|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > February 2005 > Washington DC to attempt to ban sales of M rated games to Minors
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Washington DC to attempt to ban sales of M rated games to Minors
|
|
| Christopher Martin 2005-02-03, 3:38 am |
| The DC City Council will soon debate legislation that would make it a
criminal offense to sell a M rated video game to anyone under 17.
There are 8 Wards in DC...each with a city council person, Ward 8's
councilman is noneother than former mayor and crack-head Marion Barry. Linda
Cropp is the chairperson, anybody who's a baseball fan and followed the
Expos move to DC will know who she is.
Ward-4 Councilman Adrian Fenty will introduce legislation that would
fine businesses up to $10,000 and they'd face a loss of their business
lisence if they're caught selling M rated games to anyone under 17.
Fenty (and this is the most idiotic comment in the article) states "I am
saying that a whole generation of kids in this city are watching these games
and emulating them." He blamed the recent rise in teenage crime, including
many, many car thefts and joyrides by kids as young as 12, on GTA. The car
theft problem in DC is real, but to blame it on GTA and not simply idiot
kids who seem like they don't have anything better to do with themselves
than commit a crime, and their parent(s) haven't instilled enough fear or
respect in them to make them understand stealing cars is wrong, is just
stupid.
This is most likely a complete waste of time (like most of what the DC
City Council does) because bans were passed in Indianapolis and St. Louis
only to be found unconstitutional, but DC is going to try it.
In case you didn't guess by my comments, I live just outside DC in
Virginia. The DC government is the biggest joke on the East coast. This
idiot Fenty was also against voting to allow the Expos to build a new
stadium to come to DC because it would have taken money away from the
schools. The idiot didn't seem to understand that the legislation called for
taxes that otherwise wouldn't exist without a baseball team in DC, thus no
baseball, no money...and most of the money would have been coming from
non-DC residents anyway. I have questions if the man can actually read
legislation, much less come to a reasonable conclusion about it.
Here's the article in the Washington Post. It requires a free
registration though...and you better look at it fast if you want to read it
because they send them to their web page archives pretty fast. I think it's
after just a week you have to pay to read an archived article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6-2005Feb2.html
| |
| Steve Liu 2005-02-03, 5:41 pm |
| Interestingly, everything the DC Council passes must be approved by
Congress. So assuming the video game industry lobbists starts a movement
to overturn the bill, its possible that the Lieberman forces would debate
this for a federal bill.
==========
Steve Liu
"Oh no, aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies...
Oh my God, Lyndon LaRoche was right!" - Homer Simpson
| |
|
|
"Steve Liu" <koalatek@radix.net> wrote in message
news:1104p5maid3qce@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> Interestingly, everything the DC Council passes must be approved by
> Congress. So assuming the video game industry lobbists starts a movement
> to overturn the bill, its possible that the Lieberman forces would debate
> this for a federal bill.
Do you not have By-laws in USA?
Here in the UK, even though most laws are countrywide, some laws are what we
call by-laws and only apply to the county you are in.
For example, it is illegal to prostitute in this country and to pay for sex,
yet soon a local law will be passed in one of the northern cities to allow
prostitution in a certain area and for certain times of the night.
So is it possible that Washington DC could pass a law locally, banning the
sale of M games to minors without the need for it to be passed nationally?
| |
| Christopher Martin 2005-02-04, 12:34 pm |
|
"Beck" <becksgames@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctu9jv$nt9$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
quote:
> Do you not have By-laws in USA?
> Here in the UK, even though most laws are countrywide, some laws are what
> we call by-laws and only apply to the county you are in.
> For example, it is illegal to prostitute in this country and to pay for
> sex, yet soon a local law will be passed in one of the northern cities to
> allow prostitution in a certain area and for certain times of the night.
> So is it possible that Washington DC could pass a law locally, banning the
> sale of M games to minors without the need for it to be passed nationally?
Sure, each of the 50 states can pass its own laws without any need for
them to be approved nationally. However, Washington, DC isn't a state, it
only exists because of the Federal government is there and didn't exist at
all before Pierre L'Affant laid out the city for the express purpose of
moving the Federal government there to help ensure the passage of the
Constitution.
Also, about 5-10 years ago when DC had really screwed up its government,
and embarassed itself greatly when the FBI arrested Mayor Marion Barry for
crack posession (and got it on tape) Congress was extremely upset. So, they
passed laws that further limited the DC government's ability to control its
own territory without Congressional oversight. So now, not only the DC
budget needs to be approved, but all laws are now approved by Congress.
Usuaully most of them fly through with no debate and hardly any Senators or
Congressmen/women in attendance for the votes, but they have to be approved.
| |
|
|
"Christopher Martin" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:HJJMd.6879$uc.4032@trnddc09...
quote:
>
> "Beck" <becksgames@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ctu9jv$nt9$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> Sure, each of the 50 states can pass its own laws without any need for
> them to be approved nationally. However, Washington, DC isn't a state, it
> only exists because of the Federal government is there and didn't exist at
> all before Pierre L'Affant laid out the city for the express purpose of
> moving the Federal government there to help ensure the passage of the
> Constitution.
> Also, about 5-10 years ago when DC had really screwed up its
> government, and embarassed itself greatly when the FBI arrested Mayor
> Marion Barry for crack posession (and got it on tape) Congress was
> extremely upset. So, they passed laws that further limited the DC
> government's ability to control its own territory without Congressional
> oversight. So now, not only the DC budget needs to be approved, but all
> laws are now approved by Congress. Usuaully most of them fly through with
> no debate and hardly any Senators or Congressmen/women in attendance for
> the votes, but they have to be approved.
