Poll: Don?t restrict my gaming purchases! Sub question why is sex conidered worse than violence?

[Aginor27]

Look on the bright side, it's better than having the two together at once, nothing like that has ever happened.

*suddenly remembers guro*


ugh...

 

[clarinetJWD]

You disprove your own point in your very first post. You say it's your parents' responsibility to monitor your gaming, not Best Buy's. True.

So, you'd have them sell any game to anyone. Cutting the parents completely out of the loop? M games are like R movies- anyone can see/play them as long as their parents say it's OK, whether it's by going to the theater with them, or going to Best Buy and getting the game. Best Buy (or any big box store) isn't making the decision, they're allowing for it to be made by the parents.

If you walked into a store, and your parents tried to buy an M rated game for you, and the store refused to sell it on the grounds that you aren't old enough, then they are the ones trying to be parents.

 

[NinjaDwarf]

I agree with clarinetJWD, if you cut out your parents entirely, how do they even know you've bought the game? You can't stop something you don't know about.

 

[some random guy]

Why do we have a ratings system? Because quite simply, kids are impressionable. They see something and immediately want to try it out. This is basic psychology. Because a child does not truly know about such things as morals, responsibilities, and even such basic concepts as right and wrong, we have a ratings system whose purpose it is to keep potentially harmful media away from their impressionable minds.

I do agree with most of what you said but I do disagree with this specific quote and I'm even a little insulted by it.
Judging from your use of the phrase "punk-ass" near the end of your post, your referring more to teenagers than 5 year olds here. I don't know that for sure considering how vague the words "kid" and "child" can be so I apologise if I'm misinterpreting your post.
I would have been fine with that statement if it was more along the lines of "some kids are impressionable" but you appear to be claiming that your average teenager is, essentially, an idiot. Claiming that it's basic psychology that your average teenager is THAT impressionable does seem a little ridiculous.
Sure, the vast majority of teenagers (including myself) are not as mature as most adults and are unable to grasp complex philosophical notions and evaluate complex pieces of film and literature in a credible and legitimate way but going from one extreme to the other and saying that we are generally very impressionable is going a little bit too far in my opinion.
If we were generally that impressionable then wouldn't there be a little bit more anecdotal evidence. Right now, we've had the odd nut shoot down a few of their fellow students and not much else. Anyway, it's not like adults never kill people and are never impressionable.
I do agree that a rating system is needed but some of your comments did seem a little ageist.

 

[some random guy]

J-e-f-f-e-r-s, I guess that your statement was fair then. I would consider even the majority of 10 year olds to be smart enough to not act out things in video games outside of things like swearing and wearing certain clothes. I would consider 8 or 9 year olds to be generally impressionable enough to act out things they see in games.

Since I turned 14 earlier this month, according to you, I've only just passed the "impressionable kid" age. I'd say that kids usually start thinking for themselves at around 11-12 rather 13-14.

 

[this_was_a_mistake]

I really don't know why sex is worse than violence. It's always kind of frustrated me. You can shoot guns and kill people, but the very second a nipple is shown, the game is damned to hell as a pornographic sex simulator.

(PS: "EDIT" button. Lower right hand corner of post you wish to edit.)

exactly. sex is a natural thing, and its legal. you don't see anyone getting arrested for sex, unless it's rape, and you never see that in games.

 

[dukeh016]

Huh. I think back to when I was 14 and I realize very clearly that I knew absolutely nothing. Only the upper echelons of most High School courses could be considered legitimately interactive rather than simple repitition, and 14 is still a fair distance from those. Yea, it sucks to be told you don't know much. Its frustrating. But that doesn't mean its not true, and don't think even for a second you aren't impressionable. The whole "peer pressure" concept sorta blows that idea out of the water. I don't think the Fed's would bother with their whole "stop peer pressure" effort if peer pressure was just a myth. Nor would companies spend billions of dollars to advertise and shape the teenage culture to buy their products. Don't forget, these are the people that convinced America "Abercrombie and Fitch" on a t-shirt was worth 60 bucks.

 

[s0denone]

Sub Question:
Why is sex considered worse than violence.
On one hand sex is good, it is the reason for the human race and doesn?t generally hurt people.
Violence almost always hurts people.

