NationStates Jolt Archive

What do the rest of you think of this?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060731-7393.html

Personally I like the fact that the government wont take on another nanny state facet and try to protect us with their moral values

Its up to the parents not the state.

Well, here in New York, the local video store lets the parents decide what their kids can and can't take out.

Incidentally, does this ruling imply that underage children cannot be prevented from purchasing renting R and above movies as well?

IMHO as a gamer I think there should be a law against selling certain games to underaged people. Its one thing if the parent buys it for them, That is the parents choice. However, the child should not be able to buy M rated games on their own. Its things like that that force game makers to severly limit the content on their games because they do not want to get in trouble when a kid buys it and the parent gets pissed. If people would acually try and follow the rating rules already set upon the games then there would be no problem at all.. but thats never going to happen.

Goes to show that no one really cares what video games are rated. We may as well stop putting ratings on the games if stores are not allowed to enforce the rules regarding who can actually buy those games.

IMHO as a gamer I think there should be a law against selling certain games to underaged people. Its one thing if the parent buys it for them, That is the parents choice. However, the child should not be able to buy M rated games on their own. Its things like that that force game makers to severly limit the content on their games because they do not want to get in trouble when a kid buys it and the parent gets pissed. If people would acually try and follow the rating rules already set upon the games then there would be no problem at all.. but thats never going to happen.
So we need the government to step in and do the parents job of making sure that their kid does not go out and get material that has never been proven to cause any sort of harm. Based on the moral standards they set

No way if I was a parent I would be mad at the state trying to impose its un backed up assumptions of morality

Goes to show that no one really cares what video games are rated. We may as well stop putting ratings on the games if stores are not allowed to enforce the rules regarding who can actually buy those games.
Who said anything about stores? This ruling is about the GOVERNMENT making laws based on it.

Stores like movie theaters can decide who they want to sell what to yet.

I object more to the fact that the law was designed not to be enforced. What a waste of time and money. Though I have to admit that fining the kids was a novel idea.

So we need the government to step in and do the parents job of making sure that their kid does not go out and get material that has never been proven to cause any sort of harm. Based on the moral standards they set

No way if I was a parent I would be mad at the state trying to impose its un backed up assumptions of morality

The ratings are their for a reason. It is not just up to the parents but it is also up to the stores to enforce it. I was in an Electronic Boutique last December where a checkout person told a kid who could be no more than 10 that he could not by a game rated for teens without his parents ok. The mother actually had to buy him the game because of it.

I believe in a rating system. parents have the right to know what material their children are consuming. I do NOT believe the system should be LAW, but I do believe that it is a useful guideline.

Who said anything about stores? This ruling is about the GOVERNMENT making laws based on it.

Stores like movie theaters can decide who they want to sell what to yet.

Yes you are right however, if people cannot be bothered to know what these ratings are, it is up to others to make them understand.

Goes to show that no one really cares what video games are rated. We may as well stop putting ratings on the games if stores are not allowed to enforce the rules regarding who can actually buy those games.
I don't think it's true that no one cares what these games are rated. I do, as a parent. It gives me a starting point, just like movie ratings. I still want to preview movies, but at least with a G rating, I know it's not necessarily necessary to do so...I'd say the same with the games. As they go up in the ratings, then I do more digging.

But it's MY decision what my kids watch/play...until they bloody well move out:)

IMHO as a gamer I think there should be a law against selling certain games to underaged people. Its one thing if the parent buys it for them, That is the parents choice. However, the child should not be able to buy M rated games on their own. Its things like that that force game makers to severly limit the content on their games because they do not want to get in trouble when a kid buys it and the parent gets pissed. If people would acually try and follow the rating rules already set upon the games then there would be no problem at all.. but thats never going to happen.
Look, any good parent will be able to regulate which games their kids play, and thus will have no need of a law like this one. The people pushing for these laws are the people who can't figure out how to control their own kids...why the hell should those fuckups be the ones dictating what other people's kids can do?

What do the rest of you think of this?



I think stores should be fined for selling adult theme games to children.

Look, any good parent will be able to regulate which games their kids play, and thus will have no need of a law like this one. The people pushing for these laws are the people who can't figure out how to control their own kids...why the hell should those fuckups be the ones dictating what other people's kids can do?
True dat.

