Poll: Protect the Children?

[sdafdfhrye3245]

It's up to the parents. I rather however see violence censored before sex because I think a guy bashing in another guys head is worse then a naked women or man(which they will see later in life anyway)

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

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.

What part of children are not physically capable of the same understanding and prediction as you and I did I not convey? Talk to them all you want, until their brain develops more, nothing you say, show, teach or otherwise instruct will do any good. Your average child's mind is just not developed enough. It's not a fault of their upbringing or society on a whole. No one can speed up the development of the vital parts of their brain matter needed to understand this stuff.

Yeah, sure, explain death to a kid. They will nod, they will regurgitate that info and they will be able to tell you some of the causes of death. They won't be able to understand the complex chain of reactions their actions can cause and they won't be able to understand the true complexity of death. You think that little girl doesn't know what death is? You think her parents never explained why you don't run onto the road?

Yeah... Exactly.

P.S: I'm done with this thread.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and end this conversation after reading that.

Enjoy your day.

 

[ImprovizoR]

They'll find out all about it sooner or later. I didn't have internet as a kid and I still know about porn and sex and about wars and other shit in the world. Small children don't understand sex and all that other stuff. So there's no reason to protect them from something they have no understanding of. When they're able to understand, "protecting" them from that stuff is hurting them. They should be familiarized with the real world, not sheltered from it.

 

[commasplice]

Snip

I would say that you underestimate the comprehension skills of children. You're making generalizations, which is a pet peeve of mine, so I'll ask you to cite some sources to back yourself up. You say psychological studies have proved that it's common for 7-year-olds not to understand death? I say show me said studies.

 

[HardkorSB]

So I have been thinking a bunch about the recent Supreme Court decision. A lot of the argument against violent games rests heavily on the fact that we need to protect our children from violent and sex filled material, against their will if necessary. This got me thinking, though: is it really in their best interested to be constantly sheltered from material like this?

On one hand, I know that children are impressionable. Some may not understand that real life has consequences that movies, shows, and games may not, and need to be prevented from viewing such material until they are older. They just can't handle it. Also, they should be allowed to stay as kids for as long as they want, and facing some of the more taboo aspects of life may ruin that.

On the other hand, they are not being prepared for the real world. Sex and violence (and murder and death) are part of life. There is no avoiding that. Is it helpful to prevent kids from learning about this until the last possible moment, just to protect their childhood innocence? Or is it better to allow them to experience it at their own pace so they will be ready when the time comes to face these things?

I am not talking about games specifically, but media in general. Movies, TV shows, books, and music all raise the same question. They all have sex and violence in them somewhere. Do we shield children from an inescapable part of life because we find it inappropriate, or prepare them for what they are going to face?

Do you feel that we should expose or protect children from material with sex and violence? Or do you feel that is the parent's decision, regardless of how we and the child feel? And what if the parent is not able to either protect or teach their child correctly? Or do you just not care? Personally, I haven't decided yet. I was just wondering you all thought.

I've been watching horror and action movies since I was 4. I never had any problems with seeing the difference between fiction and reality. I remember how we used to gather 20-30 kids in my neighborhood and play war. We all knew that it was just fun. None of us ever ever thought of actually killing each other, none of us grew up to be some sort of sociopath.
I think that being exposed to real live violence (such as domestic violence) has a much bigger impact on whether a person is going to commit it when he/she grows up.
People just like to shift the blame from their own mistakes in raising a child to the media. It's easier this way.
As for sex? The sooner a person learns how things work, the better.

 

[jklinders]

You cannot shelter kids from sex and violence in the world any more than you stay dry in a monsoon in an open field without an umbrella. Unless you are home schooling your kid and forbid all contact with the outside world they will be familiar with all of the common swear words and at least TV violence before they are 8 years old. So I guess that means parents actually have to *gasp* talk to their kids about what it means. To be honest it is ridiculous to expect that completely hiding someone from reality for 28 years makes any kind of sense. Far better to let them see it, then explain what it means and put some bloody context on it.

What I am always and forever against is a minority of people censoring the majority because of their own discomfort with the responsibility that comes from being a parent.