I see, thanks. Learn something every day 
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-13, 9:40 pm |
| "Christopher Martin" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4fjMd.1643$uc.1473@trnddc08...
Why not ban it? If the parents are ok with their kids playing said games,
they can buy them for them. Otherwise, why not respect the parents' wishes
that the kids not buy those games?
You're quite the naive if you don't think M rated games help to mold
children into what they will become.
| |
| Christopher Martin 2005-02-14, 3:39 am |
|
"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:420ff865$0$59543$45beb828@newscene.com...
quote:
> "Christopher Martin" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4fjMd.1643$uc.1473@trnddc08...
>
> Why not ban it? If the parents are ok with their kids playing said games,
> they can buy them for them. Otherwise, why not respect the parents'
> wishes that the kids not buy those games?
>
> You're quite the naive if you don't think M rated games help to mold
> children into what they will become.
No, actually I'm not. I have a Bachelors in communication so I've
actually studied communication theory. The hypodermic needle theory which
suggests that children are directly and extensively molded by influences
they view such as TV was debunked approximately 20 years ago as a serious
theory of how TV or in this case, video games, can influence children. If
you look into the "studies" that have attempted to prove the opposite theory
in the last 5-10 years, the vast majority of them are funded by groups with
an ideological point to prove and aren't motivated by serious social
science. These groups attempt to take things completely out of context in
their ideological attempts to ban video games or other media they don't
like. If these groups claims actually had real merit, why is it we don't see
a rash of violence that attempts to copy video game violence? There have
been several million sales of GTA: SA all over the world. Why is it that
Washington, DC is the only city that has "connected" out of control kiddie
car joyriding to GTA: SA? Why don't we see a rash of Manhunt-like murders
that correspond with the millions of copies that game sold? Because to
associate video game violence with real violence simply isn't a realistic
theory.
This smacks of the knee-jerk reactions that attempted to blame Columbine
on video games or music videos, etc rather than simply mentally disturbed
kids who decided of their own evil free will to hurt others because they
were teased and shunned just like thousands of other kids every day. Of
course paying attention to actual facts is less convenient. Actual facts
prove that before Columbine the most violent school shooting in the US was
in the 19th century at UVA which killed and wounded IIRC 10 or 11 people.
What do we blame for that, Harper's Weekly? Unfortunately the raw truth that
sometimes violence and other type of crimes are going to happen in this
world and we can't blame them on an outside technology related stimulus is
rather disconcerting for some people.
The last group to attempt to use a video game to "prove" their point
that it had an affect on teen violence, in England, actually even got their
facts wrong. It ended up being the victim that owned a copy of Manhunt, not
the deranged kid who committed the murder, which was over either drugs or
money or a girl, or all three depending on who in the case you believe. In
the case of Washington, DC, there is absolutely ZERO connection that has
ever been responsibly made (or even studied at all, much less by a
responsible un-biased group) between video games and these kind of car
thefts. Just because a publicity seeking DC politician says something
doesn't make it true...especially when it comes from a DC councilman. This
is simply a case of looking for a simple scapegoat rather than funding after
school programs so these kids are kept off the streets and have something
constructive to do while their parent(s) is at work. The vast majority of
these kids live in such low income neighborhoods that they simply don't have
anything else to do and are unsupervised because their parent is off trying
to keep a roof over the kid's head and therefore the kids get into all kinds
of trouble. The latest trend in DC happens to be kiddie car thieves who
decide to joyride (and this trend started well after the release of GTA: VC
and was noticed by the local news a few months before the release of GTA:
SA, BTW). Next summer it'll be something else they're doing and the local
news will be calling it a "trend." The common denominator here is that
they're bored and have nothing constructive to do. Driving a car is always
going to look "cool" to a bored 12-13 year old kid video game or not. Heck,
look at the 4 year old who did it last week, lol.
To make it a business such as Wal-Mart their responsibility to parent a
child is simply ridiculous and to fine or take away their business license
is not only unconstitutional, it flies in the face of personal
responsibility.
I'm all for the ratings system which gives parents a tool to be able to
understand what kind of content is in a video game, just like the movie
ratings system gives parents a tool to be able to decide what might be in a
movie that they might not want their kid to see. But the ultimate
responsibility to parent a child must fall with the parent(s), not with a
store or a video game. It's their job to find out what their kid is watching
or listening to regardless of how many hours that parent might work. If the
parent can't be on the scene to do it, have a friend or family member do it
for you. I know a former co-worker who's kid bought GTA: SA without her
knowledge and by lying to his Dad who didn't know what was in the game.
Because she actually bothers to take the time to do periodic checks of the
kid's bedroom to see what the kid is playing and listening to, she found the
game and immediately took it to her kid and crushed it in front of his face.
She'd previously told him she didn't want that game in her house because the
subject matter flies in the face of her values and the values she's trying
to instill in the kid. Needless to say Dad was in the doghouse for letting
the kid buy the game without bothering to check what was at least on the box
and the rating.
If a kid doesn't have enough morals or values to understand that
stealing a car or shooting somebody is wrong, there's something wrong with
the kid and the parent who failed to bother to be a parent long enough to
teach the kid at least some basic respect for others (or fear of
repercussions). Parents also have to pay attention to the real world and
what popular things that are out there their kids might be interested in.
Even if you're working 50-60 hours a week you can at least pick up a
newspaper or listen to the radio to get information on what types of things
your kid might be into and also teach them that stealing somebody's car is
wrong and is a crime which you'll be severely punished for.
Blaming a video game is simply scapegoating the real problem and making
it a business's responsibility to parent somebody else's kid. I'm not
advocating that businesses not use the ratings system and check IDs but it
should not be a crime that the business gets fined $10,000 for if a kid buys
a M rated video game. Notice that with the DC proposal there are no
punishments for kids who would violate the ban and buy the game, only the
business that sells it. That's turning personal responsibility absolutely
backwards.
