Hilary Clinton has singled out Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto series, calling for a study in how violent videogames affect children, and joining Republican voices that are demanding a $90 million survey into these game's effects.
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them," she said in a statement released from her office in New York. "This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place,” according to the Sunday Times.
The requested report will demand a complete investigation into the “…cognitive, social, emotional and physical development…” impact of digital entertainment as seen by pundits, and further evidence of Clinton’s rightward swing as she prepares for a nomination from the badly scarred Democrat party in mid-2007.
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them," she said in a statement released from her office in New York. "This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place,” according to the Sunday Times.
The requested report will demand a complete investigation into the “…cognitive, social, emotional and physical development…” impact of digital entertainment as seen by pundits, and further evidence of Clinton’s rightward swing as she prepares for a nomination from the badly scarred Democrat party in mid-2007.
Companies:
Rockstar
Read More Like This
Comments
Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 31.
claudioalex 30 Mar 2005 01:46
12/31
Clinton is right , just that she dont say that the problem is more from the poor selling control and the advertisment produced by rockstar,
People like Lupos think that Clinton is going to eradicate videogames from the world, , this is not the point LUPOS , dont be afraid, politicians are looking for a hard, protective law for the people younger than 18 , so that this games canot reach their hands.
People like Lupos think that Clinton is going to eradicate videogames from the world, , this is not the point LUPOS , dont be afraid, politicians are looking for a hard, protective law for the people younger than 18 , so that this games canot reach their hands.
gashead 30 Mar 2005 05:05
13/31
UKduffs wrote:
You've got to be kidding. Hasn't she got something more important than videogames to be worrying about? This kind of publicity for games really pisses me off.
Mmmm... nothing like a kneejerk reaction to an under-researched piece to really encourage the dumb-side.
Read The Speech, which was actually made on March 8th this year, and read it in full. It relates to the report: " Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8 to 18 Year Olds" and videogames are a minor element.
On the off-chance that you're not going to read it in full (and I know you will because you do want to be able to discuss from some sense of reality so that people can't blame videogames for your lack of anger management, short attention span and total acceptance of anything you read at face value), here are the salient paragraphs (that means those few bits that relate to videogames):
"...And parents who work long hours outside the home and single parents, whose time with their children is squeezed by economic pressures, are worried because they don't even know what their children are watching and listening to and playing. So what's a parent to do when at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the children may be at home from school but the parents aren't home from work and they can turn on the TV and both on broadcast and cable stations see a lot of things which the parents wish they wouldn't or wish they were sitting there to try to mediate the meaning of for their children. And probably one of the biggest complaints I've heard is about some of the video games, particularly Grand Theft Auto, which has so many demeaning messages about women and so encourages violent imagination and activities and it scares parents. I mean, if your child, and in the case of the video games, it's still predominantly boys, but you know, they're playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them, you know, that's kind of hard to digest and to figure out what to say, and even to understand how you can shield your particular child from a media environment where all their peers are doing this.
And it is also now the case that more and more, parents are asking, not only do I wonder about the content and what that's doing to my child's emotional psychological development, but what's the process doing? What's all this stimulation doing that is so hard to understand and keep track of?
So I think if we are going to make the health of children a priority, then we have to pay attention to the activities that children engage in every single day. And of course that includes exposure to and involvement with the media. "
And it is also now the case that more and more, parents are asking, not only do I wonder about the content and what that's doing to my child's emotional psychological development, but what's the process doing? What's all this stimulation doing that is so hard to understand and keep track of?
So I think if we are going to make the health of children a priority, then we have to pay attention to the activities that children engage in every single day. And of course that includes exposure to and involvement with the media. "
Erm.. not quite so unreasonable is it? Mental health; Emotional development; social stimuli; care of society as an holistic entity rather than a game of The Sims.
A little bit more thought out than: "It really pisses me off that they talking about my toyz!"
Arguments based on the sales line "It says it's adults-only on the box" are about as useful as "Well, that kid at Red Lake shouldna orta had a guuuurn! Guuuurns don't keeeel people, peeeeple do!"
Wrong, people armed with ideas backed-up by guns do. There are relationships between ideas and actions. And where do ideas come from? Eh? That's right, from external stimuli.
Arguments based on, "She's picking on our fun! She must be a fascist!" come from the same place as: "They won't let me drink and drive! I drive better with a few beers insida me!" They work well if you're the only person in the world.
