Grand Theft Auto now enraging centre-left - How long before the party ends?
Lieberman names and shames Rockstar blockbuster
The Grand Theft Auto series is running out of places to hide and friends to hide there with. Last week, former Democratic presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman launched a savage and specific attack on the culture of video games, in what some observers saw as disavowing the principle of free speech.
The former Democrat front-runner said, "You ought to see one [game] called "Grand Theft Auto," in which, he continued "The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again. I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
This is perhaps the highest profile attack on a single game we have yet witnessed and raises two very important points. Does Lieberman have a point? And if so, is his point is valid? And can his comments do anything but help future sales of the franchise?
In terms of the content to be found in Grand Theft Auto 3 and its pseudo sequel Vice City, there is no question that certain aspects of it are distasteful. The violence against prostitutes is inexcusably graphic - to the point of being offensive. However, Rockstar will argue that this aspect of the game is delivered with tongue-in-cheek, black humour - aimed at adults, and the game carries an appropriate rating. However, it is no secret that a huge percentage of GTA players are below the age of 18. The result is that wholly inappropriate material is being played en-masse by children. A situation that is unhealthy, in the widest possible sense.
But will Lieberman's comments only fuel the raging fires of demand for the series? Does this kind of public outcry simply lend credence to the series' ability to deliver the gratuitously violent content its players enjoy so much?
The former Democrat front-runner said, "You ought to see one [game] called "Grand Theft Auto," in which, he continued "The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again. I call on the entertainment companies - they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."
This is perhaps the highest profile attack on a single game we have yet witnessed and raises two very important points. Does Lieberman have a point? And if so, is his point is valid? And can his comments do anything but help future sales of the franchise?
In terms of the content to be found in Grand Theft Auto 3 and its pseudo sequel Vice City, there is no question that certain aspects of it are distasteful. The violence against prostitutes is inexcusably graphic - to the point of being offensive. However, Rockstar will argue that this aspect of the game is delivered with tongue-in-cheek, black humour - aimed at adults, and the game carries an appropriate rating. However, it is no secret that a huge percentage of GTA players are below the age of 18. The result is that wholly inappropriate material is being played en-masse by children. A situation that is unhealthy, in the widest possible sense.
But will Lieberman's comments only fuel the raging fires of demand for the series? Does this kind of public outcry simply lend credence to the series' ability to deliver the gratuitously violent content its players enjoy so much?
Read More Like This
Comments
nickeedoo 2 Mar 2004 12:36
1/9
I'm not sure how censorship is run in America, but over here, it's illegal to sell the GTA series to anyone under 18 in the UK. If the parents are happy to buy it for their kids then so be it. It's their fault, and they are to blame. Not the kids and not the video game industry.
And besides, you can kill anyone in GTA. Not just women.
And besides, you can kill anyone in GTA. Not just women.
config 2 Mar 2004 12:58
2/9
nickeedoo wrote:
>I'm not sure how censorship is run in America,
>but over here, it's illegal to sell the GTA
>series to anyone under 18 in the UK.
I was just about to post the same. In the US it earns an ESRB "Mature" rating, which is defined as being "suitable for persons ages 17 and older"
Maybe it should be changed to "not suitable for persons aged 16 and under"
> If the
>parents are happy to buy it for their kids then
>so be it. It's their fault, and they are to
>blame. Not the kids and not the video game
>industry.
There's a piece in this month's Develop magazine (http://www.developmag.com) on this exact point. The responsibility lies with the parents. The writer of the article claims that parent's fall into two camps, those who couldn't give a s**t about their kids and what they're exposed to, and those who simply have no idea what these games contain.
I personally know people who are happy let their kids play GTA because they're ignorant of the game's content. Personally, in this case, I think the title of the game is just a bit of a clue.
These people would be worried sick if they didn't know where their kids were, what they were doing or who they were mixing with when out playing. It's time they started to apply the same degree of scrutiny to what their kids are doing and what they're being exposed to when they're indoors. Watching DVDs, playing games or accessing the Internet. They're all potentially loaded with toxic material and persons.
> And besides, you can kill anyone in GTA.
> Not just women.
LOL! That makes it alright then :)
>I'm not sure how censorship is run in America,
>but over here, it's illegal to sell the GTA
>series to anyone under 18 in the UK.
