Dirty Dozen- The Most Dangerous Toys of 2001 597
An anonymous reader pointed us to The Dirty Dozen
which lists the most dangerous toys for children. #1 on the list is Metal Gear Solid 2 (which I finished this weekend and highly recommend)
Also making the cut are Gundam and Dragonball Zaction figures (nothing scarier then Bulma on a bad hair day I guess), Super Street Fighter II and Doom. Of course the specific version of doom they classify as one of the most dangerous toys of 2001 is the Game Boy Advanced port, and I gotta agree with them on the GBA thing, those things are dangerous. Play for more then 30 minutes, and you go blind.
You mean there are 12 things to blame? (Score:2, Funny)
These are not *dangerous* toys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of them shoot foam missiles; big deal! I think that a foot high robot that fires at room intruders is rather endearing.
Dangerous toys are things with parts that small children can choke on, stuff up their nose, or otherwise injure themselves with: sharp corners, fast-moving, massive projectiles, etc. Also, things containing dangerous substances, such as lead-based jewelry for children.
There is little connection between these properties and violence. Even in the category of fast moving things that can injure: this area is probably dominated by sporting equipment. Better not be getting your kid that hockey stick!
It's not the article that's misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These are not *dangerous* toys. (Score:3, Informative)
Repeated exposure to sounds over 85dB can permanently damage adult hearing, and it doesn't take nearly as much exposure to harm an infant's still-developing ears. And some of the tested toys reached 105dB! Also, infants don't always have the capacity to get away from painfully loud sounds, nor do they necessarily try to move away from merely loud sounds.
It was an interesting listen. ('Course, I had to have the radio up to '8' to make out the words. Too much of The Who at age 1, I suppose... :-)
John
Re:These are not *dangerous* toys. (Score:3, Insightful)
I was one of many supervisors. I saw it coming, but was across the field when it happened. I ran over there and two of us removed the bigger kid from the action. We asked him "what were you doing? Why did you do that?" His answer: I thought it was All Star Wrestling.
So, no, I don't blame videogames. I blame TV! :-)
John
Re:You mean there are 12 things to blame? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not, but I won't flame you. Please, no one else flame for so crazy a reason.
Exactly. If half the effort these people spent on web page design was put into teching kids about ethics and the consequences of their actions, the world would be a happier place.
Political correctness can often be incorrect in reality. I have played various first-person shooters, often deathmatches with my cousins, and it is just fun, not turning me into a psychopath. If anything it causes more friendship because we entertain each other with our funniest jokes. I wouldn't dream about taking a flame thrower to anyone in real life.
End parental neglect; teach people ethics!
Shopping List (Score:2, Funny)
Hilarious (Score:2, Offtopic)
"So, what should we put on the list this year?"
"Anything from Japan"
Hmm.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - The MGS2 thing is about the action figures, not the game.
2 - They don't rank the toys, so saying "#1 on the list..." doesn't mean what it's the worst.
3 - Nowhere on the page does it say "Most Dangerous Toys"
In fact, if you go to the front page of the web site, it states:
The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children. We do this by helping parents, industry and government officials recognize that violence is not child?s play ? and by galvanizing concerned adults to take action
I don't think that is too bad of a thing. They are complaining that the MGS2 toy is marketed to children 5 and up, while the game is definitely a more mature title. Just another example of the complete morons who run
As another example, there was an article a week back or so about a security guy from MS being hired by the White House. Of course, the
Okay, I'm done ranting.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And whether or not you think shielding kids from violence is right or wrong, it's NOT your decision. It's the parent's decision. This web site simply lets parents share their finds. If I was Jane Clueless I might not know that Shadow Cat wasn't just another K'nex toy, but I might want to know that it fires missiles.
Something else for you breeding types to consider is that kids do take notice of their parents approvals and disapprovals. If Mom & Dad consistently say "No" to violent games, Junior does pick up on that. He may rebel and go seek those violent games out on his own, but that's part of growing up too. Deep down, though, he does learn that mom considers violence wrong. What he chooses to do with that knowledge makes him his own individual.
All in all, it's just another "Move along, nothing to see here" kind of story, (other than a kind of cool shopping list.)
John
Re:Hmm.... (Score:4, Informative)
Nail on the head. However, what scares me about people like this is their inherent need to impress their views on others. Maybe some are just looking out for their own kids (of course if this is the case why can't they just go to the store and look at the toy themselves..), but far too many of them want to rant to the world about how this or that toy is BAD. Very rarely is this just to share opinions, most often it's a nice subtle way of saying "this is how YOU should raise YOUR children".