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-02-14, 5:41 pm |
| In article <_AXPd.22267$wc.17007@trnddc07>, cjmartin04@verizon.net says...
quote:
>
>
>"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
>news:420ff865$0$59543$45beb828@newscene.com...
> No, actually I'm not. I have a Bachelors in communication so I've
>actually studied communication theory.
Don't worry Fred is an expert in being naive and ignorant. All he has to do
every morning is look in the mirror.
| |
| Robert P Holley 2005-02-14, 5:41 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> "Christopher Martin" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4fjMd.1643$uc.1473@trnddc08...
>
> Why not ban it? If the parents are ok with their kids playing said
games,
quote:
> they can buy them for them. Otherwise, why not respect the parents'
wishes
quote:
> that the kids not buy those games?
>
> You're quite the naive if you don't think M rated games help to mold
> children into what they will become.
You're naive if you think they do.
| |
| control_z@hotmail.com 2005-02-14, 5:41 pm |
| If I kid can't get into a R-rated movie when they're under 17, then why
should they be able to buy M-rated games?
Which brings up the question, are kids able to buy R or unrated DVDs?
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-14, 5:41 pm |
| "Christopher Martin" <cjmartin04@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_AXPd.22267$wc.17007@trnddc07...
quote:
>
> "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
> news:420ff865$0$59543$45beb828@newscene.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, actually I'm not. I have a Bachelors in communication so I've
> actually studied communication theory.
Teheheh. You'd never know it from your posts.
quote:
> The hypodermic needle theory which suggests that children are directly and
> extensively molded by influences they view such as TV was debunked
> approximately 20 years ago as a serious theory of how TV or in this case,
> video games, can influence children.
"Directly and extensively" are great adjectives, my friend! Now, let's take
two steps back and not try to make it an "all or nothing" scenario. M rated
games "help mold" children into what they will become, and that has not been
debunked.
It "takes a village", my ignorant friend, not just one simple source of
influence. M rated games are PART of the mix, not the only thing in
question. If you had honestly paid attention, you'd have been able to pick
up that distinction. M rated games may have no effect on a child. It's a
sum of all parts. A parent, though, has the right to decide that the child
would be effected in a negative way by the game. The child may not be the
average child. The child might have problems already that M rated games
will just exasperate. If the parent feels that it won't matter, then they
can buy it. There's no real justification for the need to sell minors M
rated games without their parent's consent. To suggest it is pure idiocity.
quote:
> If you look into the "studies" that have attempted to prove the opposite
> theory in the last 5-10 years, the vast majority of them are funded by
> groups with an ideological point to prove and aren't motivated by serious
> social science.
It's moot since you're just being blind to the actual subtleties of the
discussion. No one suggested they had a "direct and extensive" effect.
quote:
> These groups attempt to take things completely out of context in their
> ideological attempts to ban video games or other media they don't like. If
> these groups claims actually had real merit, why is it we don't see a rash
> of violence that attempts to copy video game violence? There have been
> several million sales of GTA: SA all over the world. Why is it that
> Washington, DC is the only city that has "connected" out of control kiddie
> car joyriding to GTA: SA? Why don't we see a rash of Manhunt-like murders
> that correspond with the millions of copies that game sold? Because to
> associate video game violence with real violence simply isn't a realistic
> theory.
Yet, in your ignorant zealousness, you dismiss the fact that society has had
more violence from children. A child doesn't have to copy a video game to
display the fruits of the desensitization that partly came from said video
games. It's your dishonest rhetoric that makes the claim that you have to
copy cat to be effected.
quote:
> This smacks of the knee-jerk reactions that attempted to blame
> Columbine on video games or music videos, etc rather than simply mentally
> disturbed kids who decided of their own evil free will to hurt others
> because they were teased and shunned just like thousands of other kids
> every day.
It smacks of the knee-jerk apologist rhetoric that attempt time and time
again to dismiss the effects of said video games, etc, on children. Just as
it is retarded to state that the video games and music videos were the
direct cause of the children's actions, it is equally retated to state that
they contributed in no way to the mentality that goes into the decision to
do such acts.
And, since we're not even talking about banning the sale of the games, just
limiting their sales to MINORS, I fail to see the big deal that you've
gotten worked up about.
quote:
> Of course paying attention to actual facts is less convenient. Actual
> facts prove that before Columbine the most violent school shooting in the
> US was in the 19th century at UVA which killed and wounded IIRC 10 or 11
> people. What do we blame for that, Harper's Weekly? Unfortunately the raw
> truth that sometimes violence and other type of crimes are going to happen
> in this world and we can't blame them on an outside technology related
> stimulus is rather disconcerting for some people.
Tehehehe.... There you go again, being dishonest about the premise of the
discussion, Skippy.
I can't find anything on your UVA "school" shooting, but that's fine. What
went into creating a person that would have done that? The same thing that
goes into creating them now. Video games don't have any new influences that
can't be found over a hundred years ago, really. They might be stronger
influences, but not new.
I'm sure they had many influences upon them, or just him, that caused them
to be who they were.
quote:
> The last group to attempt to use a video game to "prove" their point
> that it had an affect on teen violence, in England, actually even got
> their facts wrong. It ended up being the victim that owned a copy of
> Manhunt, not the deranged kid who committed the murder, which was over
> either drugs or money or a girl, or all three depending on who in the case
> you believe.
Yes, and we all know that if one group on the far non-argued side gets one
fact wrong, you are right.
That's stupid.
<blah blah blah redux blah blah blah>
quote:
> To make it a business such as Wal-Mart their responsibility to parent a
> child is simply ridiculous
What school did you get that communications degree from? So sad. What are
you saying?
quote:
> and to fine or take away their business license is not only
> unconstitutional,
HAHAHHA!!!!! You're dumb. How is restricting the sale of M rated video
games to adults only "unconstitutional"?
If that's unconstitutional, then not selling them R rated movie tickets,
Porn, and Crack is as well.
You're being a fool.
quote:
> it flies in the face of personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility? You're dumb. This such thing FACILITATES personal
responsibility in parents. Selling it to the children VIOLATES the personal
responsibility of the parents.
quote:
> I'm all for the ratings system which gives parents a tool to be able
> to understand what kind of content is in a video game, just like the movie
> ratings system gives parents a tool to be able to decide what might be in
> a movie that they might not want their kid to see.
They can't sell R rated tickets to children... D'OH!
quote:
> But the ultimate responsibility to parent a child must fall with the
> parent(s), not with a store or a video game.
And that's exactly what the law facilitates, you dumb XXX.
quote:
> Because she actually bothers to take the time to do periodic checks of the
> kid's bedroom to see what the kid is playing and listening to, she found
> the game and immediately took it to her kid and crushed it in front of his
> face.
Oh, that unconstitutional XXXXX!
quote:
> She'd previously told him she didn't want that game in her house because
> the subject matter flies in the face of her values and the values she's
> trying to instill in the kid.
What? She has that right to say that the game isn't what she wants her
child to play? Why aren't you raging against the machine there, Skippy?
quote:
> If a kid doesn't have enough morals or values to understand that
> stealing a car or shooting somebody is wrong, there's something wrong with
> the kid
Yep, and they don't need the influences of GTA at that point, OBVIOUSLY.
quote:
> and the parent who failed to bother to be a parent long enough to teach
> the kid at least some basic respect for others (or fear of repercussions).
Yep, like letting them play GTA and all the other mistakes they made as
parents. Blah blah blah.
quote:
> Blaming a video game
And if you had half a brain after smoking all that pot while sliding through
a communications degree, you'd have noticed no one was "blaming a video
game" for making a kid snap.
quote:
> is simply scapegoating the real problem and making it a business's
> responsibility to parent somebody else's kid.
Restricting the sale of something to a MINOR doesn't mean you are parenting
the child in any way, dumby.
Same thing is in place where you can't sell children cigs and beer, moron.
quote:
> I'm not advocating that businesses not use the ratings system and check
> IDs but it should not be a crime that the business gets fined $10,000 for
> if a kid buys a M rated video game.
Yet, in all of your communication prowness, you haven't shown why it
shouldn't be a crime or where the law is unconstitutional.
quote:
> Notice that with the DC proposal there are no punishments for kids who
> would violate the ban and buy the game, only the business that sells it.
> That's turning personal responsibility absolutely backwards.
They are minors. It's the personal responsibility of the adult to not harm
them buy selling them beer, etc, etc, etc.
You make no valid points what so ever.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-14, 9:40 pm |
| "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:1108390963.927184.95550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
> games,
> wishes
>
> You're naive if you think they do.
So, they have absolutely no effect on children? This is what you are
saying.
If they don't, then what do you think does? What's the big thing that turns
these kids into what they are?
Or is it simply many small factors that make them what they are?
What is one of those small factors, then? Why aren't video games, media,
etc, on the list?
Why are you and your ilk so naive in thinking that children are castles
that nothing can effect?
Why does it have to be so binary with your ilk?
Is it some kind of fear of accepting the fact that video games do effect
people, even if the effect is small and by itself would probably mean
nothing?
Why are your ilk so close minded when it comes to this?
I'm asking you, Rob, because you're not a documented dipshit.
Honestly, why can't you keep an open mind about the subtle, even if benign
alone, effects of games?
Always amazes me, actually, that reasonable people can get wrapped up in the
same old binary thinking crap.
I could see Jojo and the functionally illiterate Chris being so binary, but
you? Strikes me as strange.
| |
| Mattinglyfan 2005-02-14, 9:40 pm |
|
<control_z@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108405633.185535.283480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> If I kid can't get into a R-rated movie when they're under 17, then why
> should they be able to buy M-rated games?
>
> Which brings up the question, are kids able to buy R or unrated DVDs?
>
Kids can get into an R-rated movie when they are under 17. You are thinking
of NC-17 in which they are not allowed in under any circumstance. NC-17 =
No children under 17. That is probably why there are very few NC-17 movies
ever made.
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-02-14, 9:40 pm |
| In article <42114ce3$0$19863$45beb828@newscene.com>,
fredliken@toocool4school.com says...
quote:
>
>"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
>news:1108390963.927184.95550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>So, they have absolutely no effect on children? This is what you are
>saying.
>
>If they don't, then what do you think does? What's the big thing that turns
>these kids into what they are?
>
>Or is it simply many small factors that make them what they are?
>
>What is one of those small factors, then? Why aren't video games, media,
>etc, on the list?
>
>Why are you and your ilk so naive in thinking that children are castles
>that nothing can effect?
>
>Why does it have to be so binary with your ilk?
>
>Is it some kind of fear of accepting the fact that video games do effect
>people, even if the effect is small and by itself would probably mean
>nothing?
>
>Why are your ilk so close minded when it comes to this?
>
>I'm asking you, Rob, because you're not a documented dipshit.
>
We are all well documented dipshits in here Fred. You being the second biggest
of all right behind JoJo the jackass.
quote:
>Honestly, why can't you keep an open mind about the subtle, even if benign
>alone, effects of games?
>
>Always amazes me, actually, that reasonable people can get wrapped up in the
>same old binary thinking crap.
