221 réponses à ce sujet

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

Point is, legalization would mark down the price significantly.

True.

The high prizes are actually what prevents people from smoking, not the illegality of said action.

HAHAHA! Heh, my state not so much. Producer of 1/3 of the nation's pot supply. And the good stuff too, not the Mexican schwag. It's probably much lower priced here.

[SarEnyaDor]

AntiChri5 wrote...

You know, from your scientific observation, of course.

*nods* Completely! I was a good girl, I didn't smoke, drink or do drugs ... *looks around* but I did end up with a lot of kids... I wonder how that happened?

Modifié par SarEnyaDor, 27 avril 2010 - 01:30 .

[ImperialOperative]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

A "police state" dos'nt mean the police need to be directly involved.  Just lots of totalitarian regualtion, government telling us what is good and not good for you. 

Deffinition:

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

Actually, yes it does mean exactly that.  For a state to exhibit totalitarian and total repressive social controls there MUST be a police body which FORCES all of it's citizens to comply by their rigid structure.

Otherwise, it would be called a lolpolice state.  As in, they state laws and everybody lulz at them because nobody is making them follow them.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 27 avril 2010 - 01:31 .

[Jalem001]

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.

Voters?  This wasn't put to a vote by the voters.  Their representatives voted on it, yes, but I hardly doubt they voted for their Reps based on this specific law.  Hell I doubt most of them voted for their state reps based on anything other than name recognition or political party.

Voters implies a majority, like the people demanded it and the government had a mandate.  They did not.

And even if hey did:  This is not a Democracy son.  This is a Republic.  We don't follow mob rule.  Our government is ruled by laws (in theory), and those laws determine the role of our government.  The government should not be raising children and deciding which video games they can and can't watch.  

Hell there isn't even a correlation between video games and violence in children.  Violent crimes comitted by children (younger than 18) has decreased since the 1980s, which just happens to coincide with the rise of video games.  So what argument is there for the state to get involved to begin with?  National TV is one thing, anyone can turn that on.  Alcohol and drugs are especially harmful to youth.  But games?  They require money.  So, again, unless the parents are terrible the kids can't get the games their parents don't want them to get anyways.

I never got to play Resident Evil as a kid.  Sucked, but thats what happens when you have parents who give a damn.

[sami jo]

@Tirigon: There must be a legal age cut off for adulthood for practical purposes. Do I think that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is somehow magically less capable of making a decision than s/he will be in two days? Of course not. But the reality is that the average 18 year old isn't ready to be completely on his or her own either. Some 14 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds, that is true, but that is not the norm.



My 15 year old son is not ready to have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. He's a great kid, but he just isn't ready. It's my job as a parent to decide what he is mature enough to handle. That was the idea behind the ESRB ratings: to give parents a guideline as to what games would be appropriate for their children. That requires parents actually parenting, though. We are pretty backwards in this country where responsibility is concerned. It's McDonald's fault when some idiot 30 year old burns herself on her hot coffee, but we want to try 13 year olds as adults.



I'm hoping freedom of speech wins, but I'm not holding my breath.

[A Killing Sound]

There is a supreme court case about video games!? Quick! Call Phoenix Wright! He'll win the case!

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...

If we take this example to the extreme, any child could buy a firearm and kill someone. The parents could then be sued by the victim's relatives and have to pay millions of dollars in restitution for wrongful death. Now, the situation might be different if the parent bought the guy and failed to keep it secured but how should they be responsible if not? What you propose almost sounds like you want to make someone responsible for their own actions at birth. Considering that all creatures have to experiment and fail in order to learn, that seems a bit drastic even for my extremist mind.

I see your point. But see, it´s one thing to buy a firearm which can kill REAL people, and an entirely different thing to buy a shooter in which you kill "people" that are, in fact, only bits and bytes.

Firearms shouldn´t be sold to irresponsible or violent people to protect others - not themselves. That´s why they are restricted - here in Germany even much more than in the US.
But videogames harm noone but the one who plays them (and even that is an assumption of critics that is so far unproven).
My point is: Selling a gun to a 10 year old child can, in extreme cases, lead to this child killing others. It should be forbidden to protect others from being shot.
Selling GTA or Counterstrike to a child harms noone. Therefore there is no justifiation to forbid it.

[Tirigon]

sami jo wrote...

My 15 year old son is not ready to have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. He's a great kid, but he just isn't ready. It's my job as a parent to decide what he is mature enough to handle. That was the idea behind the ESRB ratings: to give parents a guideline as to what games would be appropriate for their children. That requires parents actually parenting, though. We are pretty backwards in this country where responsibility is concerned. It's McDonald's fault when some idiot 30 year old burns herself on her hot coffee, but we want to try 13 year olds as adults.

