Countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: Repeated exposure to retarded parents has a harmful and long-term effect on children.
There i fixed it.
There i fixed it.
Parents Group Denounces Supreme Court Decision
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why are parents so goddamn lazy these days? Retailers usually enforce game ratings anyway. And even when they don't, so what? It's not like video games are covered in barbed wire the moment a kid touches one. There's nothing stopping a parent from picking up a game they don't like, and tossing it out or selling it. There's nothing stopping a parent from just saying "No" when a kid asks to go out shopping. There's nothing stopping a parent from following their kids in the game stores so the little brats don't buy anything they're not supposed to. And I don't know about you, but if my parents just threw out the stuff I wasn't allowed to own, without even reimbursing me for it, I wouldn't invest money in that kind of stuff again until I was sure it was OK.
Seriously, some parents are just pathetic maggots. "Oh I don't wanna pay attention to my kids in the mall because I wanna go look at massage machines that I can't afford, wah wah wah." Shut up and keep your eyes on your kid, you pansy. When I was a kid, my parents didn't let me buy anything without strict scrutiny first. My dad was a little more lax than my mom, but not by much. I couldn't play Starcraft until I was 11, and that was only because I downplayed the amount of blood in it. When I turned 13, my mom even went and said "Just because you're 13 doesn't automatically mean you can own any Teen game you want to." Which I thought was cheating on her part, but I have mountains more respect for her methods than I do for these fat, lazy, wastes-of-space who call themselves parents these days. Parents are supposed to do some parenting. That's why the word "parenting" starts with "parent". But parents don't seem to get this anymore.
And if you really don't want to follow your kid around in the store, guess what? Your kid doesn't have the car keys. Your kid can't get home, without approaching you. If you really need to turn your kids loose in the store, unsupervised, just check their shopping bags before you leave Really, it's not that hard to keep naughty content away from kids. Anybody who says otherwise is a frickin' liar, and probably out to get you.
Children are way more likely to get violent video games from their friends. And no amount of violating the First Amendment can change THAT. So even with legal restrictions on video games, NOTHING would change. And if you can't be bothered to watch your kids in the store, chances are you don't watch them on the internet either. Where there's hundreds of free-to-play flash games and MMOs that are pretty violent as well. By the way, you do realize what "Free Speech" means, right? Seriously PTC, why do you hate America?
Seriously, some parents are just pathetic maggots. "Oh I don't wanna pay attention to my kids in the mall because I wanna go look at massage machines that I can't afford, wah wah wah." Shut up and keep your eyes on your kid, you pansy. When I was a kid, my parents didn't let me buy anything without strict scrutiny first. My dad was a little more lax than my mom, but not by much. I couldn't play Starcraft until I was 11, and that was only because I downplayed the amount of blood in it. When I turned 13, my mom even went and said "Just because you're 13 doesn't automatically mean you can own any Teen game you want to." Which I thought was cheating on her part, but I have mountains more respect for her methods than I do for these fat, lazy, wastes-of-space who call themselves parents these days. Parents are supposed to do some parenting. That's why the word "parenting" starts with "parent". But parents don't seem to get this anymore.
And if you really don't want to follow your kid around in the store, guess what? Your kid doesn't have the car keys. Your kid can't get home, without approaching you. If you really need to turn your kids loose in the store, unsupervised, just check their shopping bags before you leave Really, it's not that hard to keep naughty content away from kids. Anybody who says otherwise is a frickin' liar, and probably out to get you.
Children are way more likely to get violent video games from their friends. And no amount of violating the First Amendment can change THAT. So even with legal restrictions on video games, NOTHING would change. And if you can't be bothered to watch your kids in the store, chances are you don't watch them on the internet either. Where there's hundreds of free-to-play flash games and MMOs that are pretty violent as well. By the way, you do realize what "Free Speech" means, right? Seriously PTC, why do you hate America?
Greg Tito said:Parents Group Denounces Supreme Court Decision
The Parents Television Council said that the Supreme Court succumbed to economic pressures from the videogame industry.
Not everyone in America is happy with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down California's proposed law as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Parents Television Council, or PTC, has been protecting children from "sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media" since 1995 and President Tim Winter is outraged that the Supreme Court circumvented its efforts.
"This ruling replaces the authority of parents with the economic interests of the videogame industry. With no fear of any consequence for violating the videogame industry's own age restriction guidelines, retailers can now openly, brazenly sell games with unspeakable violence and adult content even to the youngest of children," Winter said.
