Fenn, I just covered the differences in the last three posts...
1.) Boredom is not a punishment.
2.) Privileges are not to be taken for granted anyway.
3.) Equating material goods to good deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures materialism. So we take the cake away from the kid and the kid throws a tantrum. Instead of trying to fix the kid's materialistic and needy behavior, we instead nurture it by using such things as cake for leverage. That's horrible parenting. Beyond that, it teaches the child to take such things as desert for granted because it places importance on the item, as if it were important enough to warrant a tantrum. That should not be a norm.
4.) A surefire reward system is not true to real life.
5.) Taking away privileges is highly, //highly// shrug-offable. Especially since our standards for "necessity" and "privilege" are rising constantly. Maybe this would've worked in days when things like cable TV, high speed internet and a personal computer weren't considered a necessity.
6.) Reward systems are highly exploitable, and are often easily exploited.
7.) It doesn't make a point well.
8.) Has no way of guaranteeing that kids //don't// do bad, which is what PUNISHMENTS are for.
9.) Leaves false interpretations of good will.
At what point did you forget all of this?
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 02-07-2011 at 10:08 PM.
when i was a kid i was quite happy to sit in time out and if they took away toys/games id just read :/ i think i was smacked like twice and it was just a slap round the leg, not hard but enough to know id done something wrong and it worked i didnt do what id got in trouble for
When I started writing, like I usually doOriginally Posted by CypressDahlia
This new format does make it easier to respond to though, thank you.
1.) Granted
2.) Granted
3.) Equating physical pain to bad deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures "might makes right." The child will start to learn that if someone can hurt you, you must listen to them.
4.) A surefire punishment system is not true to real life.
5.) Cable TV, high speed internet and a personal computer aren't a necessity. Still, you make a point.
6.) Physical pain can be exploited by the parent. They can easily begin using pain to shut up the child
7.) Restating your main point
8.) Punishments don't guarantee anything. Sometimes they make the kid smarter at not getting caught by upping the ante.
9.) Slightly confused?
That's not a time out. Time out is in the corner, still, silent, doing nothing.
no i meant they tried time out and they also tried just taking games and toys away
3.) Equating physical pain to bad deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures "might makes right." The child will start to learn that if someone can hurt you, you must listen to them.
Only if you aren't putting the beating in context properly. As I said, corporal punishment isn't about the pain, it's about consequence. If you let them know why the beating occurred, what they did wrong and how they can do better, it's not going to be the case. The only reason you hit them is to make sure the consequence is //enough// to make the initial lesson stick.
4.) A surefire punishment system is not true to real life.
But it should be. People should get punished for bad things, right? The reason we still have criminals is because this doesn't happen often enough. I'd rather teach my child "the way it should be" as opposed to "the way it isn't."
6.) Physical pain can be exploited by the parent. They can easily begin using pain to shut up the child
You're right, but child abuse is expressly against the law. There is a punishment for that, too. Whereas being spoiled has no legal punishments, sadly. So there are already stops put in place by the government in case this happens.
8.) Punishments don't guarantee anything. Sometimes they make the kid smarter at not getting caught by upping the ante.
Well, nothing in this world is guaranteed, Fenn. But a child who gets a slap on the wrist is probably more reluctant about doing bad than a child who gets a time out.
9.) What I meant about this one is that "good deeds should be about doing good". PR puts emphasis on the reward as opposed to the deed.
3. You can put positive reinforcement in context too. I'm not saying parents should be a vending machine: good deed in, reward out. They need to supplement this with communication and life lessons. If put into context, positive reinforcement works without promoting blatant materialism.
4. So people shouldn't be rewarded for doing good? Don't forget what I mentioned before; positive reinforcement is not limited to materials. Sometimes all the child will receive is a thank you. In a perfect world, every good deed would be rewarded, even if it's just a smile.
6. Granted
8. Debatable. Actually this is basically what we are discussing anyway so I'll continue.
9. Very clear statement of your idea! This makes your position on the matter much clearer. That being said, I fail to see how a slap on the wrist puts the focus on the deed. I'd say it puts the focus on fear and the punishment.
Honestly, I don't think either method works on its own. I think that most important is the communication and education you provide the child with after they do bad or good deeds. Explanations, as you pointed out, of why the deed was good or bad and why we do/don't do that are far more useful than pain or rewards.
I do bellieve, however, we have digressed from the topic, which was simply whether games need content limitations. Not that this wasn't a lively debate, of course.
And look at you now, lee, you're a mtoherfucking gangster who's going to university and who builds giant fucking drowning mechanisms. idk if you're fucked up or awesome O_o
I just read this new article in kill screen and it's p good and relevant.
http://www.killscreenmagazine.com/ar...-and-forgotten
Amazing article. I don't agree with everything but it was artfully written and made a clear point.
In response to the writer's question, the reason videogames put no consequence on violence is because no one would buy a game that did. Today, if given the choice between a game with minimal violence and realistic consequences and one with maximum violence and no consequence, most gamers would choose the latter. In fact they already have. Look at the top selling games and the pattern is there.
What I draw after reflecting on the role of violence in games is two possibilities: (1) Most gamers are very violent, sadistic people and taking away one medium of that expression does not change the fact that these peope are cruel beings, or (2) Most gamers realize the difference between virtual and real violence and use games as an outlet for aggression. Games allow people to take normally horrific actions (war, gang violence), filter out the pain and tragedy, and enjoy the competition and adrenaline.
No form of media should ever be expected or forced to provide educational value. Unless someone is intending to create educational tools through a specific medium, the only limits creators should feel when adding content to a game is that posed by their target audience. Also, as this article pointed out, all media should be treated equally. If violent games should be restricted and demoted, so should horror movies and rap albums, as well as nude paintings/sculptures in "Fine Arts" museums and suggestive romance novels in bookstores.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks