Child would like unsuitable game for christmas HELP!

Primarni

suited-aces wrote: »

It's not fool proof, but neither is anything these days. The idea of online=molesters is too hysterical and comes from a lack of understanding. If they use headsets while playing with randomers, they may be exposed to some bad language (although the foulest language I hear comes from voices which don't seem to have broken yet), but the risk of grooming is extremely low. Put simply, it would be easier for a sicko to use a social networking site or take a stroll to the local park.

I've heard something about this somewhere. Children are understandably wary of strangers who bound up to them in the local park or arcade, and have had it drummed into them not to add people they don't know on Bebo etc.

Most parents don't seem to know that online mode usually means that Little Jonny is playing with full grown strange men on the internet, and that the full grown strange men can say anything they like to Little Jonny.

Most parents only find out when they check the net nanny and see that Little Jonny has been googling slang terms for some of the more exotic sex acts.

This isn't the real problem though. Through having fun playing with the full grown strange man Little Jonny starts to think of him as somebody he knows, and not a stranger. The full grown strange man is funny, cool, and helps him with the game.

So when the full grown strange man suggests that they swap MSNs, phone numbers or emails Little Jonny does it without even thinking about it. Possibly Little Jonny is flattered that such a cool guy wants to be mates.

That's when the proper grooming starts.

kafkathecat

Primarni, do you have children? Because that really isn't what it is like at all. My son plays in my open plan living room. If his friends aren't online he doesn't bother with the headset. If children are otherwise vulnerable it could be a problem but it isn't the cause of the problem iyswim.

cheepskate_2

Primarni, no matter what the medium, the whole concept of teaching yourr child "friends" is still the same.

as for pedos bounding up to them in the park , the grooming will be done exactly as it would be on the pc, slowly

I hope that any training i give my child in being safe , could be used in any situation they come across.

courteener

kafkathecat wrote: »

Giving alcohol to 5 year olds? That's some pretty excellent parenting right there.

I see.

Good parents are supposed to buy things for their children that the child is prohibited by law from from buying for themselves?

Alcohol, fags, adult entertainment, it's completely up to the parent and nobody else is allowed to have an opinion about it?

Good parents are supposed to teach their child ways to get around the laws of the land, plus which laws to obey and which to ignore?

Good parents are supposed to do whatever is "easy"?

What "generalised tabloid stereotype" did I use? Quote please.


Courteener, I am not talking about me or anyone else giving alcohol to 5 year olds I am explaining the law, if you don't like it take it up with the government.


No one has made any of the above statements you appear to be trying to pin on me. I don't think you really think that I think those things.


As I have explained before noone is breaking the law here but anyone who breaks the speed limit does break the law, or don't you count that one?
Your idea that only poor parenting could be responsible for a legal teenage marriage and/or pregnancy is a very simplistic tabloid view of the world.
Do you really think it is easier to go against the prevailing consensus in life or here on this forum? It isn't.
As an aside I know a parent who was criticised by a social worker because their 8 yr old hadn't seen Spiderman, a rather nasty 12A, she was seen as overprotective!
I am not interested in continuing an argument where you misrepresent what I say but will reply to any sensible comments.

I understand the law. I understand that it gives parents, no matter how crap, the right to make these decisions for their children. I still think that some parents don't care enough, or have enough understanding of the issues, to be in charge of this decision.

I haven't tried to pin any comments on you, and I haven't employed any tabloid stereotypes. You're the one banging on about vicar's daughters.

I can't think of one reason why somebody would marry at 16 that doesn't have to do with a messed up childhood. If you can, then please list them. This is my opinion based on my life experience so far. No sterotypes involved.

When you say that giviing a child access to adult video entertainment is the same as giving a five year old booze I agree with you.

The law is the same.

My opinion is the same.

Some parents don't care enough, or have enough understanding of the issues, to be in charge of this decision.

People have said that they've helped their children to get round the law on 18 rated games.

The child wanted them, The child is prohibited by law from buying them. The parent trots off down the shops and buys it for them.

In my opinion it's the same as buying the booze, !!!!!! or fags that the child is also not allowed to buy for themselves. The law says they can't do it themselves so the parent does it for them.

They're going to have sex sometime so I might as well let their girlfriend stay over from age 11 and give them plenty of privacy.

Saying about people who break the speed limit is another version of "If I don't give it to him he'll play it round his friends house". This one goes, "everybody's going to set a bad example to their child sometimes so it doesn't matter if I do it now".

The whole "It's bound to happen so I'll make it happen for them right now" mindset is something I really disagree with.

It doesn't matter how many time you pat me on the head patronisingly and tell me I'm not making sensible arguments and I don't understand. I'm at the sharp end. I have a different perspective to you.

courteener

kafkathecat wrote: »

Primarni, do you have children? Because that really isn't what it is like at all. My son plays in my open plan living room. If his friends aren't online he doesn't bother with the headset. If children are otherwise vulnerable it could be a problem but it isn't the cause of the problem iyswim.

Everybody I know plays with randomers like suited-aces said. That's how you get good at the game.

A guy I know is really good friends with a bloke in Alaska who's famous on YouTube. They met playing Halo online when they guy I know was about 13.

kafkathecat

Courteener my point about the speed limit was that it is breaking the law and everyone does it and yes, people actually die. I am not going to bother replying to the rest of my post as there is no coherent argument to engage with. You believe one thing I believe something else. No problem.
Oh and of course my son plays with people he doesn't know but he doesn't talk to them. Simple really.

courteener

kafkathecat wrote: »

Courteener my point about the speed limit was that it is breaking the law and everyone does it and yes, people actually die. I am not going to bother replying to the rest of my post as there is no coherent argument to engage with. You believe one thing I believe something else. No problem.
Oh and of course my son plays with people he doesn't know but he doesn't talk to them. Simple really.

Everyone doesn't do it. That's exactly the faulty premise that your whole mindset is based on.

LadyGooGoo_2

kafkathecat wrote: »

Do you really think it is easier to go against the prevailing consensus in life or here on this forum?

But you're not are you? As far as I can see, it's a couple of you double teaming one teenager.

Courteener I totally follow your logic. You convinced me. I hope you're doing Law. You would be great at it.

The inconsistency I have picked up on is the reason for getting them the 18 game is because we have no control over what he does when not with us, but we know for sure that he doesn't speak to randoms on the internet.

cheepskate_2

LadyGooGoo wrote: »

But you're not are you? As far as I can see, it's a couple of you double teaming one teenager.

Courteener I totally follow your logic. You convinced me. I hope you're doing Law. You would be great at it.

The inconsistency I have picked up on is the reason for getting them the 18 game is because we have no control over what he does when not with us, but we know for sure that he doesn't speak to randoms on the internet.

Thanked in mistake. This post really made me laugh.

Anyway, this topic has run its course and should be put to bed.

courteener

cheepskate wrote: »

Sorry what sharp end are you at? You are not a parent and and according to one of many of your posts

"(QUOTE)but anything else we have to check with mum or dad,

So your telling people how to parent, when your own parents dont even trust you to be able to decide what you can or cannot eat.

Yes, what I meant was I'm a teenager.

In our house checking before you eat something is seen as good manners and consideration for the people who do the shopping and cooking.

That thread you refer to is all about the problems it can cause when people don't do what we do, so we're quite happy with it tbh.

Obviously you're more lax about it.