Hillary Vs. Grand Theft Auto....hmmm

In reading this article, my main conscern is the problem that comes from parents. Johnson points out very well that the sex in the game should give it a mature rating, and that should be the end of it. After pointing out many other games that are also violent or sexual, Johnson gets his point across by showing how these games may actually benefit our society. The fact that the violence that can be taken out during video games actually seems to be pretty accurate. Seeing as how i play certain games when im very angry and wish to vent some of that anger towards something that wont hurt anyone.

Another part of the letter that stands out to me againts Sen. Clinton's point is dervived from the little knowledge that parents have about the games that THEY are buying for their kids. How can a parent get angry at a game company when it was their own negligence that caused the violence to be displayed. I do think that at the end of this letter he should leave out the part he agrees with, because it takes away for the focus he had at the beginning of the paper.

-matt

Hilary vs. Grand Theft Auto

I think that this article by Johnson as a rebuttal to the Clinton Administration's 90 million dollar study on the effects that video games have on children and the recent stand that Clinton took against the game Grand Theft Auto. I don't remember this situation but I can infer that this project is against video games and that Clinton must have made some stand saying that Grand Theft Auto was distructive to young minds. I think Johnson is telling Clinton that it is stupid to look at something like a violent video game and to blindly look at the bad things it causes without considering any possible good things. Clinton has not considered that the game allows kids to explore the thrill of stealing cars without actually stealing one. Instead Clinton sees the game as teaching kids it is fun and ok to steal. The interesting fact are, however, that since the games release, the crime rate for grand theft auto has decreased. Clinton, of course, has not considered this.

Johnson v. Hillary

Johnson's argument was that video games are actually a good part of children's lives. He feels that Hillary's argument is wrong because it is only focusing on one video game and the violence that it involved with it. Johnson opposes what Hillary is saying by providing facts and statics of way he feels that video games are good for the development of children and teenagers. he also states the fact that today's video games have just replaced the games of past generations. Johnson is giving all possible reason for his argument and justifying playing video games.

Hillary vs GTA

Johnson finds a lot of things wrong with Sen. Clinton's argument on video games. He begins by saying that there are more dangerous things going on in the world than a teenage boy sitting around playing video games. He states facts and statistics about certain areas have thrived, like SAT scores and verbal scores have been off the charts since GTA or other violent video games have been out. He also asks Hillary to check herself becasue they're so many benefits from video games that aren't violent and he points those out. He basically took everything Hillary said and disagreed with it and gave reasons why though facts which was very effective.

Hillary vs. Grand Theft Auto

What Johnson finds wrong with senator Clinton's argument for controlling video games is that he is taking the wrong approach to it. Senator Clinton is spending money and doing research on these video games, when he should be spending money and doing research on other things, such as football or t.v.

Johnson shows that in statistics, the crime rate and the "thrill-seeking" crimes have decreased since these video games have come out. So, instead of the children committing these criminal acts in real life, they can do them in a video game. Also, Johnson states the fact that SAT scores have gone up, and report cards have also been higher.

Johnson says that the skills a child needs to learn how to do in real life, are those skills that they learn by playing video games. It is no longer just hand and eye coordination, but it is so much more. The children now have to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives. These are very good points that Johnson states. They are things that will go further than the video game and into their real life.

Johnson also states the facts that video games are the reason for child obesity. So, Senator Clinton could argue about that but he doesn't. But then she also says that homework is not exercise either.

Johnson just doesn't agree with the way Senator Clinton is going about the video game situation at all. So with his writing the argumentative essay should help him see the good sides of video games, and maybe make him more interested in football or t.v.

One thing I believe that would have been good in Johnson's essay would have been the fact that the parents are normally the ones who buy these video games. Every video game has a rating on the back cover saying what it includes, such as violence or sex. So, if the parents have problems with these games then why are they buying them?

-Brittany

Johnson v.s. Hillary Clinton

Johnson feels that Senator Hillary Clinton is taking the wrong approach to the video game situation. Johnson thinks that if Senator Clinton forces the censorship of video games, then some very helpful tools will be taken out of the hands of today's youth. Johnson states that the skills that video games teach children are, "precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow." All of the skills that children learn in video games (i.e. hand-eye coordination, complex rule systems, learning to interface with new interfaces, etc.) could help them in the future. Johnson says that if Hillary Clinton censors video games, then she will inevitably take away a useful tool for children to develop needed skills.

Johnson: Hillary vs. Grand Theft Auto

Johnson argues that video games are just today's version of popular games for children. He doesn't see any harm in them and says that it makes no sense to investigate them. As long as they are rated appropriately, they are fine. He describes all the benefits that children gain by playing video games as opposed to other activities that they could be involved in.

Hillary vs. Grand Theft Auto

In Johnson's argument he points out some really good facts about Hillary arguing that video games are bad for children. When you first think about video games you would probably be more likely to agree with the things that Sen. Clinton states, but after reading Johnson's argument it is almost impossible not to agree with him. Johnson points out that even though kids sit there all day and play video games, in many ways the video games are preparing kids to be able to handle situations that they will be confronted with when they are older. At least by playing the games they can learn techniques for certain things, instead of just sitting in front of the tv all day. And as Johnson pointed out, you dont get any exercise from just sitting and doing homework either.