Sorry for finding that funny.

 

[Saevus]

Ha. I read this thread, and I laughed.

Colton, sweetie, you need to relax. You claim to be more knowledgeable and responsible than most adults. Your posts suggest otherwise. You praise Ayn Rand and claim to follow objectivism, a philosophy so laughable in its lack of responsibility or morality that it got burned by a goddam videogame*. You criticised Of Mice And Men and the Great Gatsby, two of the most universally accepted great novels of the Twentieth Century, which have had a greater inspiration on popular culture than Ayn Rand could ever hope to achieve. You've read A Clockwork Orange. Could you form a cohesive argument about how the novel is better than the film, or vice versa? You are the stereotypical kid who wants to be an adult. In an attempt at seeming intellectual, you spout off the first things that come into your head, without thinking about the real meaning behind them, and end up seeming even more childish than before.

Your whole argument is based on an unseemly mish-mash of 'the customer is always right' and simple Veruca Salt-esque 'Me Want!' Now, to get to the heart of the matter, the ratings system.

Why do we have a ratings system? Because quite simply, kids are impressionable. They see something and immediately want to try it out. This is basic psychology. Because a child does not truly know about such things as morals, responsibilities, and even such basic concepts as right and wrong, we have a ratings system whose purpose it is to keep potentially harmful media away from their impressionable minds. And believe me, to a young kid, GTA is potentially harmful. While I loathe Jack Thompson with every atom, I can agree with him on one thing: violent games should not be played by children.

Sadly, Jacko and I believe in different solutions to what he deems a problem. He believes in fully blown censorship. I think we just need a ratings system that keeps the nasty stuff out of the hands of youngsters, in the same way such films as Saw or Hostel are treated. May I ask you Mr Colton on your views about movie ratings? After all, what applies to one applies to another.

Actually, while we're on movies, I'll address another issue that was raised. How come a kid can't play violent games but can see violent stuff on TV. Well, firstly, kids shouldn't be seeing anything extremely violent unless they're watching past the watershed. Secondly, whereas a child simply watches something like the news, they actively participate in games. They aren't just watching a pixel-hooker getting beaten up, they are the ones who are doing the beating. There is a difference between passive entertainment, and interactive entertainment, entertainment where you are the one calling the shots so to speak. Most adults are mature and sane enough to see this difference and not let it affect their actions. Kids are not mature, however, and are far less likely to spot the difference between the two.

If we left it entirely up to the parents to regulate their children's entertainment Mr Colton, we would be living in far more dangerous times. I'm not going to go so far as to say that the ESRPB (or other ratings people) are the only thing standing between us and the gates of hell, but they do make sure that kids can't just waltz in and buy whatever takes their fancy. The Ratings system is a preventative system. It prevents kids from buying games unsuitable for them, and the risk therefore of kids acting out what they've done in videogames on each other. Making parents the sole barrier between children and violent media will not inspire otherwise useless parents into actually giving a damn about their kids. It will simply mean that more adult media is placed where it doesn't belong. And without wishing to come across as a raving right-wing neo-con, more lives would be placed at risk.

Why should you care whether some kid gets killed by some punk-ass who couldn't tell the difference between a game and reality? Because some day, Mr Colton, that dead kid may be your child. Think about it.

*Incidentally, I'll include here what I think to be the best put-down of Ayn Rand, as said by the legendary Mr Alan Moore: "I have to say I found Ayn Rand's philosophy laughable. It was a 'white supremacist dreams of the master race,' burnt in an early-20th century form. Her ideas didn't really appeal to me, but they seemed to be the kind of ideas that people would espouse, people who might secretly believe themselves to be part of the elite, and not part of the excluded majority."

If I saw you in person, I'd grin and shake your hand.

Instead of continuing the horrors of the quote nest, I'll once again post my question for OP.

"Alright, let's play it your way. Why should you be entitled to buy M-rated games? The store would gladly sell them to you to turn a profit, and to everyone else, but that angers parents and causes them to take their business elsewhere. So, it is in the store's best interest to regulate who can buy what so that adults - who plop down thousands for TVs, stereo equipment, etc. - will be more willing to shop there for their family."

