Children are far more likely to be influenced by media at a young age, if you glorify violence as a way to win and get on in life to children from a young age then they're more likely to act it out later. As for your point about guns, sure there would be no armies but you don't want children to be using them either. We live in a violent society as it is without pushing violence as a way of life and as entertainment onto children.

 

:lol:

 

Do we have gladiators killing each other for our entertainment where the winner is bloodied from the loosers entrails? Do we go to the neighbouring town, kill the men and keep all the women as our own? Do we train our sons to kill from a young age? Do we offer sacrifices to gods, even if the sacrifice is our own child?

 

 

 

Let me start by saying you're an idiot. Well done on taking a sensible argument of mine and being a prat =D> .

 

 

 

Recent research has shown that connections between children playing violent video games can cause later aggressive behavioral problems. In retrospect studies have also shown a twelve percent increase in aggressive behavior after watching violent television as well.

 

 

 

Children become media attentive at a young age, Dr. Robert T.M. Phillips said. They are information sponges, soaking up everything they see and wringing it out in their behavior.

 

How violent media are packaged and marketed has changed the underpinnings of what children expect to see and what they find entertaining, desensitizing them through repeated exposure to violence.

 

 

 

I could go on and on...

I was referring to what was in bold, sorry.

I believe in parental censorship, at the family level. Any other form of censorship is a terrible idea.

 

 

 

By parental censorship I mean controlling what you're kid is exposed to. I'm definitely feeding my kids specific books, as well as limiting their exposure to certain other things. It's an entirely different thing if governments or the media do this to the population, as I am one of those free access to all information types. As long as they don't start muddling with the Internet I'm not too concerned.

FYI I have anger problems and I played only games like Pokemon, Mario, Crash Bandicoot up until I was 11~.

 

 

 

And ever since I began playing games like GTASA I have actually calmed down more.

 

 

 

Depends on the maturity of people? Immature people would think, wow this is awesome, whereas more mature people would think, this is pretty cool, and anger can do it to you, so I'm going to try better to control myself.

 

 

 

I dunno, just my opinions.

Bad. There's no excuse for it.

They are information sponges, soaking up everything they see and wringing it out in their behavior.

 

 

 

This is a one-sided argument. If they are information sponges then that would mean it would be easy to feed them the information that violence is bad too, which means there's no need for censors. Children are impressionable to violence, but not impressionable to peace...?

 

 

 

I'm also pretty sure most children realize the difference between real life and video games. And if they don't, since they are sponges, all you have to do is demonstrate that there is a difference and they should listen to you. If it doesn't work then I guess they aren't as impressionable as they were thought to be, which means there is another major factor besides impressionability that leads to children doing violent things.

 

 

 

Recent research has shown that connections between children playing violent video games can cause later aggressive behavioral problems. In retrospect studies have also shown a twelve percent increase in aggressive behavior after watching violent television as well.

 

 

 

I cry on the inside every time I see the gateway argument. You go ahead and say "gateway", but I'll say "alternative".

[hide=]

They are information sponges, soaking up everything they see and wringing it out in their behavior.

 

 

 

This is a one-sided argument. If they are information sponges then that would mean it would be easy to feed them the information that violence is bad too, which means there's no need for censors. Children are impressionable to violence, but not impressionable to peace...?

 

 

 

I'm also pretty sure most children realize the difference between real life and video games. And if they don't, since they are sponges, all you have to do is demonstrate that there is a difference and they should listen to you. If it doesn't work then I guess they aren't as impressionable as they were thought to be, which means there is another major factor besides impressionability that leads to children doing violent things.

 

 

 

Recent research has shown that connections between children playing violent video games can cause later aggressive behavioral problems. In retrospect studies have also shown a twelve percent increase in aggressive behavior after watching violent television as well.

 

 

 

I cry on the inside every time I see the gateway argument. You go ahead and say "gateway", but I'll say "alternative".

[/hide]

 

 

 

I would also add that such studies ignore other factors. For instance, if a child is playing gta at the age of 8 it's logical to assume its because their parents use the television as a babysitter.

This is a one-sided argument. If they are information sponges then that would mean it would be easy to feed them the information that violence is bad too, which means there's no need for censors. Children are impressionable to violence, but not impressionable to peace...?

 

Nobody is arguing against that fact.