I was just about to post the same. In the US it earns an ESRB "Mature" rating, which is defined as being "suitable for persons ages 17 and older"
Maybe it should be changed to "not suitable for persons aged 16 and under"
> If the
>parents are happy to buy it for their kids then
>so be it. It's their fault, and they are to
>blame. Not the kids and not the video game
>industry.
There's a piece in this month's Develop magazine (http://www.developmag.com) on this exact point. The responsibility lies with the parents. The writer of the article claims that parent's fall into two camps, those who couldn't give a s**t about their kids and what they're exposed to, and those who simply have no idea what these games contain.
I personally know people who are happy let their kids play GTA because they're ignorant of the game's content. Personally, in this case, I think the title of the game is just a bit of a clue.
These people would be worried sick if they didn't know where their kids were, what they were doing or who they were mixing with when out playing. It's time they started to apply the same degree of scrutiny to what their kids are doing and what they're being exposed to when they're indoors. Watching DVDs, playing games or accessing the Internet. They're all potentially loaded with toxic material and persons.
> And besides, you can kill anyone in GTA.
> Not just women.
LOL! That makes it alright then :)
more comments below our sponsor's message
Silencer 2 Mar 2004 14:29
3/9
Just to add, the ESRB ratings in the U.S. are not legally enforceable ratings. They are in place merely as a tool for parents to help them decide what is right for their kids. Some retailers try to have policies on selling games, but I know that EB games once tried to enforce a policy and was actually sued for it. As a former employee I was told that all we are allowed to do was make note to customers that items were mature rated and may not be appropriate for those under 17. The register even prompts to give the warning to the customer. I've been cursed at by parents for selling GTA games to their 10-year-olds whom I stressed to that the game probably wasn't right for them and wouldn't be approved of by their parents. Who is worse in that situation. Me or the parents who let a 10-year-old kid walk around a mall by themselves? Why don't parents finally step up for once?
SPInGSPOnG 2 Mar 2004 15:05
4/9
Silencer wrote:
> Why don't
>parents finally step up for once?
Dude, you are totally correct. Parents are just trying to absolve themselves of responsibility, and blame anything - computer games, Metallica, Marylin Manson - ANYTHING for the fact that they are s**tty parents, who do not love and guide their chillun properly.
When I was young, if I had taken a gun to school and shot several of my classmates, I would have been grounded for weeks, and had my pocket money suspended.
Nowadays, parents don't even care if their offspring are being naughty.
They should bring back capital punishment for minors... and televise it, or maybe make a computer game about it, and make other minors watch it or play it, to teach them a lesson.
> Why don't
>parents finally step up for once?
Dude, you are totally correct. Parents are just trying to absolve themselves of responsibility, and blame anything - computer games, Metallica, Marylin Manson - ANYTHING for the fact that they are s**tty parents, who do not love and guide their chillun properly.
When I was young, if I had taken a gun to school and shot several of my classmates, I would have been grounded for weeks, and had my pocket money suspended.
Nowadays, parents don't even care if their offspring are being naughty.
They should bring back capital punishment for minors... and televise it, or maybe make a computer game about it, and make other minors watch it or play it, to teach them a lesson.
auzdafluff 3 Mar 2004 09:43
5/9
>When I was young, if I had taken a gun to school
>and shot several of my classmates, I would have
>been grounded for weeks, and had my pocket money
>suspended.
Is that all? Nah, I think you probably would have been incarcerated mate.
Anyway, I work for a large corporate website, and am studying a degree in Media & Cultural Studies BA, and as part of my final assignments for the year I have to look at Video Game Violence, it is also a feature that I am writing cocurrently for britxbox. What I have found from the research that I am uncovering is that while we are inevitably affected by the precipitation of violence on screen, such as the way I know for myself that I can look the body of a sucide bomber and not be disgusted by it (the state of the body, not the act). However, all case studies, such as the Columbine Massacre have contributing factors, such as the murderers are usually loners, and have been bullied throughout their lives, something which no matter how desentitising games are and how graphically real they are, games can not match the degregating (in other words mentally harmful) effects of.
As for my opinion of Lieberman, well I think is a one side bigotist prick, who while having some good point totally makes people turn off them and focus on the outlandish. And lets all remember its not the first time, if anything, he started it...
When Sega and Nintendo were the only console manufacturers, there was not violence debate, or at least not to the scale of today anyway. Now, there was once a game called Mortal Combat, on its home console release there were two versions of it, a sanitized version which nintendo had demanded, and the arcade orignal which sega had said okay to... Game which sold over 6.5 million copies sold at a ratio of 3:1 on sega's genisis. That means that the original sega version old sold nintendos. Now, it is said, nintendo then hired a lobbying group to go round the senate trying to get a senator to pick up on this debate. Nintendo were secretly hoping that protesters would be outside shops selling sega games with picketing signs saying 'don't buy sega products'... So whos fault is it?
>and shot several of my classmates, I would have
>been grounded for weeks, and had my pocket money
>suspended.
Is that all? Nah, I think you probably would have been incarcerated mate.
Anyway, I work for a large corporate website, and am studying a degree in Media & Cultural Studies BA, and as part of my final assignments for the year I have to look at Video Game Violence, it is also a feature that I am writing cocurrently for britxbox. What I have found from the research that I am uncovering is that while we are inevitably affected by the precipitation of violence on screen, such as the way I know for myself that I can look the body of a sucide bomber and not be disgusted by it (the state of the body, not the act). However, all case studies, such as the Columbine Massacre have contributing factors, such as the murderers are usually loners, and have been bullied throughout their lives, something which no matter how desentitising games are and how graphically real they are, games can not match the degregating (in other words mentally harmful) effects of.
As for my opinion of Lieberman, well I think is a one side bigotist prick, who while having some good point totally makes people turn off them and focus on the outlandish. And lets all remember its not the first time, if anything, he started it...
When Sega and Nintendo were the only console manufacturers, there was not violence debate, or at least not to the scale of today anyway. Now, there was once a game called Mortal Combat, on its home console release there were two versions of it, a sanitized version which nintendo had demanded, and the arcade orignal which sega had said okay to... Game which sold over 6.5 million copies sold at a ratio of 3:1 on sega's genisis. That means that the original sega version old sold nintendos. Now, it is said, nintendo then hired a lobbying group to go round the senate trying to get a senator to pick up on this debate. Nintendo were secretly hoping that protesters would be outside shops selling sega games with picketing signs saying 'don't buy sega products'... So whos fault is it?
DoctorDee 3 Mar 2004 11:21
6/9
Ben Furfie wrote:
>Is that all? Nah, I think you probably would have
>been incarcerated mate.
Incarcerated. Ben, if you want to be a real writer, and a good one, don't use big word where short ones will do.
>Anyway, I work for a large corporate website
Does this have any relevance other than to stoke your ego? Does it make you a more informed commentator on video games violence.
>What I have found from the research
>that I am uncovering is that while we are
>inevitably affected by the precipitation of
>violence on screen,
Again, what is the relevance of "the preciptitation of" in this phrase? Surely "affected by violence on screen" is much clearer.
> such as the way I know for
>myself
As opposed to knowing for someone else?
>that I can look the body of a sucide
>bomber and not be disgusted by it (the state of
>the body, not the act).
What is the relevance of the suicide bomber part here? How does the body of a suicide bomber differ in its power to disgust from the body of a road accident victim? Are you trying to make a point, and if so, what is it?
>However, all case
>studies, such as the Columbine Massacre have
>contributing factors,
The Columbine Massacre wasn't a case study.
>such as the murderers are
>usually loners, and have been bullied throughout
>their lives,
The easy response. What about all the loners who have been bullied all their lives and have NEVER killed or maimed anyone, should they not be your
control group?
> something which no matter how
>desentitising games are and how graphically real
>they are, games can not match the degregating (in
>other words mentally harmful) effects of.
True, but is their not a chance that loners who had been bullied all their lives, but had never been desensitised to violence, might have vented their frustration in another, less homicidal, manner?
>As for my opinion of Lieberman, well I think is a
>one side bigotist prick,
Bigotist. Not really an English word, is it?
> who while having some
>good point totally makes people turn off them
Good point... singular. "off them"... plural. Make your mind up.
>When Sega and Nintendo were the only console
>manufacturers, there was not violence debate, or
>at least not to the scale of today anyway.
And for good reason. The video games violence of the 8 and 16-bit days was far less graphic, and far less realistic then today.
> Now,
>there was once a game called Mortal Combat, on
>its home console release there were two versions
>of it, a sanitized version which nintendo had
>demanded, and the arcade orignal which sega had
>said okay to... Game which sold over 6.5 million
>copies sold at a ratio of 3:1 on sega's genisis.
