5 ms·
I don't think legalizing violent videogames for minors is equivocal to both a) legalizing drugs, dangerous ones (crack) included and b) legalizing drugs for min
by brianleb 15y ago
I don't think legalizing violent videogames for minors is equivocal to both a) legalizing drugs, dangerous ones (crack) included and b) legalizing drugs for minors, but I guess I do see your point.
At what point do we decide that someone is 'mature' enough to play a violent videogame? Is it a different age than when we think they could use drugs 'responsibly' (in a world where they were legal)? A more obvious example would be alcohol. I would let my children (n.b. I do not currently have children) play a violent videogame, but I would not let them drink a six pack. I see the drugs/alcohol as putting them more in direct physical harm (most likely where they would hurt themselves, or overdose, etc.) than violent videogames. People thankfully can't overdose on violent videogames (except the people who died in Korean internet cafes playing WoW, but I think that's a different topic altogether).
Given that someone can't physically hurt themselves with a violent videogame, I would allow a much younger child access to them than I would drugs or alcohol. We could argue whether or not there is any mental/emotional damage, but I think we can agree that whatever mental/emotional damage there could be from playing violent videogames at the age of 12 as much as one wants, it would be much less than the mental/emotional damage of letting a 12 year old have unlimited access to drugs.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mkr-hn 15y agoIt's a bad idea to keep citing the same thing over and over, especially without tying it into the discussion. Otherwise people will focus on the rampant flaws in the link and ignore what you're saying.
- niels_olson 15y agoI disagree with your assertion, but fair enough. Done. Why don't you actually go find any evidence at all. Show me that violent video games make my kids better citizens. Edit: it's not a strawperson. People are biological systems. Spending 3 hours a day with something makes one better or worse, stronger or weaker, faster or slower, never the same. It's sort of like a business: if you're not making money, you're losing it.
- mkr-hn 15y agoA strawperson! I love those. No one claimed that.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mkr-hn 15y ago"Edit: it's not a strawperson. People are biological systems. Spending 3 hours a day with something makes one better or worse, stronger or weaker, faster or slower, never the same. It's sort of like a business: if you're not making money, you're losing it." I'm not going to say "violent games good, you stupid. Me win argument." I'm going to say they can be good or bad depending on circumstances, just like any media.
- Ihavenoname 15y agoQuit spamming and read the research it is based on. It is not of the best quality.
- Ihavenoname 15y agoThe phrase he uses statistics like a drunk not for illumination but support comes to mind. Look at the methodology and read the original research it is inadequate. oMG do it for the children is no reason to abandon the scientific method.