Zaha

[Buzzer]

Because they are saying it is not suitable for under eighteens. I will ask you the same, have any of your children ever watched or played something that has a rating older than their age group.
Also have any of your youngsters ever seen Indian Jones, star wars etc

You said you let him watch "most films". That covers a very broad spectrum and will undoubtedly have nudity and sometimes extremely graphic contents. And I've Youtubed CoD and the gameplay in that. Graphic headshots, blood and brains being splattered, limbs flying off. And this is what you let your 5 year old see - along with most films that you watch too.

Did I let my children watch Star Wars when they were 5? No because I didn't think it appropriate at that age. Indiana Jones? Most certainly not. The bit with the bloke getting his face caught in the plane propellers, the nazi having his face melted.... no way. Not suitable for a 5 year old.

 

[El Presidente]

Because they are saying it is not suitable for under eighteens. I will ask you the same, have any of your children ever watched or played something that has a rating older than their age group.
Also have any of your youngsters ever seen Indian Jones, star wars etc

My children have seen Indiana Jones, not seen Indian Jones though to be fair, is that the Bollywood version? Indiana Jones is a film with a 12A Certificate. This means that it is not recommended for children under 12, unless the parent thinks that they are old enough to watch it. The film is a 12 A because of:

-a scene where someone is devoured by a plague of ants.
-a scene where someone is consumed by fire (which, bizarrely, starts in their eyeballs).
-continued focus throughout the film on a flick knife carried by one of the main characters.

CoD, which it appears that you allow your five year old to watch unaccompanied, has been given an 18 certificate for strong bloody violence and strong language.

The violence takes the form of the player's involvement in gun battles with various enemies in which an array of contemporary weapons such as automatic rifles, pistols, grenades and other types of explosive ammunition are available, along with larger weapons such as missile launchers which are carried on ships, helicopters and road vehicles. The player can also access bladed weapons for stealth attacks and hand-to-hand combat. The battles are intense and conducted from a first-person perspective with impacts registering as blood spurts which vary in strength depending on the weapon and the range at which it is used.

More powerful weapons can also cause dismemberment with resultant gory detail and enemies can be set on fire. Although dead bodies can sometimes be used as shields against enemy attacks there is no opportunity to inflict post-mortem damage on downed victims. Whilst most of the intense fighting action, in which the player encounters hordes of enemies, does not linger on injuries or carry a personalised edge, some stealth attacks in which a knife is used to slit an enemy’s throat contain more of a focus on the damage inflicted and some of the non-interactive cutscenes contain stronger bloodshed, for example, in the assassination of a political leader where the action plays out in slow-motion.

It was these stronger, more focussed moments of bloody violence accumulating through the course of the gameplay that went beyond what may be permitted by the BBFC’s Guidelines at ‘15’, which state that ‘Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury’, and which determined the ‘18’ category.

The game also contains uses of strong language which would have been allowed at ‘15’ where the Guidelines state that ‘There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, ‘****’)’.

Milder language in the game includes uses of ‘*******’, ‘shit’ and ‘bitch’.

I'm not judging you, or your parenting, it is none of my business and am genuinely sorry if you were offended by my reference to sexual activity which is outside of the mainstream. However the reason I highlighted those was to show that these would also be within the framework of certification here in the UK that you allow your five year old to see, albeit glorifying violence as opposed to what is fairly misogynist activity.

Just as you were shocked by the material I referenced you to, equally some on here were shocked by your decision to allow a five year old child to watch extreme graphical violence in a computer game, which involved active instead of passive interaction from the consumer. That does not make you a bad parent or me a sexual deviant for knowledge of Boston Pancakes etc, but is likely to provoke a response in both cases.

NSC encourages debate, even from people whose views are diametrically opposite, as communication, so long as it is courteous and within the framework of not being racist, homophobic or profane. We are even nice to (some) Palace fans.

Have a nice day x

 

[EDS]

FFS.