The only difference between the Nintendo and Sega MK games was the colour of the blood. Do you really attribute the alleged 3:1 sales difference to that alone?
These figures are meaningless unless you also post the installed bases of the respective machines.
And also provide a demographic breakdown of the users and analysis of comparative sales of similar titles (Street Fighter 2).
>That means that the original sega version old
>sold nintendos.
Sorry?
>Now, it is said, nintendo then
>hired a lobbying group to go round the senate
>trying to get a senator to pick up on this
>debate. Nintendo were secretly hoping that
>protesters would be outside shops selling sega
>games with picketing signs saying 'don't buy sega
>products'... So whos fault is it?
Is there not the possibility that crowds of "Moral Majority" parents outside shops would have helped sales of the Sega version, which was bought by adolescents, and haared salesof the Nintendo version, bought by parents for their children?
But who's fault is what?
Interestingly, Leibermann made it clear that he thinks that it is not the place of government to remove a company's freedom to make contraversial material. He believes that it is the company's moral responsibility NOT to make material that will contribute to the dissolution of society.
Seems like a valid position to us.
>Is that all? Nah, I think you probably would have
>been incarcerated mate.
Incarcerated. Ben, if you want to be a real writer, and a good one, don't use big word where short ones will do.
>Anyway, I work for a large corporate website
Does this have any relevance other than to stoke your ego? Does it make you a more informed commentator on video games violence.
>What I have found from the research
>that I am uncovering is that while we are
>inevitably affected by the precipitation of
>violence on screen,
Again, what is the relevance of "the preciptitation of" in this phrase? Surely "affected by violence on screen" is much clearer.
> such as the way I know for
>myself
As opposed to knowing for someone else?
>that I can look the body of a sucide
>bomber and not be disgusted by it (the state of
>the body, not the act).
What is the relevance of the suicide bomber part here? How does the body of a suicide bomber differ in its power to disgust from the body of a road accident victim? Are you trying to make a point, and if so, what is it?
>However, all case
>studies, such as the Columbine Massacre have
>contributing factors,
The Columbine Massacre wasn't a case study.
>such as the murderers are
>usually loners, and have been bullied throughout
>their lives,
The easy response. What about all the loners who have been bullied all their lives and have NEVER killed or maimed anyone, should they not be your
control group?
> something which no matter how
>desentitising games are and how graphically real
>they are, games can not match the degregating (in
>other words mentally harmful) effects of.
True, but is their not a chance that loners who had been bullied all their lives, but had never been desensitised to violence, might have vented their frustration in another, less homicidal, manner?
>As for my opinion of Lieberman, well I think is a
>one side bigotist prick,
Bigotist. Not really an English word, is it?
> who while having some
>good point totally makes people turn off them
Good point... singular. "off them"... plural. Make your mind up.
>When Sega and Nintendo were the only console
>manufacturers, there was not violence debate, or
>at least not to the scale of today anyway.
And for good reason. The video games violence of the 8 and 16-bit days was far less graphic, and far less realistic then today.
> Now,
>there was once a game called Mortal Combat, on
>its home console release there were two versions
>of it, a sanitized version which nintendo had
>demanded, and the arcade orignal which sega had
>said okay to... Game which sold over 6.5 million
>copies sold at a ratio of 3:1 on sega's genisis.
The only difference between the Nintendo and Sega MK games was the colour of the blood. Do you really attribute the alleged 3:1 sales difference to that alone?
These figures are meaningless unless you also post the installed bases of the respective machines.
And also provide a demographic breakdown of the users and analysis of comparative sales of similar titles (Street Fighter 2).
>That means that the original sega version old
>sold nintendos.
Sorry?
>Now, it is said, nintendo then
>hired a lobbying group to go round the senate
>trying to get a senator to pick up on this
>debate. Nintendo were secretly hoping that
>protesters would be outside shops selling sega
>games with picketing signs saying 'don't buy sega
>products'... So whos fault is it?
Is there not the possibility that crowds of "Moral Majority" parents outside shops would have helped sales of the Sega version, which was bought by adolescents, and haared salesof the Nintendo version, bought by parents for their children?
But who's fault is what?