 

[commasplice]

What part of children are not physically capable of the same understanding and prediction as you and I did I not convey? Talk to them all you want, until their brain develops more, nothing you say, show, teach or otherwise instruct will do any good.Your average child's mind is just not developed enough. It's not a fault of their upbringing or society on a whole. No one can speed up the development of the vital parts of their brain matter needed to understand this stuff.

Yeah, sure, explain death to a kid. They will nod, they will regurgitate that info and they will be able to tell you some of the causes of death. They won't be able to understand the complex chain of reactions their actions can cause and they won't be able to understand the true complexity of death.

This is false. Period. People just . . . don't work that way. Just because some kids don't understand death doesn't mean that no kids do, and it doesn't mean that they can't. Likewise, just because some 30-year-olds don't comprehend computer programming doesn't mean that no teenagers can. You're being extremely narrow-minded.

You think that little girl doesn't know what death is? You think her parents never explained why you don't run onto the road?

Maybe they didn't. Are you one of her parents?

P.S: I'm done with this thread.

K, bye. You said that before, several times. Your attitude towards people who disagree with you really bothers me.

 

[JoJo]

I would say that you underestimate the comprehension skills of children. You're making generalizations, which is a pet peeve of mine, so I'll ask you to cite some sources to back yourself up. You say psychological studies have proved that it's common for 7-year-olds not to understand death? I say show me said studies.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/feelings/death.html
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/mentalhealthandgrowingup/deathinthefamily.aspx

Top link probably the best, explains how the finality of death is usually learnt between the ages of 6 and 10, evidently depending on the child. As I have said earlier on the thread, I have a 7 year old sister and I've done voluntary work with kids aged 8 to 11, so I've had a lot of experience with kids that age and while they are adorable little things, compared to the minds of adults they are stupid and gulliable, that's the way they are made. If I may ask what experience or sources do you have to back up your opinion?

 

[JoJo]

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and end this conversation after reading that.

Enjoy your day.

No offence but your position doesn't exactly look watertight if you run away from a debate as soon the opponent presents some logic. I don't really mind people having different opinions to myself as it makes it more fun to argue but I can't stand people who run away because they know their position is undefendable, especially after they act like it's so obvious why they're right.

 

[Cap'n Moe]

Parents made the decision to be parents. The responsibility of parents is to raise their children, and ensure their basic needs are met! Any parent who backed this, has some serious issues. The parents need to understand their basic responsibilities and one of them is monitoring what they see, hear, watch, etc., and be able to explain what is right and wrong.

 

[RachaelIsaacHill]

Just like to add to the discussion;

Does anyone else find it backward that sex is more taboo in American culture than violence?

I was thinking about it the other day because a friend of mine brought it up, and... hell it's kind of messed-up, when you actually consider what it means. It means that in America, a terrible act of hatred, ignorance, or revenge is more widely accepted in our culture, and more acceptable to show our children, than an act of love.

 

[NickCooley]

Well I was playing 18 rated games at a young age and to my knowledge I've never killed or raped anyone. Prohibit the sale of adult games/films and such directly to minors sure but if a parent believes their child can handle it I don't see why they can't play/watch them.

 

[JezebelinHell]

You do realize that requiring the parents to be involved with purchasing a game that was rated above their child's age was allowing parents to make a choice? The only thing it was not allowing was for kids to run out and buy games without their parent's involvement. Which at 16 is completely different than at 10.

Some people on this forum will complain about parents not being responsible but they don't seem to understand that the restrictions were a nudge to keep parent's involved. All this has accomplished is letting the lazy ones off the hook completely.

Some day I hope you realize that all kids are different and parenting isn't black and white but then I think a little more, and honestly, I hope you never figure it out.

 

[Biodeamon]

No. The people who censor it are the ones making it worse. The sooner they're educated about it the better, and let's face it what would a kid like to do more:be just flashed with images of violence and sex and depravity or play a videogame? Also violent crime has actually gone since the rise of violent videogames as a article on the escapist pointed out.

The sooner the better. The only thing shielding kids from violence and depravity is doing is raising a generation of complete pussies.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Children need to be exposed to violent and mature material and when they question the actions on screen, have them explained carefully to them so they understand their implications, the context they're happening in and etc. I most certainly would take the time with my own child (once I get one) to explain this sort of thing.