Being a teacher involves teaching which involves the brain so I would have though that it would be logical to assume that teachers have an understanding of the brains that they are trying to teach. Specifically this would involve an understanding of the the developmental stage of a child's brain. Seeing as this is who I teach I think that such an understanding would would be part of my paygrade. Without such an understanding I would not have qualified as a teacher and not be in the job. No-where did i claim to have as deep an understanding as a child psychologist this is something you dreamed up in order to score points to try and win an argument.

My children have never watched Indiana Jones because they are unsuitable for young children, they have watched Star Wars but found it quite scary. These are PG films and a world away from an 18 certificate video game.

As for the doctor, Psychology argument lets leave that there as we are getting nowhere.

I would maintain that Star wars is far more scarier than cod. You have shooting, aliens, killing, violence and Darth Vader. But because the cover said PG you thought it okay

 

[Buzzer]

... by your decision to allow a five year old child to watch extreme graphical violence in a computer game, which involved active instead of passive interaction from the consumer. That does not make you a bad parent

Yes it does. The excuse that it's more 'natural' than teaching him about homosexuality is a straw man argument completely irrelevant to this debate but added by Eaglesdestroyeaglets because we're Brighton fans and...you know...gays...Brighton fans...

Ordinarily, I'd say each to their own when it comes to parenting. I'm very against smacking but would never moralise with a parent who does smack their child but letting a 5 year old play CoD is so far beyond the pale it's sickening.

 

[Buzzer]

I would maintain that Star wars is far more scarier than cod. You have shooting, aliens, killing, violence and Darth Vader. But because the cover said PG you thought it okay

What planet are you on? It's certainly not Earth or Alderon. Where in Star Wars do they say the C-word? Where in Star Wars do you see brains being splattered about the place? The violence in Star Wars is worse than CoD? 'sake.

 

[EDS]

You said you let him watch "most films". That covers a very broad spectrum and will undoubtedly have nudity and sometimes extremely graphic contents. And I've Youtubed CoD and the gameplay in that. Graphic headshots, blood and brains being splattered, limbs flying off. And this is what you let your 5 year old see - along with most films that you watch too.

Did I let my children watch Star Wars when they were 5? No because I didn't think it appropriate at that age. Indiana Jones? Most certainly not. The bit with the bloke getting his face caught in the plane propellers, the nazi having his face melted.... no way. Not suitable for a 5 year old.

Well the teacher above you has let his children see star wars, so he must be a bad parent.
Also you are allunder a very big misapprehension that my children see the films that I see, okay let me phrase it another way. He can see most if not all things that I watch but bear in mind that he is in bed at 8pm without fail, he can watch tv in there for half an hour but that is generally a kids dvd. Dont tell me 8.30pm is far to late and 11 hours sleep is not enough.

 

[Buzzer]

Stop trying to change the subject. I don't care what time he goes to bed.

Someone else lets their child watch Star Wars - that's why it has a PG rating. The parent you mentioned and I are both acting consistently under that rating, the guidance is that it might be suitable but it's our call. As described - Indiana Jones is definitely not suitable for a 5 year old - I would lay my mortgage that even the film-makers agree with that and the big point is you let your 5 year old play CoD.

 

[EDS]

My children have seen Indiana Jones, not seen Indian Jones though to be fair, is that the Bollywood version? Indiana Jones is a film with a 12A Certificate. This means that it is not recommended for children under 12, unless the parent thinks that they are old enough to watch it. The film is a 12 A because of:

-a scene where someone is devoured by a plague of ants.
-a scene where someone is consumed by fire (which, bizarrely, starts in their eyeballs).
-continued focus throughout the film on a flick knife carried by one of the main characters.

CoD, which it appears that you allow your five year old to watch unaccompanied, has been given an 18 certificate for strong bloody violence and strong language.

