Proof has not always been necessary, if the child appears to be at risk. I have heard of cases where letting the children watch inappropriate things was a contributing factor in Social Services decision to take the children away. It wasn't the sole reason, but it could quite easily be used as evidence of an unsafe environment, or at least an opportunity to check up on them.

This is especially the case if the family is already known to social services. If the school reports them (as is generally their duty) then it's another step towards losing their children (or as is more often the case, closer supervision).

The police aren't going to march down there and start handcuffing people, but it's incorrect to say the schools are just blowing hot air.

There are three things you can rely on in life:

Death

Taxes

People turn stupid when they have kids

I'm often reminded of the Law of the Universe: You can't fix stupid.

While I agree that some people don't have a clue, the "subject-matter experts" standard answer is to wrap kids in bubblewrap, and then toss them into the real world when they come of age without any preparation and say, "You are on your own now."

It honestly sounds to me like you haven't done much research on the matter, if that is the opinion you hold. There really is no "standard answer" when it comes to childhood learning and development (aside from starting as early as possible), because children learn at different rates and in radically different ways. Exposure to real-world violence, stressful home environments, etc., all have effects on how children learn and how they develop. If you want to call trying to lower that exposure as "wrap[ping] in bubblewrap" then go right ahead, but doing so doesn't mitigate the effects.

Each child is different, yes. But your average kid needs some space to themselves. They have to find new and interesting ways to screw up. And they have to be able to do this without being supervised 100% of the time. If you want them to be responsible for themselves when they become advlts, you are going to have to allow them to be responsible for themselves occasionally while they are kids. Sure they need supervision and a lot of it, but too much supervision can be just as bad as too little. The way things are now if a kid isn't with his parents even when he is asleep, Child Protective Services is going to get a call. It is really surprising that they don't get a call when some parent leaves a kid in the custody of some stranger called a teacher.

Kids are free thinkers. By their nature they think outside the box. They are constantly adding two and two, and seldom tell you when they are doing it. Kids know that there is a reason for everything. They may not know the reason, but they do know there is one. Mommy washes the dishes when I am playing in my room. There is a reason for that. Mommy never washes the dishes when I am playing outside, she is watching me. There is a reason for that. Daddy washes the clothes when I am in my room. There is a reason for that. Daddy never washes the cloths when I am playing outside. he is watching me. There is a reason for that.

I am not allowed to walk to my friend's house five doors down the street unless Mommy or Daddy are with me. There is a reason for that.

Look, just because the entire advlt population of the world is neurotic, doesn't mean we need to make the kids that way, too. Let them have a normal childhood and wait until they are advlts before they have to become neurotic.

I suppose there was a train of thought in there, but I couldn't really follow it.

Ok, let me put it another way.

Do you honestly believe that kids do not notice advlt reactions to them? Do you really think that when advlts find it necessary to escort them everywhere they go that they do not notice? That they do not notice that every time they leave their bed that a parent is hovering near by? Do you honestly believe that kids don't realize that parents seem to have this compulsive need to be within arms reach of them their every waking moment? Do you really believe that kids don't notice how absolutely nuts their parents get every time they manage to slip their leash for a few minutes? Do you honestly believe that they don't think about any of this?

Have you ever wondered just what kind of a message does all this stupidity send to the kids? Have you ever asked a kid what they think about all this? If you ever find one that trusts you enough to give you a straight answer, you may be surprised. Many of them are growing more and more fearful of "outside". Many are growing more and more fearful of trying something new without a safety net provided by their parents.

Funny, I kind of have the same opinion about people that have your opinion of parents who buy children games like that. I played all sorts of video games growing up, including very violent ones, and I certainly turned out fine, as did the large/vast majority of my generation. While it's great you feel compelled to tell parents what they are buying their children, if you or someone like you went off on a speech like that I'd be like "yeah, I already know all that, I have no issue with my child playing it" and I'd hate to think of exactly what I'd do if the person then went all righteous indignation/superior morals on me. Seriously, drop the moral superiority bit, there's nothing wrong with parents buying children video games like that.

We can't stop here, we're in anacdotal country!

What you are describing is called helicoptor parenting - and no actual subject-matter expert in parenting that I know of recommends it. As I said previously: there are parents who simply don't know how to raise their children and are trying to do the best they can.

Again, anacdotal evidence. But I will say that, from a cursory look at the current literature, that there seems to be little to no effect on aggression from playing violent video games (which, for those who might remember, is a shift in the general consensus in the literature and, thus, a shift in my own views regarding the matter).

Never said it wasn't, but my generation is the generation where video games started to move to mainstream, and I haven't particularly seen a rise in violence, as a matter of a fact, and NOT anecdotal evidence, crime, at least in the U.S. has actually dropped in the last decade, and I could(but won't) link about a dozen links that a simple "Violent crime rates in last decade decreased" brought up. So saying that kids viewing/playing violent video games is going to set them off-balance is a fallacy, and 100% unprovable(seriously, show me serious studies that have proven it, because the ones I've read say they don't).

But mostly, I just can't stand Charon's and people like him, viewpoint and their feeling of moral superiority. I mean, the guy outright said he wanted to slap parents who buy kids violent video games. I'm not one to be an internet tough guy, but statements like that I would love to see tested in real life, because I imagine most people would become extremely violent in return for actions like that, and at the very least they would have his butt arrested and fired from his job.

Yes, the right action for being told that you shouldn't let your kid play violent video games is to become extremely violent and try to get someone fired. Please, please tell me that was a joke.

Not really. Just because I believe people would act violently when they have violence perpetuated on them, doesn't mean that video games had any affect on that mindset. People have been defending themselves from those who would do violence to them for millennia, long before video games have been around. Keep in mind that Charon did say he wanted to initiate the violence by slapping people. If anything I'd say you should be saying that irony bit to him, since he wants to initiate violence on people because they are buying violent video games, ie: he wants to prevent people from letting their children see violence, by committing a violent act against said childrens parent WHILE said child is also with the parent.

... wat?

Seriously - how are you drawing a parallel between being told you shouldn't buy violent video games for your kids and people defending themselves from physical violence? I'm flabbergasted.

I'm not, I'm drawing parallels between the fact that Charon CLEARLY stated he wanted to commit a violent act(ie: slapping a customer) because they are buying their child a violent video game. Read the rest of my post, I apparently edited it to late for you to see the rest. Though, you've apparently not read the entirety of my posts since you decided to start replying to them, because I've been railing against Charons view of wanting to slap people(ie: commit a violent act against) for buying children video games he deems to violent for them from the start.

Ah, I see. Sorry, your intention wasn't clear to me. My apologies.

It's alright, as soon as I read your last post, I realized what was happening in our correspondence almost immediately to be a giant misunderstanding You're one of the few people on the forum I wouldn't immediately ascribe negative connotations to when they post, you tend to remain extremely level-headed and logical in the majority of your posts. Something I wish I was capable of, but I tend to let my emotions get in the way far to often.

My thoughts, too.

Wait, how controlling are those laws? I'm aware of the 'no Nazis ever' thing, but I thought that was the only censorship they had.

It goes beyond that. Here's an article about censorship of video games in Germany (also touching on Australian censorship): http://www.destructoid.com/censorship-in-germany-how-they-changed-your-fav-games-268854.phtml

Not sure what to say, it's almost the same law if you're working in retail and sell a mature game to a minor, you can face anywhere from a fine to jail time plus getting fired from your job.

And that law was ruled unconstitutional.

IDK about that stores like Wal Marts will and still refuse to sell mature rating games to minors, it must be bought by the parent. My father works at Wally World and tells me that they can't sell mature rating games to minors. I don't think you can go to jail now but you can be fired and/or pay a fine for selling to a minor.

This is company policy, not law (and you're right, most stores enforce it). Sure, you can be fired if you don't follow your company's rules, but you won't go to jail for that. I'm not familiar with the situation in every single state, obviously, but those I know of all eventually failed in their efforts to make it illegal.

People who think that allowing a kid to play a violent video game is bad... ugh.

Seriously, violent video games are completely fine. Wow, you killed someone in a video game! That's too violent for kids! Wrong. It's a video game, as long as the kid understands that, it is fine to let him play those types of games.

From a young age, my parents allowed me to play violent video games, however, I UNDERSTOOD it was a game. As long as you teach your kids to be logical, then their is nothing wrong with allowing them to play games such as this.

People who try to stop kids from playing these games are the real problem in my opinion.

I don't know if you're a parent or not but I have 3 children who are grown up now. I certainly didn't let them play games which contained gratuitous violence and scenes of torture, nor did I let them watch pormography or 18 rated films featuring advlt content especially ones which contained drug taking or extreme violence. I believe that ratings are there for a reason and in many cases should be followed. They are old enough to do what they like now but I feel that I acted responsibly while they were growing up and did what I thought necessary to protect them from things that may have been disturbing. That's just my take on parenting though and if people want to bring their children up differently that's fine with me, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though.