I believe in a rating system. parents have the right to know what material their children are consuming. I do NOT believe the system should be LAW, but I do believe that it is a useful guideline.
Agreed some sort of basis to at least understand what the content for the game is for the parents is a good thing.

I don't think it's true that no one cares what these games are rated. I do, as a parent. It gives me a starting point, just like movie ratings. I still want to preview movies, but at least with a G rating, I know it's not necessarily necessary to do so...I'd say the same with the games. As they go up in the ratings, then I do more digging.

But it's MY decision what my kids watch/play...until they bloody well move out:)
I like rating systems, simply because it lets me know what to expect. I don't think there should be any rating-based restriction on who can buy a game or see a movie, I just think it's handy to have the ratings so that consumers get a sense for what kind of game/movie they're in for.

Look, any good parent will be able to regulate which games their kids play, and thus will have no need of a law like this one. The people pushing for these laws are the people who can't figure out how to control their own kids...why the hell should those fuckups be the ones dictating what other people's kids can do?

While I agree, I do believe in a rating system that would at least help parents to MAKE that decision.

I think stores should be fined for selling adult theme games to children.
I find these games objectionable, and I'm 29. But I think, rather than having the choice to purchase or not to purchase, a law should be pass forbidding me to purchase the game. For my own good.

Yes you are right however, if people cannot be bothered to know what these ratings are, it is up to others to make them understand.
If a parent cant figure out what that simple frigging rating system is (when it is STATED on the box) then they don’t deserve to be parents

What do the rest of you think of this?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060731-7393.html

Personally I like the fact that the government wont take on another nanny state facet and try to protect us with their moral values

Of course, you have to wonder, by this logic, how can states pass laws restricting entrance into certain movies?

How is it possible to fine someone for buying something underage? How would you prove they were underage?

I find these games objectionable, and I'm 29. But I think, rather than having the choice to purchase or not to purchase, a law should be pass forbidding me to purchase the game. For my own good.

Here, I have a game that you can't do you any harm. Just remember...the cow says "moo"

:p

While I agree, I do believe in a rating system that would at least help parents to MAKE that decision.
Oh, indeed! I have no objection to having rating systems, just like I don't object to putting a list of ingredients on the side of food packages. What I object to is passing laws that say, "So-and-so cannot purchase this item, because some bossy little PTA member has decided that he wants to run everybody else's life for them."

Of course, you have to wonder, by this logic, how can states pass laws restricting entrance into certain movies?
I dont think they should be able to ... I dont think minnesota does I had a few friends that work at the local one and it is voulentary on the part of the theater

Of course, you have to wonder, by this logic, how can states pass laws restricting entrance into certain movies?

They don't, actually. The rating system is voluntarily enforced by the theaters.

I don't think it's true that no one cares what these games are rated. I do, as a parent. It gives me a starting point, just like movie ratings. I still want to preview movies, but at least with a G rating, I know it's not necessarily necessary to do so...I'd say the same with the games. As they go up in the ratings, then I do more digging.

But it's MY decision what my kids watch/play...until they bloody well move out:)

Good for you. When I become a parent, I will be doing the exact same thing. Or at least try to.

If a parent cant figure out what that simple frigging rating system is (when it is STATED on the box) then they don’t deserve to be parents

I also agree 100%

They don't, actually. The rating system is voluntarily enforced by the theaters.
Good its not just me I was starting to doubt if I had my info right lol

I find these games objectionable, and I'm 29. But I think, rather than having the choice to purchase or not to purchase, a law should be pass forbidding me to purchase the game. For my own good.

A 29 year old is not a minor.

Should we sell booze and cigarettes to children?

How about porno?

Should I be able to open a an ATM Gang bang theatre next to a middle school and offer half off tickets to minors?

Oh, indeed! I have no objection to having rating systems, just like I don't object to putting a list of ingredients on the side of food packages. What I object to is passing laws that say, "So-and-so cannot purchase this item, because some bossy little PTA member has decided that he wants to run everybody else's life for them."

It's...tough though. Children can't by cigarettes. They can't buy alchohol. I support that because...well, they're harmful.