 

 

 

I'm also pretty sure most children realize the difference between real life and video games. And if they don't, since they are sponges, all you have to do is demonstrate that there is a difference and they should listen to you. If it doesn't work then I guess they aren't as impressionable as they were thought to be, which means there is another major factor besides impressionability that leads to children doing violent things.

 

It's important to realise that these studies are based on children not teenagers and adolescents. Nobody is saying that they don't know the difference, just that one influences the other.

 

 

 

I cry on the inside every time I see the gateway argument. You go ahead and say "gateway", but I'll say "alternative".

 

 

 

I would also add that such studies ignore other factors. For instance, if a child is playing gta at the age of 8 it's logical to assume its because their parents use the television as a babysitter.

 

 

 

No offence to you guys but I'm far more likely to accept the considered opinion of a clinical psychologist who has performed these studies and has done the research than the opinion of two random guys over the internet who presumably play the games/watch the films and/or listen to the music in question. It is no great stretch to suggest that if you normalise certain behaviour that people will be more likely to reflect it. That doesn't mean everyone or even the majority will act out the behaviour it just makes it more likely.

 

 

 

I admit this isn't my field of expertise at all since I'm not a psychologist so I can't exactly make the argument any more detailed than I have but you get the drift from what I've posted.

I would also add that such studies ignore other factors. For instance, if a child is playing gta at the age of 8 it's logical to assume its because their parents use the television as a babysitter.

 

 

 

Yeah, or the fact that if they chose GTA to play instead of Pokemon then they were probably already more geared towards violence in the first place.

I would also add that such studies ignore other factors. For instance, if a child is playing gta at the age of 8 it's logical to assume its because their parents use the television as a babysitter.

 

 

 

Yeah, or the fact that if they chose GTA to play instead of Pokemon then they were probably already more geared towards violence in the first place.

 

 

 

Actually, its a given that anyone passing up pokemon is a clinical psycho

 

 

 

On topic, while some censorship is necessary and good; the focus should be on limiting access to adult material by children while allowing parents to see what they want. Of course, television stations have the individual right to censor as much as they wish.

It's a vicious cycle. Logically, censorship proves useless (and to the smartass talking about government security, stop being a smartass we're talking about the media. You know, common TV shows and games.) since it just provokes curiosity into the subject thus causing the opposite effect. But if we were to eliminate the censor right now, I wouldn't feel comfortable hearing the f-bomb everywhere on TV. Much less nudity. So it kinda contradicts my beliefs and feelings, but I'll have to say loose it up a little.

 

 

 

Remember Spaceballs the movie? Made back in the 80s? They said "[wagon]" quite a few times throughout the film, and other curse words along with several sexual-inclining jokes. Rating? PG. Dayum, you put that movie today it'll be at least R with that much material. What went wrong?

 

 

 

Actually, its a given that anyone passing up pokemon is a clinical psycho

 

 

 

On topic, while some censorship is necessary and good; the focus should be on limiting access to adult material by children while allowing parents to see what they want. Of course, television stations have the individual right to censor as much as they wish.

 

 

 

Of course, individual stations can go further with their censorship if they choose, it's up to them because they're broadcasting the material and therefore liable for penalties if they break the rules. Essentially I agree with you though, adults should have almost no restriction on what they view (unless it infringes on other peoples rights) and that censorship should be there to limit the access that children have to certain content until they're at an age where most people are deemed responsible enough to view it

 

 

 

Actually, its a given that anyone passing up pokemon is a clinical psycho

 

 

 

On topic, while some censorship is necessary and good; the focus should be on limiting access to adult material by children while allowing parents to see what they want. Of course, television stations have the individual right to censor as much as they wish.

 

 

 

Of course, individual stations can go further with their censorship if they choose, it's up to them because they're broadcasting the material and therefore liable for penalties if they break the rules. Essentially I agree with you though, adults should have almost no restriction on what they view (unless it infringes on other peoples rights) and that censorship should be there to limit the access that children have to certain content until they're at an age where most people are deemed responsible enough to view it

 

 

 

Agreed, the main point is that there should be as little physical censorship as possible and a focus on things like the v chip that give parents control over what children see.

Also, political content would also be blocked. Anti-abortion, blah, etc...

 

 

 

That was only speculation. It wasn't in the plan at all.

Also, political content would also be blocked. Anti-abortion, blah, etc...

 

 

 

That was only speculation. It wasn't in the plan at all.

 

 

 

On some trials it was shown to do so.

 

 

 

You may also be right.

 

 

 

EDIT: I suck at spelling.