Jack Thompson Gets A Job

[Maruza]

A law prohibiting mature games being sold to minors sounds completely silly to me when it is proven that video games themselves are not rated by how harmful they are to kids, but by what main stream media portrays as taboo or unethical.

way to go knee-jerk emotional reactions as being the end all of logical thinking!

 

[Aralous]

"Look for a federal law prohibiting sale of mature games to minors in Obama's first term. It will be wildly popular with parents in both parties, as a recent video game industry poll proves." He went on to claim that the new approach is "constitutionally bullet proof."

Isn't there already something like that? Maybe not on a federal level, but I know I (17) can't buy M rated games without being asked for ID. Found that out when I went out to pick up The Orange Box and had to settle for Soul Calibur 4 instead, which is for some odd reason only T.

 

[Maruza]

A law prohibiting mature games being sold to minors sounds completely silly to me when it is proven that video games themselves are not rated by how harmful they are to kids, but by what main stream media portrays as taboo or unethical.

way to go knee-jerk emotional reactions as being the end all of logical thinking!

You may be overreacting a bit. If you aren't a minor, this doesn't affect you whatsoever. And if you are a minor...well I can understand how it might be upsetting. But just ask your parents to buy the mature rated games for you, and you can bypass the "completely silly" law.

I'm not a minor.

This upsets me because it's an example of legislation that only has a chance of getting passed because of people's lack of understanding and care for what the real motives behind it are.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Since we're asking questions, let me ask one of you: Why videogames? Why should games be singled out as subject to federal legislation, and not books, movies and music?

Answer that - convincingly - and you might have something to go on.

 

[Maruza]

This upsets me because it's an example of legislation that only has a chance of getting passed because of people's lack of understanding and care for what the real motives behind it are.

And may I ask...what do you think the real motives behind it are?

When it comes to government trying to pass anything, when the motives aren't clear, then I'm forced to assume that their motives are self-serving.

Since you don't seem to know either, go right ahead and delve as deep as you want into what the motives might be and you can educate us all.

But if we can call "bullshit" on them as soon as they announce it, then they need to withdraw their bullshit.

 

[MONTGOMERYWOODRUFF69]

I'd wondered what happened to that blow hard douche bag, video game cause violence huh? Well Mr. Thompson explain Hitler then, what's that? you can't? then fuck off..........

 

[Elurindel]

You know, I was really really hoping that he'd gotten a job at Mcdonalds...

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I certainly don't think that video games should be singled out. They are merely the current focus of a media scare about the downfall of our youth. I believe that books, movies, and music should all be rated appropriately according to their content. I think it's then reasonable to enforce laws that prohibit sales of media containing "mature" content to minors. However, it should never become a crime for minors to use that content if a parent or guardian purchased it for them. It should always come down to the parent's approval.

The reason you don't want your government doing that is the same reason you want to keep religion and government separated. For some reason, Fundamentalists in America think that by electing a devout Christian, the government will be governed by the Bible. The reality is that the government is going to start using the Bible to govern you. They're not going to listen to religion, they're going to start telling you what religion says to do.

Censorship, and the implications of morality, are no different. The government isn't going to enforce rules about what you can and cannot buy based on societies notions of what age you need to be to watch something. They're just going to tell you that you shouldn't be watching it based on whatever reason they think up to support themselves.

 

[hungoverbear]

damn, i thought he got a job directing traffic or working a toll booth. You know, seeing how he is "ultra right wing", I guarantee you that he has a huge collection of gay porn stashed under his basement floor boards.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The reason you don't want your government doing that is the same reason you want to keep religion and government separated. For some reason, Fundamentalists in America think that by electing a devout Christian, the government will be governed by the Bible. The reality is that the government is going to start using the Bible to govern you.

Well, I'm inclined to disagree with you there because I am a Christian and would welcome that.

I am as well, but I don't want the President to start telling me what to believe. I have the feeling his interpretation won't always be unbiased.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

The reason you don't want your government doing that is the same reason you want to keep religion and government separated. For some reason, Fundamentalists in America think that by electing a devout Christian, the government will be governed by the Bible. The reality is that the government is going to start using the Bible to govern you.

Well, I'm inclined to disagree with you there because I am a Christian and would welcome that.

I am as well, but I don't want the President to start telling me what to believe. I have the feeling his interpretation won't always be unbiased.

Bingo.

Firstly, state regulation of morals is bad in and of itself because it places the judgement of what is moral and what isn't into hands not widely noted for high morals.... Opening the door to having "moral" judgements made to suit political aims (and given that the risk of corruption is always there) means a greater risk of bad things happening to good people. Remember, Maoist China, revolutionary Iran, and Taliban-era Afghanistan had moral police and look how they turned out. (And before folks say the same wouldn't happen to Christian states or democracies, read up on how Lord-Protector Cromwell's major generals behaved in the English Republic and how bad things got in Reformation Germany and post-reconquista Spain... there's a reason the founders of the US Constitution wrote an express prohibition on establishing a State church.)

Secondly, it wouldn't recognise personal differences. Many cultures permit parents to decide when their children can begin to consume alcohol, for instance, while others absolutely forbid any consumption. Which gets enforced by the government? The current system allows families to choose which model they feel best suits them; if that's extended to potentially-addictive booze, why not potentially-addictive games?

I have a nagging feeling that my argument is incomplete, but alas I don't have further time to refine it; please take that into account when savaging it. *grin* But my point is this; a state sponsoring particular ethical and moral codes is at great risk of tyranny.

-- Steve