Me like violence in a way thats positive to the world and maybe some kids will slap themselves out from getting brain damage from watching non violent programs all edited by the FCC so screw them! Violence is something were going to deal with fo the rest of our lives because these new songs out on the radio all talk about shooting people from different clicks you know? Blame hip hop and all these stuff the leader tries to put out there. Som metal and rock are even selling themselves out because the leaders want us to lose our common sense. Leave violence out there because whats the point now if you see people killing thmselves in front of you. Its a fact not a opinion.

My saying about violence im trying to talk about is that kids are eventually are going to see it but if parents help them talk about it then things would not be so bad. Im just trying to make a good statement.

Huh? What you just said is like a complete reverse from the 1st quote.

Also, parents that don't want their kids to have violent video games don't get it for them. But kids do have friends with parents that do buy violent games for them, and they go to their house to play them. So they are still getting their own share of exposure either way.

---

Credits to Kai-V for Sig and Avatar!

Huh? What you just said is like a complete reverse from the 1st quote.

Also, parents that don't want their kids to have violent video games don't get it for them. But kids do have friends with parents that do buy violent games for them, and they go to their house to play them. So they are still getting their own share of exposure either way.

Dude what im saying whatever the parent wants the kid to get exposure of then it will be like that and what you just said about friends and the good kid going to the kids house with violent video games well its the parents choice too because what your saying is that a parent is not alert when the kid is going to his friends house with violent games so that make the parents irresponsible because if I had a kid I wouldnt trust my kid going to his friends house because what if there parents are criminals or have adult themes around there house? Im telling you that its the parents who control!

Dude what im saying whatever the parent wants the kid to get exposure of then it will be like that

When parents are too strict to their kids the way you're making it sound, more times than not they will rebel. Just because a parent wants a kid to do something, they won't always do it.

and what you just said about friends and the good kid going to the kids house with violent video games well its the parents choice too because what your saying is that a parent is not alert when the kid is going to his friends house with violent games

I'm not saying that the parent isn't alert of what their kids are doing, I'm saying that they will get exposure to material parents would otherwise want them to not see. It happens, a lot.

so that make the parents irresponsible because if I had a kid I wouldnt trust my kid going to his friends house because what if there parents are criminals or have adult themes around there house?

That's pretty irrational.

Im telling you that its the parents who control!

Parents need to have some control, yes, but when the collar is too tight, the kid will choke.

---

Credits to Kai-V for Sig and Avatar!

It's almost as if ... the solution is to moderate children's media consumption and to educate them about it rather than cutting it off entirely!

Also, DKS, can you please make posts that aren't gigantic run-on sentences? Because I can't read those walls of text.

Also, DKS, good parents meet their kid's friends and their families.

Also, DKS, good parents meet their kid's friends and their families.

Well if the parents met the kids friends and families, the parents would never have this situation of the kid getting his mind on things hes no supposed to like as we were talking about "violent games"
Sorry for my run on sentences mate I just wanna get the thing through that its the parents who should look after there kids.

... who here is arguing that they shouldn't?

Hehe, my parents never allowed me to play most M-rated games until recently, with a few exceptions, like Metal Gear. It's weird, I've been playing MGS since I was six, and I have never been tempted to smoke.

---

Project Rising Beetle→
I Miss Bionix→

As I said in my paper, it has violence elements, but it's more acceptable due to the nature of the violence. People and guns is substituted with Turtles/Koopas, and fireballs. People view it as more acceptable because it isn't actual people dying and Nintendo made light of it with the cartoony nature and the fun music.



I didn't mention Pokemon in my paper, but people could say it's akin to slavery. You know, capturing people/pokemon, taking them away from their home, and using them for your own personal benefit.

