Subject:
|
Re: LEGO sells "violent" toys?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:22:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1883 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Thomas Main wrote:
> I first saw this thread almost as a troll -
Hello Thomas,
As the one who posted the link and started this thread I can assure you that it
was in no way meant to be a troll of any kind. I hope my past postings on
LUGNET are proof enough that I'm just not that kind of person.
However, I can see... based on my initial comments, how it may have appeared
that way. That was the reason I posted two apologies within the thread, for
initially making statements that seemed like I was looking for a heated debate.
I was not. :)
> an article that had legitimate
> concerns over violent toys mentioned Lego and all the Lego fans rushed blindly
> to the defense of their favorite toy.
True, the article itself was quite legitimate. It was the statements of the
anti-violence group that were really what I was commenting on. And my position
on that hasn't changed. If it's come to the point that Bionicles are the thing
that an peace-based protest group feels it has to protest... then I think we're
all in trouble. There are so many many things in the world that are so much
more worrisome than whether or not Bionicles want to beat the snot out of each
other... regardless of who is holding the Bionicle at the time.
I think the fantasy land inhabited by Bionicles can have a little bit of
conflict (violent or otherwise) and still be safe for kids.
Based on their history, and their *general* attitude against violent toys, I
would much more trust the LEGO company to provide quality play toys for kids
than a group who makes up lists of things to protest against. Remember the
classic WKRP episode about censorship? That list, of "violent" toys, reminded
me of that. A list made up by just a few people, who feel their opinion should
be reflected upon all of us.
If they really want to help kids, then why not sit down with a child and explain
the difference between violent and none-violent conflict and which one is the
right path to pick when you're going through life? Just getting Bionicles off
the shelf simply makes more room for G.I. Joe "action figures".
> But I think two very important discussion points have come of it. I was
> impressed with Jake's thinking on the difference between conflict and violence:
Agreed. Jake brought up the real crux of the issue. I have tried to carry that
on in my comments above.
> I would like to see if Jake could actually present Christian's point, along with
> the original article criticizing violent toys and see if a productive debate
> could happen within the Lego company.
I think the statement "productive debate" is perhaps one of the smartest things
that could have come out of this thread. That is what is needed, in any
situation like this. Strong, constructive, critical and educated debate from
both sides. Again, I will put my trust in the LEGO company to carry on this
debate (as I suspect they already do) and produce products with which they feel
comfortable. Afterall, they are people who have kids, and I'm sure LEGO
employees sleep better at night if they honestly feel that they've produced a
quality children's toy suitable for their own offspring.
Best regards,
Allan B.
(I suspect I will be apologizing yet again for stirring up debate with this
posting, but I also hope I have represented my original thoughts/feelings in a
better manner.)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO sells "violent" toys?
|
| I first saw this thread almost as a troll - an article that had legitimate concerns over violent toys mentioned Lego and all the Lego fans rushed blindly to the defense of their favorite toy. But I think two very important discussion points have (...) (20 years ago, 18-Nov-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