Then again, I may be biased. I grew up with oodles of everything that was claimed to be violent/pornographic/bad for kids, and I'm a hell of a lot more stable and non-violent that a lot of people out there. *shrug* Guess my parents took the time to explain reality vs. fantasy to me.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
As an experiment, have you ever tried to escape marketing? I mean really tried? As an adult, I walk through life with advertising filters on. I ignore billboards as much as possible, I use a junkbuster proxy, and I skip commercials on my ReplayTV. I suspect most of us adults do.
Does my kid? No, he watches the commercials as intently as the programs (and sometimes moreso.) He hasn't finished growing up yet. He hasn't learned that life is too short to pay attention to advertisements yet (a lesson I'm trying very hard to impart.)
When we encounter age-inappropriate commercials while watching TV, we talk about them. We explain why mom and/or dad thinks that commercial is for something "bad" (the WWF cage match sh!t keeps running through my mind.) My son wrote a letter to the local movie theatre after they had a preview for an R movie (some movie trailer featuring large, loud explosions and mostly naked women) as a preview during Shrek. It bothered him that they were scaring the "little" kids (he was 12 at the time, and taking a civics class where they were supposed to write a letter of action to someone.) But he did something about it.
So, what is a parent to do? If that parent is truly trying to keep their kid from not being exposed to whatever, then what are the options? You and I both agree that this is both the right AND the responsibility of the parent. But now that parent can't take their child to a G or PG movie because the trailers are inappropriate (and unavoidable!)
I guess my point here is, as parents, my wife and I made the choices we could, but there is no escaping all marketing.
Oh, and I also agree with you that legislation isn't the answer. But I have to say that I think that these people have the right to let the manufacturers of these toys know how they feel. They also have the right to let Congress know how they feel. My kid at least wrote a letter. You don't have to sit on your ass. You can get a petition going and you can go out there and lobby right next to Hasbro's lobbyist, if you like. That is, if you think it's important that your kid needs to have every opportunity to watch commercials for the WWF wrestler with the "rip-your-head-off-and-crap-down-your-neck" action. You can even sit there at your computer and click off a letter to your congressman. Or you can just go back to your bookmarks and surf for free pr0n and goat sex.
I thought so.
Maybe that's why this non-story was posted to YRO.
John
Re:Hmm.... (Score:2, Offtopic)
No, you can't just "wander in", much paperwork and background checks are required to buy firearms in the U.S.
And while there are stupid parents who leave guns where kids can get them, there are alo stupid parents who leave matches, lighters, rat poision, sharp knives, and other dangerous things where kids can get them - that's no rationale for banning dangerous things. (BTW, accidental firearms deaths in the U.S. are extremely rare - one is several times more likely to drown, or to die from fire, than by a gun accident.)
A bank manager or secretary who is about to be murdered or raped needs a gun very very badly.
Anyone whose life may be threatened by a violent person needs a means to defend themselves. Firearms are the best tool to do that.
My life is no less valuable than that of a soldier, police officer, private security guard, whatever, and I will not willingly surrender the means to defend myself, my family, and my community.
Not the GAME.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not the GAME.... (Score:2)
interestingly, all for the GameBoy Advance.
I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would NOT let a 10 year-old play Quake 3 or Half-Life. Just like I wouldn't let the same kid watch a porno movie or a gory horror film.
I feel it desensitizes a child too much. So I have to say I agree.
Re:I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, watching/playing violence/porno/horror has a desensitizing effect on anybody, regardless of their age. As you get older, sure you can compartmentalize things better than a six-year-old, but for anyone to think that they can watch/participate-in violence or porno and be completely uneffected by it is foolhardy.
Re:I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree. (Score:4, Interesting)
Pinball (was Re:I agree.) (Score:4, Informative)
I grew up in the New York area where pinball was everywhere and considered quite harmless. Sure, if you "won" (mostly on skill) you got a free game for your quarter. But that wasn't really gambling. Indeed a good resort hotel was one where the kids' area (in those days, the early sixties, many resort hotels had supervised summer camp-like kids' programs; as a parent today, I miss them) had a *free* pinball machine (often just the door taken off the coin box). I played them the way kids today play video games. And the video game largely killed pinball by displacing it from arcades, though there are some diehard pinball fans and some machines still around.
The Lionandlamb listing is, as others have noted, a list of violent, not "dangerous", games and toys. A different list comes out every year of dangerous toys, things that can actually hurt your body. Check out http://www.toysafety.org . Most of these look innocent but have parts that come loose in the wrong way, or have some other non-obvious hazard.
Re:I agree. (Score:3, Funny)
Yep. I agree. If I watch porno and I'm not visibly affected, something is horribly, horribly wrong.
I disagree (Score:2)
I have to disagree. I and many friends of mine have played these games since our early teens (I'm 19 now for reference), and we still avoid sites like rotten.com because of their disgusting nature.
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the games. It's not the action figures. It's not the toys with "super-duper killer-missle launching action". It's parents who don't know how to teach a kid what's right, what's wrong, and how to tell the difference. Reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade strip [penny-arcade.com]
Re:I agree. (Score:3, Flamebait)
Actually, the first panel pretty much says it all.
Re:I agree. (Score:2, Interesting)
:-)
MGS2 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:MGS2 (Score:2, Funny)
Correction.. (Score:2, Informative)
Dangerous? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have yet to see any well-controlled study linking violent toys/games with violent behavious later in life. This site is just another attempt to impose one person's lifestyle on another's children.
Re:Dangerous? (Score:2)
I'd say it's pretty explicit about that. The first sentence from the front page [lionlamb.org] reads:
"The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children."
Influence and toys (Score:2)
Take our government for instance. When they want something done, they rarely use force anymore, but use legal means and the written word to invoke change. This causes other people to act and follow their vision.
they seem to filter for sleazy marketing, too (Score:2)
IOW, "we're as serious about not marketing to kids as RJ Reynolds!"
hawk, who wishes he could include a
Re:Dangerous? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pooking at the site's main page, that is exactly what they are talking about. sorry, /.er reading MORE than the article here.
I have yet to see any well-controlled study linking violent toys/games with violent behavious later in life.
Personally, I don't really need a study to tell me shat I can see from my own thoughts. When Doom first came out, I could get really drawn into the game, and I could easily see how somebody with less maturity than myself could get really freaked out by what went on in the game. I was about 25 at the time, and I would NEVER let a child of mine anywhere near similar games. True, the article is about action figures (mostly), but I think violence can still affect kids.
Re:Dangerous? (Score:2)
You don't want your kid to play those things, fine, my kids will, and they also won't be little crybabies because they were completely sheltered. I'm not saying that I'll let my kids do everything and anything they want, but they won't be locked away in a room with only dolls to play with.
Re:Dangerous? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're arguable trying. Here's [lionlamb.org] a link to their testimony to Congress. They're apparently trying to get Congressional support so that action figure tie-ins from M-rated video games don't get marketed to children.
They've gone from "inform" to "lobby", in my opinion.
Re:Dangerous? (Score:2)
When I was a kid, they sold Robocop toys despite the R-rating on the movie. I fail to see how the fact that the movie contained profanity and gratuitous violence should've stopped me from owning an action figure of a giant robot. The figures themselves weren't necessarily any more inherently violent that GI Joes or Transformers. (Well, unless they did a figure for the toxic waste melting guy.)
Whether it's an ED-209 or Soundwave, I was still capable of picking it up, pointing its gun at another toy, and having it kill it. Arguably, my Soundwave toy was actually more violent, since my dad added a spring to the missile mechanism to make it actually fire. (They had a whole latching assembly in Soundwave's gun. It looks like they were originally intended to fire, but the manufacturer didn't include the springs when they realized it was a perfect "shoot your eye out" missile.)
Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots not recommended (Score:2, Funny)
They have a point (Score:2, Insightful)
For parents that want to "protect" their children from violent games, I think the list serves a valuable purpose.
The Classics (Score:5, Funny)
Lawn darts... they were my favorite. We used to make the neighbor kid catch 'em.
Re:The Classics (Score:5, Funny)
I've always wanted to start an Underground Lawn Darts league, just to publicize how out of control the federal goverment is...
The first rule of Underground Lawn Darts League is that we do NOT talk about Underground Lawn Darts League.
Now grab that C4, soldier.
dangerous? um.. NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, these toys are not dangerous. As the site specifically states in each rationalization of the purpose for being listed on their site, it is the *children* that are dangerous.
What's next? DVD copies of Farenheit 451, because it incites arson?
