Manhunt

[Skarro]

(07-08-2012 11:41 AM)cingchris Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 11:21 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:55 AM)cingchris Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:47 AM)Fredned101 Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 10:38 AM)cingchris Wrote:  Wasn't that over some huge controversy about some kid getting murdered by another kid and then everyone blaming it on violent video games, specifically Manhunt...*shakes head* society can be so stupid sometimes.

If you're talking about "Do Video Games Cause Violence", I had to do a whole paper on this topic...

I've just always found it to be a bull crap topic in my opinion because when I see an act of violence in a video game I don't think "Oh it happened in this fictional world, well then it must be acceptable in real life.", If you think that then you are obviously mentally ill and shouldn't be playing video games in the first place. *sigh* Sorry for seeming like such a douche about that, but I have formed a very strong opinion on the topic.

Ha yeah. It's sad how, millions of people buy Counter Strike and play it for hours on end. But ONE out of the millions of people, kills someone and therefore videos games are bad/need to be banned. It's pathetic that people imitate what they see in games/movies or real life and the parents blame the games/film/personal act for being an influence. It's not up to Manhunt/The Matrix/Miley Cyrus to raise your kids.

Completely agree with you there it's the parents job to instill values and boundaries of social acceptance into their children, not society's job.

Though I do think games do not imprint lasting violence into children. Can I ask you if there was anything your parents could have done to stop you from playing a specific game or watching a show besides tying you up and never letting you leave the house? I for one would just find a friend with lax parents and lie and say they dont have this game or show.. I understand your saying it's up to parents to place these values in there children so game influence shouldn't matter.., but if they did honestly believe that it is doing harm, and there is no 100% proof to show otherwise, it's not ridiculous for them to want it banned.

I do agree with you guys, but this seems like a one sided discussion and I always look at things from both ends.