dukethepcdr, most kids are perfectly capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality by the time they're aged 4-5.

some random guy:
dukethepcdr, most kids are perfectly capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality by the time they're aged 4-5.

tell that to the kids in japan that jump off of buildings thinking that they are pokemon...

but that really isn't the argument...
the argument is more off of the fact that by subjecting this material to a child while they are still learning and developing socially it is deamed acceptable in their mind so they mimic it in their life.

so getting a knife and stabbing some one becomes socially acceptable to the child because the impressionable young child thinks that it is socially acceptable because it is in his most favorate game. after all, when you kill some one in game you are never truely punished for your crimes. you get a simple time out 'black screen' and deduction of your money while the clock fast forwards a bit.

the kid is stabbing others because the video game doesn't punish him for doing it. not because he can't tell the diffrence between game and world.

I didn't (and didn't intend to) debunk his entire argument, just one point which he made. I agree that little kids (kids under ten. Over the age of nine, it really depends on how mature the kid is) Shouldn't be exposed to objectionable content, I just think that it's rather silly to say that kids generally have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

Now that I've reread his post, I guess that he was saying that some little kids lack the moral understand necessary to not be influenced by these games which is a fair statement in my opinion.

Pyro Paul:

the argument is more off of the fact that by subjecting this material to a child while they are still learning and developing socially it is deamed acceptable in their mind so they mimic it in their life.

Eh, I don't know how strong that argument is. I think kids catch on pretty quickly that the behavior in the media they consume is not necessarily socially acceptable. You don't have adolescents going around stabbing their enemies just because they read _Julius Caesar_ in English class.

Behold!

In other words: Video games do not teach you how to do stupid things. They simply make you aware of their existence.

Pyro Paul:

some random guy:
dukethepcdr, most kids are perfectly capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality by the time they're aged 4-5.

tell that to the kids in japan that jump off of buildings thinking that they are pokemon...

I've never heard of this. Source? How many kids? Did they come from ordinary families? Did they receive medication? Were they unhappy?

At worst, video games provides ideas for crazy fucking people to channel their fucking craziness into crazy fucking acts. The same can be said about every single piece of fiction ever created. Go ahead, blame video games just like people have blamed rock'n'roll, jazz, sexual content in books, masturbation and goddamn demonic possession for every single nutjob ever doing something stupid.

Maybe the "M" rating just means kids aren't really supposed to play it in the first place? You're splitting hairs on these facts and there's really no point to it. Regardless of what specific aspects of a game's design get it slapped with an "M" rating, there is SOMETHING about it which you may not want your kids seeing--its simple as that. We don't need exhaustive thematic ingredient lists on the front of game boxes. Why? Hell, you can barely even get people to read and comprehend a single effing letter let alone an itemized list.

DeadlyFred:
Regardless of what specific aspects of a game's design get it slapped with an "M" rating, there is SOMETHING about it which you may not want your kids seeing--its simple as that.

Let me re-do this response:

(1) Sure all games with an M rating have something you may not want your kids seeing. However, "may" turns to "even I'm not sure I should have let myself see it" when we go from talking about _Halo_ to talking about _Thief_.

(2) You bring up precisely what my point is: these ratings are about what parents do not want their kids to see. That is not the same as what a responsible parent should prevent their kid from seeing.

What I'm trying to tease out in this topic--the hair I'm trying to split--is that there is a big difference between parents looking to control what their kids see, and parents looking to protect their kids from harmful content. The latter is about the welfare of the kids; the former is about parental preferences. That's a major distinction, isn't it?

I think it's splitting hairs. I'm a parent, and there's things I don't want my children to see because I want to see it first. It's not about control in the sense that you seem to view it, as some sort of Chinese censor hiding the "truth" from the poor, mindless masses. It's about controlling the exposure so I can provide context. If the material is that questionable, there's going to be questions after all. And as a parent I reserve the right to decide when and how this happens. Children do not think like adults; they do not have the knowledge or perspective that (hopefully) an adult has.

I've long stated the ESRB is really not adequate to give parents information about games because, as someone already pointed out, context is everything. "Manhunt" and "Onimusha: Demon Siege" have exactly the same rating. O.o

Until they develop a ratings system that takes context into consideration (e.g., killing humans in real life environment vs. killing monsters/aliens in fantasy environment,) I don't think it will be an effective too. Games may still wind up with "M" ratings, but parents will be able to determine exactly what their child will be asked to do or see while playing the game.

LisaB1138:
I think it's splitting hairs. I'm a parent, and there's things I don't want my children to see because I want to see it first. It's not about control in the sense that you seem to view it,

I don't view it in any one 'sense', actually: that's my point. There's the kind of thing you are talking about here which is about things that are done for the welfare of the child, like providing context. Then there *is* a kind of "Chinese censor" sense where content is withheld from children because the parent has a personal objection to it.

I wouldn't call drawing that distinction "splitting hairs": it actually reflects a deep, fundamental difference in how we conceive of parental authority. It might appear to be splitting hairs at first blush because on a surface level the difference is very subtle, but under that surface there's a wide ideological chasm.

Let me put it this way: both an owner and a trustee have power over property. However, there is a significant difference between those powers. An owner can do whatever they want with their own property; a trustee, on the other hand, has a duty of loyalty to the beneficiary. That means the trustee has to manage the property in a way that benefits the beneficiary and not the trustee.

What I'm saying is that parental authority is not like that of an owner of property: a parent can't just 'do what they want'. Parental authority instead should be views as similar to that a trustee--they have a power over their children that no one else in the world has, but they have to exercise that power with the best interests of the child in mind.

Let me give an example of how my paradigm of parental rights and duties might play out: a parent would be within their rights to keep a game with lots of blood and gore out of the hands of a kid that isn't mature enough to deal with it--in fact, they would be under a duty to do so. On the other hand, just because a parent doesn't like blood and gore, that gives them no right to keep their kids from playing that game if the kid is mature enough to handle the game.

See what an impact that subtle difference between those two paradigms of parental rights and duties makes out in the real world?

"

Cheeze_Pavilion:
they have a power over their children that no one else in the world has, but they have to exercise that power with the best interests of the child in mind.

No, parents must make decisions for the best interest of the family.

I think, however, you're projecting your own ideas onto these "Chinese censor" parents. You assume they dismiss "blood and gore" out of hand because "they don't like it," therefore their child can't see it. On the other hand, there may be younger children at home whose nosey little eyes can't resist what "big brother" is doing. The child asking for the game may have a history of nightmares and, frankly that parent is tired of being awakened in the middle of the night with them. Maybe there's a violent family history that makes a parent refuse to consider it "entertainment" under any circumstances. My grandmother saw her brother drown and to the end of her days she said she couldn't look at the water w/o seeing "DJ's hands go under."

All of this, of course, doesn't play out in the video store. What you see and hear, is (after flipping over the box) "No. Absolutely not. Find something else."

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a parent enforcing their own "moral standards" in their own home. So if viewing sex and violence are outside the boundaries of them, they have every right to say "no." I don't think there's any argument that supports it's in a child's best interest to have any form of entertainment he desires. It's *entertainment,* after all. Not healthy food, clean clothes, medical attention or emotional support. It's a thing to play, like Barbie or Monopoly. We puff it up into something Grand and Meaningful--and they can be grand and have meaning--but in the end I have to say in my 17 years of parenting, eleven with video games, I cannot tell you anything Good they have given to my children besides an outlet for socialization. They are extremely useful as "common ground" for making friends. And, I suppose, they have fun playing them, although I've heard more than a few tears as well.

(If these horribly and callously denied children were clever, however, and in dire need of violence and sex, there are hundreds of books they could check out at the library to read full of it, and I bet these parents would only smile and nod and think what a good reader their child is. Sadly, there is no noob pwning in books, so despite the free sex and violence, this route goes unexplored. )

I do think that a better presentation of context on the backs of games, however, would allow parents to consider games they might otherwise dismiss as unacceptable.

LisaB1138:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
they have a power over their children that no one else in the world has, but they have to exercise that power with the best interests of the child in mind.

No, parents must make decisions for the best interest of the family.

I think, however, you're projecting your own ideas onto these "Chinese censor" parents. You assume they dismiss "blood and gore" out of hand because "they don't like it," therefore their child can't see it. On the other hand, there may be younger children at home whose nosey little eyes can't resist what "big brother" is doing. The child asking for the game may have a history of nightmares and, frankly that parent is tired of being awakened in the middle of the night with them. Maybe there's a violent family history that makes a parent refuse to consider it "entertainment" under any circumstances. My grandmother saw her brother drown and to the end of her days she said she couldn't look at the water w/o seeing "DJ's hands go under."

All of that may be true, but it still doesn't change the fact that there are "Chinese censor" parents or that all of those situations you're actually talking about fit almost perfectly into my conception of the parent/child relationship: the best interests of the family are in the best interests of the child. Living in a household with a younger brother having nightmares isn't in the interests of the older brother.

But I'm totally going to steal that 'best interests of the family' from you, because that makes the scheme even more elegant:

Parent--Trustee
Child--Beneficiary
Family--Trust

Just to flesh things out: I'm only talking about a parent acting qua parent here; as for a parent acting qua member of the family, of course their personal preferences count. In other words, if the kid likes Barney you have to let him watch Barney even if you hate Barney; that does not mean you have to let the kid monopolize the TV with Barney--it's perfectly acceptable to insist that when the whole family is watching the TV that it be something the whole family wants to watch.

However, that also means grandpa gets a vote too, since I think elders suffer from the same kind of trampling of their rights in families that children do for the same reason that because they are not in the 'prime' of their life that their life somehow doesn't count for as much as adults who are.

All of this, of course, doesn't play out in the video store. What you see and hear, is (after flipping over the box) "No. Absolutely not. Find something else."

However, it does play out on Escapist forums where people express ideologies of parenting much closer to that of Chinese censors than of trustees. This post is in some ways a continuation of another post that got locked because some members of these forums are rather immature, some of whom are parents which, yeah--is that guy's kid screwed.

I don't think there's any argument that supports it's in a child's best interest to have any form of entertainment he desires. It's *entertainment,* after all. Not healthy food, clean clothes, medical attention or emotional support. It's a thing to play, like Barbie or Monopoly. We puff it up into something Grand and Meaningful--and they can be grand and have meaning--but in the end I have to say in my 17 years of parenting, eleven with video games, I cannot tell you anything Good they have given to my children besides an outlet for socialization. They are extremely useful as "common ground" for making friends. And, I suppose, they have fun playing them, although I've heard more than a few tears as well.

Well, leaving aside the issue of the role of play in developing mammilian brains,* I think there is a very strong argument that entertainment/play is a right children have: they are human beings. Let me put this in the form of an example: let's say I had a wife and she became severely impaired mentally to where she had the mind of a child. Wouldn't I owe her more than just 'food, clean clothes, medical attention, and emotional support'? Wouldn't I owe her play and entertainment? Wouldn't I owe her the freedom to make as much of a choice as she is intellectually capable of in the selection of her play and entertainment?

If a child's mind in an adult body is owed that kind of freedom, why isn't a child's mind in a child's body? Childhood isn't just an 18-year long period of cocoon-like development. It's a real part of a person's life, and sometimes, sadly, it's the only period they get. It's also a developmental stage during which the person is immature, but that's my point: while that immaturity *may* lead them to make choices harmful to their development, if it hasn't in a specific instance, what right does a parent have to intervene in a choice a child has made that isn't harmful to them? Why doesn't a child have that right--they are just as 'human' as any adult, so why shouldn't they get that 'human' right of freedom as long as it doesn't lead to them playing in traffic or not eating their vegetables or not washing behind their ears?

In the end I guess I'd say that in my 18 years of being parented, over eleven of them with video games, that being raised in the manner I'm describing by my own parents was a very "grand and meaningful" experience. This is not theory that I'm talking about here: this is practical knowledge I've gained first hand. This works.

If these horribly and callously denied children were clever, however, and in dire need of violence and sex, there are hundreds of books they could check out at the library to read full of it, and I bet these parents would only smile and nod and think what a good reader their child is. Sadly, there is no noob pwning in books, so despite the free sex and violence, this route goes unexplored.

Heh--you know that's the funny thing, and one of the reason I say it's not about good parenting: how arbitrary the whole thing is, and how it's curious that it follows the trends of society, that since video games are the Big Bad now, that's where all the attention is and kids are free to watch scary movies or read comic books or ogle scantily clad women on basic cable.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a parent enforcing their own "moral standards" in their own home. So if viewing sex and violence are outside the boundaries of them, they have every right to say "no."

This is actually an area where I'm not sure what I think. Clearly I would want to enforce, say, my standards that women are equal, and restricting material that I might promote misogyny would be a part of that. However, how do I then tell some homophobe that s/he can't keep their kid from viewing material that will promote tolerance of alternative sexualities? Does a parent have the right to keep a patriotic kid from playing _Call of Duty 4_ because they think the United States Marine Corps is a tool for imperialistic murder? Really we're not talking about video games here anymore, or even just entertainment: we're talking about the degree to which parents should be allowed to 'program' their children. And that's a question where I've never encountered anyone with a good enough answer.

