221 réponses à ce sujet

[AntiChri5]

Tirigon wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...


Me too, but never argue with a Godwin.

God I hate these trolls.

You are unable to get my point and so you refer a wanna-be funny "law" someone has once created.

Cheap, just cheap.


You might read my answer to godak for clarification, in the unlikely case you are interested at all.

Do you deny that you brought up ****s to give your position more weight?

And besides, i am  troll for telling him not to argue with you?

Modifié par AntiChri5, 27 avril 2010 - 12:04 .

[Godak]

Tirigon wrote...

You must see it in the context I wrote it, not in context to the OP, which it does, honestly, lack.

Ooooh! Gotcha. I missed that, somehow...My apologies.

Agreed. Laws of an unjust nature are made to be broken.

[Tirigon]

addiction21 wrote...

More hyperbole. Who is actually going to suffer? Kids that should not be getting them in the first place? The smart ones will just order online with a store bought credit card. If it is the really young children that do not work yet then this will not stop those same parents from the buying the game for them like before.

So  tell me where the 10s of millions of suffering people will be coming from? What will actually change?

WHY should children "not be getting them in the first place"?

I think everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they want someting - including children. The more laws there are, the less possibility for that is left.

[Tirigon]

AntiChri5 wrote...


Do you deny that you brought up ****s to give your position more weight?

No, and why shouldn´t I if it fits to clarify my point?

And besides, i am  troll for telling him not to argue with you?

No for referring to me as a Godwin. Godwin sucks.

This little assclown made every discussion on the internet impossible. Since Godwin´s law every discussion end because someone cries GODWIN! GODWIN! instead of giving rational arguments.



Oh, and btw, Stalinists aren´t Godwin.

Modifié par Tirigon, 27 avril 2010 - 12:08 .

[Godak]

Tirigon wrote...

I think everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they want someting - including children.

For the record, I've been playing M games for quite some time. However, my parents would request valid reasons why I felt that I was mature enough to play the game in question. I honestly feel that it should be kept between the parents and the children. Irresponsible parents will find ways to be irresponsible, regardless of the laws put into place...

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Fallacy. The government is whatever we make it to be. We make the laws, through our Representatives, to govern us. We can choose to elect people that make it so stores can sell to anyone. We can also, as we've done, elect people that make it the law that stores cannot sell games to a person based on their age.

I wonder, are you a hopeless idealist, incredibly naive or is this all sarcasm?

You're not serious are you. I live In California, the first state to put the legalization of marijuana for ALL USE (not just medicinal) on the ballot coming this November. WE, the people, through our referendum system put this on the ballot. We also voted to ban same sex marriage which is a whole other can of worms. The point is that the people have the power to affect change, if they choose to. There isn't some magical dragon that came up with the video game law. Duly elected representatives of the people fashioned this idea. If you want it changed, you can get it changed.

But my question, that still hasn't been answered, is what is the big deal with this law? You may think that it isn't the government's job to do this stuff but does that mean if I want to see a Rated R movie, the ticket guy has no responsibility or right to ask me to prove my age? Clearly my parents aren't with me (who's 16 year kid wants their parents with them at the movies anyway) so how are my parents going to do their job and stop me. They can't. They can only stop me if they are present to witness the behavior. If I understand what you are all saying the government should just butt out and let the kid in, no matter what. I don't think that's a good solution either.

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...
Whether I morally agree with you or not is beside the point. The point is that this law is no more an inconvience to the average person than tieing your shoelaces. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Or start a proposition signing, if your state allows such referendums. Either way we follow the laws as written, otherwise what is the point of society?

We don´t follow the laws as written, or at least we shouldn´t.

The National socialists followed written laws when they killed millions of people.
The Stalinists followed their written laws when they killed millions of people, too.

These 2 examples should show why blindly following every law is stupid.

Society doesn´t need laws anyways. The most basical, like not to harm others, should be common sense, and laws that are against common sense shouldn´t exist.

Whoa! Back up there history buff. You need a serious relearn on world history. Discrimination was written down in the law books in Germany (by a dictactor with absolute power, duly elected perhaps, but not challenged after) but not extermination. There was never a law written down about killing people in WWII Germany. Hitler's final solution was only passed down by the Fuhrer through word of mouth to only a trusted few SS and other likeminded officials. Hitler knew that his ideals were too "drastic" to be accepted by the populace so he only passed on his orders through trusted channels and never kept written evidence of his orders.

Again Stalin was a dictator with absolute power, not a democratically elected house of many people. How does that compare with a democratically elected group of officials? Your comparisons are too full of hyperbole to even be reasonable.

[Tirigon]

Godak wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I think everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they want someting - including children.

For the record, I've been playing M games for quite some time. However, my parents would request valid reasons why I felt that I was mature enough to play the game in question. I honestly feel that it should be kept between the parents and the children. Irresponsible parents will find ways to be irresponsible, regardless of the laws put into place...

True.

You are glad to have parents who let you play the games you want. My parents tended to be like "It´s a game for 18+ so you must not play it!!!" no matter how ridiculous this was. I´m glad I´m 18 now:)



Funnily, at the same time internet porn is so common you will sometimes find it without even looking.

[Fizzeler]

I understand what you mean Trigon



Also if a law like this does pass I feel that it would quickly be repealed to avoid another Prohibition situation like in the 1920s in the United States

[Wicked 702]

addiction21 wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...


It's not the government's place.  Government =/= Parent.  That's the big deal. 

And it is parents voters going to the goverment to make this happen...  if you must point a finger and least point it in the right direction.

Agreed. 100% agreed.

[AntiChri5]

Tirigon wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...


Do you deny that you brought up ****s to give your position more weight?

No, and why shouldn´t I if it fits to clarify my point?

And besides, i am  troll for telling him not to argue with you?

No for referring to me as a Godwin. Godwin sucks.

This little assclown made every discussion on the internet impossible. Since Godwin´s law every discussion end because someone cries GODWIN! GODWIN! instead of giving rational arguments.



Oh, and btw, Stalinists aren´t Godwin.

So you are going off at me for saying you godwined and then admitting you godwinned.

Clever.

I did not bring it up to invalidate your point, that comment wasnt even directed at you but at Godak.

If you have a problem with Godwin go yell at Godwin.

[Godak]

Tirigon wrote...

Funnily, at the same time internet porn is so common you will sometimes find it without even looking.

Uh, don't even get me started on this...I feel that we should except the human body for what it is, etc, but I really don't think a seven year old who Googles "dragonballz" instead of "dragonball z" should be bombarded with porn!

[Loerwyn]

I'm 20. I've been playing Grand Theft Auto games since possibly Vice City, which is possibly 8yrs of my life. I'm a perfectly respectable member of society, or at least I could be (let's not get into that). At first my dad wouldn't let me own any GTA game, but after my not-quite-step brother (who's a year or two younger than me) started bringing his PS2 over with GTA, he relaxed a lot. I was playing Resident Evil (15 rated over here for the most part) before I should have been... I won't pretend for a moment that these games are appropriate for kids at all. GTA maybe if you take out the drugs and prostitutes, but as the series stands (especially with IV's realism and fairly dark story) I don't think it's really that suitable.



I think the decision should lie with the parents, yes, but there do need to be ratings and restrictions. A parent can walk (alone) into a store and buy GTA or something like that with no problems, as long as they're over 18. There's nothing stopping them giving it to the kid after. A ratings system that's legally enforceable puts the weight on the parents to make the choice. Would you give a 10 year old a beer? No, because beer is marketed for adults and it has legal weight added to it. A kid cannot go into a store and buy beer, that's illegal in the US or the UK, probably most of the world. The choice is with the parent as to whether to supply that child with an alcoholic product.

Games are in the exact same situation. A child cannot go into a game store in the UK and buy GTA. They cannot buy MW2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, FEAR, Fallout 3... It is the parent's choice whether to supply that child with those games.