>
>I could see Jojo and the functionally illiterate Chris being so binary, but
>you? Strikes me as strange.
>
>
Same old thinking crap? Isn't your thinking along those lines? This has been
around since time began. I remember my mom talking about parents back in her
day saying that Elvis was evil and would tear apart society and cause teens to
have deviant behavior. What a joke! Pretty soon you will demand that all these
deviant games be thrown in a pile and be burned to a crisp.
| |
| Robert P Holley 2005-02-15, 5:42 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
> news:1108390963.927184.95550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
said[vbcol=seagreen]
parents'[vbcol=seagreen]
mold[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So, they have absolutely no effect on children? This is what you are
quote:
> saying.
I will admit I misread your statement and see now that you did use a
qualifier. You didn't say games *alone* will change/affect children
but said they could "help" so my reply was based on reading it as an
absolute.
After reading your posts in this thread I understand the point you are
trying to make but remember, games (just like TV and movies) don't
effect each kid the same way. Nothing is absolute so we can't make a
generalized statement that mature games help mold children. There are
so many other factors to consider as well. The age of the kid, their
parents, their mental make-up, etc.
quote:
> If they don't, then what do you think does? What's the big thing
that turns
quote:
> these kids into what they are?
>
> Or is it simply many small factors that make them what they are?
>
> What is one of those small factors, then? Why aren't video games,
media,
quote:
> etc, on the list?
>
> Why are you and your ilk so naive in thinking that children are
castles
quote:
> that nothing can effect?
>
> Why does it have to be so binary with your ilk?
>
> Is it some kind of fear of accepting the fact that video games do
effect
quote:
> people, even if the effect is small and by itself would probably mean
quote:
> nothing?
>
> Why are your ilk so close minded when it comes to this?
>
> I'm asking you, Rob, because you're not a documented dipshit.
>
> Honestly, why can't you keep an open mind about the subtle, even if
benign
quote:
> alone, effects of games?
>
> Always amazes me, actually, that reasonable people can get wrapped up
in the
quote:
> same old binary thinking crap.
>
> I could see Jojo and the functionally illiterate Chris being so
binary, but
quote:
> you? Strikes me as strange.
I totally understand your points and agree with some of them. I guess
to summarize my position I will say this: I don't believe a video game
is going to make a good kid go bad and become a criminal. Altho, on
the flip side, I believe there is a possiblity that a game could affect
a child who already has issues to begin with.
With all that said, I don't mind mature games being treated like R
rated movies and have their sales restricted.
| |
| control_z@hotmail.com 2005-02-15, 5:42 pm |
| They can get into an R-rated movie WITH AN ADULT. They're not supposed
to be able to get in without one.
| |
| control_z@hotmail.com 2005-02-15, 9:39 pm |
| True, very true.
But I wouldn't be opposed to retailers being not "supposed to" sell
M-rated games to minors.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-15, 9:39 pm |
| "MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote
quote:
>
> Same old thinking crap? Isn't your thinking along those lines?
Nope. If you weren't a self proclaimed retard, you'd have noticed as much.
Your binary thinking is messing you up. Try to accept the fact that I'm not
saying playing M rated games will break you, but rather many things added up
do.
Please, at least put a little effort into it if you're going to pretend to
be able to have an intelligent conversation with me.
quote:
> This has been
> around since time began. I remember my mom talking about parents back in
> her
> day saying that Elvis was evil and would tear apart society and cause
> teens to
> have deviant behavior.
And, it did have an effect on society in that matter. Did it turn those
particular children into deviants? Hardly. It takes more than one singer
to make that change. Did it change society, a little bit? Yes, most
definitely.
Just as accepting M rated games being sold to children would. Would the
effects be instant? Nope.
It's a gradual change and these add to those gradual changes. It's simply a
fact.
quote:
> What a joke! Pretty soon you will demand that all these
> deviant games be thrown in a pile and be burned to a crisp.
And that's the kind of ignorance statement people can come to expect from
your camp.
I believe adults should have access to just about everything, sans the
accepted obvious like child exploitation, etc.
Adults should be able to play whatever game they want. Children should be
able to play whatever game their parents deem is ok for them to play.
It should not be legal for a store to make the decision as to what games a
child is allowed to buy, that's the parents' choice. Stores can't sell
children beer or cigs, either.
Why this is even an argument is amazing.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-15, 9:39 pm |
| "Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote
quote:
>
> Kids can get into an R-rated movie when they are under 17.
Actually the National Association of Theater Owners started ID checks for R
rated movies in response to Lieberman, etc, as a way to avoid a law, in,
what 2000? Game makers, and the ilk, aren't that mature, so they'll end up
getting a law.
quote:
> You are thinking of NC-17 in which they are not allowed in under any
> circumstance. NC-17 = No children under 17. That is probably why there
> are very few NC-17 movies ever made.
Oh, you don't realize that your "Where's the Beef" movie you're so fond of
is actually an NC-17 movie, it just was never submitted for rating to the
MPAA.
None the less, most NC-17 movies are never sent to be rated in that form
because most theaters won't carry them and many publications won't allow you
to advertise them since NC-17 has been grouped with porn. Makes more sense
money wise to just make an edited R-rated version and release the unedited
Unrated version on disc.
Major NC-17 movies are made, like Scary Movie and the ilk, but they aren't
sent to the theater as such.
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-02-15, 9:39 pm |
| MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <qLtQd.96739$mt.59422@fed1read03>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:23:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.230.18.187
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: fed1read03 1108502614 68.230.18.187 (Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:23:34 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:23:34 EST
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com alt.games.video.sony-playstation2:476310
In article <42125761$0$26522$45beb828@newscene.com>,
fredliken@toocool4school.com says...
quote:
>
>"MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote
>
>
>Nope. If you weren't a self proclaimed retard, you'd have noticed as much.