If we recognize that it's ok to restrict things from children, how far does that restriction go?

I don't think anyone here would say that young children should have EXACTLY the same purchasing power as adults (or at least, I don't). So it's a question of what do we consider harmful. And I think some may well have a point that overly graphic depictions of sex and violence to young children may have detrimental effects.....

Now I still don't think video games are the same as guns and alchohol, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, we have to recognize that SOMETIMES we think it's ok.

They don't, actually. The rating system is voluntarily enforced by the theaters.

In some places, laws are passed restricting said theatres. Generally, it is a "You can't get a business license to be a movie theatre if you don't restrict this," which might be seen as a "loophole", I suppose - but it is definitely government restriction of them. And, IIRC, in some places, it is just a flat-out law.

Of course, you have to wonder, by this logic, how can states pass laws restricting entrance into certain movies?
I never did understand that. I mean...how old are your kids before you let them go to the theatre on their own (I don't mean you necessarily sit there with them, but at least take them there)? It's not like your six year old, all by himself, is going to sneak into an R rated movie and you not know about it.

It's...tough though. Children can't by cigarettes. They can't buy alchohol. I support that because...well, they're harmful.

If we recognize that it's ok to restrict things from children, how far does that restriction go?

I don't think anyone here would say that young children should have EXACTLY the same purchasing power as adults (or at least, I don't).

Well, see, that's the problem. I do. Given that minor children do not legally own any property or money of their own, I find that quite enough restriction. A child has no money other than what their parents/guardians allow them to have. If a parent/guardian doesn't feel they can trust their child to spend money safely, then they should not give their child money.


So it's a question of what do we consider harmful. And I think some may well have a point that overly graphic depictions of sex and violence to young children may have detrimental effects.....

Now I still don't think video games are the same as guns and alchohol, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, we have to recognize that SOMETIMES we think it's ok.
I think there are some behaviors that are reasonable to restrict on the basis of age, but purchasing otherwise-legal items does not fall into this category.

A 29 year old is not a minor.

Should we sell booze and cigarettes to children?

How about porno?

Should I be able to open a an ATM Gang bang theatre next to a middle school and offer half off tickets to minors?That’s not the point. It’s not just about protecting kids, it’s about protecting them from the ‘bad choices’ of their parents too…the parents who are NOT minors.

Good its not just me I was starting to doubt if I had my info right lol

What happened with it all is actually interesting. There WAS debate at state and I think even the federal level about legally enforcing a rating system.

The film industry didn't like this, saw the debate and arguing and fighting and inconsistancy would hurt the industry, so what they basically said was, we're going to take the initiative and do this OURSELVES. We are developing our own rating system, which is optional....however any cinema that won't enforce it will not be granted the rights to show our movies.

So it is "optional", but if you don't do it...the production companies don't let you show the movies. So you don't have to do it, as long as you don't want to do business.

Well, see, that's the problem. I do. Given that minor children do not legally own any property or money of their own, I find that quite enough restriction. A child has no money other than what their parents/guardians allow them to have. If a parent/guardian doesn't feel they can trust their child to spend money safely, then they should not give their child money.


I think there are some behaviors that are reasonable to restrict on the basis of age, but purchasing otherwise-legal items does not fall into this category.

*shrug* perspectives differ. I have no problems that prevent tobacco or alchohol to get in the hands of minors. I just don't consider video games to be an equal evil.

That’s not the point. It’s not just about protecting kids, it’s about protecting them from the ‘bad choices’ of their parents too…the parents who are NOT minors.

So the little black kid in the ghetto, whose daddy left home when he was a baby and whose mom is working double shifts to make ends meet will just have to take it on the chin this time?

So the little black kid in the ghetto, whose daddy left home when he was a baby and whose mom is working double shifts to make ends meet will just have to take it on the chin this time?
I think that kid has bigger problems than violent videogames, don't you?

I never did understand that. I mean...how old are your kids before you let them go to the theatre on their own (I don't mean you necessarily sit there with them, but at least take them there)? It's not like your six year old, all by himself, is going to sneak into an R rated movie and you not know about it.