[addiction21]

Tirigon wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

More hyperbole. Who is actually going to suffer? Kids that should not be getting them in the first place? The smart ones will just order online with a store bought credit card. If it is the really young children that do not work yet then this will not stop those same parents from the buying the game for them like before.

So  tell me where the 10s of millions of suffering people will be coming from? What will actually change?

WHY should children "not be getting them in the first place"?

I think everyone should decide for themselves whether or not they want someting - including children. The more laws there are, the less possibility for that is left.

That is what the ratings are for. A tool to know the content of something before hand.  It is the parents choice if they want their children to have it or not untill that child hits whatever the age is for adulthood in the country. Parents run the show untill their kids are adults.

I guess I will never get an actual answer on how EVERYBODY would suffer?

[Godak]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

A child cannot go into a game store in the UK and buy GTA. They cannot buy MW2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, FEAR, Fallout 3... It is the parent's choice whether to supply that child with those games.

Well, you can in the US! Even if a game is rated M, I could walk into a store at 13 and purchase it.

We Americans tend to be so puritanical, but, in the end, we just don't care.

[ImperialOperative]

We are the government and we feel that parents are too incompetent to actually parent their children.



DERP DERP

[Wicked 702]

I agree with you completely as well OnlyShallow. At no point does a law like this prevent a legally recognized adult from exercising his or her freedom to buy what they want. It only prevents a minor, who by the way DOES NOT have the same rights under the law as an adult (that's a fact in America people), from obtaining something the parents might have a problem with.
If they don't have a problem with it, have them buy it themselves. Or go to the rated R movie with your kids, problem solved.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 27 avril 2010 - 12:26 .

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...

 They can't. They can only stop me if they are present to witness the behavior. If I understand what you are all saying the government should just butt out and let the kid in, no matter what. I don't think that's a good solution either.

I think it is. Honestly, a person must decide for himself what they want to watch / play /.....

Whoa! Back up there history buff. You need a serious relearn on world history. Discrimination was written down in the law books in Germany (by a dictactor with absolute power, duly elected perhaps, but not challenged after) but not extermination. There was never a law written down about killing people in WWII Germany. Hitler's final solution was only passed down by the Fuhrer through word of mouth to only a trusted few SS and other likeminded officials. Hitler knew that his ideals were too "drastic" to be accepted by the populace so he only passed on his orders through trusted channels and never kept written evidence of his orders.

Well there was nothing like "Kill all jews".
BUT it was written down as law that jews are below animals, and as it is allowed to kill animals (at least for people whose job it is), this practically includes that you can slaughter them.
The murder of mentally ill people was in the propaganda to tell how good it is.
And his "final solution" was written down. There are accurate records about what went on in the Concentration camps.

Again Stalin was a dictator with absolute power, not a democratically elected house of many people. How does that compare with a democratically elected group of officials? Your comparisons are too full of hyperbole to even be reasonable.

There is no real Democracy unless Direct democracy.
If you have a elected house of many people that´s not as bad as a dictatorship, but it´s stil too few people to represent everyone.


On a last note, yes, my analogy WAS over-the-top. This is a common strategy to gain attention the other one wouldn´t give you otherwise.

The point is, everyone sees why it is wrong to limit the personal freedom on account of the religious group or "race" you belong to.
Very few people see why it is wrong to limit personal freedom with laws like the one this topic is about.
By comparing them I want to show that BOTH are limitations of Freedom by the state.

Surely, the first one is infinitely worse than censoring games. But the idea is similar: The state decides what is legal and what not and limits personal freedom.

[Tirigon]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I did not bring it up to invalidate your point, that comment wasnt even directed at you but at Godak.

Ok sorry then. I understood your post as attempt to make mine invalid.

Peace?

[ImperialOperative]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

I'm 20. I've been playing Grand Theft Auto games since possibly Vice City, which is possibly 8yrs of my life. I'm a perfectly respectable member of society, or at least I could be (let's not get into that).