Re:dangerous? um.. NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is a fallacy. It is *parents* who should be held responsible for their own children's upbringing, not toy manufacturers, or the government. If you think a toy is inappropriate for your child or goes against your value system, there is a simple solution -- don't buy it! If your kid turns out to be a maladjusted sociopath, don't blame TV, videogames, and toys -- blame yourself for using those things as electronic babysitters instead of spending quality time with your child and teaching them how to be responsible, upstanding citizens.
Geeze, sometimes I think we should require licensing before we allow people to procreate.
Stupid parent groups need a life (Score:4, Troll)
Anyways I still remember an SNL skit of a toy manufacturer with "Bag `O Broken Glass" and "Play Doctor Medical Waste Goop" .... now those were some toys, but video games that promote violence. How about you get mom and dad to quit yellin at each other through the stress of X-Mas? Erm wait, it's toys that make people corrupt not unbearable living enviroments.
But yeah ... I will be giving out rocks for this years holliday season ... maybe I'll put a slashdot on um so I can sell ... my pet slashdot rock.(C) :-)
Re:Stupid parent groups need a life (Score:2)
"Bag of broken glass? Isn't that dangerous?"
"Well yea, but we're putting a sign on it: Hey Kid, it's a bag of broken glass. Be careful."
"Okay, what else do you have?"
"Well, we've got Johnny Switchblade (click)..."
Re:Stupid parent groups need a life (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious that this is an old stupid thing ... considering the actors included Gilda and Ackroyd.
Happy Fun Ball (Score:3, Funny)
I sure wish they made those, though a few of the random toys out of the grocery store quarter machines probably are as "safe" as HFB...
And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't that the beauty of the Internet? To give each and every person a place to express their opinions and ideas, regardless of just how silly it is?
Kill Him Kill Him (Score:2)
Way to go kid! I hope her kid is one of the American pilots strafing Al Queada targets right now. Looks like that hand-held video game might have been good training for him.
Bah (Score:2)
Also, I "think" they are the "founders" of the "quotation mark" fan club.
Zoids! (Score:2)
and who has even heard of this group? (Score:2)
as soon as the CDC makes a stand THEN it becomes news.
Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess Doom's mistake was that it promotes the killing of aliens instead of Afghans.
Shadowcat? What the hell? (Score:2, Funny)
Uh... "Shadow Cat" listed as one of the most dangerous toys?
It's only a 45-ton 'mech, for God's sake!
Every now and then my Timber Wolf steps on those things and I won't even notice anything special happens!
Other dangerous toys (Score:5, Funny)
Kids know what to do now (Score:2, Funny)
DBZ dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DBZ dangerous? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DBZ dangerous? (Score:2)
Personally, I'm glad when my son is saying "kame... hame... HA!!!!!!!" instead of "bang".
Not that I'd prevent him from the finger guns, but I think fantasizing about fantasy violence is a step up from fantasizing about real violence.
Most Violent Toys (Score:2, Insightful)
I would agree that many of theses toys (and games) should not be marketed to small children yet many of them sell toys to kids under the recommended age for the games. A bit of sleaze but nothing that unusual for marketdroids.
None could compare with the toy.... (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.engrish.com/images/recentdiscoveries/D
Doom rated M... (Score:2)
Unless you find green blood [gamespot.com] realistic.
But how are they going to solve the halflife port. That had a lot of blood in it!
gotta love... (Score:2, Interesting)
ah, modern family is so loving and caring with modern technology.
Re: (Score:2)
When will this crap end? (Score:2)
As a personal reference, I have been on trips to Europe lately and the one thing I noticed is their total lack of sensitivity towards children in media. What I mean is that all over their TV programs there is sex, drugs, violence, bad language, etc. Rather than hearing a report about Taliban deaths, they show you the body parts strewn all over the place from the bombs. Europe has their problems, of course, but the way they handle these types of things is much better than the way we do. Everything is out in the open and the result is the kids understand real life instead of sheltered life, and I think it results in more mature people. That's just my own opinion though, flame if you want.
Parent replies (not really a flame) (Score:2)
I have no problem with the games and their content or whatever. I also hate extreme Christian tosspots like this guy [capalert.com]. The aim of "reducing the marketing of violence to children" is, however, a laudable one. These companies put recommended ages on and then deliberatly market toys at children below that age group. My nine year old stepdaughter, like all of her classmates, has been into the Pokemon craze. The way I watch it, I don't see that there's much difference between the basic premise and dogfighting - setting pets on each other to see who wins. Admittedly, my nine year old stepdaughter does have Aspergers syndrome [udel.edu] and therefore has a lot of trouble distinguishing what's serious and what's not.