Interestingly, Leibermann made it clear that he thinks that it is not the place of government to remove a company's freedom to make contraversial material. He believes that it is the company's moral responsibility NOT to make material that will contribute to the dissolution of society.
Seems like a valid position to us.
juggalo7fold 3 Mar 2004 11:27
7/9
For God's Sake when are people gonna learn that this isn't real!! they were complaining about it when the original GTA came out!!.. lets just see...
OK we'll start very basic.. What is the official genre of ALL Grand theft auto games.. oh wait.. is it not.. oh of course.. yes.. it's an open ended crime sim..
So for anyone out there who thinks they've got a point when they complain about it.. YOU SUCK!! I mean come on.. you can't complain about a game that lets you commit crimes, virtually i might add, because thats all it does is let you.. nothing says you have to.. it's 'open ended' as in you always decide what you do.. if you want to beat up someone then you can...
If you think it's not funny and distasteful you're probably not gonna buy the game.. and if you do you'll find that there are police missions ambulance missions firetruck missions and taxi missions as well as the criminal missions... EVERYTHING is completely optional!!
The game is only distasteful if you want it to be.. You can take your tommy vercetti or the dude from GTA3 and just wander around for hours familiarising yourself with the citys or grab an unlocked car and go for a spin..
Dammit I get so worked up with things like this.. Why do people complain about computer game violence if it's not even real? here's an example from another generation.. The murders in GTA are just as 'real' as the murders in cluedo for christ's sake! except cluedo was accepted in it's time.. Computer games are still just GAMES their just slightly more advanced than these government morons are used to cos they all grew up with monopoly and things like that..
I say give it 10 years or so and computer games will just be the classic family hobby! no matter what genre they are.. I'm gonna cut myself short here cos I'm at work and I got stuff to do but I think you should all be able to see where I'm coming from..
Oh yeah.. just in case you were wondering.. I work as the manager/buyer for the Computer Games Dept. in the company I work for (I won't advertise but e-mail me for proof) So I do know what I'm talking about..
GTA is not a crime
OK we'll start very basic.. What is the official genre of ALL Grand theft auto games.. oh wait.. is it not.. oh of course.. yes.. it's an open ended crime sim..
So for anyone out there who thinks they've got a point when they complain about it.. YOU SUCK!! I mean come on.. you can't complain about a game that lets you commit crimes, virtually i might add, because thats all it does is let you.. nothing says you have to.. it's 'open ended' as in you always decide what you do.. if you want to beat up someone then you can...
If you think it's not funny and distasteful you're probably not gonna buy the game.. and if you do you'll find that there are police missions ambulance missions firetruck missions and taxi missions as well as the criminal missions... EVERYTHING is completely optional!!
The game is only distasteful if you want it to be.. You can take your tommy vercetti or the dude from GTA3 and just wander around for hours familiarising yourself with the citys or grab an unlocked car and go for a spin..
Dammit I get so worked up with things like this.. Why do people complain about computer game violence if it's not even real? here's an example from another generation.. The murders in GTA are just as 'real' as the murders in cluedo for christ's sake! except cluedo was accepted in it's time.. Computer games are still just GAMES their just slightly more advanced than these government morons are used to cos they all grew up with monopoly and things like that..
I say give it 10 years or so and computer games will just be the classic family hobby! no matter what genre they are.. I'm gonna cut myself short here cos I'm at work and I got stuff to do but I think you should all be able to see where I'm coming from..
Oh yeah.. just in case you were wondering.. I work as the manager/buyer for the Computer Games Dept. in the company I work for (I won't advertise but e-mail me for proof) So I do know what I'm talking about..
GTA is not a crime
SPInGSPOnG 3 Mar 2004 18:21
8/9
juggalo7fold wrote:
>For God's Sake when are people gonna learn that
>this isn't real!! they were complaining about it
>when the original GTA came out!!.. lets just
>see...
Dude, what isn't real? Gun crime is not increasing? Violent crime is not increasing? Society is not becoming desensitized to violence? Yeah... right!
>OK we'll start very basic.. What is the official
>genre of ALL Grand theft auto games..
Erm, official genre? I've got the GTA III/VC Xbox DP in my hand right now, and I've like, totally scoured it, and as far as I can see... no "official genre".
>oh wait..
>is it not.. oh of course.. yes.. it's an open
>ended crime sim..