I don´t know you or your son so I won´t dare to judge your actions. I will therefore assume you´re right that he isn´t mature enough yet and then you do a Good Job caring for him. But other people might be different. I was mature enough with 15 and I hated it when my parents forbade me things.

I did also say that the ESRB rating, or the German FSK which is practically the same, are a good thing AS LONG AS THEY ARE GUIDELINES.
But by making them compulsory (as this law would) the parent´s responsibility and possibility to care for their children is actually RESTRICTED and taken away from them to the state.

If, for example, you think your son is mature enough to play Dragon Age or GTA you would STILL not be allowed to give it to them.


I admit, I´m biased by my experiences in Germany, where censorship is even worse.

Let me tell you a shocking tale: One of my favourite music CDs is forbidden in Germany; it must not be spread, even among adults, and giving it to minors is a crime. In theory, I could be tried because I gave it to my brother, as could everyone who loads songs from this CD up on YouTube.
Of course, in fact noone cares. But still, such an amount of censorship by the state shouldn´t exist.

Modifié par Tirigon, 27 avril 2010 - 11:48 .

[itbewillyum]

The Supreme Court needs to throw this garbage case out.They post ratings on games for a reason and if parents spoil their children and are too lazy or stupid to read reviews all over the internet on said games and cant read a simple logo on the back then maybe they shouldn't allow their kids to play video games.Its stupid really.As an adult gamer i remember when State of Emergency and Grand Theft Auto for a short time were banned from stores like Walmart,Meijers and Target and i had to buy State of Emergency from a local gas station who was selling them.This case is one i could argue about forever.I am tired of people having kids then expecting congress,the state,the school district,and whoever else they can push the responsibility off to educate and raise them.



Parent's need to know what their kids are capable of.They going to start buying their kids x rated porn then complain to the supreme court that they have too much sex in them next? Ratings are there for a reason and work for the parent's who aren't too stupid or lazy to research the games their kids are asking for.



Just my two pennies.

[exterminator_]

Tirigon wrote...

sami jo wrote...

My 15 year old son is not ready to have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. He's a great kid, but he just isn't ready. It's my job as a parent to decide what he is mature enough to handle. That was the idea behind the ESRB ratings: to give parents a guideline as to what games would be appropriate for their children. That requires parents actually parenting, though. We are pretty backwards in this country where responsibility is concerned. It's McDonald's fault when some idiot 30 year old burns herself on her hot coffee, but we want to try 13 year olds as adults.

I don´t know you or your son so I won´t dare to judge your actions. I will therefore assume you´re right that he isn´t mature enough yet and then you do a Good Job caring for him. But other people might be different. I was mature enough with 15 and I hated it when my parents forbade me things.

I did also say that the ESRB rating, or the German FSK which is practically the same, are a good thing AS LONG AS THEY ARE GUIDELINES.
But by making them compulsory (as this law would) the parent´s responsibility and possibility to care for their children is actually RESTRICTED and taken away from them to the state.

Comeon its nothing restricted i for example played games from 8 years old

and watch XXX movies in 11

Where is the strange afterall when you get older you will make it

So np at all XD

I personally will let my future kids to see XXX movies and play violent games

cause i dont want them to grow as emos or stupids

Period !

[exterminator_]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

You know, from your scientific observation, of course.

*nods* Completely! I was a good girl, I didn't smoke, drink or do drugs ... *looks around* but I did end up with a lot of kids... I wonder how that happened?

Want more kids ? hahaha  

[Onyx Jaguar]

exterminator wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

sami jo wrote...

My 15 year old son is not ready to have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. He's a great kid, but he just isn't ready. It's my job as a parent to decide what he is mature enough to handle. That was the idea behind the ESRB ratings: to give parents a guideline as to what games would be appropriate for their children. That requires parents actually parenting, though. We are pretty backwards in this country where responsibility is concerned. It's McDonald's fault when some idiot 30 year old burns herself on her hot coffee, but we want to try 13 year olds as adults.

I don´t know you or your son so I won´t dare to judge your actions. I will therefore assume you´re right that he isn´t mature enough yet and then you do a Good Job caring for him. But other people might be different. I was mature enough with 15 and I hated it when my parents forbade me things.

I did also say that the ESRB rating, or the German FSK which is practically the same, are a good thing AS LONG AS THEY ARE GUIDELINES.
But by making them compulsory (as this law would) the parent´s responsibility and possibility to care for their children is actually RESTRICTED and taken away from them to the state.