Now for the editorialising in the news item - how on earth this can be seen as a move to the "right" or "left" wing is beyond my grasp of the political spectrum. Aside from the fact that all major political parties in western democracies are market-economic rather than class-based, the Right has often been more concerned with libertarianism (everything should be allowed, buyer beware); and the Left with socially constructed control.
GTA is there to make money. That's it. Same reason that Smith And Wesson makes guns. Same reason that thalidomide was sold by Chemie Grünenthal.
Nothing wrong with making money. Of course not. But there is something wrong with any mass of people who don't question how this money is being made.
more comments below our sponsor's message
SPInGSPOnG 30 Mar 2005 07:23
14/31
shediesinred wrote:
Why you associate video games with pornography is beyond me...
Dude, maybe it's because the definition of pornograpphy is [content] likelly to deprave. And games like Manhunter, GTA and The Punisher probably do deprave. They objectify human life, and give rewards for ending it. They make thinkable what should be unthinkable, the act of extinguishing a human life by volition. Murder is so objectionable, so basic a breach of human rights, that it should be villified in all cultural and artistic endeavours. Murderers should be cast so far from society that no-one would ever contemplate the act. Instead movies and video games glorify the act.
video games to me are like movies, only interactive. Its like a story you control, and like rated R movies, I think its appropriate to limit the viewing privleges to adult games, to adults (17 and up or 18, whatever).
That's a nice, intellectual, middle class opinion. But the reality is, there are as many people out there incapable of drawing the distinction between fiction and reality as there are those who can.
if your a parent and you dont want your kid playing GTA, then DONT BUY IT FOR THEM.
No matter how large you print the number 18 on the box, it won't stop underage people paying games. Their (useless, scumbag low-life) parents even condone the activity - because it keeps the kids quiet. The (evil, scumbag low-life) stores will keep selling them to kids because there are no real penalties for doing so, but there are real profits. And because the people who own those stoores (not the manager, but the CEOs and institutional shareholders) are safe in their gated communities - far from the inner cities - and they aren't the ones getting shot or knifed.
I think the common misconception is that people think video games are only played by drooling little 10 year olds.. the VAST majority of gamers are adults;
Dude. They are not. You are an adult, and so are your friends, and none of you are old enough to have kids yet - so you adopt a solipsistic perpective. But the reality is, most gamers are under 18, and most games sell to these people. Once you reach 18, there are all sorts of oother activities that start to make a draw on your time, and you need to put some work in on your other joystick. So while there are many adult games, most games sell to minors. It's a fact.
kids can’t afford video game systems, and most are too complicated for them
Arrogant bullcrap. I know a bunch of 15 year olds who will beat you, hands down, at ANY game you care to name.
the top selling games are all adult games.. Resident Evil 4, God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Prince of Persia, Splinter cell, Metal Gear solid.. all rated M adult games, when was the last time you saw Elmo’s adventures, or Mary Kate and Ashley in the top 10 list.
Those kids games don't chart, because all the kids are playing the 18 (M) games you named. Later, they'll be dealing drugs and mugging you. Enjoy.
kid_77 30 Mar 2005 08:46
15/31
shediesinred wrote:
yea.. Im 22 years old myself, I dont want to have problems in the future buying games because of irresponcible parents who buy games like resident evil 4 or grand theft auto for there 12 year old kid.
I'm not surprised Resi 4 was given an 18 Cert, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as GTA. It's got some mild swearing, but in no way does it try to simulate certain violent aspects of society. It has blood effects, but they're very OTT Anime-stylee.
If I had a 14 year-old child, GTA would be out of bounds until, perhaps, 16 (depending on his/her maturity), but I'd have no problems with Resit 4.
kid_77 30 Mar 2005 08:49
16/31
Rod Todd wrote:
Later, they'll be dealing drugs and mugging you. Enjoy.
Not on my patch they won't. I'M THE F**KING DADDY!!!!
jhorto1 30 Mar 2005 12:36
17/31
Funny how this is always portrayed by the media (spong included) as right wing or Republican censorship, while the only politicians that I hear ranting about banning games are Democrats. (Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman.)
neocarrillo 31 Mar 2005 05:43
18/31
F*** hillary that slut don't know a damn thing about politics let alone video games. Well then I guess charles manson played a video game and that's why he wanted to kill people or what about ted bundy he played gta before gta came out and wanted to kill women. These polititians should shut up the f*** up and worry about getting those troops out of iraq.
neocarrillo 31 Mar 2005 05:48
19/31
I agree F*** Hillary!!! Bill is cool though.
neocarrillo 31 Mar 2005 05:49
20/31
Yo dog are you living in a cave, your no gamer. Each GTA is different.
scribe999 31 Mar 2005 23:22
21/31
I just wanted to clarify things. Too much hysteria abounds. Obviously, Sen. Clinton would like to appear more aggressive into appealing to the "family values" set. Her remarks are nothing new.
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?
gashead 1 Apr 2005 14:47
22/31
scribe999 wrote:
I just wanted to clarify things. Too much hysteria abounds. Obviously, Sen. Clinton would like to appear more aggressive into appealing to the "family values" set. Her remarks are nothing new.
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?[/quote
What a superb response. Thanks.
What kills me is how discussions on this topic of the influence of content in media, whether its video games, movies or music, overshadows a lot of very REAL problems kids face today: Poor education, lack of healthcare, etc. This wrangling over the issue of violence in games can be meaningful, but most of the arguments are excessive if we take a look at overall national trends.
According to the federal government's own crime statistics, violent crimes have actually fallen over the last couple of decades. 2003 found that violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were actually at their lowest level ever in the era of recording such stats.
As for the argument about whether or not adults are those who make up the video game consumer market, the Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28. This trend can only continue with more and more children who were raised in the video game era grow older.
It is a problem when minors purchase and play games that are supposed to be rated as mature, but frankly, the proportions of this "crisis" have been overblown. The kids in Columbine, Red Lake, etc. had significant problems, and to pin such acts of wantonness on the simple answer, such as blaming the media, diminishes those tragedies. In a nation where one presidential candidate gloats about killing terrorists and another states that he would be great at killing terrorists, who, in the end, really influences the nature of our children?[/quote
What a superb response. Thanks.
DoctorDee 1 Apr 2005 16:37
23/31
scribe999 wrote:
Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28.
These statistics should be approached with caution. They were created to try and increase the appeal of the video games market to advertisers.
"99% of our users are 14, and have £15 a week disposable income, 100% of which they spend on computer games. They have no houses, no cars, and no full-time employment" doesn't make for a particularly attractive demographic. So they look for figures that sound appealing.
Sure 60% of American play video games.
But 70% of that 60% are at very best occasional and casual gamers.
Look at the figures, all three platforms together have not sold 160,000,000 units in the US, indicating that most of this "60%" do not actually own a console.
The "real gamers" are still a predominantly younger audience.
Despite your well reasoned and plausible response, media violence, including that in video games is highly likely to be a contributing factor in their dissolution. No-one could suggest that it is the sole cause, but to seek to refute that it is contributory is disingenuous at best.
And while the protagonists of Columbine may have had other problems, they may not have sought catharsis through such destructive means had they not been inured to violence by video games and movies.
LUPOS 1 Apr 2005 16:48
24/31
This is why spong is the only place i actually participate in forums... of all the video game web pages in all the world, spong has the most worth while group of people to converse with. I have alot of friends who like video games but very few of them come close to putting the level of thought in to these things as the guys around here do.
so basically, thanks for not sucking
_________
so basically, thanks for not sucking
_________
scribe999 1 Apr 2005 19:05
25/31
An excellent rebuttal. I would like to state that I wasn't attempting to be disingenuous. I do agree that an overexposure to violent media is not ideal for children, or anyone for that matter. What I am suggesting is that the mediums that convey crass, controversial or objectionable content matter tend to be more symptomatic of society's ills rather than causal.
It's a "chicken and the egg" argument. Did a young man's disturbed behavior abet him to seek out the games and web sites that fed his darker side, or was he so heavily influenced by the media around him that his aggression was allowed to flourish?
I mostly believe in the former. Here in the States, fear is the order of the day. The attack on controversial media is something that consistently rears its head, decade after decade. Our children and the music, movies and games they watch and play continue to plague the imagination of the American psyche. The key piece of my argument was the fact that violent crime rates are down across the U.S., yet politicians, journalists and "talking heads" continue to impress upon us that crime and violence lurks around every corner.
I do agree that statistics have to be approached carefully, but to highlight that point, you pointed out that there were less than 160,000,000 units of the three major consoles sold in the U.S. Yet, this number discounts older generations of consoles (still being utilized by a small portion of the 'hardcore' gamer market) and of course, PC's, a market that tends to skew older.