Your singular anecdotal experience is a great sample size and difinitive of behavorial effects.

Scientific!

[Loerwyn]

Wicked 702 wrote...

I agree with you completely as well OnlyShallow. At no point does a law like this prevent a legally recognized adult from exercising his or her freedom to buy what they want. It only prevents a minor, who by the way DOES NOT have the same rights under the law as an adult (that's a fact in America people), from obtaining something the parent's might have a problem with. If they don't have a problem with it, have them buy it themselves. Or go to the rated R movie with their kids, problem solved.

Bang on the mark. The average gamer (I think it works out at mid-20s to early 30s at the moment) would not be affected by enforcable ratings at all. Sure, the odd younger looking person might get ID'd from time to time, but in no way would their access to games be limited.

[Tirigon]

addiction21 wrote...


That is what the ratings are for. A tool to know the content of something before hand.  It is the parents choice if they want their children to have it or not untill that child hits whatever the age is for adulthood in the country. Parents run the show untill their kids are adults.

If the rating is only information, I´m all for it. It gets problematic when you MUST meet the recommended age to be allowed to play the game.

I guess I will never get an actual answer on how EVERYBODY would suffer?

No you won´t, at least not by me, because i don´t know how to say it in a way you understand. Basically, I already posted it.

[ImperialOperative]

This is like "legal age of drinking" and "legal age of smoking."

It's an absolute joke.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 27 avril 2010 - 12:30 .

[Tirigon]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...


Would you give a 10 year old a beer? No, because beer is marketed for adults and it has legal weight added to it. A kid cannot go into a store and buy beer, that's illegal in the US or the UK, probably most of the world.

Games are in the exact same situation. A child cannot go into a game store in the UK and buy GTA. They cannot buy MW2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, FEAR, Fallout 3... It is the parent's choice whether to supply that child with those games.

1.) It is debatable whether you shouldn´t sell beer to children. Personally I have to say, I would.
It´s utterly f*cking stupid of them to ruin themselves in that way, but it´s their business. If they want to make mistakes, let them. What right do I - or anyone for that matter - have to forbid it? I would say "Think twice, it´s not good for you", yes, but if they insist it´s their decision.

2.) Games are not the same as alcohol. Alcohol is a poison; games are entertainment and in no way harmful unless you cut yourself with the disc or something.

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

 They can't. They can only stop me if they are present to witness the behavior. If I understand what you are all saying the government should just butt out and let the kid in, no matter what. I don't think that's a good solution either.

I think it is. Honestly, a person must decide for himself what they want to watch / play /.....

Minors DO NOT have the same rights under the law as adults. They are not people in the sense you describe.

As far all the other stuff, yes we all know wha happened during WWII. There's plenty of documentation. What there wasn't was a universal, freely published directive to do one thing or another. It was mostly hush hush, even though most people had some idea what was going on but not all people did, in order to not get people in a panic.

I live in a country where every law is debated openly, every policy commented on publicly, every decision made in front of the voters for them to see. Whether we agree with the law or not, at least it's given to us to read directly.

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...


Minors DO NOT have the same rights under the law as adults. They are not people in the sense you describe.

Hell, whom are you telling. In Germany (where I live) it´s even worse than in the US. I know that. Doesn´t mean I must like it though. I think it is insane to give people less rights than others because they are not yet 18, 21 or whatever the age of adulthood in the different countries is.

As far all the other stuff, yes we all know wha happened during WWII. There's plenty of documentation. What there wasn't was a universal, freely published directive to do one thing or another. It was mostly hush hush, even though most people had some idea what was going on but not all people did, in order to not get people in a panic.

Yea, and how does that prove me wrong or anything?

I live in a country where every law is debated openly, every policy commented on publicly, every decision made in front of the voters for them to see. Whether we agree with the law or not, at least it's given to us to read directly.

No offense meant because I really can´t be sure, but as far as I know you weren´t told about torture during the Iraq war, Guantanamo etc.

And anyways, what´s the point in seeing a law you don´t like? You are stil bound by it.....