Comeon its nothing restricted i for example played games from 8 years old

and watch XXX movies in 11

Where is the strange afterall when you get older you will make it

So np at all XD

I personally will let my future kids to see XXX movies and play violent games

cause i dont want them to grow as emos or stupids

Period !

Awesome

[Cascadus]

DrathanGervaise wrote...

The ESRB, it does nothing.

What do you expect it to do? It's a rating system, not a babysitter and as the former, it's actually one of the best. The ESRB plainly details what parents may find objectible in a game on the back. It can't do anything more, and it's the parent's fault if they don't pay attention to it.

[sami jo]

Tirigon wrote...

sami jo wrote...

My 15 year old son is not ready to have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. He's a great kid, but he just isn't ready. It's my job as a parent to decide what he is mature enough to handle. That was the idea behind the ESRB ratings: to give parents a guideline as to what games would be appropriate for their children. That requires parents actually parenting, though. We are pretty backwards in this country where responsibility is concerned. It's McDonald's fault when some idiot 30 year old burns herself on her hot coffee, but we want to try 13 year olds as adults.

I don´t know you or your son so I won´t dare to judge your actions. I will therefore assume you´re right that he isn´t mature enough yet and then you do a Good Job caring for him. But other people might be different. I was mature enough with 15 and I hated it when my parents forbade me things.

I did also say that the ESRB rating, or the German FSK which is practically the same, are a good thing AS LONG AS THEY ARE GUIDELINES.
But by making them compulsory (as this law would) the parent´s responsibility and possibility to care for their children is actually RESTRICTED and taken away from them to the state.

If, for example, you think your son is mature enough to play Dragon Age or GTA you would STILL not be allowed to give it to them.


I admit, I´m biased by my experiences in Germany, where censorship is even worse.

Let me tell you a shocking tale: One of my favourite music CDs is forbidden in Germany; it must not be spread, even among adults, and giving it to minors is a crime. In theory, I could be tried because I gave it to my brother, as could everyone who loads songs from this CD up on YouTube.
Of course, in fact noone cares. But still, such an amount of censorship by the state shouldn´t exist.

Children always believe that they are ready for more than they are, and adults always believe that they are ready for less.  It may infuriate my son when I forbid something, but I'm his parent, not his buddy.  I don't keep him away from most video games.  He has played DAO and ME.  I chronicled the hilarity of his DAO run in another part of this forum.  I have censored very little from him.  I do limit the amount of time he spends gaming, or did when he was younger.  He pretty much self-regulates these days.  But a young person who doesn't like being told no and thinks s/he should have all the rights of an adult isn't a good argument against the law.  I'm not in favor of it and I hope the court strikes it down. 

[Tirigon]

sami jo wrote...


Children always believe that they are ready for more than they are, and adults always believe that they are ready for less.

What is probably a good reason not to let adults make these laws:)

It may infuriate my son when I forbid something, but I'm his parent, not his buddy.  I don't keep him away from most video games.  He has played DAO and ME.  I chronicled the hilarity of his DAO run in another part of this forum.  I have censored very little from him.  I do limit the amount of time he spends gaming, or did when he was younger.  He pretty much self-regulates these days.  But a young person who doesn't like being told no and thinks s/he should have all the rights of an adult isn't a good argument against the law.  I'm not in favor of it and I hope the court strikes it down. 

Well, you as his parent have a certain right to censor things from him if you consider it for his best. That´s so because he lives with you, you have to care for his well-being and if he would commit a crime you may be held partially responsible for it.
All these "duties" you have to fulfill make it reasonable that you have a certain "power" over him, and if you try to limit restrictions as far as possible this shows that you really try do do the best for him.
But the state doesn´t have all the duties parents have, so it shouldn´t have parent´s rights either.

[exterminator_]

Adults suck in many things and i believe if a world had child dictators



will be much more better



Cause a child acts with instict and not with stupid thinking

[Loerwyn]

The State has a duty to protect its citizens, and enforced age restrictions are part of that. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs... They're all restricted in some manner for a reason.

Like I've said, the average person would not be affected by the enforcement of ratings. Instead of putting the decision to supply a restricted product to a minor on the store, it places it on the parent which is where the blame belongs.

[exterminator_]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

The State has a duty to protect its citizens, and enforced age restrictions are part of that. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs... They're all restricted in some manner for a reason.
Like I've said, the average person would not be affected by the enforcement of ratings. Instead of putting the decision to supply a restricted product to a minor on the store, it places it on the parent which is where the blame belongs.