 

[WanderingFool]

All im saying is that its the job of the Parent to raise their child. I was playing violent videogames well before I was 17, by I turned out fine by social standards. But my mother wouldnt let me watch an movies that were R rated until I was at least 18; same deal with my brother. The problem I see is that parents are not actually doing anything, they are just complaining about violent materials and demand the government do their (the parents) job of watching what their child sees.

What the government needs to do is educate the parents on the ESRB, and parents need to learn about the ESRB. Problem solved.

 

[Kair]

There must be more research. You can't answer this poll without scientific reasoning.

 

[commasplice]

I would say that you underestimate the comprehension skills of children. You're making generalizations, which is a pet peeve of mine, so I'll ask you to cite some sources to back yourself up. You say psychological studies have proved that it's common for 7-year-olds not to understand death? I say show me said studies.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/feelings/death.html
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/mentalhealthandgrowingup/deathinthefamily.aspx

Top link probably the best, explains how the finality of death is usually learnt between the ages of 6 and 10, evidently depending on the child. As I have said earlier on the thread, I have a 7 year old sister and I've done voluntary work with kids aged 8 to 11, so I've had a lot of experience with kids that age and while they are adorable little things, compared to the minds of adults they are stupid and gulliable, that's the way they are made. If I may ask what experience or sources do you have to back up your opinion?

Huh. Well, I think I may have misunderstood some of the points you made earlier. For some reason, I thought you were, like Snowy Rainbow, trying to say that kids could never comprehend death in any capacity ever, so trying to explain it to them is a waste of time. I see now that this conclusion was incorrect and I offer my apologies.

Anyway, to answer your question, though, most of what I've based my arguments on are just my own observations. I've never worked with kids or anything like that, but I've had family members in the age group and, heck, I was a kid once, myself. That isn't to say that I couldn't take the time to find reliable sources to back myself up, though.

Just like to add to the discussion;

Does anyone else find it backward that sex is more taboo in American culture than violence?

I was thinking about it the other day because a friend of mine brought it up, and... hell it's kind of messed-up, when you actually consider what it means. It means that in America, a terrible act of hatred, ignorance, or revenge is more widely accepted in our culture, and more acceptable to show our children, than an act of love.

America was founded by puritans, bro.

You do realize that requiring the parents to be involved with purchasing a game that was rated above their child's age was allowing parents to make a choice? The only thing it was not allowing was for kids to run out and buy games without their parent's involvement. Which at 16 is completely different than at 10.

Some people on this forum will complain about parents not being responsible but they don't seem to understand that the restrictions were a nudge to keep parent's involved. All this has accomplished is letting the lazy ones off the hook completely.

Some day I hope you realize that all kids are different and parenting isn't black and white but then I think a little more, and honestly, I hope you never figure it out.

Except that it's store policy in most of the big retailers not to let children purchase M-rated games. So . . . that. What this law would change is that if, say, a careless employee forgot to card a kid and he happened to be working for the feds (or, you know, they just find out somehow), the store owner could be fined, much like how it is with stores that sell cigarettes or alcohol. I know that when I worked at Wawa, they had undercover kids come in once a month to see if we were carding people properly.

The reason this is important, though, is because there is a fear that retailers might stop carrying M-rated games in order to avoid possibly being fined. I don't know how rational this fear is, but it makes sense to me, especially in the case of a bill like this that was repeatedly described as being too vague. It's possible that if this bill had passed, retailers could have been fined for selling teen-rated games to minors, provided there was enough blood. That's probably a bit of a stretch, though.

 

[Phisi]

My feeling for it is that they should be protected but they are protected for too long and parents should start explaining and exposing them to stuff from as soon as they can comprehend it. So I vote no as the current form of protection is too much but parents shouldn't be able to decide if they think they should explain or expose them to explicit material. Think of the stereotypical common 13 year old boy (Not as stereotypical as you think). They constantly talk about doing drugs, having sex and threatening with fights, but they are below the age when they are allowed to buy/watch/play violent media. So I wonder if excluding them from explicit material has more negative effects then showing them it and explaining it.