I agree. Another example I could use was a time a few years back when my mother, my sister and I spent some time at a downtown park in Oregon. My sister's dog was with us and, being a more aggressive breed, she was on leash. That was also the law, that all dogs in these parks must be kept on leash. Anyway, there was a guy who had a dog nearby, and his dog wasn't on any kind of a leash. Well, this dog came running up to where we were sitting, ignoring the warning from my sister's dog. Well, quite naturally this guy's dog was bitten, not severely but it was bitten. The owner said he was seriously considering pressing charges against my sister, in his words "because you don't control your dog." I'm sorry, but if you don't put your dog on a leash and it suddenly runs up to another dog, there's the strong possibility one of them's going to get bit. The same thing goes for games and the people who play them. If a parent buys a game for his or her kid without first researching what the game's about and the rating it carries, especially when the kid is known to have anger issues, then it's hardly surprising if the kid later kills someone else. Not that it's the game's fault. It'd be the parent's fault for providing the media that inspired the murder or, if the parent was unaware of the kid possessing it, it's the parent's fault for not taking a greater hand in monitoring what their child was playing, watching or listening to or reading. I personally think the whole thing is riddiculous. Companies attach ratings and warnings to their games for a very specific reason. If a parent chooses to ignore that or to ignore the fact that their child somehow came into possession of a violent game without their knowledge, then it's the parent's fault for not taking action. I'm sorry if I seem dispassionate about this sort of thing but you have to wonder what these parents were doing when these kids were doing this stuff. Granted I'm sure some of these parents did actually try to monitor their kids but obviously they weren't thorough enough. It goes back to the fact that it's not only the game's fault if someone goes out and beheads someone with a machete. It's the person's fault for being dim enough to let the game go to their head.
It ain't pretty when the pretty leaves you with no place to go. >From: Thomas Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Gamers Discussion list <[email protected]> >To: Gamers Discussion list <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Audyssey] the negativity of santa claus in accessible games >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:19:41 -0400 > >Hi Bryan, >I don't think anyone in living memory can forget the coffee case. To me >that is simply another sign of the times that many people are unwilling >to stand up and admit they made a mistake and take responcibility for >it. If they burn themselves it's the other guys fault, if they buy a >game, and then kill someone afterward it was the games fault. >Oh, no. It couldn't be my actions that did that." >What it really boils down to is an excuse to get money or to try and get >out of trouble. One of the reasons there is so much research in to how >violent games effects children, weather child abuse creates tomorrows >killers, is the killers can walk in to a court of law, say that he/she >was influenced by this material, get a reduced sentence or a stay in a >mental hospital, and out in a few years saying he/she was treated. >Whatever happened to you did it, you wanted to do it, and now you are >going to pay the maximum price? Sorry no excuses for bad behavior >excepted. I know my parents sure didn't buy my excuses for bad grades, >fighting at school, or whatever the infraction was I was getting >punished for. If I did I got punished, and I learned not to do it again, >or at least not to do it that often. > > >Bryan Peterson wrote: > > This is way off the topic of games but it bears on this discussion. I >don't > > know if any of you heard on the news quite a while back about that lady >that > > sued a McDonalds because she spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap. She > > said they didn't tell her it was hot. In the words of the great Bill > > Engvall, here's your sign. I would think that the coffee was supposed to >be > > hot. That's what people generally look for when they order a cup of >coffee > > at a restaurant. Nobody told you to put the hot cup between your legs, >where > > it was almost guaranteed to spill, particularly in a car, which is where > > that woman was at the time. > > The same thing applies, though differently, in games. Granted there >are > > people who kill people because of the games they play but that does not >in > > any way mean that every single person is going to behave the same way. > > That's why they have the rating system. It's the responsibility of the > > buyer, or the buyer's parents whatever the situation may be, to look at >the > > rating and decide based on that information what to do. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Gamers mailing list .. [email protected] >To unsubscribe send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can >visit >http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org to make >any subscription changes via the web. _________________________________________________________________ Try the new Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG _______________________________________________ Gamers mailing list .. [email protected] To unsubscribe send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can visit http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org to make any subscription changes via the web.