I don't believe that banning or censoring things is the answer. I do believe that awareness and parental responsibility will help. My two year old son will soon be old enough to be influenced by what he sees and hears (he picked up the word "bugger" quickly enough). I wouldn't like him to grow up thinking that it's normal to shoot/stab/punch people.
I don't want censorship (yeah - I surf for porn now and again) what I want is responsibility. I don't want people to blame the TV or the Internet for their kids seeing graphic anal fisting (much less Taco snotting), I want them to take responsibility and educate their kids. You can't take responsibility without knowledge.
The people who run this site may be going about things the wrong way, but someone needs to highlight that there is a problem.
PS Yes, our TV news does show what actually happens when people are shot/bombed/gassed and it aint pretty. And we still don't want guns - coincidence?
These lists would be ignorable if... (Score:2)
Then these lists would be ignorable, because parents could see for themselves which shows their kids are watching on TV, how much homework their kids are doing, and what kinds of games are ok and not-ok for the kids to play.
Supervision of children used to be a pretty big deal, and you could get charged with neglect for not doing it, so how are all these Soccer Moms getting away with completely ignoring the content they buy for their kids until its too late?
Should responsible people really take all this crap from a demographic known for recording South Park (which is on at midnight in most areas) so their 12 year old can watch it?
fucking in rhythm and sorrow (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought Christains loved war (ever read the Bible?), its just sex they couldn't stand.
Children are too pampered as it is (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Children are too pampered as it is (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree on isolating children from reality being a bad thing, testing cosmetics on animals is not something that should be taken lightly. On farms, animals are given a fairly good life and then killed almost instantly by having their head decapitated in a single, strong blow before their corpses are slaughtered. Farmers intentionally make sure that the animal feels no pain and does not suffer. Cosmetic testing burns, maims, and tortures an animal before it kills it. Not only are animals' flesh burned by ridiculous amounts of acidic chemicals, but the people in the testing facilities will also slash an animal repeatedly and pour similar chemicals in the wound, as well as drowning other animals in the chemicals and reusing animals that survive tests over and over until they die. In fact, these people pretty much torture the animals in every way you can think of. Pouring acidic chemicals in their eyes, in their wounds, on furred skin, on exposed skin, on skin that's been worn with razors... it's just ridiculous, especially when many other facilities just do the same tastes on cell cultures that have no ability to process pain.
PETA sucks... but they have a point here.
"Rights"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same bullshit we're more accustomed to reading from Jamie and Michael -- whenever a government or organization takes action, they piously declare that aprents should take responsibility for their children. And then it's a fundamental assault on freedom when parents decide to parent instead of following the prescribed "Your Rights Online" way of life.
I've managed to learn not to flame most of the hypocrisy here ("A new patch for a Windows bug -- the closed source development model is so buggy! A new Linux kernel patch -- look how quickly the open-source model finds and fixes bugs!") but I find this one so offensive it pushes my buttons every time.
Re:"Rights"? (Score:2)
Agreed. It's clear that Taco didn't even read the article that is linked--he thinks they are against MGS2 the video game. Oh well, so goes
Re:"Rights"? (Score:2)
Who said this represented jeopardy? If it were an EXPRESSION of My Rights Online, that'd qualify too, wouldn't it?
Re:"Rights"? (Score:2)
calm down man (Score:2)
"Your Right Online" is a very broad category, and while this story doesn't exactly fit, as noone's rights are being violated, it's the closest as this story is sort of about voluntary self censorship by parents.
It's not like CT is saying, "Look, your right are being violated!", it's more like he's saying, "Look at this silly stupid parent group! Haha!..."
And I have to agree with CT, I've played with all these kinds of toys and games and I've turned out just fine...
well, except for the killing spree I went on the other day, but I had my reasons... j/k
Lighten up...
In more relevant news... (Score:3, Funny)
What all the resons mean to me. (Score:2)
seriously, it sounds like half the resons for including them in the list are taken right from the frigen box!!
I guess they feel that the "resoning" behind the resons listed are self-evident. I am not so sure.
what about... (Score:2, Funny)
LionLamb says Nerf is a bad influence for the kids (Score:3, Informative)
I am always surprised when they list Nerf [nerfcenter.com] toys as dangerous and encouraging kids to be violent. It's Nerf for goodness sakes!
