As someone else has taken her argument and deconstructed it, I just want to focus on this one statement that interested me the mots.
Logan Westbrook said:
Biggins contended that rather than decrease children's exposure to violent content by limiting it to games intended for adults, it would simply allow for videogames with more extreme content. "Using the classification criteria for films," she wrote. "R18+ games would have no restrictions on themes ... Given that it's practically impossible for even the most conscientious of parents to keep their children away from exposure to portable R18+ items like DVDs and games, how can it be possibly claimed that this would be better for children?"
I hate to break it to you, Biggins, but nobody cares about Australia.
This is a fallacy of some kind, I'm sure of it. Maybe a Non Sequitir? If an R18+ rating is introduced, this does not mean that games will all of a sudden become increasingly violent or that developers will somehow want to make their games more violent. If the games become more violent it is because the game would be how it is like in the
rest of the goddamn world, I.E. uncensored. Mortal Kombat won't become "more violent" in the Australian release, it'll just be the
same amount of violence as the rest of the world will be getting.
Also, as blanksmyname stated, she presents the double standard where she believes that children will somehow (and in all honesty, most likely) obtain R18+ rated games, yet she has no problems, even though she acknowledges, that kids can get into R rated movies and doesn't make a fuss about that rating.
C'mon, Australia, toughen up! You're home of the Crocodile Dundee, the Crocodile Hunter, the Croc Shoes, Shrimp on the barbie, kangaroos, Saxton Hale! Toughen up, throw that spoon away, and grab a real man's knife!