>Your binary thinking is messing you up. Try to accept the fact that I'm not
>saying playing M rated games will break you, but rather many things added up
>do.
>
Same thing they said about Elvis and all the other things that were going on
back then. All these influences will add up to deviant behavior.
quote:
>Please, at least put a little effort into it if you're going to pretend to
>be able to have an intelligent conversation with me.
>
No conversation with me is ever intelligent. Same goes for you. Please don't
fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
quote:
>
>And, it did have an effect on society in that matter. Did it turn those
>particular children into deviants? Hardly. It takes more than one singer
>to make that change. Did it change society, a little bit? Yes, most
>definitely.
>
For the better.
quote:
>Just as accepting M rated games being sold to children would. Would the
>effects be instant? Nope.
>
>It's a gradual change and these add to those gradual changes. It's simply a
>fact.
>
So what? Society is going to change whether you like it or not.
quote:
>
>And that's the kind of ignorance statement people can come to expect from
>your camp.
>
Maybe because these kinds of ignorant things still happen even today. I'm
always reading about some book being banned in some southern small town.
quote:
>I believe adults should have access to just about everything, sans the
>accepted obvious like child exploitation, etc.
>
>Adults should be able to play whatever game they want. Children should be
>able to play whatever game their parents deem is ok for them to play.
>
>It should not be legal for a store to make the decision as to what games a
>child is allowed to buy, that's the parents' choice. Stores can't sell
>children beer or cigs, either.
>
So why is that drunk driving is the number one killer of people between 16 and
21? Your never gonna stop people from getting what they want. Look at pot for
instance. This country spends billions trying to enforce the laws which make
pot illegal. I for one never had trouble scoring pot when I was a kid.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-15, 9:39 pm |
| control_z@hotmail.com wrote:
quote:
> True, very true.
quote:
> But I wouldn't be opposed to retailers being not "supposed to" sell
> M-rated games to minors.
I've heard stories from clerks who worked at stores that tried such
policies and inevitably what happens is the kid drags his parent into the
store, who chews out the clerk for not selling their kid the game in
question.
On the one hand, the angered parents have a point... Why is it the
store's job to decide what is and isn't considered approrpriate for the
kid? At the same time, if the store wants to put an age policy in place,
that's their decision.
It doesn't make sense to me to pass a law because - again - why is it the
government's job to decide what *MY* kid can or cannot buy? Then again, I
would be involved enough with my kid to know what he's playing, and would
require all purchases to be cleared with me first...at least until I know
the kid is old enough to handle the stuff he could find in some of the
more extreme titles.
Furthermore, this law isn't going to stop kids from wanting these games.
And while it may temporarily deter some kids, sooner or later kids will
figure out how to circumvent the law (give older brother $10 to go buy
the thing, etc.)
| |
| Mattinglyfan 2005-02-16, 3:41 am |
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:1114hd97qe4or5d@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> Mattinglyfan <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote:
>
>
> It's sort of interesting that a lot of movies release an "unrated" version
> when they go to DVD. I know some movies had to cut things in order to
> prevent the film from getting too high of a rating. But even when you see
> the extra footage, you really have to wonder if that single scene was
> enough to push a PG-13 film to an R, or an R to NC-17. Personally, I
> think the movie rating system is pretty broken as more often than not
> violence is considered OK for PG and PG-13 movies, but even a brief shot
> of nudity is almost always an instant R.
Did you happen to see some of the Unrated Comedy releases? They were hardly
worthy of NC-17 so I don't even know what the purpose of cutting them would
be.
| |
| Mattinglyfan 2005-02-16, 3:41 am |
|
"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:421260b2$0$40319$45beb828@newscene.com...
quote:
> "Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote
>
>
> Actually the National Association of Theater Owners started ID checks for
> R rated movies in response to Lieberman, etc, as a way to avoid a law, in,
> what 2000? Game makers, and the ilk, aren't that mature, so they'll end
> up getting a law.
Right but you said "alone" and the person who made the statement that kids
can't get into R rated movies would have been incorrect in that sense.
quote:
>
>
> Oh, you don't realize that your "Where's the Beef" movie you're so fond of
> is actually an NC-17 movie, it just was never submitted for rating to the
> MPAA.
Man, you are a prick even when I don't lob insults at you. Oh well, once a
XXXXX........
quote:
>
> None the less, most NC-17 movies are never sent to be rated in that form
> because most theaters won't carry them and many publications won't allow
> you to advertise them since NC-17 has been grouped with porn. Makes more
> sense money wise to just make an edited R-rated version and release the
> unedited Unrated version on disc.
>
> Major NC-17 movies are made, like Scary Movie and the ilk, but they aren't
> sent to the theater as such.
>
>
>
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-16, 5:41 pm |
| "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
quote:
> I will admit I misread your statement and see now that you did use a
> qualifier. You didn't say games *alone* will change/affect children
> but said they could "help" so my reply was based on reading it as an
> absolute.
No problem. I kind of figured that's what had happened after I posted.
quote:
> After reading your posts in this thread I understand the point you are
> trying to make but remember, games (just like TV and movies) don't
> effect each kid the same way. Nothing is absolute so we can't make a
> generalized statement that mature games help mold children. There are
> so many other factors to consider as well. The age of the kid, their
> parents, their mental make-up, etc.