Not only that, but when they do single out a Nerf toy, it's usually one of the pathetically underpowered ones. Case in point: Their 1988-89 Dirty Dozen List [lionlamb.org] shows the Nerf Pulsator [nerfcenter.com] as the top offender. My favorite gripe of theirs: "box refers to the darts as "ammo."".
Maybe I'm missing a point here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the thing that disturbs me most about this is not that some people would compile a list like this - people are free to state their opinions about toys and games all they want - it's that parents would rely so heavily on these types of lists to make their decisions for them. To me, it's just further evidence of a parent's wish to simply not be bothered or involved.
If you really want to have some influence on what your kids are getting into, then for the love of all things good, GET INVOLVED. Use some common sense! Do you want your kids considering guns as toys? No? Then don't buy them gun-wielding toys. It's a pretty simple concept. Don't want your kids to get the idea in their head that head-to-head combat is Good Thing[tm]? Then don't buy them fighting games. It's all very, very common-sensical. There are lots of toys from which to choose. Pick the ones with which you feel most comfortable.
What wimps!!! (Score:2)
This is just prime example of how liberal, touchy feely, public interest groups are ruining America. I am just waiting for them to suggest frilly pink panties as a perfect gift for little boys. No wonder Middle Eastern terrorists thought we were soft and an easy target. The front cover of the New York Post [newyorkpost.com] today showed how Palestinian children play -- with fake bombs strapped around their chests while practicing military assaults.
For God's sake, lets let boys be boys for Christmas. Don't make Santa deliver wimpy toys. Jesus was not born and died on a cross for that.
Ha! No Grand Theft Auto 3?? (Score:2, Funny)
hehe...naturally it goes on for a solid hour >:) But seriously folks, these people don't necessarily represent all Christians!
Back in the Day (Score:2)
Now we're afraid of words, pictures, and plastic icons. Oh, I get it! It's a biblical thing!
Re:Back in the Day (Score:2)
Very misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't see "Most Dangerous Toys" anywhere.
This story sucks.
Dangerous? Maybe. (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
Lets compare The Bible (a resource handed out to many, many children even below the age described as too young to play the games on that page) to these "Dangerous Toys":
"Super Street Fighter II: Turbo Revival"
- "My fists will have your blood on them"
Pontious Pilate: The Bible
- Washes his hands of blood
Doom
"Annihilate hell spawned demons with plasma rifles, chain guns and rocket launchers. Team up with a friend
Revelations: The Bible
- Just read any part of it
Rock Em Sock Em Robots: Head Case Robot
- This neck wrenching head collector says winning is as easy as taking candy from a baby's intestines
King Solomon: The Bible
- Commanded that a baby be cut in half
Now, if you want to ban those games, you'd better ban the bible from being read by those under 18.
Instead of wasting time searching... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop picking on the extremists (Score:2)
- The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children.
So of course this going to release a report like this.Complaining about them is like complaining that religious fundamentalists are nuts... 1) their statements and our reactions are obvious and predictable, and 2) they usually don't have much influence on others anway.
When We Were Young (Score:2)
A few people here have said that they'd never let a ten-year-old play Doom or Metal Gear Solid 2, let them watch gory movies, or let them play with some of these toys. Try to think of your own life and get some perspective. Was your TV viewing limited to Jesus Christ's Bible Adventures when you were ten? Do you owe your current well-being to how sheltered you were as a kid, having not seen a gun fight on TV until you were old enough to drive, and having not even HEARD of sex until you were no longer jailbait?
Personally, I don't think you do. I think you played Wolfenstein 3D and Doom when you were younger. I think you watched a few horror movies in your pre-pubescent days. I think you even hid a Playboy under your bed, or at the very least made regular visits to Playboy.com when you were twelve. And I think you certainly watched a popular kiddie show or two as a kid, and bought lots of action figures for it, too. You had G.I. Joe toys, or a Leonardo figure, or a ghost from Ghost Busters, or a big toy of the Yamato... you had those, or something very much like them. And you're fine, aren't you? In fact, you know an entire generation of people that's fine, multiple generations in fact.
