Children usually learn better from what they see than what parents or teachers teach them. Even though, parents usually tell your children that violent media is not good for them, they should not try to play it, and it has to be forgotten completely, but some of them still try to play it, and many of them has been addicted to violent games. In the article “Violent Media is Good for Kids”, the author Gerard Jones argues that bloody videogames, gun-glorifying, gangsta rap and other form of “creative violence” help far more children than they hurt, by giving a tool to master their rage. That means violent media is good. Besides, he also gives his personal experience about how violent media helped him changes as a person in a good way to prove
…show more content…
Taught by my well-meaning, progressive, English-teacher parents that violence was wrong, that rage was something to be overcome and cooperation was always better than conflict, I suffocated my deepest fears and desires under a nice-boy persona.” (Paragraph 1). Also, Jones creates a chronological order of his lifetime from he was a teenager, then he became a writer, and then the father of a son. When Jones became a parent, instead he courage his own son to watch cartoons as many kids, Jones used stories to install courage in his own son only to keep hearing that cartoons should be discouraged. Jones insists that in all his experience, combative storytelling is only harmful when parents teach their children to fear …show more content…
This bond helps the readers trust in Jones and see things through the same perspective. Besides, Jones also uses his own son’s story as an example to convince the readers. Not at all, Jones only supports his arguments from the words of Dr. Moore, a psychologist, who agrees with Jones that “Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood.” (Paragraph 7). However, the important point is Jones does not have any degree or the history of study in psychology, so he is not qualified to assess and dissect the thought process of children. Therefore, any evidence which Jones uses in this article from his own research is untrustworthy, not scientific, and an abuse of his position as a published
Taught by my well-meaning, progressive, English-teacher parents that violence was wrong, that rage was something to be overcome and cooperation was always better than conflict, I suffocated my deepest fears and desires under a nice-boy persona.” (Paragraph 1). Also, Jones creates a chronological order of his lifetime from he was a teenager, then he became a writer, and then the father of a son. When Jones became a parent, instead he courage his own son to watch cartoons as many kids, Jones used stories to install courage in his own son only to keep hearing that cartoons should be discouraged. Jones insists that in all his experience, combative storytelling is only harmful when parents teach their children to fear …show more content…
This bond helps the readers trust in Jones and see things through the same perspective. Besides, Jones also uses his own son’s story as an example to convince the readers. Not at all, Jones only supports his arguments from the words of Dr. Moore, a psychologist, who agrees with Jones that “Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood.” (Paragraph 7). However, the important point is Jones does not have any degree or the history of study in psychology, so he is not qualified to assess and dissect the thought process of children. Therefore, any evidence which Jones uses in this article from his own research is untrustworthy, not scientific, and an abuse of his position as a published