*although I think it's seriously underemphasized just how important play is to psychological development: we've fallen so in love with the 'banking' model of education that I think we've lost sight of the most important aspect of learning: development of the ability to self-teach. I think play is a critical part of developing that most powerful of intellectual gifts and we ignore making sure our kids engage in it at our own peril.

*glances around* It's just you and me again, Cheez. :D

I believe child-centric child rearing to be a mistake. I find the amount of time parents now spend on their children to be a huge mistake. You wouldn't (or maybe you would) believe the extent at which parents are now involved in school activities. It's no wonder 18 year olds are unprepared for college. They aren't even allowed to manage their own school activities thanks to MOM showing up and taking charge.

However, I fail to see how saying "No Gears of War, Johnny. It's too violent," is damaging the child. Disappointing the child, certainly. Frustrating the child, yes. Damaging? No. Oh, he'll lose some cred at school, I suppose, but there is no real damage. I don't think it's any different that refusing to buy your daughter some top because you think it's too revealing, despite the fact all her friends wear them. (Although I can't say for sure, being denied daughters. *glares at husband*)

Parents have the obligation to rear their children in a meaningful manner. Therefore parents must establish boundaries, create order and safety, instill a sense of responsibility and pass on values. Indeed, values are the most important for it is values that give an individual his personal honor. Now, I'm sure you and I will be in complete agreement that there are values in this world being passed on that are abhorrent and, indeed, only exist to de-value someone else. I don't know what can be done about that unless we want to turn into a totalitarian state where only "official" beliefs exist, and I'm sure we again would agree that would be unacceptable.

But if a parent is passing on values when denying: "We don't shoot people for fun, Johnny. I don't care how fake it is," or "You are not going to school with cleavage, Amy. Giving an eye-full is not what you're there for," they're doing what they're supposed to. They're using their own experience and judgment to teach their child right and wrong. I think "programming" is a bit unfair and belittles the parent/child relationship. It's far more complex and reciprocal than that.

I don't think denying a child COD4 is any great sin. Denying it for any reason, whether it be anti-imperialism or you just don't want your child's pastime to be shooting people is perfectly fine. A good parent will keep things in perspective for the child. When you're young, things have a way of getting out of proportion fast. When I think about how Life or Death high school was at the time, and how Full of Shit everything was except the one thing the grown-ups told me mattered: learning stuff.

And I agree play is very important, particularly play where children are allowed to manage themselves (i.e., not parent led.)

LisaB1138:
*glances around* It's just you and me again, Cheez. :D

Hey--true!

I believe child-centric child rearing to be a mistake. I find the amount of time parents now spend on their children to be a huge mistake. You wouldn't (or maybe you would) believe the extent at which parents are now involved in school activities. It's no wonder 18 year olds are unprepared for college. They aren't even allowed to manage their own school activities thanks to MOM showing up and taking charge.

So do I--and that's not what I'm talking about. In fact, that's the *opposite* of what I'm talking about: I'm talking about giving children freedom to go off and make their own fun. EDIT: And yes--I know exactly what you're talking about: helicopter parents. I've even heard anecdotes of parents of graduates of professionals schools calling up employers to inquire about the interview process. If anything, I think those are the kind of parents that are more likely to have strict rules about what games can be played and what clothes can be worn. I wouldn't call that "child-centric": the issue isn't that everything revolves around the child. One can be totally child centric in making the decision that a child needs to make her own mistakes--I can't think of anything that is harder for a parent than to stand by when they know better and let a child figure it out for themselves and therefore "child-centric."

However, I fail to see how saying "No Gears of War, Johnny. It's too violent," is damaging the child. Disappointing the child, certainly. Frustrating the child, yes. Damaging? No.

I never said it was damaging (although in certain cases I could see denial of self-expression leading to actual damage). What I'm saying is: what right does a parent have to disappoint a child? Why just because a parent doesn't like violence do they have the right to disappoint a child by denying them access to violent video games? If the violence is damaging to the child or the parent will be damaged like in the case of your grandmother, that's a whole different story. Why, though, can't a parent just give a kid some privacy to go enjoy the violent video game if no one is going to be damaged?