Ok are you being serious? Yes I completely agree to your reply to me, but no one should take Super Mario serious. But we shoudn't even argue about Super Mario being violent, because it's almost nothing violent, it's just like the weakest form of violence that can't be noticed as being violent. Yes, guns are substituted with what you stated previously, but covering all that up makes it approximately 3% violent (In my opinion)
Now Pokemon is extremely kidfriendly. When a trainer encounters a wild Pokemon, the Pokemon just want's a competitive match.
After it joins your team, it is very happy, because the Company designed the creatures for wanting to join them, maybe even before they join the team.
So it is said that Pokemon and Trainers are friends, and it is made into Pokemon wanting to join the trainer, and as I said, before attempting to capture, but to have a good battle.
The part of a battle when the Creatures use certain moves such as scratch, growl, hydro cannon, Flame Kick etc is more violent than Mario, but it doesn't express harsh feelings on Pokemon, and it doesn't even hurt the Pokemon in our view.
And, Pokemon are friends, they just want to have a good battle from time to time.
Therefore, the consequences would say Pokemon is slightly more violent than Super Mario Bros, but games like these shouldn't be taken seriously.
And also Pokemon and Super Mario aren't seen as bad influences at all, even games such as Street Fighter aren't meant to be taken seriously, these are also not bad infuences.

I don't think it takes it seriously at all. Just because he acknowledges the possible interpretations doesn't mean he necessarily seriously believes those interpretations, or seriously believes the violence in Pokemon or Mario is harmful to children. He is just (accurately) pointing out that the company altered the nature of the violence in order to make it more palatable.

When you put it that way, I guess I agree

ill make this easier 80-90% of all anime =]

---

"This is Sierra 077, you have spartans on the ground sir, and we arn't going anywhere"

ill make this easier 80-90% of all anime =]

But I talked about video games =/

---

Credits to Kai-V for Sig and Avatar!

i read the beggining and this is interesting! kids shouldnt play mario bros. i remember myself jumping on my turtles when i was little... no that was a joke lol

anyway i cant find the paragraph where pokemon is mentioned!! some help plz

your a good writer btw.

---

i read the beggining and this is interesting! kids shouldnt play mario bros. i remember myself jumping on my turtles when i was little... no that was a joke lol

lmao wth. But you are 'pegasis' so I'm not all that surprised

---

anyway i cant find the paragraph where pokemon is mentioned!! some help plz

I never wrote about Pokemon in my paper. I talked about within the thread because it was mentioned in relation to Mario Bros, so I addressed it.

---

Credits to Kai-V for Sig and Avatar!

Not only can someone get murdered in Grand Theft Auto, but they can get murdered in progressively violent ways. No longer is the gun enough; but now swords, flamethrowers, and chainsaws can be used to maim people and that’s a step beyond the realm of acceptability.

Swords are no more violent than using a firearm, the chainsaws weren't overly gratuitous (see: Gears of War) and this is the extent of the flamethrower in GTA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=859X0RZKSA8 (ignore that awful music)

We want to save the princess; we want to beat the bad guy, because we want that satisfaction of being the hero. That’s why the game is played.

No one wants to "be" Mario and experience anything he does. Trust me. People play the games because of of the controls, level design, etc.

In relation to video games, it shows we have an ulterior motive when it comes to purchasing them. People do not buy it for the fact it is a video game, people buy it because it may make them look cooler in the eyes of their friends for having the cool brand new game that just came out. It helps to elevate their social status among their friends. “Many people will indeed look twice at you, upgrade you, upmarket you, respond to your displayed signals, if you have made the right purchases within a system of meanings to which you all are trained” (Williams 85). Everyone would like to be recognized in some way, shape, or fashion; and video games provides that avenue people need to head down the path.

Ha, so I bought Halo 1, a game that came out in 2001, not so I could experience the actual game again, but so my friends would be impressed?

They could probably envision themselves in the game themselves, killing people, and even though real people weren’t killed they were the ones pulling the “trigger.” “[T]he player is actually pulling the joystick trigger and inflicting simulated harm him/herself” (McCormick 2), this made it easier for them to turn the gun on another person in real life and pull the trigger. They were desensitized to the act.

I play Gears of War almost every week, stomping on peoples heads, or chainsawing them, yet I can't watch Hostel. In Call of Duty 4 there's a level where you're behind the guns of an AC-130 gunship, I can't get halfway through real-life footage of the same thing. People (Might be a men are from mars kind of thing) like make-believe violence and not just in video games. I'm sure as a kid you got a friend and some sticks and pretended to have swords or something.

If you put any sane person in a Grand Theft Auto that had a school and let them shoot it up, they'd feel sick to their stomach.