The first movie I remember seeing without a parent or other adult-figure with us was All Dogs Go to Heaven. My mother drove my friend and I to the theatre for the showtime, and picked us up afterwards. I don't remember if she actually walked up to buy the tickets. I was 8 or 9.

Of course, before that, I do remember a day-care employee taking all of us to see Top Gun. I don't consider the movie a problem, but it does have some language and sex in it, so I could see that some parents would. And they were not told in advance what movie we were going to see - only that we were going to see one.

I think that kid has bigger problems than violent videogames, don't you?

So why add to them?

I don't want video games of any kind banned, I just don't think adult materials should be easily accessed by children.

Children are already more sexually active and prone to violence because of music and televison why increase the influence?

The trule objectionable games aren't typically sold in stores. They're acquired online. You can find more information about those from the International Game Developers Association - they have a blog dedicated to sex in games.

http://www.igda.org/sex/

But I object to these laws anyway, because by making the sale of these games more trying for retailers, it makes it harder for adults to buy the games. And that's why the courts keep striking them down.

Most gamers are adults. The median age of a PC gamer is 29. Legislators need to stop treating games like they're necessarily designed for children.

So why add to them?

I don't want video games of any kind banned, I just don't think adult materials should be easily accessed by children.

Children are already more sexually active and prone to violence because of music and televison why increase the influence?
First of all show us one reputable study that has shown a correlation between videogame tv or music violence. I have never seen one done correctly.

So why add to them?

You wouldn't add anything to them. Trust me, that kid doesn't have a console or a computer to begin with. He certainly doesn't have the money to buy games in a store, so if he actually manages to get videogames at all he's probably going to be getting them from the type of person who doesn't exactly worry about observing little laws about sales to minors.


I don't want video games of any kind banned, I just don't think adult materials should be easily accessed by children.

Too late.


Children are already more sexually active and prone to violence because of music and televison why increase the influence?
There is no concrete evidence that youth violence or sexual activity have increased because of videogames. It's true, young people with inattentive parents are more likely to play sexually explicit or violent videogames, and it's also true that those kids are more likely to be sexually active or violent...but don't you think that might have something to do with the fact that they have inattentive or lousy parents?

I've been playing violent videogames all my life and I haven't been in a fight for days.

You wouldn't add anything to them. Trust me, that kid doesn't have a console or a computer to begin with. He certainly doesn't have the money to buy games in a store, so if he actually manages to get videogames at all he's probably going to be getting them from the type of person who doesn't exactly worry about observing little laws about sales to minors.


Too late.


There is no concrete evidence that youth violence or sexual activity have increased because of videogames. It's true, young people with inattentive parents are more likely to play sexually explicit or violent videogames, and it's also true that those kids are more likely to be sexually active or violent...but don't you think that might have something to do with the fact that they have inattentive or lousy parents?
Perfect example of why any of those studies that show ANY trend are completely without regression or correlation coefficients

Because it would SHOW (to those of us that understand it) that they are BSing their way through it and it is a second order effect rather then a first order one.

First of all show us one reputable study that has shown a correlation between videogame tv or music violence. I have never seen one done correctly.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

But there are many studies and many different conclusions.

Because of that I am forced to rely on common sense.

Common sense tells me that if you lay down in a gutter with dogs, you get fleas.

Because of that I am forced to rely on common sense.
I find that common sense is typically neither common nor sense.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

But there are many studies and many different conclusions.

Because of that I am forced to rely on common sense.

Common sense tells me that if you lay down in a gutter with dogs, you get fleas.
And common sense tells me watching you lying in a gutter with dogs through a tv stet wont give me fleas

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

But there are many studies and many different conclusions.

Because of that I am forced to rely on common sense.

Common sense tells me that if you lay down in a gutter with dogs, you get fleas.
Then your common sense fails reasoning.
In order for that statement to be true, you must first assume that the dogs have fleas. You must then assume that you wouldn't have gotten fleas without the dogs. Your common sense is the same kind of "common sense" used by those who say virtual violence causes violence; that is, you are using circular logic and calling it common sense.

Because I am lying with dogs I must have fleas and I must have fleas because I am lying with dogs.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

But there are many studies and many different conclusions.

Because of that I am forced to rely on common sense.

Common sense tells me that if you lay down in a gutter with dogs, you get fleas.
Looking though that source I cant help but laugh at both the way this web page incorrectly uses “Survey” for what is a poll and Vic versa not to mention that it took till the 2003 test for them to even start to get a representative sample size for making any sort of conclusions but they still failed on their random selections.

Most of these people would defiantly get fired from any real statistical work

Looking though that source I cant help but laugh at both the way this web page incorrectly uses “Survey” for what is a poll and Vic versa not to mention that it took till the 2003 test for them to even start to get a representative sample size for making any sort of conclusions but they still failed on their random selections.

Most of these people would defiantly get fired from any real statistical work
The only thing I read was the bullet points I came too and all they proved was that watching too much tv with too little sense makes you a fucking dumbass, which we already knew.

And common sense tells me watching you lying in a gutter with dogs through a tv stet wont give me fleas


But if television, music, or video games makes lying in a gutter with dogs look attractive, then some dumb ass kid is going to try it.

Is your position really that kids don't try stuff they see on t.v., hear in music or see in a video game?

But if television, music, or video games makes lying in a gutter with dogs look attractive, then some dumb ass kid is going to try it.

Is your position really that kids don't try stuff they see on t.v., hear in music or see in a video game?

Is it your position that the kids wouldn't be predisposed to it if they HADN'T seen it?

A kid who takes a gun and blows away his school and says "doom did it", I promise you, it wasn't the computer game that screwed him up.

Is it your position that the kids wouldn't be predisposed to it if they HADN'T seen it?

A kid who takes a gun and blows away his school and says "doom did it", I promise you, it wasn't the computer game that screwed him up.

I'm not talking about a columbine effect here.

Nobody blows away a school full of kids because they saw something on television.

I talking about small things and things that develop over a long period of time.

If televison can influence they way children dress, dance and talk, then it can influence there behavior.

If televison can influence a kid, then so can a video game.

I'm not talking about a columbine effect here.

Nobody blows away a school full of kids because they saw something on television.

I talking about small things and things that develop over a long period of time.

If televison can influence they way children dress, dance and talk, then it can influence there behavior.

If televison can influence a kid, then so can a video game.

Television influences adults too, how many women went out and got a haircut like one of the women from "Friends"?

"Influence" isn't bad, and you've yet to prove to me constructivly that children are more inclined to do things harmful to themselves or others because they saw it in a video game.

What do the rest of you think of this?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060731-7393.html

Personally I like the fact that the government wont take on another nanny state facet and try to protect us with their moral values
Being anti-violence is hardly some evil moral value.

I think that video games should be prohibited for sale to children not because I think they will get violent, but because video games encourage laziness, bad health and discourage sports and excercise.

I'm not talking about a columbine effect here.

Nobody blows away a school full of kids because they saw something on television.

I talking about small things and things that develop over a long period of time.

If televison can influence they way children dress, dance and talk, then it can influence there behavior.

If televison can influence a kid, then so can a video game.
EVERYTHING influences us. Everything we experience has an influence on us. The fact that the Nightly News talks about crime occuring around us will influence kids. So?

Plenty of kids play violent games and see violent movies, yet never act in a violent manner. Thus, it is not the games or the movies which are making kids violent. It is a convergence of many factors.

The pure fact is that videogams will only "influence" kids in the way you describe IF their parents are shitty to begin with. The shitty parenting is the problem, not the existence of games.

It's like how it's really really awful when some kid dies from binge drinking, but the existence of alcohol is not the problem. The fact that alcohol exists is not what got that kid into trouble. In fact, that kid probably would have ended up killing themselves one way or another, due to the many OTHER fucked up things going on with them. Those are the problems that need to be addressed, not the existence of alcohol.

Similarly, videogames are not the problem to address. When you've got a good, loving, solid home life for every single kid in the country, THEN you can start worrying about videogames. When every single kid has strong and positive role models, THEN you can start looking at the movie industry. When every kid has enough to eat, and clothing to keep them warm, and a home that is free from violence and abuse, THEN maybe you can start asking if maybe we should look at videogame violence.

But until you fix all those problems, you are wasting everybody's time. You are diverting energy that could be used to really help people.

Just throwing out a random idea here but...

Has anyone considered that it might be the inverse of the argument? Namely, that children who are more violent and sexually active might be more likely to play videogames with mature themes?

I don't think I often debate on this forum about non-NS stuff, and I'm fairly sure I haven't at all in quite a while, but I figured I might as well post in this since one particular post caught my attention...
... Clip
I have no problem with parents purchasing games for their kids. I also have no problem with Mature kids getting violent games as they will not be the ones that turn around and kill somebody. What i DO have a problem with is the game companies getting blamed for inattentive parents who either dont care what their kids buy for themselves, or go into the store and buy it for them without even looking at what game it is.

i was at a software etc in my local mall, a 6 year old kid brought over san andreas to his mom to buy for him. without even looking at the rating or a description of the game she bought it. THATS what i have a problem with. Parents who dont care. Yet, i'm sure if she saw what he was playing or if he got into a fight at school or something, she would blame the game maker first without even considering the fact that she willingly bought it for him.

Like i said.. if your mature and able to diferentiate between reality and a game, by all means, Get the violent games. its entertainment, perhaps some stress relief. nothing else.

If its the kind of kid that will run around punching their friends acting out stuff from the game? Use language from the game? (god forbid some kid starts talking like CJ in elementary school.. i mean. they already do but at least they cant blame the game for that directly) Then there should be some way to limit its usage if only to protect the makers from getting sued. None of this would even be discussed if parents would try and pay attention to what their kids to at least a little bit.


The more the game companies get sued over stupid stuff like this, the less incentive they have to acually go the whole way and make the violent, sex filled games we love to play. I mean, hell. If you were a producer would you make something when you had a 50% chance of getting your pants sued off because some stupid parent? I sure wouldnt.. i would stick to stupid stuff.. like table tennis.

I believe in a rating system. parents have the right to know what material their children are consuming. I do NOT believe the system should be LAW, but I do believe that it is a useful guideline.

**nods**

Why no animated smileys?

BOO!!!

I pretty much agree with Bottle, except that instead of a rating system, I'd rather there be a description system similar to the system that goes with the ratings (Mild violence, graphic language, etc.) That's a minor issue, though.

Should we sell booze and cigarettes to children?

How about porno?

Should I be able to open a an ATM Gang bang theatre next to a middle school and offer half off tickets to minors?It isn't legal for a child to use booze and cigarettes or view porn, however it is legal for a child to play an 'M' rated video game or watch an 'R' rated movie.

First of all show us one reputable study that has shown a correlation between videogame tv or music violence. I have never seen one done correctly.

It takes 3 studies to make a true point. Everyone knows that... and I am serious.

As for my opinion on that quote, I agree that we need a guideline and that it shouldn't be law, but I don't consider the ESRB necessarily a good line, see the problems I pointed out about the ESRB earlier in response to Cenanan's post. I think a better guideline would be one that didn't necessarily try to put a rating there but instead just describe whether or not the violence intensifies exponentially, etc... it varies a lot from person to person, and I think there should be more specific descriptors, and less direct "who can play it" kinda stuff we see from the ratings.

Yeah... because age is independent of maturity. Some 19-year-olds are less mature than some 14-year-olds and vice versa. (Same with driving and operating machinery, for that matter. Age does not equal experience or maturity, people. Time to make the laws reflect that (except maybe for adulthood. Cuz what is an adult, really?...)

I pretty much agree with Bottle, except that instead of a rating system, I'd rather there be a description system similar to the system that goes with the ratings (Mild violence, graphic language, etc.) That's a minor issue, though.


I know what you mean. A few years ago, my parents bought my brother (who is two-and-a-half year younger than me) an M-rated game, because they knew that he was mature enough for it, but deliberated very much about buying me my first T-rated game at the same time. It makes perfect sense, because the T-rated game had sexual refrences, which they weren't sure that I was ready for. Eventually, they bought me the game, but they talked to both me and my brother about the games.

So, I think it should definitely be left to the discretion of parents.

It takes 3 studies to make a true point. Everyone knows that... and I am serious.
Not if the statistics are given in their correct form or at least with the data so I can run it through my own correlation and check the fit.

You can do it with one, it just has to be a good report

Being anti-violence is hardly some evil moral value.

I think that video games should be prohibited for sale to children not because I think they will get violent, but because video games encourage laziness, bad health and discourage sports and excercise.
That is your point of view … in my case games got me interested in computers which has led me to a part of my life that I love, and profit greatly from :)

Look, any good parent will be able to regulate which games their kids play, and thus will have no need of a law like this one. The people pushing for these laws are the people who can't figure out how to control their own kids...why the hell should those fuckups be the ones dictating what other people's kids can do?

Ditto.

I pretty much agree with Bottle, except that instead of a rating system, I'd rather there be a description system similar to the system that goes with the ratings (Mild violence, graphic language, etc.) That's a minor issue, though.

I may be misinterpreting you, but they have those small descriptors on the video game box. They're usually on the back along with some other details.

Well that just show's how lazy assed Minnesota's parents are. I think Minnesota should go to the south where most of the lazy asses are.Personally the only states i care about in the south are Florida, Some parts of georgia, Southern Cali, a little of texas, some virginia, and new orleans in louisiana. Alambama and the rest of the blue coller REDNECKS can burn in hell :sniper:

People of Iraqistan']Well that just show's how lazy assed Minnesota's parents are. I think Minnesota should go to the south where most of the lazy asses are.Personally the only states i care about in the south are Florida, Some parts of georgia, Southern Cali, a little of texas, some virginia, and new orleans in louisiana. Alambama and the rest of the blue coller REDNECKS can burn in hell :sniper:
Most of us will work harder every day of our lives then you apparently are capable of. It is not me that is wasting their time flaming idiotically.

People of Iraqistan']Well that just show's how lazy assed Minnesota's parents are. I think Minnesota should go to the south where most of the lazy asses are.Personally the only states i care about in the south are Florida, Some parts of georgia, Southern Cali, a little of texas, some virginia, and new orleans in louisiana. Alambama and the rest of the blue coller REDNECKS can burn in hell :sniper:

http://adrian.gimp.org/lava.jpg

is not appreciated. :(

A 29 year old is not a minor.

Should we sell booze and cigarettes to children?
No because unlike the sketchy research into Video Games It's quite clear how dangerous it is when people with devloping minds get drugs in it.


How about porno?
Fine.


Should I be able to open a an ATM Gang bang theatre next to a middle school and offer half off tickets to minors? You shouldn't be able to charge half off, and there are zoning laws that would forbid you from opening that.

If that isn't enough difference, then what do you have to say about refined sugar, fast food, and junk food in general? Should children not be allowed to have ANY of that either? In either case, it's important not to have too much.

I'm sure there are groups in the US, at least, that would advocate it. Granted, I don't know any off the top of my head, but I'm sure you could find a few. :)

i personally believe that the rating system should have no place in the law.

What do the rest of you think of this?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060731-7393.html

Personally I like the fact that the government wont take on another nanny state facet and try to protect us with their moral values

Personally I don't see much difference between restricting the sale of adult video games and R-rated movies. No one has ever shown me where it's harmful to children to let them watch porn, and yet we don't. To say nothing of Arnold Swarzeneger movies. Of course, those cause California to make him governor, so I guess there is some evidence against letting adults of voting age watch such movies.

Personally I don't see much difference between restricting the sale of adult video games and R-rated movies. No one has ever shown me where it's harmful to children to let them watch porn, and yet we don't. To say nothing of Arnold Swarzeneger movies. Of course, those cause California to make him governor, so I guess there is some evidence against letting adults of voting age watch such movies.
It has already been pointed out in this thread, unlike the law that was struck down R rated movie restrictions are done VOULENTARILY by the movie industry

This was a state law restricting sale, compleatly different then a private company deciding that they want to regulate sale

i personally believe that the rating system should have no place in the law.

I agree. Parents should have the sense to regulate what their kids play, since theyre paying anyway. once the kids old enough to pay their way, theyre old enough to play anything they want. not that even the most violent games could ever harm anyone, its absurd.

And someone mentioned Pepsi a few posts ago. It may be unhealthy but the diet version is much worse. cancer wise id rather have a cigarette than a diet drink.