PTC claims that the law put forth by Rep. Leland Yee was flawless in its execution, despite even the dissenters in the Supreme Court calling out its vagueness as a problem. "The carefully-worded California statute would not have interfered in any way with the rights of the creators of adult games or the adults who wish to buy them; and in fact, it would not interfere with parents who wanted to purchase such a game for their children. Rather, the measure only would have prevented an unaccompanied minor child from buying or renting the product."
Winter seemed to ignore any of the arguments put forth by both the game industry's lawyers and the Justices, using language that seems to demonize game publishers as corrupters of our youth. "Countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: Repeated exposure to violent videogames has a harmful and long-term effect on children. Despite these troubling findings, videogame manufacturers have fought tooth and nail for the 'right' to line their pockets at the expense of America's children. Today, the Supreme Court sided with them and against parents."
The facts cited by Winter appear to be at odds with reality by stating that the ESRB is not enforced by retailers, saying, "We call on the Entertainment Merchants Association to redouble its efforts for increased enforcement of the industry's age-based vending restrictions. The Federal Trade Commission and the PTC's own 'Secret Shopper' campaigns have routinely demonstrated an abysmal failure rate for videogame retailers to uphold the industry's own age-based restrictions."
In fact, the FTC found that the ESRB system is one of the most successful ratings systems, compared to other major media. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103555-Retailers-Turn-Away-80-of-Kids-Trying-to-Buy-M-Rated-Games]
Permalink
To use a quote from the thread about the decision made by SCOTUS:
Basically, SCOTUS just told these whining, yappy, "professional" parents that they should recognize the fact that theirs is the responsibility of judgment for themselves and their children and that nothing can help them escape that. I think the most despicable people on the planet are those that use children as a shield to further a political goal or agenda. I agree with George Carlin when he said he was happy to see these politically correct ideas crash and burn into the ground. Gah, I feel like going into a rant about these morons but I'm just going to leave some music behind and jam to that! Appropriate music, to be sure.RonHiler said:
If this law does mean that children can buy any age rated game then it's fucking stupid. I hate having to play with retarded 12~ year olds in online games, I wish they would all GTFO and go play mario or something.
Bad parenting. When you go to a video game store, and a parent is buying a game for a kid, the person at the counter advises the parent about the game's content, using the hard-to-miss ESRB label. It is then the parent's decision to buy the game for the child.
At least that's how it works where I'm from. I assume it works in loads other places because it's common sense.
At least that's how it works where I'm from. I assume it works in loads other places because it's common sense.
wait, what?
a) its not their decision
b) you cant call yourselves parents if you restrict your kids that much, you are prison guards
c) is there something in america that gives a very large portion of "parents" brain damage? seriously, even 15 years ago, when i was a kid, i was already into games like that...sure it was wolfenstein 3d but it not only made me love games, its my career path.
setting up games as the focus of all your childrens problems (drugs, guns, alcohol, gangs, etc) is utter bull shit, they will know of this stuff and if they dont see the effects of it from say a game or tv, they will try it just as they did before tv and games.
a) its not their decision
b) you cant call yourselves parents if you restrict your kids that much, you are prison guards
c) is there something in america that gives a very large portion of "parents" brain damage? seriously, even 15 years ago, when i was a kid, i was already into games like that...sure it was wolfenstein 3d but it not only made me love games, its my career path.
setting up games as the focus of all your childrens problems (drugs, guns, alcohol, gangs, etc) is utter bull shit, they will know of this stuff and if they dont see the effects of it from say a game or tv, they will try it just as they did before tv and games.
When I was a kid it took me more than a month to save up the allowance to buy a $50 video game. After I had saved up that much I needed to either ride my bike down to the store that was about five miles away or ask one of my parents to drive me. In other words it was a ***** to get any video game and my parents made it nigh impossible to play M rated video games. Guess what PTC. Parenting is hard. Get the fuck over it and do your actual jobs.
I'm sorry, we're not going to cover this entire planet in foam rubber and rounded corners just so your kid can bang his head wherever he wants without hurting himself. Watch him, teach him, accept the responsibility you should have accepted when you had him.
I would, it's what the PTC does best after all. Seriously, this is one group that seems not to have noticed that the Moral Majority was neither, and there's a reason the latter aren't around anymore (in name, anyway).TheDrunkNinja said:
Sad thing is, there are people who believe this crap...
Before anyone thinks that the PTC is actually representative of parents, or television, or w/e, keep in mind that their membership is only 12,000 (though they claim 1.3 million, lololol). So it's just a few whiners.
