education?

 

[JoJo]

I can see why you might despair of the some of the opinions here, I often do too, but I've decided to stick around as somebody's got to be the opposition and I hang around along in the roleplay forum anyway. I have to admit I read a lot of the controversial opinions thread but I didn't see any paedophilia there, are you sure you're thinking of the right thread? As far as I know it's against the rules to admit to having that mental disorder, though you have to remember there is a difference between having that attraction and actually acting on it.

That's why they word it well enough to avoid mods. Check the thread. There's a shit ton. Look for people "defending" that kind, then look for people who quote them and agree. It's never an admission, it's a "I think it can be okay to find children attractive, so long as they aren't harmed." Or a "Paedophilia is just a fetish like any other." The latter of which is more or less an exact quote.

Having that opinion doesn't specifically make you one, according to the Harm Principle, "the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals", so it's arguable that if an attraction to something that cannot consent such as children or animals is acceptable if it isn't acted on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Not saying I 100% agree with that but it is a valid argument, personally I think the top priority should be to protect innocent children like my sister from harm, which means being understanding and providing help to those who have a predisposition to abuse so they can stay within the law rather than condemning them for an illness they didn't choose.

 

[Lightning Delight]

You utterly missed the point.

Children are not physically capable of understanding consequences like adults can. They imitate what they see and hear on a daily basis, having no thought at all of the future. It's not that they simply choose not to care, or put too little thought into things, they simply CANNOT premeditate and predict complex consequences. That is why in civilized countries young children (and those shown to be mentally retarded, among others) cannot be found guilty of many crimes like an adult would.

The little girl isn't disturbed. She was never abused. She is a happy, healthy girl. She drowned her brother simply because she didn't understand that it would kill him. Hell, she doesn't understand what death truly means, beyond a dictionary definition. She still thinks her brother has just "gone away" because of her.

There is a reason these ratings exist.

And I'm done. I'm not talking about this any further. Go nuts.

The point of showing them things with sex or violence in them wouldn't be to just give it to them and say, "knock yourself out." The point would be to teach them about these things so that they understand the consequences like adults do. This would help prevent the drowning situation you have described. The girl would understand exactly what death is and what would happen to her brother.

 

[Zantos]

Snippan'

That particular woman did seem incredibly stupid. Even after I explained how the games are rated and where to find the content labels, she still didn't seem to get it properly. She gave me a kind of "So, you're saying I should get Halo instead of Modern Warfare?" response. I think that instead of spending a bajillion dollars trying to pass this bullshit law, the government should just work harder to make sure parents are aware of how the game rating system works and what they can do to learn more. I mean, I have never once seen an ad explaining the ESRB ratings to anyone. I'm not even sure how I learned how the system works.

Admittedly it seems like the sort of thing you'd have to look up to know what all the MGMT stuff stands for. You guys should adopt the BBFC rating system. It goes U, PG, 12A, 12, 15, 18. Only the U, 12, 15 and 18 tend to be used for games though, the whole set is for film classifications. I bet you can tell what at least those 4 are just by looking at them.

 

[Griffolion]

I think children should be protected from adult content in video games the same way they are in films, books and tv shows. It's on the parents and the retailer to deny the children access to the content, not the law. When you bring the law into it, you get on a slippery slope of how far is too far. The law is there for the big things, for everything else, there's common sense.

 

[Haratu]

I have been playing violent video games since I was a toddler. No I am almost 30 and have no violent history at all. My parents brought me up in the knowledge of what is real and what is not. I have no desire to join the military, or even crush an ant.
I think it is up to parents to teach their kids the reality of life. If they don't make an effort to do it then they don't deserve to be a parent.

 

[JoJo]

You utterly missed the point.

Children are not physically capable of understanding consequences like adults can. They imitate what they see and hear on a daily basis, having no thought at all of the future. It's not that they simply choose not to care, or put too little thought into things, they simply CANNOT premeditate and predict complex consequences. That is why in civilized countries young children (and those shown to be mentally retarded, among others) cannot be found guilty of many crimes like an adult would.

The little girl isn't disturbed. She was never abused. She is a happy, healthy girl. She drowned her brother simply because she didn't understand that it would kill him. Hell, she doesn't understand what death truly means, beyond a dictionary definition. She still thinks her brother has just "gone away" because of her.

There is a reason these ratings exist.

And I'm done. I'm not talking about this any further. Go nuts.

The point of showing them things with sex or violence in them wouldn't be to just give it to them and say, "knock yourself out." The point would be to teach them about these things so that they understand the consequences like adults do. This would help prevent the drowning situation you have described. The girl would understand exactly what death is and what would happen to her brother.

You over-estimate the understanding potential of children, psychological studies have shown it's common for 7 year old's not to understand death properly, or to not understand that it's permanent or that dead people can never come back. As an adult it's almost impossible to imagine not understanding what seem to us such basic concepts but that's really the way they think. Unfortunately many adults without children forget this because they look back at memories from their adult perspective so they don't realise how much they didn't know.

 

[JochemDude]

No, they should know how to deal with it 'cause sooner or later they are gonna find out/experience and I want to make sure that happens 'right' so they draw the right conclusions and develop a sense of 'realism' and judgement over what is right and wrong.