Why do we think only adults in the prime of life have the right to make choices as to avoid disappointment? All humans feel equally the sting of disappointment, whether they are children, feeble elders, or the mentally impaired. Freedom of choice to avoid disappointment is a human right, isn't it? Children, feeble elders, and the mentally impaired may lack some of the agency of adults in the prime of life, but that doesn't make them any less human, does it? So why should parents have any right to disappoint their kids if they can't justify it in terms of the best interests of the family/child?

Parents have the obligation to rear their children in a meaningful manner. Therefore parents must establish boundaries, create order and safety, instill a sense of responsibility and pass on values.

Do they? Or are parents supposed to pass on the tools for children to come to their own informed decisions about values? Like I said: it's a tough question and no one has an acceptable, convincing answer.

But if a parent is passing on values when denying: "We don't shoot people for fun, Johnny. I don't care how fake it is," or "You are not going to school with cleavage, Amy. Giving an eye-full is not what you're there for," they're doing what they're supposed to. They're using their own experience and judgment to teach their child right and wrong. I think "programming" is a bit unfair and belittles the parent/child relationship. It's far more complex and reciprocal than that.

Well, I think those two examples show just how difficult this question is. I think it's kind of...sissy to tell kids you don't shoot people for fun, sort of sexist towards masculine boys. And who says school isn't for cleavage? To me that smacks of the kind of sexist thinking that women can only either be good looking OR smart, and not both.

EDIT: in other words, isn't it true that a lot of parents are just dressing up their own personal preferences in the trappings of 'values'? I mean, what values are being taught exactly in keeping totally fake games where you shoot people away from little Johnny? How is that a value and not personal squeamishness? What possible "experience and judgment" could lead a person to conclude that shooting fake people is wrong in and of itself? If the idea is that in shooting fake people they lose respect for real human life or something, that's different (moronic, but different). However, what justification could a parent have based on experience and judgment for not allowing fake video game killing that's about proper behavior and not about personal squeamishness?

A good parent will keep things in perspective for the child. When you're young, things have a way of getting out of proportion fast. When I think about how Life or Death high school was at the time, and how Full of Shit everything was except the one thing the grown-ups told me mattered: learning stuff.

And now that I'm even older than that, I realize just how Full of Shit the grown-ups were about Learning Stuff. Out in the Real World, no one cares what video games you played as a kid or how much cleavage you showed in high school. What people really care about are things like what degrees you have and from what schools, what work experience you have, what your credit rating is, etc. And that not all Stuff you Learn is created equal: no one will care out in the Real World that you didn't get a 5 on the English AP exam if you go on to get a 165 on your LSATs.

In fact, want to know how Full of Shit grown-ups really are? When's the last time you heard a grown-up talk about Networking as Something Important? But hey--just how stupid 99% of grown-ups are and how they totally fail to prepare their children for the Real World is a whole other topic.

Also, I wouldn't belittle the effects the things that happen in high school have on people. Maybe not getting the super expensive dress for the spring semi-formal was just a disappointment a la Becky on _Roseanne_, but, people carry their early experience with them into adult life to a much greater degree than I think any of us are comfortable admitting.

This is the best part of healthy debate: one often doesn't know the real soul of one's opinions until one tries to convince someone else of the value of those opinions. This occurred to me overnight.

LisaB1138:

However, I fail to see how saying "No Gears of War, Johnny. It's too violent," is damaging the child. Disappointing the child, certainly. Frustrating the child, yes. Damaging? No...Parents have the obligation to rear their children in a meaningful manner. Therefore parents must establish boundaries, create order and safety, instill a sense of responsibility and pass on values.

This I think cuts right to the core of what I'm trying to say: why isn't happiness part of rearing a child in a meaningful manner? Why isn't happiness for a minor as important as it is for an adult? Or course there's a lot more to a parent rearing a child in a meaningful manner than a parent conducting her own life in a meaningful manner along the lines of what you're saying, things that will pay dividends in the future.

However, that's also true of adults before they retire: we don't say adults that don't put every spare bit of income towards retirement are being irresponsible. We acknowledge that there's a healthy balance between saving for retirement and enjoying adult life while one is still in the workforce. So where is mention of that balance in talking about children? Why do we talk about childhood as preparation for adulthood in such a radically different way than we talk about working adult life as preparation for elderly retirement?

I guess that would be my most direct criticism of the ideologies of parenting I see: I never hear them talk about happiness as something "meaningful." Where did we get the idea that childhood isn't supposed to be about happiness, that the obligation to "establish boundaries, create order and safety, instill a sense of responsibility and pass on values" precludes a parent from fulfilling a duty to try and make their children happy?