• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Violent Kid Games

by Steve Gibson, May 24, 2000 5:55am PDT
Related Topics – Wack News

It looks like gaming violence has reached another level entirely. According to this BBC News story a government 'backed booklet' says that the childrens game musical chairs encourages aggression. Here is the reasoning: (Thanks Zif268on)

Towards a Non-Violent Society, the booklet produced by the Forum on Children and Violence, argues that musical chairs only rewards the "strongest and fastest".




Comments

112 Threads | 303 Comments



















  • Towards a Non-Violent Society, the booklet produced by the Forum on Children and Violence, argues that musical chairs only rewards the "strongest and fastest".


    I'll bet little Billy never forgot how we dangled him from his ankles out the fourth story classroom window after he was left standing when the music stopped. What did we know? We were just kids, hopped up on that mood-altering game. The more the music played, and the more we circled those chairs...the more we needed...a victim. Billy was weak: an albino whose pulpy blue veins stood out like they were drawn on with a highlighting marker. He had hair like a baby duck, and no evidence of a chin. He lacked our speed, our brute strength, our total determination to be seated. How could he hope to compete in this furniture-based reenactment of Natural Selection? And I also remember that after we were done, and still panting, somebody said: "This musical chairs thing is good. Ver-r-r-y good. I see us growing up and organizing society along the same principles."

    Today, of course, we would celebrate Billy's uniqueness. We would play vein-identification games that would reward his natural gifts. We'd all move together toward a Non-Violent Society, instead of the ruthless, predatorial barbarism of the era of musical chairs.















  • What is worse? (we'll use this example) Say a woman, maybe 19 years old, gets pregnant. The feelings inside her are to keep the baby, like any parent would. However, she had a boyfriend that just left because of this, she doesn't have a good job, and her parents live 2000 miles away. Now, she could have and keep the baby, raising him/her without the benefits most kids have, she could give it up for adoption, or have an abortion. Adoption is a funny thing. Sooner or later, the child will have to face the fact that the people taking care of him/her aren't his/her parents. How would you feel giving your child away to complete strangers you know nothing about? You only know they have been "cleared" by the adoption agency.

    There are a lot of factors that can screw a kid up. I can envision a parent not being there (working a lot to support the kid) as one of them. I can see adoption hurting kids, and the parents.

    Abortion, however, never lets that happen. I do find 3rd trimester abortions wrong, but early abortions I am fine with. I consider a kid "alive" once it has been born. While in the womb, there are brainwaves, blood is moving through arteries/veins, and the kid is moving. But, you have to remember, these are trial runs conducted by the body. They are actions the baby has no control over, and they are the result of the body getting things ready. They don't even BREATHE while in the womb.

    The bottom line: all routes have nothing much to offer. The lesson of this piece, girls and boys, is to never get in that situation in the first place. I know if I did, I wouldn't have a problem with abortion. Next would be adoption, and I would really frown on keeping the baby (remembering the situation mentioned above).

    I hope that made sense. I wrote things down as they came into my head. But, that is my take on things.