Colton... Would you kindly answer that.

Also, to see how well objectivism works out - here's a hint, Rapture's fate wasn't too far from the truth. "Everyone wants to be a captain of industry, but who's going to scrub the toilets?"

 

[Saevus]

Since I turned 14 earlier this month, according to you, I've only just passed the "impressionable kid" age. I'd say that kids usually start thinking for themselves at around 11-12 rather 13-14.

Kids start thinking for themselves as early as 9 years old, but that doesn't mean they aren't immensely impressionable. I mean, look at Colton: he's read Ayn Rand, has been introduced to one viewpoint, and thinks he knows the solution to all of society's problems.

 

[s0denone]

Since I turned 14 earlier this month, according to you, I've only just passed the "impressionable kid" age. I'd say that kids usually start thinking for themselves at around 11-12 rather 13-14.

Kids start thinking for themselves as early as 9 years old, but that doesn't mean they aren't immensely impressionable. I mean, look at Colton: he's read Ayn Rand, has been introduced to one viewpoint, and thinks he knows the solution to all of society's problems.

Oh no you didn't! *Does weird hand gesture, and retracts his face*

Colton; Why are you so bitter?

 

[Saevus]

Since I turned 14 earlier this month, according to you, I've only just passed the "impressionable kid" age. I'd say that kids usually start thinking for themselves at around 11-12 rather 13-14.

Kids start thinking for themselves as early as 9 years old, but that doesn't mean they aren't immensely impressionable. I mean, look at Colton: he's read Ayn Rand, has been introduced to one viewpoint, and thinks he knows the solution to all of society's problems.

Oh no you didn't! *Does weird hand gesture, and retracts his face*

I really hate to be ad hominem, but everything he's demonstrated shows that. And a lot of what he's said shows more of a superficial understanding of objectivism - if he really knew the philosophy, he wouldn't have bothered to make this thread, because he'd have understood that stores have better business if they regulate game sales and that, of course, is the way it should be.

 

[s0denone]

Since I turned 14 earlier this month, according to you, I've only just passed the "impressionable kid" age. I'd say that kids usually start thinking for themselves at around 11-12 rather 13-14.

Kids start thinking for themselves as early as 9 years old, but that doesn't mean they aren't immensely impressionable. I mean, look at Colton: he's read Ayn Rand, has been introduced to one viewpoint, and thinks he knows the solution to all of society's problems.

Oh no you didn't! *Does weird hand gesture, and retracts his face*

I really hate to be ad hominem, but everything he's demonstrated shows that. And a lot of what he's said shows more of a superficial understanding of objectivism - if he really knew the philosophy, he wouldn't have bothered to make this thread, because he'd have understood that stores have better business if they regulate game sales and that, of course, is the way it should be.

Believe me when I say I have no problem at all with what you wrote, my asinine comment had little actual value, but I knew you would quote me quite fast, so I couldn't take it back

While your point is a valid one, excuse me for saying "Only in America". and "That only makes sense in America".

While I know that several other countries limites game purchasing, such as my own neighbouring country, Germany, does - Every country of the world does not. Germany does it because they have a long history of censorship, and the German state has guidelines that they expect (if not everyone) at least a part of the German parents to follow. This includes hours that children can stay out, and such things.

My country, Denmark, has never really censored everything, and I've been able to buy games that were M rated since I could carry myself into the store, to be honest. That maybe being a slight exaggeration. While we certainly have VERY low crime rates compared to the US, we haven't ONCE, and I mean NOT ONCE, had a crime that was blamed on videogames.

 

[some random guy]

Dukeh016, you don't know me, have never met me and you don't know much about me. I may not know much but you cannot tell me that I'm impressionable based completely on my age. The assumption that everyone my age is impressionable and gives in to peer pressure is incorrect and I find those kind of ideas irritating.

 

[Saevus]

My country, Denmark, has never really censored everything, and I've been able to buy games that were M rated since I could carry myself into the store, to be honest. That maybe being a slight exaggeration. While we certainly have VERY low crime rates compared to the US, we haven't ONCE, and I mean NOT ONCE, had a crime that was blamed on videogames.

