Ban the sale of violent video games

http://www.neisd.net... These are the rules that go with an LD topic such as this p,ease provide by them and no plagiarizing. Please also share sources. I will do so likewise. Let's begin! -Here is what some of the people out there have to say: "Violent video games are teaching are kids to be violent. It is a known fact that we learn by repetition. By allowing children to play violent video games it starts to desensitize them at an early age to the effects of violence. These games were originally designed for military training to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy." -"Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,"Oh, my son promised to never act like that," or,"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun. Violent video games like MWF3 or Call of Duty or Assassins Creed are insults to military men. They're at war, fighting for our country, and you've got your butt on a couch, laughing at people who are getting shot on a video game. This is a serious offense to soldiers. And what if you played these games and someone you love is in the military. Would they feel offended. Go on. Ask yourself. They are insulting, bad for children, and brutal." -"Those Who voted 'No' are delusional fools. It's plainly obvious, video games make people of all ages agitated and aggressive. -I've seen it in my nephews and niece and there are countless studies available at your finger tips. The vast majority of respondents to this article are delusional people with absolutely no sense of what's going on. Now that is a cold hard fact and highly unfortunate that there are so many video game addicts." -"Yes violent video games should be banned!! Police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For example a 8 year old boy oblivious to the real life fact that if you shot someone in real life they would die and not come back, took out a gun and shot is grandmother. His grandmother did die and did not come back. He is now facing life in prison after juvenile hall of course for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games pump things into children's heads so bad these days they have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life." -Now let's talk some philosophy. -Posted by Mike LaBossiere on June 27, 2011 Leave a comment (21)Go to comments I have been using my budget-cut based summer break from teaching to do various home improvements. The point of mentioning this is that I have been alternating between baking in the Florida sun and being exposed to "second hand paint fumes" (as opposed to directly huffing the stuff) as such, my writing might be a bit off. I have checked for any obvious weirdness (well, weirdness beyond the usual sort), but I apologize in advance for any heat/paint induced lapses in logic. I blame the flying frogs that seem to be infesting my house now. In any case, down to business. -The supreme court recently ruled that California"s law banning the sale of video games to minors that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." The ruling was, of course, based on the first amendment. -Being both a gamer and an ethicist, I have thought (and written) a fair amount about the banning video games. On the one hand, a very reasonable case can be made for placing age based restrictions on video games. While studies of the impact of virtual violence on children are hardly conclusive, it seems reasonable to accept that exposure to virtual violence can have an impact on how the child thinks. As Aristotle has argued, people become habituated by what they do. Children are, of course, even more likely to be influenced. They are more receptive than adults and tend to lack the cognitive resources that adults are supposed to possess. As such, it seems reasonable to keep young children away from violence-even the virtual sort. -On the other hand, there are reasonable grounds for rejecting such bans. First, there are reasons for doubting that such games have a significant impact on children. The psychological studies are open to question and, of course, humans seem to be naturally prone to violence ( the stock "we like violent games because we are violent, we are not violent because of the games" argument). When I was a kid, long before violent video games, we spent a lot of time playing war. While the effects were not very special (cap guns), we certainly did act out killing each other. When violent video games came along, they simply allowed me to do what I had done as a kid (play at killing) only with ever better graphics and effects). As such, banning violent video games to protect children from the influence of violence seems like something that simply will not work, thus making such a law unnecessary. -Second, there is the matter of freedom of expression and consumption. While minors do have a reduced right of freedom of consumption (they cannot but alcohol, tobacco, guns or porn), imposing on their freedom only seems justified when it protects them from a significant harm in cases in which they lack the judgment to (in theory at least) make an informed choice. Even if violent video games have a harmful impact, it can be contended that the harm is not on par with that of adult vices such as alcohol or tobacco but rather on par with junk food. So, just as it is sensible to think that children should not eat junk food, yet also think there should not be laws banning children from buying candy bards, it seems sensible to think that although young kids should not buy violent video games, there should not be laws against doing so. -Third, there is the matter of what is fit for the state to control and what is fit for parents to control. There are, obviously enough, matters that should be handled by the state and those that should remain a matter of parental choice. Alcohol, guns and tobacco are so dangerous that it seems reasonable that the state has a interest in keeping children away from these things by force of law. There is also a category of things were the state should aid parents in making choices, such as diet and exercise, but where the state should not intervene except in extreme cases. As noted above, I am inclined to put violent video games in the category of junk food. As such, parents should be informed about what the games contain (which is already done by the rating system) and the choice of whether or not their children play the games or not should be up to them. Naturally, children who lack parents or whose parents are dangerously incompetent will fall under the domain of the state, but these would be relatively rare cases." http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com... -BY ERIK BRUDVIGViolent media has existed as long as human history and the debate over how or when to control it is as hotly contested as ever. With the trend towards greater realism and graphic content that began in the 90's, videogames have found themselves the focal point du jour. But how much of an impact have these violent videogames had? We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts. -Selling an Image Anybody who has been playing games for the past five years must surely have noticed the recent and accelerating trend towards "thugsploitation" games. The success of Grand Theft Auto III assured us all that we'd be seeing a steady stream of imitators hoping for their own piece of the pie. Over the top violence, sexual themes, and drug references have become commonplace in videogames and certainly take more than their fair share of the mainstream press's time. But how far has this "even negative press is good press" philosophy taken these games? Eighty-five percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. (Entertainment Software Association) Additionally, only one (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) of the top 10 grossing games for 2005 was rated "M" for Mature. That's not to say that these top selling games are suitable for all ages. Seven of the top ten games of 2005 have some form of violence listed as a descriptor by the ESRB, but it certainly speaks volumes about what the impact of the steady stream of Mature games is on the consumer side. Nintendo, a company always concerned with the content of games appearing on its systems, may be on to something more than just being "kiddy." Despite the relatively small market share these Mature games have garnered, it hasn't stopped our lawmakers from latching on to them and turning them into a political focal point. -Public Policy With all of the uproar surrounding the Columbine shootings and other similar tragedies, as well as the Hot Coffee controversy, lawmakers have been quick to propose legislation that would limit the access of violent material to minors. Violent game laws have been proposed or considered in Kansas, Utah, Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Illinois, California, Germany, and recently, the U.S. Senate. So far, none of these proposals have become a reality at your local videogame store. -read more @ http://www.ign.com...