The violence takes the form of the player's involvement in gun battles with various enemies in which an array of contemporary weapons such as automatic rifles, pistols, grenades and other types of explosive ammunition are available, along with larger weapons such as missile launchers which are carried on ships, helicopters and road vehicles. The player can also access bladed weapons for stealth attacks and hand-to-hand combat. The battles are intense and conducted from a first-person perspective with impacts registering as blood spurts which vary in strength depending on the weapon and the range at which it is used.

More powerful weapons can also cause dismemberment with resultant gory detail and enemies can be set on fire. Although dead bodies can sometimes be used as shields against enemy attacks there is no opportunity to inflict post-mortem damage on downed victims. Whilst most of the intense fighting action, in which the player encounters hordes of enemies, does not linger on injuries or carry a personalised edge, some stealth attacks in which a knife is used to slit an enemy’s throat contain more of a focus on the damage inflicted and some of the non-interactive cutscenes contain stronger bloodshed, for example, in the assassination of a political leader where the action plays out in slow-motion.

It was these stronger, more focussed moments of bloody violence accumulating through the course of the gameplay that went beyond what may be permitted by the BBFC’s Guidelines at ‘15’, which state that ‘Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury’, and which determined the ‘18’ category.

The game also contains uses of strong language which would have been allowed at ‘15’ where the Guidelines state that ‘There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, ‘****’)’.

Milder language in the game includes uses of ‘*******’, ‘shit’ and ‘bitch’.

I'm not judging you, or your parenting, it is none of my business and am genuinely sorry if you were offended by my reference to sexual activity which is outside of the mainstream. However the reason I highlighted those was to show that these would also be within the framework of certification here in the UK that you allow your five year old to see, albeit glorifying violence as opposed to what is fairly misogynist activity.

Just as you were shocked by the material I referenced you to, equally some on here were shocked by your decision to allow a five year old child to watch extreme graphical violence in a computer game, which involved active instead of passive interaction from the consumer. That does not make you a bad parent or me a sexual deviant for knowledge of Boston Pancakes etc, but is likely to provoke a response in both cases.

NSC encourages debate, even from people whose views are diametrically opposite, as communication, so long as it is courteous and within the framework of not being racist, homophobic or profane. We are even nice to (some) Palace fans.

Have a nice day x

I get where you are coming from about the violence aspect but he really does see it as fiction. He is the type of kid who can get a slap in school and not hit back, my older boy is the opposite in that respect though, if you hit him it is a mistake, but even so he does not hit first.
As for the swearing etc he genuinely does not hear any of that as the tv is always on mute, due to the fact he plays online and there is some terrible insults back and forward not to mention Paedophiles. So he is not allowed the sound on the computer ever.
I did not say you personally called me a bad parent but a lot have alluded to that, but after this thread I am not that bothered about their opinion anymore.

I was not offended by the Boston pancake thing, shocked when I googled it but offended no. I have to admit to being a little offended about the hardcore porn jibe but you have explained so that is fair enough.

I think I have been very refrained in this thread considering some of the things that have been aimed at me but a few cannot help themselves it seems, the very thing they accuse others off(trolling) is exactly what they themselves do.

Have a nice day as well.

 

[EDS]

Stop trying to change the subject. I don't care what time he goes to bed.

Someone else lets their child watch Star Wars - that's why it has a PG rating. The parent you mentioned and I are both acting consistently under that rating, the guidance is that it might be suitable but it's our call. As described - Indiana Jones is definitely not suitable for a 5 year old - I would lay my mortgage that even the film-makers agree with that and the big point is you let your 5 year old play CoD.

Buzzer, you are a moron, Seriously that is my genuine belief. How in f***s name am I changing the subject, I have answered everything put to me and not dodged one single question. You said I let him watch most tv and I agreed but only what is available before 8pm. I have said it before and I will say it again, you try to put yourself up as someone who debates, but you always but always resort to insults and if thats how you want it I will respond in kind. You have on many occasions called people trolls and that is exactly what you are.

Still you keep on, the same old shite. I have tried to engage you against my better judgement but still you continue. Its like you crave attention to be heard, call the psychologist back and he will have a field day.