And though I take your word for the demographics represented on this site, when I worked as an editor at Happypuppy.com, the average age of our readers was over 18, and IGN/Gamespy currently states that approximately 66% of their readers are over the age of 18. Furthermore, disposable income for teens still comes mostly from parents. Who's to blame when a parent allows a minor to keep computers, consoles, t.v.'s etc. in their own rooms to view virtually anything unsupervised?
Just to add a final point, the former U.S. Surgeon General himself stated: "...we clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior, but the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is."
These statistics should be approached with caution. They were created to try and increase the appeal of the video games market to advertisers.
"99% of our users are 14, and have £15 a week disposable income, 100% of which they spend on computer games. They have no houses, no cars, and no full-time employment" doesn't make for a particularly attractive demographic. So they look for figures that sound appealing.
Sure 60% of American play video games.
But 70% of that 60% are at very best occasional and casual gamers.
Look at the figures, all three platforms together have not sold 160,000,000 units in the US, indicating that most of this "60%" do not actually own a console.
The "real gamers" are still a predominantly younger audience.
Despite your well reasoned and plausible response, media violence, including that in video games is highly likely to be a contributing factor in their dissolution. No-one could suggest that it is the sole cause, but to seek to refute that it is contributory is disingenuous at best.
And while the protagonists of Columbine may have had other problems, they may not have sought catharsis through such destructive means had they not been inured to violence by video games and movies.
It's a "chicken and the egg" argument. Did a young man's disturbed behavior abet him to seek out the games and web sites that fed his darker side, or was he so heavily influenced by the media around him that his aggression was allowed to flourish?
I mostly believe in the former. Here in the States, fear is the order of the day. The attack on controversial media is something that consistently rears its head, decade after decade. Our children and the music, movies and games they watch and play continue to plague the imagination of the American psyche. The key piece of my argument was the fact that violent crime rates are down across the U.S., yet politicians, journalists and "talking heads" continue to impress upon us that crime and violence lurks around every corner.
I do agree that statistics have to be approached carefully, but to highlight that point, you pointed out that there were less than 160,000,000 units of the three major consoles sold in the U.S. Yet, this number discounts older generations of consoles (still being utilized by a small portion of the 'hardcore' gamer market) and of course, PC's, a market that tends to skew older.
And though I take your word for the demographics represented on this site, when I worked as an editor at Happypuppy.com, the average age of our readers was over 18, and IGN/Gamespy currently states that approximately 66% of their readers are over the age of 18. Furthermore, disposable income for teens still comes mostly from parents. Who's to blame when a parent allows a minor to keep computers, consoles, t.v.'s etc. in their own rooms to view virtually anything unsupervised?
Just to add a final point, the former U.S. Surgeon General himself stated: "...we clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior, but the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is."
DoctorDee wrote:
scribe999 wrote:
Economist reported back in 2002 that nearly 60% of Americans play video games and 61% of that figure are adults, the average age being 28.
These statistics should be approached with caution. They were created to try and increase the appeal of the video games market to advertisers.
"99% of our users are 14, and have £15 a week disposable income, 100% of which they spend on computer games. They have no houses, no cars, and no full-time employment" doesn't make for a particularly attractive demographic. So they look for figures that sound appealing.
Sure 60% of American play video games.
But 70% of that 60% are at very best occasional and casual gamers.
Look at the figures, all three platforms together have not sold 160,000,000 units in the US, indicating that most of this "60%" do not actually own a console.
The "real gamers" are still a predominantly younger audience.
Despite your well reasoned and plausible response, media violence, including that in video games is highly likely to be a contributing factor in their dissolution. No-one could suggest that it is the sole cause, but to seek to refute that it is contributory is disingenuous at best.
And while the protagonists of Columbine may have had other problems, they may not have sought catharsis through such destructive means had they not been inured to violence by video games and movies.
gashead 4 Apr 2005 05:26
26/31
Lies, damned lies and statistics... the numeric equivalent of a semantics...
The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report - preliminary Jan-June 2004 - like all stats is weighted and heavily caveat-ridden:
So, we ask ourselves is crime falling or is the reporting of crime falling.
If our view of what violence is has changed (diminished) and if our confidence in the efficacy of law enforcement agencies has diminished as well, then these stats take on a new complexion.
The only tangible in this debate is that no one has an original thought. All thought is a result of external stimuli.
Therefore we need to audit that stimuli and make judgement as a society (or set of linked socities) as to whether these stimuli are serving any practical or postive purpose.
There is an argument, for example, based on psychoanalysis that we are better externalising our 'reptile' brain in a controlled situation - playing GTA in a safe environment, watching "Enter The Dragon", reading "American Psycho", listening to Judas Priest CDs backwards, watching Leeds United lose to Wigan Athletic.
And this works in many cases. And mainly if the construction of the environment is more appealing to us to retain than to destroy.
The argument is not about whether GTA encourages school shootings - the liklihood is that violent computer games are part of a much wider picture - but whether or not Hilary Clinton should be asking questions about the effects of external stimuli on human beings.
My issue was with slapdash reporting (sorry, Spong, I do appreciate you really) and idiot-level reaction.
Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance - and the slave-owning old mysoginist had a point.
If we don't ask ourselves if what we are producing is actually serving us positively, then:
and even more saliently:
Both quotes from the super-violent... Frankenstein
The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report - preliminary Jan-June 2004 - like all stats is weighted and heavily caveat-ridden:
Collectively, law enforcement agencies throughout the United States reported a decrease of 2.0 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention...
So, we ask ourselves is crime falling or is the reporting of crime falling.
If our view of what violence is has changed (diminished) and if our confidence in the efficacy of law enforcement agencies has diminished as well, then these stats take on a new complexion.
The only tangible in this debate is that no one has an original thought. All thought is a result of external stimuli.
Therefore we need to audit that stimuli and make judgement as a society (or set of linked socities) as to whether these stimuli are serving any practical or postive purpose.
There is an argument, for example, based on psychoanalysis that we are better externalising our 'reptile' brain in a controlled situation - playing GTA in a safe environment, watching "Enter The Dragon", reading "American Psycho", listening to Judas Priest CDs backwards, watching Leeds United lose to Wigan Athletic.
And this works in many cases. And mainly if the construction of the environment is more appealing to us to retain than to destroy.
The argument is not about whether GTA encourages school shootings - the liklihood is that violent computer games are part of a much wider picture - but whether or not Hilary Clinton should be asking questions about the effects of external stimuli on human beings.
My issue was with slapdash reporting (sorry, Spong, I do appreciate you really) and idiot-level reaction.
Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance - and the slave-owning old mysoginist had a point.
If we don't ask ourselves if what we are producing is actually serving us positively, then:
"...I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you,as mine has been."
and even more saliently:
". . . the companions of our childhood always possess a certain power over our minds which hardly any later friend can obtain."
Both quotes from the super-violent... Frankenstein
TURKDAONE 4 Apr 2005 07:36
27/31
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
TURKDAONE 4 Apr 2005 07:36
28/31
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
TURKDAONE 4 Apr 2005 07:36
29/31
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
TURKDAONE 4 Apr 2005 07:37
30/31
Hillary may have a point! with all the shootings going on these games do influence young minds (some rather) the wrong way .a life is worth more than some silly video game that hasnt evolved since the third entry also dont you see u r proving her point by disrespecting her!! she's an adult and u r disrespecting her i wonder where o where did you guys learn to disrespect elders?Probaly GRAND THEFT AUTO JUST BAAAAD PARENTING?
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
IM A GAMER ,IM 23, BUT EVEN I RESPECT MY ELDERS AND AUTHORITY!!!
TURKDAONE 4 Apr 2005 07:56
31/31
For every country the medium is different in the middle east those adults today(al quaida) were exposed to lots of violence growing up. this i can tell u will never change if someone is exposed to something for a very long time than it is accepted just like the violence over seas its the norm to read about a suicide bomber, but if it happened over here than people would freak out if it happened for a long period of time people would accept it . Children dont know whats good for them if they did than what would be the use of parents. most play these games elsewhere not at home some @at friends houses. the child wont make a decision and say no i wont play this its M
rated game the same with drugs the parents dont give the children drugs and any sane parent would stop the child if they saw the child using drugs but drugs are a problem and its a fact drug use usually stars in the teens
rated game the same with drugs the parents dont give the children drugs and any sane parent would stop the child if they saw the child using drugs but drugs are a problem and its a fact drug use usually stars in the teens