Yes, I totally agree. And that being said, it is reasonable, in my opinion,
that parents be able to have a say in if their kids can buy those games. It
isn't the store's place to decide if a minor should be allowed to buy said
game and most places already do that without a law, but the sad fact is that
there are many that don't have the respect to do so, so there is a law that
is needed.
quote:
> I totally understand your points and agree with some of them. I guess
> to summarize my position I will say this: I don't believe a video game
> is going to make a good kid go bad and become a criminal. Altho, on
> the flip side, I believe there is a possiblity that a game could affect
> a child who already has issues to begin with.
>
> With all that said, I don't mind mature games being treated like R
> rated movies and have their sales restricted.
I agree.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-16, 5:41 pm |
| "MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote
quote:
> For the better.
Um, how so?
quote:
> So what? Society is going to change whether you like it or not.
And it's ignorant to use that as an excuse to allow society to dissolve.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> So why is that drunk driving is the number one killer of people between 16
> and
> 21? Your never gonna stop people from getting what they want.
Ah, one of my favorite logical fallacies from one of my favorite logical
fools.
You're suggesting that restricting the sale of alcohol doesn't reduce the
number of deaths by drunk driving in people between 16 and 21...
quote:
> Look at pot for
> instance. This country spends billions trying to enforce the laws which
> make
> pot illegal.
Yep, it is the burden of having a welfare state. If you didn't spend it
there, you'd spend it on welfare. If the law was if you did drugs then you
couldn't get welfare, etc, then there'd be no need for it, but that's not
going to happen.
quote:
> I for one never had trouble scoring pot when I was a kid.
OBVIOUSLY.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-16, 5:41 pm |
| "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
quote:
> I've heard stories from clerks who worked at stores that tried such
> policies and inevitably what happens is the kid drags his parent into the
> store, who chews out the clerk for not selling their kid the game in
> question.
Moot point.
quote:
> On the one hand, the angered parents have a point... Why is it the
> store's job to decide what is and isn't considered approrpriate for the
> kid?
Nope, that's the parent's job, and the store selling the game to a child
that is a minor violates that parent's right to do their job. The store
isn't going to have to deal with any of the effects of selling the game to
the kid, the parents will.
quote:
> At the same time, if the store wants to put an age policy in place,
> that's their decision.
Sure, but there are those that won't, so the parents need protection from
them via a law.
quote:
> It doesn't make sense to me to pass a law because - again - why is it the
> government's job to decide what *MY* kid can or cannot buy?
Beer, Cigs, Porn. You need to explain those away first.
quote:
> Then again, I
> would be involved enough with my kid to know what he's playing, and would
> require all purchases to be cleared with me first...at least until I know
> the kid is old enough to handle the stuff he could find in some of the
> more extreme titles.
LOL! Spoken out of true ignorance. Sure you will... Sure. You're going to
keep your kids under lock and key and search their room daily, etc, etc,
etc...
It's a bullshit argument, my friend.
quote:
> Furthermore, this law isn't going to stop kids from wanting these games.
So? Their parents can buy them for them.
quote:
> And while it may temporarily deter some kids, sooner or later kids will
> figure out how to circumvent the law (give older brother $10 to go buy
> the thing, etc.)
Yep, just like beer, etc. The nice thing about it all is that laws don't
have to be bullet proof to be effective, dumby. If they had to be, we'd
have no laws whatsoever.
You're tired.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-16, 5:41 pm |
| Mattinglyfan <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote:
quote:
> Did you happen to see some of the Unrated Comedy releases? They were hardly
> worthy of NC-17 so I don't even know what the purpose of cutting them would
> be.
Maybe they just went with a NC-17 rating just to get sales. "Ooh...how
naughty do they get?" sort of thing.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-16, 5:41 pm |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo <jojo@cox.net> wrote:
quote:
> Maybe because these kinds of ignorant things still happen even today. I'm
> always reading about some book being banned in some southern small town.
Now now, it's not always down south. 'America The Book' was briefly
banned in a town in Kansas I believe, and another New England town tried
to have a book burning of Harry Potter - only they were denied a permit
by the fire department, so they had a "book bashing" instead where you
could bring your Harry Potter items so they could be struck by heavy blunt
objects.
| |
| Mattinglyfan 2005-02-17, 3:39 am |
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:111793g378l7m6a@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> Mattinglyfan <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe they just went with a NC-17 rating just to get sales. "Ooh...how
> naughty do they get?" sort of thing.
The last two Will Farrell (sp?) movies were released as unrated and they
seemed identical.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-17, 3:39 am |
|
"Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote in message
news:WtydnYveFse5N4_fRVn-ug@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
> news:421260b2$0$40319$45beb828@newscene.com...
>
> Right but you said "alone"
Where? Not sure it matters though.
quote:
> and the person who made the statement that kids can't get into R rated
> movies would have been incorrect in that sense.
Not within the scope of the argument, my intellectually dishonest friend.
A child might be able to enter an R-rated movie if they have an adult with
them, just as they can buy a M-rated game if they have an adult.
Face the fact that there's precedence here that kind of runs against your
failed logic.
quote:
>
>
> Man, you are a prick even when I don't lob insults at you. Oh well, once
> a XXXXX........
You talk shit about me all the time, and now you want to be treated
differently? What a pussy you are. LOL!
Nice dodge, by the way, XXXXX boyieeee!
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Mattinglyfan 2005-02-17, 5:42 pm |
|
"Fred Liken" <fredliken@toocool4school.com> wrote in message
news:42140764$0$26522$45beb828@newscene.com...
quote:
>
> "Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote in message
> news:WtydnYveFse5N4_fRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>
> Where? Not sure it matters though.
>
>
> Not within the scope of the argument, my intellectually dishonest friend.
>
>
> A child might be able to enter an R-rated movie if they have an adult with
> them, just as they can buy a M-rated game if they have an adult.
>
> Face the fact that there's precedence here that kind of runs against your
> failed logic.