Eaglesdestroyeaglets lol, you are not even original. But its anything to grab someones attention to make them react. Now I know your response will be that if it never bothered me I would not respond and in a way it does bother me because when I am having an actual adult discussion you pop up with your, look at me, I am here, Acknowledge me pleaseeee.
Quote me as much as you like and say what you wish, this is the last response you will get from me.

 

[Buzzer]

Palace fan on Brighton forum admits that he lets his 5 year old play CoD and watch 'most films'. Describes Star Wars (rated PG) as scarier/worse than CoD (rated 18+). Throws in some extra and unnecessary views about homosexuality. Shock from everyone else described as 'trolling'.

Brilliant.

 

[Buzzer]

Buzzer, you are a moron, Seriously that is my genuine belief..

You're the one who thinks Star Wars is scarier than CoD and who thinks it's okay for his 5 year old to play it. Your beliefs are less than worthless. They're dangerous.

 

[Hillian1]

Is this CoD people are referring to the game Call of Duty?

And if yes I do not believe any rational parent would allow a 5 year old to play it, he must be on a wind up.

 

[El Presidente]

Is this CoD people are referring to the game Call of Duty?

And if yes I do not believe any rational parent would allow a 5 year old to play it, he must be on a wind up.

Perhaps we are in the minority thinking it is reasonable to allow a five year old to play CoD, I think we need a POLL

 

[upthealbion1970]

5 years old, playing cod and 8pm bedtime

Actions speaking louder than words right there.

 

[EDS]

5 years old, playing cod and 8pm bedtime

Actions speaking louder than words right there.

11 hours sleep is not enough for him then obviously. Oh my last word to you on this as you are the same as the other one, you cannot moralise to me how people live and the example they set

 

[El Presidente]

11 hours sleep is not enough for him then obviously. Oh my last word to you on this as you are the same as the other one, you cannot moralise to me how people live and the example they set

I think I can. I passionately believe that the lifestyle of Fred and Rose West, who murdered and raped their own daughter, along with other young women, is an unacceptable way to bring up a family and is not an example that I would encourage anyone to pursue.

 

[EDS]

I think I can. I passionately believe that the lifestyle of Fred and Rose West, who murdered and raped their own daughter, along with other young women, is an unacceptable way to bring up a family and is not an example that I would encourage anyone to pursue.

Listen I have been decent with you but you are genuinely pushing your luck. You are now trying to throw the wests into the mix

 

[Buzzer]

Listen I have been decent with you but you are genuinely pushing your luck.

And if he pushes you too far, then what? I think it would be quite funny (in a funny -weird not funny haha way) to see you try to take the moral high ground after what you've been writing in this thread for the last 3 days.

 

[El Presidente]

Listen I have been decent with you but you are genuinely pushing your luck. You are now trying to throw the wests into the mix

But I am not trying to push my luck, mine was a direct response to this comment from yourself

you cannot moralise to me how people live and the example they set

I think it is impossible to find any set of moral values in any society, current or former, in which raping and murdering your own children is deemed to be acceptable. If you know of different then fair play to you.

 

[upthealbion1970]

11 hours sleep is not enough for him then obviously. Oh my last word to you on this as you are the same as the other one, you cannot moralise to me how people live and the example they set

With a 10 year old child described as a high achiever bordering on gifted (the words of every teacher that's taught him) I think can, have and will "moralise" as you put it when I encounter someone with their head buried so deep in the sand when it comes to standards of parenting which tbf you appear to be quite spectacularly doing more than any other parent I've encountered!

What you are missing is that your 5 year old may well be ok at the moment, but I guarantee you it will be an entirely different story in years to come, I've seem the kids in my sons class who have played cod for a number of years and also witnessed first hand what I does over the course of years to innocent minds.

I suspect though that when it comes on top you will blame the school for your sons inability to concentrate on his schoolwork, and when your son starts to re-enact some of the age inappropriate thing he's seen.