Swords are no more violent than using a firearm, the chainsaws weren't overly gratuitous (see: Gears of War) and this is the extent of the flamethrower in GTA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=859X0RZKSA8 (ignore that awful music)

If someone is heard to have been killed via hacked to death by sword or chainsaw, or burned alive via a flamethrower, that is seen as more violent as a gun because then it becomes more of brutalizing the body or maiming it then just killing a person. The point I was making was in previous games, guns (or grenades in war like games) were the main means of killing and people were "used" to that, but then in GTA you have access to the aforementioned items to give greater range of means of killing.

No one wants to "be" Mario and experience anything he does. Trust me. People play the games because of of the controls, level design, etc.

No one wants to "be" Mario in the literal sense, but most people wouldn't see a problem being a hero, which is what Mario becomes after he saves Princess Peach.

Ha, so I bought Halo 1, a game that came out in 2001, not so I could experience the actual game again, but so my friends would be impressed?

As the quote says from Williams, people will take a look at what you have and judge you basically. In the book from Williams, he says that people drink Beer because it makes them look more neighborly to their neighbors, or a woman gets a new washing machine to show neighbors they are moving up in the world. If you have the nice brand new video game, your friends may think more highly of you for having said game for one reason or another. The point is, there could always be another reason someone wants to buy something.

The last quote was mainly pertaining to the Columbine Boys and trying to find why they did what they did.

---

Credits to Kai-V for Sig and Avatar!

quote "I didn't mention Pokemon in my paper, but people could say it's akin to slavery. You know, capturing people/pokemon, taking them away from their home, and using them for your own personal benefit." Tempestas

My oh my, i might as well add that you my friend are one sided, but hear not after reading this you'll be good on your way XD. You know some games are indeed good for you? no really there are games that are proven to recapulate brain cells. unbeliveble!, i know right. see the thing is you don't know that because if you did, you wouldn't say such words as "violence" and continued to talk about a story that took place in 1999?. See games are more or less for boys, tennagers (teenage boys) and grown men, their are different types for different ages but non-the less for boys, Why you might ask? because guys in general are on the more agressive side of nature. now I myself am playing inFamous as the infamous, as suppose to the HERO SIDE! of things, to think the world is in the age of destructions and one man could put a stop to it but decides to make lives miserable and seek power, others with even greater power/abilities try to oppose him and his athority, two evil forces batteling it out for the greater evil. Okay not good for kids, hence forth different ages? but now if a smart kid goes and tries to buy a game simmular and seceedes, he won't get very far as to pass the very first chapter, hence forth vocabulary and or recapulation of thee so called brain cell. unless this kid is on the next level of Newton, there is no way he'll have fun with this game and or others such as GTA IV,and if he tries to "fit"or so you said "suit his ways of valuing time or exposure" by simply killing innocent lives walking down streets, well then he'll have a boring time getting around after a couple of thousand losses being either chased by the cops (GTA IV) or cevillions (inFamous) and then will get rid of the game entirely.

Oh and lets not get into the slavery portion of this topic, ofcouse if you must i sugests you free the animals that are curently in human soicety itself then, or would that not be a form of akin to slavery... you know capturing dogs/cats and animals in general and using them for your own personal benifit Hmmm.......Tempestas. read the book Animal Farm, it might teach you a thing or two about animals and salvery. lastly go learn things about life because clearly you don't know much about it

You missed the point of what he's saying entirely. He never once stated that video games are universally bad for kids.

lastly go learn things about life because clearly you don't know much about it

Way to get a warning on your first post! I'm impressed!

Also, you contradicted yourself like ten times.

---

Thanks to Ellz for my Face :)

Well that was fun to wake up to...

---

Credits to Kai-V for Sig and Avatar!

well if you think that super mario bros is violent you might as well throw in pokemon to. Summary of every pokemon game:you capture wild animals and force them to fight until they are unconsious or dead. Violence is what makes video games fun. I don't see kids talking about how awesome Brain Age is or Big Brain Academy.

---

HELP THE CAUSE!!!

well if you think that super mario bros is violent you might as well throw in pokemon to. Summary of every pokemon game:you capture wild animals and force them to fight until they are unconsious or dead. Violence is what makes video games fun. I don't see kids talking about how awesome Brain Age is or Big Brain Academy.

If you'd actually read the essay you'd realize he talked about this.