Try to think of how YOU were raised and what YOUR life was like before you tell people that it's wrong for a ten year old to play Quake 3 or watch a violent movie. Stop listening to the endless stream of propaganda and actually take some time to think for yourself. These people think that they can successfully force their illogical bullshit on others if they yell loud enough and keep repeating it endlessly. Don't let them do that. Think for yourself. Maybe you'll still agree with them after you take that time to think... but I don't think you will. Because I think your life is a text book case of how to warp a child and "turn their heart dark", but somehow, by the same improbable miracle that 99% of all other people experience, you turned out fine... because this "violence desensitizes children" thing is bullshit.
And there's no way in Hell you didn't watch Looney Toons when you were a kid. There just isn't.
You people are pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez --- a private site, simply listing toys that concerned parents might want to avoid this Christmas. That's all, folks!
Even worse is the crap quality of the negative responses. "If your children are jerks it's your fault, not the toys", "You should spend more time parenting and less time on this website." Unbelievable. Has it occurred to any of you that taking the time to choose toys for your children --- instead of buying whatever crap is marketed to them --- is actually evidence of being a good parent?
But, of course, /. hypocrites know no reason. It's techno-libertarian free internet for me, but get your site off my internet for thou. I'm sure if the story had been "Open Source Community Develops User-Driven Database of Toy Ratings" you'd all be creaming yourselves about the power of Open Source.
Nice flamebait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the hair-trigger threshold that most people around here have for unleashing verbal abuse at innocuous sites whose opinion differs from theirs constitutes its own dataset about the desensitizing effects of violence on children.
Jeez --- a private site, simply listing toys that concerned parents might want to avoid this Christmas. That's all, folks!
Well that's not all though. This same organization is lobbying the US gov't to actually STOP production of these toys. No one on slashdot is advocating shutting this site down. NOW who's afraid of a different opinion?
Has it occurred to any of you that taking the time to choose toys for your children --- instead of buying whatever crap is marketed to them --- is actually evidence of being a good parent?
Yes. And to be honest, I'd much prefer a parent actually LOOK at a toy and think FOR THEMSELVES about the good/bad qualities of it. Much better than simply reading a list of someone else's opinions and taking action on that, when you don't even know if this someone else shares any of the same values that you do.
Maybe you miss the point of why so many people find this scary. It's not a differing opinion that bothers me - it's a differing opinion forced down my throat that does. And of course using a website as an excuse to be a bad parent.
This is the best they could do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now before you start complaining "But they didn't mean that kind of dangerous," I know what they meant. They meant "violent and potentially psychologically damaging to innocent young children." Now, if this is what parents are most concerned about these days, then either the world is a whole lot safer now than it was a few years ago, or those parents are unfit to raise a child. I'm sure there are many other toys out there that could physically hurt a child (if there aren't, I propose creating a small metal baseball bat and calling it the "Big Brother Basher"), and those are the toys I would consider "dangerous." If you don't want your kids exposed to violence and need someone to tell you that stuff with guns is violent, perhaps it isn't the toys that present the most danger to your kids.
Moving on to the humor side:
A series of plastic action figures based on the violent anime cartoon program Dragon Ball Z.
There's violence in that show? I admit that I don't follow the show, but I've flipped through it several times (some in an attempt to understand the appeal), and the characters are always either standing around talking, flying, staring at each other, or all blurred in scenes that resemble bizarre mating rituals. If anything, I'd be worried about kids being exposed to too much stupidity from that show, not to mention the promotional material for the toys: "front kicking action!" "side kicking action!" "double punch action!" Was this stuff written by people who make lesbian porn action figures or something?
Re:This is the best they could do? (Score:3, Funny)
Denial always works better...
//rdj
Stupid Dead Kids (Score:3, Informative)
I really miss my old Micronaut toys. The rocket launchers on those things could fire small bits of plastic at near relativistic speeds.
Hey this site is great! (Score:3, Funny)
-- iCEBaLM
It's funny.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then enter Slashdot.
Now the webmaster is looking at the site stats of hundreds of thousands of hits and is thinking "man! what a difference I'm making!". Little does he/she know that the general reaction is "geesh... what next!". Spurred on by this "success", they're already planning the next project.
For that matter, they could probably take their web logs showing the hits they are getting to some politician *spit* and show what a "great job" they're doing protecting the children of society (after all, lots of hits means it's working, right?), and get some federal funding to carry on the torch.
Oh joy.
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
Re:Reminds me of SNL skits (Score:2)
Re:I hate other people's kids! (Score:2)
There's some twisted children out there and parents who try and blame the media or the Internet (is the Internet a medium?) are just trying to dodge responsibility. If your children are cunts, it's because you made them that way.