Cultural differences are beautiful, beautiful thing. And really, it is all in the culture and society you live in. Some places don't have issues with moral panic, and it'd seem that Denmark is one of them.

 

[s0denone]

My country, Denmark, has never really censored everything, and I've been able to buy games that were M rated since I could carry myself into the store, to be honest. That maybe being a slight exaggeration. While we certainly have VERY low crime rates compared to the US, we haven't ONCE, and I mean NOT ONCE, had a crime that was blamed on videogames.

Cultural differences are beautiful, beautiful thing. And really, it is all in the culture and society you live in. Some places don't have issues with moral panic, and it'd seem that Denmark is one of them.

Yes indeed, to both of those statements.

Although I also think that the majority of the American public are a bit naive, if they don't think that atleast some of the children blaming their hidious crime on some game, for instance GTA, haven't thought that through at least to some extend, and only blame the game as they have spotted a way to "Get out of trouble".

"I can always just say I learned that this was great when I was playing Saints Row." Jimmy thinks, while having just tossed his 11-year old "mate" in front of a train.

The fact is that the American justice system, along with the American handling of morality questions, is a slow moving trainwreck. "Repairmen" are constantly trying to fix the engine, to at least go at normal speed, but they keep being killed by congress.

I have no ACTUAL insight into either of these two things, but I still get a crystal-clear impression.

 

[dukeh016]

You will find that everyone makes assumptions. The Federal government, for instance, is under the impression that people shouldn't be allowed to drive until they are 16. That doesn't mean all people are incapable of driving until they are 16, but its an approximation. In fact, almost everything works that way. A store doesn't know a damn thing about you, but it makes assumptions and caters to those assumptions. These assumptions are usually backed up by scientific studies that come to very measurable conclusions about the way people usually behave. So yes, I'm going to make assumptions about 14 year olds, and I'm going to make those assumptions in such a way that conforms with my experience. Because that's all I can do.

Again, I really do sympathize. It isn't fair. But that's life, get used to getting a raw deal everynow and then.

Lastly, you are impressionable. Everyone is impressionable. Just like everyone feels sad, or happy, or scared, or brave, or anything else. People that don't have alot of life experience are especially impressionable, however, because ignorance is more easily replaced than beliefs. Now perhaps you have had some sort of fantastic childhood in which you have faced more challenges than me. Great for you. In all likelyhood? You haven't. So accept your igorance, keep your eyes open, and stop being defensive.

 

[s0denone]

You will find that everyone makes assumptions. The Federal government, for instance, is under the impression that people shouldn't be allowed to drive until they are 16. That doesn't mean all people are incapable of driving until they are 16, but its an approximation. In fact, almost everything works that way. A store doesn't know a damn thing about you, but it makes assumptions and caters to those assumptions. These assumptions are usually backed up by scientific studies that come to very measurable conclusions about the way people usually behave. So yes, I'm going to make assumptions about 14 year olds, and I'm going to make those assumptions in such a way that conforms with my experience. Because that's all I can do.

Again, I really do sympathize. It isn't fair. But that's life, get used to getting a raw deal everynow and then.

Lastly, you are impressionable. Everyone is impressionable. Just like everyone feels sad, or happy, or scared, or brave, or anything else. People that don't have alot of life experience are especially impressionable, however, because ignorance is more easily replaced than beliefs. Now perhaps you have had some sort of fantastic childhood in which you have faced more challenges than me. Great for you. In all likelyhood? You haven't. So accept your igorance, keep your eyes open, and stop being defensive.

Regardless of what you say, chances are that "Some Random Guy" is closer to people that are between 8 and 15 years old, and thus he DOES have SIGNIFICANTLY MORE insight into this matter than you have.

You may be right that he is ignorant, but you are quite the ignorant yourself. While I'm sure this comes as no surprise, and you knew that bloody well when you wrote your post aswell.

You generalize from your own experience, experiences you recall from when you were 14 years old. Some Random Guy is 14 right at this moment, the youth has changes alot in the last 10+ years (Excuse me if I am far off with this assumption about your age) and as such any experience you may or may not recall, are invalid one way or another.

Besides the fact that you don't know jack shit about Some Random Guy, or anyone he knows