Grand Theft Auto inspires Thai murder

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Luvian Taken at face value the question doesn't make any sense. After all if they are not exposed to it how can they be affected? But that's not the point since this is a trick question. The person answer yes then you'd say "Har har! Secondary exposure through society! You see you were for banning games all along and you just didn't know it!" Which is a ridiculous argument. Would you stop using firearms if it was proven they could harm children's health? Would you stop drinking if it was proven it could harm their health? Would you stop driving? Would you stop using fire? Would you stop using electricity? Cutlery? Pretty much everything can harm children.

I'm just trying to understand you a little more Luvian. I don't understand why you're getting so wrought up about what we're saying.

I'm seeking to understand what your priorities are. Self gratification, or the health of your children?

Sometimes we need to err on one side or the other, and I'm just wondering which side you sit on.

As for all your questions, yes I would stop drinking if it harmed my kids health. My wife stopped for pregnancy, so it's obvious people do such a thing.

Yes I would stop using electricity, cutlery, fire or anything else that was proven to harm my child by my use. My child's welfare sits first on my priority list man.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by Cerek My comment was that games are marketed towards teens and young adults and I stand by that. To claim otherwise is naive. I don't think GTA is aimed for the "middle-aged gamer" in any shape, form or fashion.

Young adults are still adults. They can vote and everything. A child of 6 can understand that violence is not an acceptable way of solving problems, and a child of 18 must.

Originally Posted by Cerek I think we have effectively concluded these measures do not work well, if at all. What else could game manufacturers do? Simply STOP making games that require such measures in the first place. If you don't make a game that requires an "M" rating, you don't have to worry about some underaged teen skirting the system and buying it.

Here in the Glorious Free Nation of Finland, it's illegal to sell mature video games to children. It's also illegal to give mature video games to children. The laws are quite similar to the ones governing the sale of alcohol and tobacco. And children continue to play mature video games. They drink and smoke, too. O tempora, o mores.

Originally Posted by Cerek The boy in question was 18, which technically makes him an adult. So he can ignore the "parenting" he has been subjected to. This is even more true for young adults who don't live with their parents. So, to restate my own quote - "Playing games is fun. Shifting blame is easy." A young adult imitates a game? Well that kid must have been nuts already before ever playing the game, cuz the game certainly couldn't have had any bearing on his actions. So don't take away my game cause I like playing it and I don't want to find a different game that doesn't emulate breaking society's rules cause I think it's fun and besides I'm not going to REALLY go out and try to steal a car to see if it's as easy as it is in the game. Did I mention the kid who DID do that must have been crazy already?

Well, if we choose to define "insanity" as an abnormality in thinking that hinders the insane individual's ability to function in society, then he was insane. Normal people do not steal cars to see if they can get away with it. Most people have understood very early that violence is Not Appropriate. I'm guessing it's negative reinforcement. If you start punching random people, someone will very soon punch back.

And then there's the group of people who play violent video games, and choose to not imitate them. Apparently GTA4 sold approximately 6 million copies in its first week. And that's just the latest game in this one series, within a week of release. And it's still a lot more than the number of reported cases of game-inspired violence.

Originally Posted by Yorick That sounded like a suggestion from Cerek, not an advocation of banning things from being created. What he said is true. The simplest solution IS to not create irresponsible games in the first place. SELF-REGULATION trumps all. However, people won't self regulate, so there's nothing against banning stuff from sale. Create all you like, we just won't distribute it. This is the thinking behind hate crime laws. "Say it in private if you must, but don't try and foist such venom in the public sphere where it damages people."

Well, it's not really SELF-regulation if someone else is telling the game people to do it. Of course they can just spontaneously stop depicting violence, but I really don't think that's feasible at this time.

Also, are you absolutely certain that there's nothing against banning the sale of a product? Nationwide? Possessing this product is OK, as is just giving it away or making more of it, but don't you dare try to take money for it? Or are you talking about something else?

[Luvian]

My position is that the current system works.

I think parents can control what their kids are exposed to while in their house. I think parents can educate their children, explain to them what is right or wrong, and why. Not tell them, explain. So they understand the reasoning behind it, so they can reproduce that reasoning.

The first time kids have to be out of the direct supervision of their parents and in "the village" as you call it is for school. You've got five to six years to build a good base in them before that. And you can always chose the school.

You control who your kids hang out with. You can investigate them, their parents, you can decide if they are a good influence for your kids. You can also chose what extended network your kids will be exposed to. Send them to church if you want. Send them to a religious school, send them to private camps, to the sport team approved by your moral group.

School is really the only outside factor in a growing kid's life. You control the tv. You control the computer. You control who he sees, what he does.

You talked about positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is probably the parent's most powerful tool. Through all the above you shape his life. You shape his background, you shape the lens by which he sees life.

You have all the tools you need to raise your kids. The same tools which all parents have, have had since the beginning of humanity. If in his first fifteen years you haven't be able to instill a sense of right in your kid, well you failed.

You chose who you hang out with and where you live. I see nothing wrong with Mature games because it isn't a problem in my direct family, it isn't a problem in my extended family, it isn't a problem in my circle of friends and it isn't a problem in my local shops as they would not let a minor have access to such games. In short, it isn't a problem in "my village". Mature products are only a problem if you can't trust your kids to make the right choice and if you played your cards right you shouldn't have to doubt them.

Do you doubt your kids? Have you failed to pass on your moral values?

Originally Posted by Yorick As for all your questions, yes I would stop drinking if it harmed my kids health. My wife stopped for pregnancy, so it's obvious people do such a thing.

You are exposing your child to alcohol. Society is exposing your child to alcohol. How do you know they won't become drunkards? Alcohol IS harming your child's health, as much as violent or sexual products are. Probably even more, as they are much more likely to start drinking than they are to start killing. Why won't they become drunkards? Because you sensibilized them against alcohol. Who not just sensibilize them against violence? Against casual sex?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Luvian All rules are useless if you're willing to commit a crime to break them, it doesn't have anything specific to do with video games. Kids manage to get their hands on alcohol, so I suppose we should stop creating alcohol too? Oh, they also manage to get their hands on firearms! I guess we need to stop creating firearms! Oh no! Some kids could get his hands on his parent's car keys and go for a joyride, let's stop creating cars too! What about lighters? Some kid could set fire to something. Let's stop creating lighters! Do I need to go on, or can we simply agree "Let's stop creating things because a kid could get his hands on it" doesn't make much sense as an argument?

*sigh* We did this dance a few pages ago, but what the hell. I'll go another round.

These products are NOT marketed towards teens and young adults. Yes, things exist that any child or adult can harm themselves with through ignorance or carelessness or both. I'm not advocating banning the games. I'm suggesting that manufacturers choose to NOT produce games that specifically center around breaking as many laws as possible in order to be rewarded and have your character succeed.

Sadly, we have seen that the industry chooses NOT to regulate themselves, so the government has to create some type of regulation. We've also effectively concluded this system does NOT work effectively. Some stores comply, others don't. So the kid has to go out of their way a little to get it, it just requires a little extra effort.

One thing getting lost in this discussion is the fact that these games don't harm JUST the child, but other members of society as well and - by extension - society as a whole. You can claim (rather pompously) that I am trying to force my own set of values on others. I see it as common sense that a game designed to reward the protaganist for breaking laws of society is a bad idea.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Luvian My position is that the current system works. I think parents can control what their kids are exposed to while in their house. I think parents can educate their children, explain to them what is right or wrong, and why. Not tell them, explain. So they understand the reasoning behind it, so they can reproduce that reasoning. The first time kids have to be out of the direct supervision of their parents and in "the village" as you call it is for school. You've got five to six years to build a good base in them before that. And you can always chose the school. You control who your kids hang out with. You can investigate them, their parents, you can decide if they are a good influence for your kids. You can also chose what extended network your kids will be exposed to. Send them to church if you want. Send them to a religious school, send them to private camps, to the sport team approved by your moral group. School is really the only outside factor in a growing kid's life. You control the tv. You control the computer. You control who he sees, what he does. You talked about positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is probably the parent's most powerful tool. Through all the above you shape his life. You shape his background, you shape the lens by which he sees life. You have all the tools you need to raise your kids. The same tools which all parents have, have had since the beginning of humanity. If in his first fifteen years you haven't be able to instill a sense of right in your kid, well you failed. You chose who you hang out with and where you live. I see nothing wrong with Mature games because it isn't a problem in my direct family, it isn't a problem in my extended family, it isn't a problem in my circle of friends and it isn't a problem in my local shops as they would not let a minor have access to such games. In short, it isn't a problem in "my village". Mature products are only a problem if you can't trust your kids to make the right choice and if you played your cards right you shouldn't have to doubt them. Do you doubt your kids? Have you failed to pass on your moral values? You are exposing your child to alcohol. Society is exposing your child to alcohol. How do you know they won't become drunkards? Alcohol IS harming your child's health, as much as violent or sexual products are. Probably even more, as they are much more likely to start drinking than they are to start killing. Why won't they become drunkards? Because you sensibilized them against alcohol. Who not just sensibilize them against violence? Against casual sex?

How many children do you have, Luvian? I would like to know how your efforts to control every aspect of their life and social interaction is working.

To quote your favorite new saying, parenting is hard.

And, speaking from personal experience, expecting to control every aspect of their development and social interaction is doomed from the start. The more controlling you try to be, the more rebellious your kids are likely to be. If you have kids, this is a truth you already know. If you don't have kids, you'll find out how true it is soon enough.

The fact is that kids have their own individual personality and there are some aspects of that you will NOT be able to control, regardless of how hard you try.

As for not allowing your children to have access to "mature" games, ROTFLMAO, lotsa luck on that one. If it's in the house, they WILL find it if they want to. I knew every nook and cranny of our house when I was growing up and I was a LOT better at finding "hidey holes" than my parents were. I found my dad's Playboy magazines with no effort at all. When he moved them, it took me two days to find them again.

As for controlling what school they go to and who they hang out with, let me know how that works out too. I'm divorced now and my ex is sending our oldest boy to a different school than I want him to go to - and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Last year, she took all 3 boys out of the school they had attended all their lives and put them in a new school because it was more convenient for her. Again, there was absolutely NOTHING I could do about that, so I just had to make the best of the situation. I also can NOT control who my kids hang out with in school, since the teachers kinda frowned on me staying with them all day long. Even if I did do that, I had 3 boys in 3 different grades, so how do I control who each one of them is hanging out with for the entire day.

If you have children and are able to control their lives as completely as you suggest without them resenting you or rebelling against your control, then you have may awestruck admiration. But I'm guessing you don't have children of your own yet. Once you do, you will discover for yourself that things almost never go according to plan.

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by Yorick I don't think it's an issue of blanketly banning the game, but perhaps declaring culpability where provable situations are beyond a doubt? Dunno... If that ever happened that would create some self-regulation pretty quickly I'd say. At least we need to create bigger hurdles for mass distributing games that have the protagonist rewarded for illegal acts. Banning or limiting public advertising, like we do for cigarettes would be one such idea for example.

I think this post provide a nice opportunity for an aside.

Culpability. I'd be curious to know what you all think of the Hot Coffee debacle. Were Rockstar responsible for it? Should they be accountable for it? What were their intentions?

In my opinion, Rockstar wasn't responsible for it. I don't think they even had any intention for anyone to ever see this.

Why? Because the files were unaccessible without hacking the game. Hacking is a crime. Someone had to break the law and reverse engineer the game, dig in where no one is supposed to see, find these files and them illegally modify the main executable to activate that content.

This is the same to me as someone breaking into your house, breaking your safe and stealing your home made naughty tapes, broadcasting them illegally at the Superbowl, and then accusing you of public indecency. Someone broke into your house, broke your security, stole from you, broadcast private data, and yet you are the bad guy?

Originally Posted by Cerek ...the industry chooses NOT to regulate themselves, so the government has to create some type of regulation.