Most parents are probably pretty cool about this law. My mom was all "lolwut, I don't need the feds to tell you not to play video games, I get to do that."
Most parents are probably pretty cool about this law. My mom was all "lolwut, I don't need the feds to tell you not to play video games, I get to do that."
"This ruling replaces the authority of parents with the economic interests of the videogame industry."
"replaces the authority of parents with" "interests of the videogame industry"
"authority of parents"
No, sir. The authority of the parents extend to the children OF said parents, not to all children in the state or country of the residence of said parents. That's why you can feed your kid grilled chicken as much as you want, as opposed to having to feed your kid vegan food or meaty food depending on which parent of children who aren't yours you are talking about. That's why you don't have to raise your kids one particular religion.
To enforce a state level or federal level law regulating media consumption of minors, a single conclusion on the relevant aspect of parenting would have to be reached. It is nigh impossible to reach a consensus on much less controversial issues than parental styles.
Passing the proposed law would have encroached on the rights of parents to raise their children how they see fit.
The Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of the rights and authority of ALL parents over the potentially extreme authority of a vocal minority of parents.
"replaces the authority of parents with" "interests of the videogame industry"
"authority of parents"
No, sir. The authority of the parents extend to the children OF said parents, not to all children in the state or country of the residence of said parents. That's why you can feed your kid grilled chicken as much as you want, as opposed to having to feed your kid vegan food or meaty food depending on which parent of children who aren't yours you are talking about. That's why you don't have to raise your kids one particular religion.
To enforce a state level or federal level law regulating media consumption of minors, a single conclusion on the relevant aspect of parenting would have to be reached. It is nigh impossible to reach a consensus on much less controversial issues than parental styles.
Passing the proposed law would have encroached on the rights of parents to raise their children how they see fit.
The Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of the rights and authority of ALL parents over the potentially extreme authority of a vocal minority of parents.
There are no studies that confirm this.bombadilillo said:
I would demand they cite their sources.
This is up there with "studies that prove global climate change isn't real" or "studies that prove evolution is a farce."
Total fantasy land.
No study that shows a connection between violent games and long term impacts on children (or any age) have every been replicated.
I would personally find military ads targeting teens to be much more dangerous and in need of regulation
.
Well said.Charli said:
On a related note: Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid, also applies in this situation.
In all seriousness, just because there are no legal repercussions doesn't mean there aren't any repercussions at all. If there weren't the damn ESRB wouldn't even exist. let the industry police itself, the government has enough to worry about as it is without taking on another stupid project.
Those type of tests are actually forbidden in the realm of science. Would you really want to do that to a child for the sake of some curiosity?Mikeyfell said:
But On Topic. These people have been a joke for awhile. They claim upsurd things like government regulation of all things and a law to make it so you can only choose the channels you want(not realizing the possible implications of this)
And they are way to motivated by personal ideals(they once opposed gay kissing in a show,but not straight) and they sue for stupid things like wrestling caused the death of a child. I also read their review on The Clone wars and it said something like this "Children back talking to elders." The gives you an idea about them.
That's just their bullshit way of saying that the government won't step in and fine retailers that end up selling those kind of games to minors. However, (most sane) video game retailers will still uphold policies to prevent kids from just walking in and buying M-rated games without either proof they are actually 17/18, or that a parent comes in and buys it for them, which is just the same thing they and theaters (for R-rated movies) have been doing quite well for a while.MikeOfThunder said:
Anyway, this was just the premise for the trial, with the real underlying purpose being whether or not video games deserved to be singled out (from the other entertainment mediums and forms of expression) for violent content that needed to be restricted/censored: Ergo, if they deserved protection under the 1st Amendment to prevent censorship. Should the SCOTUS have voted for the law, video games would be heavily scrutinized (not by the voluntary ESRB, but mandatory from the government), and anything THEY deemed too violent (the exact, and incredibly vague term used in the law's wording) would automatically be rated M or just banned outright. Imagine that some government asshole decided that the generally tame Legend of Zelda games were deemed too violent; a franchise long held as family friendly, with a huge consumer base, would now be drastically cut down in size. If any other video game developers didn't want to let their games' questionable content risk reducing their consume base, they probably won't be as experimental and just play it safe all the time, or pack up and leave.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
not that I like peta but at least peta is doing something that could actually be considered sort of moral, meaning preventing things from being killed, these guys are just dicks that only want their viewpoints to be seenCaffeine Rage said: