ScreaminNormanSmiley
formerly ScreaminNormanSmiley
The government better not regulate my children's rights to bear arms.
In case y'all missed it: BIG NEWS! Supreme Court strikes down Violent Video Game..
- Thread starter One Punch Doug Crashin
- Start date
You could argue it's a violation of what I said, sure. Most people would agree with there being a requirement for a drinking age because it can be dangerous. Age of consent is put in place to protect children and young adults of being taken advantage of by older persons. That's why typically if you're within a certain age gap, it's not illegal. My point is that there is actual reason for these legislations, as opposed to what you're suggesting.
The research on violent video gaming in children is mixed, however the general consensus is that it doesn't fuck up your child - there isn't any immediate risk. You're child growing up to be a violent person has less to do with video-games and more to do with how you are as a parent. The most I have ever seen is that a person has higher blood pressure and things of the like after playing a video game. There's no reason to have to make playing or purchasing a video game illegal - if you want to do that, you have to show why it's necessary, you shouldn't be able to just say, "Yeah I like the sound of that." That's irresponsible.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
Parents an't watch the kids 24/7. Kids don't always listen, so what do you when the parents are not around? Bug them? 7 year olds most likely wouldn't be in a situation where they could buy a game, but a 12 year old could.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
In this case they are not doing such a thing. Where does it say they can't play the game? It just prohibits the sale to them, if you want to allow them to play it you can. Nothing Orwellian about it.
One Punch Doug Crashin
I AM INVINSIBLE!
And when the parent's find the game, they ground the kid and take away the system. Then tell the kid that it's not appropriate for them at their age. That's what my parents did and that's what any respectable parent should be doing.
It makes it illegal when it doesn't need to be illegal. Explain why it needs to be illegal to purchase a mature video game? You either have to argue that the current system doesn't work, or you have to say that there's a specific reason why it should be a crime and not just difficult / not-possible to obtain a video game past your age bracket.
I have no problem with a law prohibiting the sale of video games to minors. I have no problem with the Supreme Court saying such a law is unconstitutional.
The problem I have is how video games and pornography are different. According to what was posted, "In contrast to hard-core pornography, Scalia said, there is no 'long-standing tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence.'"
I'm confused Justice Scalia. Is it the Supreme Court's role to decide what America's social norms are? Because I always assumed their role was legal interpretation of the law to decide whether or not it violates the Constitution. In that, I fail to see the legal reasoning (from this snippet of an article, I admit) which differentiates between pornography and video games.
Just to clarify, as a store owner I am allowed to sell violent and sexually based video games to 12 year olds, but as a parent, it is illegal for me to hand a copy of Playboy to my 17 year old son. Obviously naked bodies is much more dangerous threat to America than games which advertise theft, sex and murder.
Again, for the record, I don't have a problem with the law or the Supreme Court's decision. I'm just wondering how Mature rated video games are any different than Playboy magazine.
The problem I have is how video games and pornography are different. According to what was posted, "In contrast to hard-core pornography, Scalia said, there is no 'long-standing tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence.'"
I'm confused Justice Scalia. Is it the Supreme Court's role to decide what America's social norms are? Because I always assumed their role was legal interpretation of the law to decide whether or not it violates the Constitution. In that, I fail to see the legal reasoning (from this snippet of an article, I admit) which differentiates between pornography and video games.
Just to clarify, as a store owner I am allowed to sell violent and sexually based video games to 12 year olds, but as a parent, it is illegal for me to hand a copy of Playboy to my 17 year old son. Obviously naked bodies is much more dangerous threat to America than games which advertise theft, sex and murder.
Again, for the record, I don't have a problem with the law or the Supreme Court's decision. I'm just wondering how Mature rated video games are any different than Playboy magazine.
In my opinion, you can blame the dominant religions for the fact that viewing violent media as a youth is legal, but viewing pornography is illegal. Naked bodies are more dangerous to the ideals and doctrines of major religions than violent media.
EDIT: I should say however that this is just my opinion based upon what I believe to be true regarding religions influence on modern American culture.
EDIT: I should say however that this is just my opinion based upon what I believe to be true regarding religions influence on modern American culture.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
This comes off as a good example of where some people shout FREEDOM and don't get that what they're saying is idiotic.
In the words of Chris Rock, "You can drive a car with your feet but that doesn't mean it's to be done!" That sums this up rather well. You can let an 8 year old watch people get their heads blown off or naked women or porn or whatever, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to see it. Kids that age can't comprehend a lot of this stuff. Why do you think on WWE programming they have the "don't try this at home or at school" PSAs? Because kids are going to imitate what they see. It's a human characteristic to do such a thing. I fail to see an instance where letting an 8 year old see topless women suffer implied rape by aliens who then burst through their bodies and kill them so that a guy smoking a cigar and spitting out one liners with F Bombs in them can blow them up with a shot gun. That would be a scene from Duke Nukem Forever. Someone explain to me why a child should EVER be allowed to see that. "Freedom!" Yeah, then enjoy dealing with them in like ten years when they're sociopaths. Shouldn't happen.
In the words of Chris Rock, "You can drive a car with your feet but that doesn't mean it's to be done!" That sums this up rather well. You can let an 8 year old watch people get their heads blown off or naked women or porn or whatever, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to see it. Kids that age can't comprehend a lot of this stuff. Why do you think on WWE programming they have the "don't try this at home or at school" PSAs? Because kids are going to imitate what they see. It's a human characteristic to do such a thing. I fail to see an instance where letting an 8 year old see topless women suffer implied rape by aliens who then burst through their bodies and kill them so that a guy smoking a cigar and spitting out one liners with F Bombs in them can blow them up with a shot gun. That would be a scene from Duke Nukem Forever. Someone explain to me why a child should EVER be allowed to see that. "Freedom!" Yeah, then enjoy dealing with them in like ten years when they're sociopaths. Shouldn't happen.
Sounds like a good argument, but the facts aren't on your side. Research involving violent video games and youth shows little evidence that there are long-term violent implications to a childs well-being from viewing violent media. Furthermore, parenting is a mediator variable, so if a child has shitty parents and plays violent video games, there will be more of an effect (or just an effect) than if they had good parents.
Look I agree, I don't think that type of media is appropriate for children, not because I think it's going to turn them into violent sociopaths, but because there can be ill effects, such as repeating profanity, or becoming desensitized to violence - the same risks that are inherent in film, television, and music.
The point is that this type of media is available everywhere, and that's why if you're concerned about the children, you should be focusing on the parents, not on the media itself. We have a regulatory body that leaves the discretion up to the parent, the person who should know the child best, not up to the government, who can only lay blanket legislation.
Lee
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it's Supermod!
Well done, that's the longest you've gone without blaming religion for a long time.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Translation: "Oh go ahead and let kids see people get their heads blown off. That doesn't have any long term effects because we have a study that says so." Common sense dies a little more every day in the name of "studies."
Seemed appropriate to me.
So the studies are wrong? Common sense > scientific research?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Seemed appropriate to me.
So the studies are wrong? Common sense > scientific research?
I don't need a study to tell me that it's a bad idea to let a kid see insane violence in a video game.
Why? There's no way to know whether or not there's any actual dangerous ramifications of viewing media like that unless you test it - that's what a study does. Let me ask you this, is it not possible that you're actually wrong, and that viewing violent media doesn't inherently make someone violent?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Let me try this again.
Are you saying that you find absolutely nothing wrong with letting someone whose mind isn't fully developed to even that of a teenager's level go on killing sprees in a video game? You find zero issues with that just in theory?
Depends what age, but let's say age 10, 11, or 12 - pre-teens for this example.
I wouldn't be against letting a 10, 11, or 12 year old play a violent video game in which they go on a shooting spree, assuming they had good parents, and weren't mentally unstable.
The only situations I would agree with you are if:
- Child has poor parents.
- Child is old enough to mimic behaviour, but young enough to not understand the concept of inflicting pain (which I'm not sure of the exact age, but I would think it would be between 2 - 5).
- Child has a mental condition that would complicate the above two points.
Now you answer my question?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Well if you would actually read what I say, you would see I say it's a bad idea and doesn't make people inherently violent, because if they're inherently anything, they'll be that due to whatever they do. In short, it's a stupid idea because it's not going to make things any better for them. As for the studies, whoever thought this was something that should be studied needs to get smacked upside his head.
You can almost hear your credibility fleeing in as frantic a manner as possible.
That doesn't answer my question.
I didn't say, "...and that viewing violent media doesn't make someone inherently violent?", I said, "doesn't inherently make someone violent?". Maybe it was poorly worded, but what I mean is, is it possible that you're wrong, and there's nothing inherent to violent media that will make someone violent? If you want to say that violent media, in a combination with other things can make someone violent, I would agree with you, and research would support that.
As for what you're saying about studies, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If a study shows a result that you didn't expect, then obviously it was a good study because it just uncovered something new, or showed something in contrary to what one would think. So either the studies are wrong or flawed, or you're just refusing to believe what's shown to be true.
Moon Knight
Original Prince of Darkness
You're not making any sense here. You said that you didn't want the government telling you how to raise your kids, I pointed out that this law doesn't do that. Life isn't black or white Salv, it should be up to the parents if the kid should play the game. That's all the law did, prevent stores from selling a violent game to a minor, nowhere does it say the minor can't play it. The parents have the final say on what their kid can handle, not you. Not every kid can handle graphic violence, it's up to the parents and therefore it should be illegal for the kid to purchase such things.
The kid never should have had the game to start with. Kids don't always listen to thier parents.