I adore that philosophical thinking of yours ....

Thats why the human world will be destroyed

Cause humans give the blame always one to the other

Until all kill each other and the work of satan will be more easier to get us for a "vacation"

"Human vanity is my favorite SIN !!!"

Modifié par exterminator , 27 avril 2010 - 01:27 .

[Loerwyn]

For some reason, it always seems to be that someone else is to blame for an event. I like the example of a woman burning herself with hot coffee from McDonalds. Why should the store be at blame for providing the product the customer asked for? (Lawsuit details here).

The parent, in the case of supplying a restricted product to minors, should always be the one to take the blame for anything that comes after. They are legally responsible for their child until a certain age (It's generally 18), regardless of a child's maturity and if the ratings are enforced then it does nothing except put that power in the hands of the parent. If they do not want their child to own a copy of Grand Theft Auto, then they simply do not buy the game for their child. If they don't mind, then they can buy that game for their child.

What needs to happen is removing the ignorance of the customer. Ratings on games are no different to ratings on films; they clearly mention why that game has its rating, whether it's for violence, sex & nudity, drug use or so forth. The PEGI system in the UK uses an image guideline (so a syringe = drugs, speech bubble with symbols = bad language, etc). From what I can tell, the ESRB ratings are similar to our BBFC ones in that it's "Sex & Nudity" or "Extreme Violence" etc.

Just my opinion, that's all.

[ImperialOperative]

Cascadus wrote...

DrathanGervaise wrote...

The ESRB, it does nothing.

What do you expect it to do? It's a rating system, not a babysitter and as the former, it's actually one of the best. The ESRB plainly details what parents may find objectible in a game on the back. It can't do anything more, and it's the parent's fault if they don't pay attention to it.

ESRB is a privately owned group created to inform. 

[All the good names were taken]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Some one has probably already posted it but this

http://news.yahoo.co...ent_video_games

is probably going to be watched very carefully by game developers. Can you imagine any of the justices actually setting up a 360 or PS3 in the courtroom and playing GTA or Resident Evil?

I can imagine some guy at the back of the court room yelling out that the guy playing sucks. On-topic though, no matter how far they decide to take this whole thing, it will never be as bad as Australia on this topic. Most parents really don't care what their child plays and will just buy it for the kid if they ask enough anyway, this won't change much.

[Tirigon]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

The parent, in the case of supplying a restricted product to minors, should always be the one to take the blame for anything that comes after. They are legally responsible for their child until a certain age (It's generally 18), regardless of a child's maturity and if the ratings are enforced then it does nothing except put that power in the hands of the parent. If they do not want their child to own a copy of Grand Theft Auto, then they simply do not buy the game for their child. If they don't mind, then they can buy that game for their child.

And this is were you´re wrong. At the moment this is the case; if ratings are compulsory this power is taken away from parents as by buying them a game that is rated for older people they break the law.

[ImperialOperative]

Tirigon wrote...

And this is were you´re wrong. At the moment this is the case; if ratings are compulsory this power is taken away from parents as by buying them a game that is rated for older people they break the law.

No, from what I understand this law ONLY affects distributors.  It only adresses distributors of games and restricts them from selling or renting "ultra-violent" games directly to minors.

It does not adress (therefore, does not illegalize) the playing of such games by minors.  So a parent that wants their kids to play such games can still buy them for their kids if they so please.

[Loerwyn]

Tirigon wrote...
And this is were you´re wrong. At the moment this is the case; if ratings are compulsory this power is taken away from parents as by buying them a game that is rated for older people they break the law.

Exactly. It's a risk they have to take and it makes them consider whether it's suitable for their child or not. If something is legally restricted, it's often in that position for a reason. Porn is not available to minors because it's not suitable for them. Alcohol, cigarettes, knives, movies you name it... They're all age-restricted for reasons.
You will find that, for the most part, someone who has bought an age-restricted game for a child will not suffer any sort of punishment. I don't know why that is, but it's probably along the same lines as statuatory rape in that it's rarely ever legally punished. 2 15 year olds in the UK cannot have legal intercourse with each other, but it happens all the time. Do you ever hear of those 14 year old sleep-arounds on the Maury show ever being arrested for having underage intercourse? No, I suspect you don't.
All the law does is make it so that the parent is the responsible party in this situation. The store becomes responsible if they knowingly supply a minor with an age restricted game in the exact same way it would become responsible if they supplied a minor with alcohol or something else restricted.