No Cerek. Your government has decided it does NOT have to regulate this. It has even decided doing so would be unconstitutional, they have decided that the rating system is enough, that the industry is doing enough to regulate itself. Your Judges have spoken. The people who's whole education, whole career is based on interpreting the constitution have ruled that doing so would be unconstitutional.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Luvian No Cerek. Your government has decided it does NOT have to regulate this. It has even decided doing so would be unconstitutional, they have decided that the rating system is enough, that the industry is doing enough to regulate itself. Your Judges have spoken. The people who's whole education, whole career is based on interpreting the constitution have ruled that doing so would be unconstitutional.

No, Luvian. Our court system determined it was uncostitutional to censor these games.

The rating system is a means of regulation and was not done voluntarily. The companies finally decided to implement the rating system only when threatened with stiffer regulations imposed and enforced by the government. By creating the rating system, the industry was able to give the appearance of self-regulating while still mass producing games with questionable content.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally Posted by Cerek One thing getting lost in this discussion is the fact that these games don't harm JUST the child, but other members of society as well and - by extension - society as a whole. You can claim (rather pompously) that I am trying to force my own set of values on others. I see it as common sense that a game designed to reward the protaganist for breaking laws of society is a bad idea.

Can you prove that in some way? Provide a link to a study showing that there is a correlation between violence in video games and violence in the real world? I've known several people who have played video games that depict unethical behaviour, and as of yet, none of them have ever been to prison.

Rewarding the protagonist for breaking the laws ins't really a problem because everyone already knows that you should obey the law. One might even argue that the games in question sell because they are sociopathic wish-fulfillment fantasies; people want to be able to do anything and get away with it, and as that is not available in the real world, they do it in a virtual fantasy world in the privacy of their own homes. People steal cars in GTA because they know that stealing cars is wrong. If someone actually thought that stealing someone else's car is an acceptable and risk-free way of solving problems, why would he play a game to do it?

Stuff in video games might affect the players thinking in various subtle ways, but it will not turn him into a homicidal maniac. The army has to spend months to get people willingly shoot other people, and even then they probably won't enjoy it. Just look at the numbers. Number of violent video games sold against (number of violent crimes - number of violent crimes thirty years ago). One of those is going to be a lot larger.

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by Cerek No, Luvian. Our court system determined it was uncostitutional to censor these games.

Which one of the cases are you talking about? There has been multiple cases in the recent years.

Mostly, and I actually disagree with the decisions, the recent bills were about enforcing the age restrictions on games and in the case of retailers selling to minors imposing a sanction. For some reason these bills keep getting shot down by judges who think minors should have access to these games. Crazy I know. But they're the experts.

Here's an old article about the Californian one. It wasn't over back then but the bill failed. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-146141.html

EDIT: Actually about the "Video games cause violence" thing. Part of the reason these laws keep getting shot down is actually because no one has managed to prove it. Judge said so in this one: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/08/...constitutional

[pritchke]

Hmm...this thread gives much food for thought. I like the laws and rating systems that prevent games being sold to minors. Apparently this guy was 18 which in Canada means he is an adult as far as the courts go. I think he could have pulled something like this even if there was no such thing as video games. I am pretty sure must murders and crazies that cause events like this are not related to video games. Take the beheading on the greyhound bus, or the shooting at the church. Most likely this was not video game related as the men involved were old farts. These things do happen. This kid would mostly likely have imitated a movie if video games didn't exist. I do believe in a rating system and laws that prevent minors from playing certain games. Part of it is parents responsibility when it comes to kids as kids can be greatly influenced. They pick up bad words, and other ideas really easily they are mimics. Lets just say I don't play RE4 around my 3 year old and he must likely isn't even going to get a peak at it until he turns at least 16 and maybe 18 depending on his maturity level. I don't even let him watch PG13 movies so Kung Fu panda is out of the picture until I see it first, I even regret letting him watch 101 Dalmatians, I forgot the stuff in that one but it gets a G rating I guess because it is classic Disney. Just my two cents, I think it has to do with more than just video games and banning the game will be luckly to make a dent in the problem. Although if it helps than I would be all for a ban on the game. I just don't think it will do much.