You are such a double-talking dickhead its not even funny. Your
intellectual shots would carry much more weight if you were actually
intellectual.
quote:
>
>
> You talk shit about me all the time, and now you want to be treated
> differently? What a pussy you are. LOL!
You are right, I do. But does your dumb XXX ever address a point without
talking shit? There is plenty of time for talking shit but at least pretend
you are intelligent once and a while.
quote:
>
> Nice dodge, by the way, XXXXX boyieeee!
Oh Florence, go make Weezy and I some eggs and shut the hell up.
quote:
>
>
>
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-02-17, 5:42 pm |
| In article <4213883c$0$62555$45beb828@newscene.com>,
fredliken@toocool4school.com says...
quote:
>
>"MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote
>
>
>Um, how so?
>
>
>And it's ignorant to use that as an excuse to allow society to dissolve.
>
Thats exactly what I've been trying to say. People said that back in the old
days about Elvis and many other influences. Well Elvis and heavy metal rock
never went away and society survived just fine.
quote:
>
>
>Ah, one of my favorite logical fallacies from one of my favorite logical
>fools.
>You're suggesting that restricting the sale of alcohol doesn't reduce the
>number of deaths by drunk driving in people between 16 and 21...
>
NOT ONE BIT. If anything it makes kids want the stuff even more and go to
greater lengths to get their hands on it.
quote:
>
>Yep, it is the burden of having a welfare state. If you didn't spend it
>there, you'd spend it on welfare. If the law was if you did drugs then you
>couldn't get welfare, etc, then there'd be no need for it, but that's not
>going to happen.
>
>
>OBVIOUSLY.
>
If the FAA wasn't around I would still not have a problem with doing it on my
weekends. Damn proud to be a former pot smoker and I fully support making pot
legal. Whats your excuse? Too many glasses of wine or just XXXXed up parents.
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-02-17, 5:42 pm |
| In article <11179oh837q1220@corp.supernews.com>, djacobs@shell.rawbw.com
says...
quote:
>
>MS#1Fanboy-JoJo <jojo@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>Now now, it's not always down south. 'America The Book' was briefly
>banned in a town in Kansas I believe, and another New England town tried
>to have a book burning of Harry Potter - only they were denied a permit
>by the fire department, so they had a "book bashing" instead where you
>could bring your Harry Potter items so they could be struck by heavy blunt
>objects.
>
>
Agreed. I was just reading about some deal in some southern town last week and
thats why it was on my mind.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-20, 9:39 pm |
| "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
quote:
> I will admit I misread your statement and see now that you did use a
> qualifier. You didn't say games *alone* will change/affect children
> but said they could "help" so my reply was based on reading it as an
> absolute.
No problem. I kind of figured that's what had happened after I posted.
quote:
> After reading your posts in this thread I understand the point you are
> trying to make but remember, games (just like TV and movies) don't
> effect each kid the same way. Nothing is absolute so we can't make a
> generalized statement that mature games help mold children. There are
> so many other factors to consider as well. The age of the kid, their
> parents, their mental make-up, etc.
Yes, I totally agree. And that being said, it is reasonable, in my opinion,
that parents be able to have a say in if their kids can buy those games. It
isn't the store's place to decide if a minor should be allowed to buy said
game and most places already do that without a law, but the sad fact is that
there are many that don't have the respect to do so, so there is a law that
is needed.
quote:
> I totally understand your points and agree with some of them. I guess
> to summarize my position I will say this: I don't believe a video game
> is going to make a good kid go bad and become a criminal. Altho, on
> the flip side, I believe there is a possiblity that a game could affect
> a child who already has issues to begin with.
>
> With all that said, I don't mind mature games being treated like R
> rated movies and have their sales restricted.
I agree.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-02-20, 9:39 pm |
| "MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote
quote:
> For the better.
Um, how so?
quote:
> So what? Society is going to change whether you like it or not.
And it's ignorant to use that as an excuse to allow society to dissolve.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> So why is that drunk driving is the number one killer of people between 16
> and
> 21? Your never gonna stop people from getting what they want.
Ah, one of my favorite logical fallacies from one of my favorite logical
fools.
You're suggesting that restricting the sale of alcohol doesn't reduce the
number of deaths by drunk driving in people between 16 and 21...
quote:
> Look at pot for
> instance. This country spends billions trying to enforce the laws which
> make
> pot illegal.
Yep, it is the burden of having a welfare state. If you didn't spend it
there, you'd spend it on welfare. If the law was if you did drugs then you
couldn't get welfare, etc, then there'd be no need for it, but that's not
going to happen.
quote:
> I for one never had trouble scoring pot when I was a kid.
OBVIOUSLY.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-21, 3:40 am |
| Mattinglyfan <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net (deez nuts)> wrote:
quote:
> Did you happen to see some of the Unrated Comedy releases? They were hardly
> worthy of NC-17 so I don't even know what the purpose of cutting them would
> be.
Maybe they just went with a NC-17 rating just to get sales. "Ooh...how
naughty do they get?" sort of thing.
| |
| MS#1Fanboy-JoJo 2005-02-21, 3:40 am |
| In article <11179oh837q1220@corp.supernews.com>, djacobs@shell.rawbw.com
says...
quote:
>
>MS#1Fanboy-JoJo <jojo@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>Now now, it's not always down south. 'America The Book' was briefly
>banned in a town in Kansas I believe, and another New England town tried
>to have a book burning of Harry Potter - only they were denied a permit
>by the fire department, so they had a "book bashing" instead where you
>could bring your Harry Potter items so they could be struck by heavy blunt
>objects.
>
>
Agreed. I was just reading about some deal in some southern town last week and
thats why it was on my mind.
|
| |
|
|