Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 10 Oct 2006
Offline Last Active Jan 16 2013 08:30 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Video Games Cause Kids to SNAP!

12 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

If you are 10 and you steal a toy parent has final say? I don't know what that means.


I'm saying the child is still the one who is going to get in trouble with the law.  Not the parent.  In the U.S.A at least, the child will be charged with the crime and face legal punishment. 


My point about the "personal liability doctrine" is regarding this robotic mantra we site about "personal responsibility."  If suddently we start sending parents to jail for crimes committed by their children, you throw that doctrine out the window.  That wont ever happen because of the political dogma we preach.  Do a mental exercise and consider what starts to unravel there if you start charging the parents.  Parents that are both working just to provide basic necessities.  Parents that say "Why am I responsible?  I see my kid one hour before school and one hour before bed!"  Everyone else has more influence on my kid than I do!  If these parents are still ultimately responsible for their childs actions then it's for no logical basis other than they are the legal guardians. 

What other reasonable basis is there? 


My position is that all of society must be responsible for the welfare of the children being raised in it.  This includes media producers.  And to be clear (and to reitterate for the xth time) I'm not just talking about video game violence.  I'm talking about media in general.  I'm not talking about violence either.  I'm talking generally about virtues and vices that children pick up. 

In Topic: Video Games Cause Kids to SNAP!

12 January 2013 - 01:27 PM

noatom: making parents ultimately responsible would be a good first step.  But at least in the US, this is not the norm.  Most children who commit crimes (for example) serve time in juvi or jail or prison on their own.


The reason parents are not held responsible is because it would be the first chink in the armor of the "personal responsibility" doctrine.  It would open up discussions about things like worker pay that results in both parents working and children seeing their teachers and peers more than they do their own parents during K-12.  Then of course refusing to deal with the pay issues, you'd have to blame the next adults on the totem pole... teachers.  Otherwise we'll just have it your way and do nothing and let the kids rob and kill the people you know.But we'll blame the kids and throw them in jail and that should make up for your loss.


noatom:  I don't know how to ask this question without seeming antagonistic.  But how do you know your view of "blame the parents" is not just a product of media indoctrination?  What is the basis for the position of parents in our society being the be all and end all of child guidance?  There are societies past and present in humans and non humans where all members of the tribe or society rear the children for the benefit of the society.


Children are influenced by so many things, it's really a cop out in the end to just say "parents are responsible!" or "personal responsibility!"  Even if you judge that the parent(s) are MOST responsible (besides the fact you're now opening the door to mutliple responsiblities) is that any excuse for the rest of society to ignore the welfare of children that aren't theres?  We already know that is not the case.  So the question is how far does that responsibility for other children of the society go?

In Topic: Video Games Cause Kids to SNAP!

12 January 2013 - 12:42 PM

Thank you Zido_Z


I can't really confirm or deny what you've said.  I can only say that in my opinion, focussing on video game violence as a causal factor in the sorts of shooting rampages we've seen is not the type of discussion game developers want to get involved in. 


I think the scope must be expanded A) To all media B) to all  negative media messages.


I just feel that would be more productive in terms of spurring broader research and the stopping of the scape goating of games in particular.

In Topic: Video Games Cause Kids to SNAP!

12 January 2013 - 12:09 PM



Thank you for your reply. 


Personal anecdotes you may know of course do not prove anything.  However, they do reinforce certain positions.  It is quite understandable.  Either way I'm not proving or disproving anything.  Again for the record, I think focussing on violence of video games is silly.  It's a mental trap.  We need to focus on media in general and the messages they propogate. 


Media is apart of our culture.  Media shapes our culture.  We must understand this concsiously.  How much of your understanding of the world comes from the media?  It's impossible to know these days because you wind up asking "How much of my parents understanding comes from the media to which they bestowed upon me?" 


That is why I advocate that we be very open and honest and we seek to better humanity and not simply make media that seeks to earn a buck at the expense of society.


Also to be clear, I don't advocate legislation to this affect.  I advocate advocacy and teaching each other and letting this sort of change happen organicly if it will.

In Topic: Video Games Cause Kids to SNAP!

12 January 2013 - 11:48 AM

But maybe now is a perfect time for people in their own free time to contemplate THEIR meaning of free will and personal responsibility.  And then, when they've finished doing that, they can contemplate the meaning of those terms as OTHER people use them. 


Because if you logically consider the implications of these concepts, they beget a ton of questions.  Does a newborn baby have freewill?  Does it have personal responsibility?  At what point in time does it have either?  Do those things exist purely, intact and unbiased throughout the life of that individual?  If the baby's personal responsiblity / free willed-ness as he progresses to adulthood can be influenced by members of society (parents, peers, teachers, media, etc) then does this not denote a multi-shared responsibility? 


If not, why not?  In other words, are we or are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?


Oh boy.....