Erm, it's not a crime sim if all you do is wander around all day picking flowers. And try as you might, you can't accompany one of the working girls to a re-hab clinic and help her get a job at Macy's.
So not really that open ended then.
>So for anyone out there who thinks they've got a
>point when they complain about it.. YOU SUCK!!
Dude, good point well made. I wasn't following your arguement at all, but now you have espressed yourself so convincingly, I'm won over. If I don't agree wit you, I SUCK, and I certainly don't want to do that, so I guess I'll agree with you.
>I mean come on.. you can't complain about a game
>that lets you commit crimes, virtually i might
>add, because thats all it does is let you..
>nothing says you have to..
Of course, nothing says you have to. But do you? Honestly, do you play GTA and commit no crimes, anyone? Anyone? Bueller... Bueller?
>Dammit I get so worked up with things like this..
I bet you'll get a damn site more worked up when you get mugged, or ass raped, or have your car stolen.
>The murders in GTA are
>just as 'real' as the murders in cluedo for
>christ's sake!
Oh, yeah, of course they are. They are as "real" But they aren't as realistic a depiction as a three-D texture mapped full colour rendering. Tey don't have the same familiarizing and desensitizing effect.
>Oh yeah.. just in case you were wondering.. I
>work as the manager/buyer for the Computer Games
>Dept. in the company I work for (I won't
>advertise but e-mail me for proof) So I do know
>what I'm talking about..
Hold on. I'm a computer games buyer, so I'm qualified to talk about the social implications of violence in entertainment. Yeah, OK, if you say so.
But then move over and let the social psychologists decide what games we can buy!
>For God's Sake when are people gonna learn that
>this isn't real!! they were complaining about it
>when the original GTA came out!!.. lets just
>see...
Dude, what isn't real? Gun crime is not increasing? Violent crime is not increasing? Society is not becoming desensitized to violence? Yeah... right!
>OK we'll start very basic.. What is the official
>genre of ALL Grand theft auto games..
Erm, official genre? I've got the GTA III/VC Xbox DP in my hand right now, and I've like, totally scoured it, and as far as I can see... no "official genre".
>oh wait..
>is it not.. oh of course.. yes.. it's an open
>ended crime sim..
Erm, it's not a crime sim if all you do is wander around all day picking flowers. And try as you might, you can't accompany one of the working girls to a re-hab clinic and help her get a job at Macy's.
So not really that open ended then.
>So for anyone out there who thinks they've got a
>point when they complain about it.. YOU SUCK!!
Dude, good point well made. I wasn't following your arguement at all, but now you have espressed yourself so convincingly, I'm won over. If I don't agree wit you, I SUCK, and I certainly don't want to do that, so I guess I'll agree with you.
>I mean come on.. you can't complain about a game
>that lets you commit crimes, virtually i might
>add, because thats all it does is let you..
>nothing says you have to..
Of course, nothing says you have to. But do you? Honestly, do you play GTA and commit no crimes, anyone? Anyone? Bueller... Bueller?
>Dammit I get so worked up with things like this..
I bet you'll get a damn site more worked up when you get mugged, or ass raped, or have your car stolen.
>The murders in GTA are
>just as 'real' as the murders in cluedo for
>christ's sake!
Oh, yeah, of course they are. They are as "real" But they aren't as realistic a depiction as a three-D texture mapped full colour rendering. Tey don't have the same familiarizing and desensitizing effect.
>Oh yeah.. just in case you were wondering.. I
>work as the manager/buyer for the Computer Games
>Dept. in the company I work for (I won't
>advertise but e-mail me for proof) So I do know
>what I'm talking about..
Hold on. I'm a computer games buyer, so I'm qualified to talk about the social implications of violence in entertainment. Yeah, OK, if you say so.
But then move over and let the social psychologists decide what games we can buy!
downsouthhustla 30 Mar 2004 01:47
9/9
this is getting to be too ridiculous. people need to quit blaming the reasons for their kids behavior and attitudes on video games, movies, etc. if there is a problem, it most likely starts with the childs' upbringing/dysfunctional home life. Placing total blame on various media sources is illogical as well as hypocritical. If the games are so bad, where are the parents to find appropriate games for their kids? If T.V. is so bad, where are the parents at to supervise their kids programming choices? The list just goes on and on, and what this really boils down to is a political ploy--Lieberman's "care" for all the children in America should deserve your vote come election time. Right?