221 réponses à ce sujet

[bzombo]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

bzombo wrote...
the point of my argument is that the parent should make the decision, not the government. parents should be involved in what their kids do. if they are not, that should be their problem and no one else's. the government should not concern itself with making decisions for parents. legally enforcing a guideline(my idea of too violent is not the same as yours) is making the choice for the parent. i do not like that. however, what england does is a whole other thing since i do not live there. all i can say is i do not agree with the premise.

You're not getting it. This law changes it so that the supply of rated video games is the responsibility of the parents and makes the store not responsible in this situation. The store will only get fined if they (I believe) directly supply the games to the children.
Parents have no choice over whether something is legally enforced, that is the choice of the government. The guideline is exactly as it sounds, a guide as to what is in the game. The age ratings come in when someone is trying to buy that game. A 16 year old cannot buy an 18 rated game (It'd be M over there, perhaps?), but they can buy anything from any rating under their age. The government is not telling you what you can or cannot do. They are moving the responsibility for the supply of restricted video games to the correct party; i.e. the parents.

in my opinion they have taken it away from the parents by deciding what game gets what kind of rating. like i said in my previous post, my idea of too violent may be different from someone else's. the government is taking my ability to decide what is right or not away from me. it has been decided for me. you want to have a rating system? not too thrilled about it, but i can understand the purpose. to enforce it as law? no. i don't like anything that puts the government in the role of checking on things for me and making decisions for me. in the end, it's just a revenue stream for the government since the rating system does nothing but fine retailers for selling a product. i don't want the government "making things easy for me". let me check into it and decide on my own, not some ambiguous rating system tell me i can let my child buy it or not. let the ratings be my guide, not some way of making retailers responsible for what my kid does because that is what happens in the end.

[Loerwyn]

The Government does not decide what rating a game gets. That is the job of an independent authority, and they will have internal guidelines as to what is "Mild Violence" and "Extreme Violence" etc. They are not making any choices for you. They are informing you of the content contained within the product, and it is your choice as to whether to buy that product or not.



If there was no rating system, everything would just fall apart. Parents would be buying innocent sounding games for their 6 year old kids, and then raising one hell of a stink when they're faced with a screen full of blood and guts. As a guideline, the rating system does not get taken as seriously as it should. I remember a story of a grandmother buying Grand Theft Auto for her grandson, and she was horrified by the content. This story is from ~5 years ago, before PEGI became compulsory (BBFC was the only compulsory rating at the time that went to print), and it just reinforces my point. Parents don't take guidelines seriously in regards to what is or isn't suitable.



As I've constantly said, the retailer will rarely come under fire if this comes into effect. It doesn't take a business analyst to know that a $50 lost sale is less damaging to a company than a $1000 fine and the possibility of negative publicity, and they will do all they can to ensure that this law is not broken. It protects the retailer and it protects the consumer, especially in a seemingly lawsuit-heavy world. If an adult doesn't mind their child playing GTA, then that parent can still go and buy GTA, but the child cannot buy the game if the law comes in, and that is important. The parent will then have to know what the child is playing because the parent has to buy the game, and therefore accept responsibility. The retailer is supplying a product, and that's all they can do. They do not know the child and therefore are not in a position to accept responsibility for the supply of rated products to that child.

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...


Ok, let's take this chance the compare an ideal with what's practical. Let's say that I , as a parent, do not want my 15-16 year old teenager watching Rated R movies. (This isn't far fetched actually, my parents were like this.) How am I going to stop them from seeing Rated R movies at the theatre when I'm not there? 15 and 16 year olds go lots of places without their parents. That's 100% normal. Many 16 year olds drive themselves places. What mechanism do I have, other than telling them not to see the movies and hoping they comply (yeah right), if the theatre has to let them in?

This is simply an example of where the ideal, though morally correct as you are, is simply not practical in real life.

You shouldn´t decide whether or not your child can see a movie.
Hell, a child that is mentally able to reach a movie theater without his parents is mature enough to know which movies s/he will like, too.

[Tirigon]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

This story

"Most parents think their child is mature enough so that
these games will not influence them," Modulum researcher Jurgen Freund
told a games conference.




After I read this I knew the article is garbage with no importance to the real world at all.  This is so wrong I can´t understand how anybody believes this lie.



Anyways, parents getting angry about what´s on their children´s screen suck and should just shut the f*ck up.

I know what it´s like as I´m only 18 and still live with my parents and they tend not to like my games, but hey - I play these games, not them, so it´s not their business at all.

I´m glad my parents are intelligent enough only  to talk to me if they don´t like my games instead of complaining to the media. The people doing that are just brain-dead idiots, period.

Modifié par Tirigon, 28 avril 2010 - 04:52 .

[ImperialOperative]

Tirigon wrote...

You shouldn´t decide whether or not your child can see a movie.
Hell, a child that is mentally able to reach a movie theater without his parents is mature enough to know which movies s/he will like, too.

Sorry but that is a crock of s***.

A child that is dependant on his parents for all living utilities and more does not have the luxury of being able to choose whatever he likes in his media and do whatever he wants.  

If the "child" can provide for himself (ie. work, get money, pay bills, sustain food, sustain shelter, etc) then sure he can have all the free reign any adult can have.

Otherwise, it usually goes by this saying:

"My house, my rules"

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 28 avril 2010 - 04:55 .

[Tirigon]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

You shouldn´t decide whether or not your child can see a movie.
Hell, a child that is mentally able to reach a movie theater without his parents is mature enough to know which movies s/he will like, too.

Sorry but that is a crock of s***.

A child that is dependant on his parents for all living utilities and more does not have the luxury of being able to choose whatever he likes in his media and do whatever he wants. 

But if the child pays the game himself or gets it from a friend or whatever it is not dependant on you to get it.

If the "child" can provide for himself (ie. work, get money, pay bills, sustain food, sustain shelter, etc) then sure he can have all the free reign any adult can have.

Otherwise, it usually goes by this saying:

"My house, my rules"

If you think like that I´m glad you´re not my father:P:P:P


Well, but anyways, if this is the case you could simply forbid your child to go to the theatre, right?

I think it´s a little stupid to let your child go to the theatre but not letting him / her choose the movie s/he watches.

[SarEnyaDor]

I am way confused about California now, a county there has now made it illegal to sell Happy meals, or more specifically made it illegal to include toys in meals geared towards children with a thousand dollar fine per incident.

http://news.yahoo.co...llegal-19362009

*sigh*

Modifié par SarEnyaDor, 28 avril 2010 - 06:02 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

That's what happens when you have a large republic of independent states.

EDIT:  And even more so considering the counties within a state.  Laws get confused and random.  Wish there was more consisntancy.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 28 avril 2010 - 06:03 .

[ObserverStatus]

When I was a kid I only went to McDonald's because they had those giant pipe things you ca crawl through. Now that I think about it, they're kinda like the sewer level of a video game.

[SarEnyaDor]

I'm really glad I got those gold-plated Pokemon cards from them ten years or so ago, they will be EXTRA rare now

[NeroSparda]

ImperialOperative wrote...
If the "child" can provide for himself (ie. work, get money, pay bills, sustain food, sustain shelter, etc) then sure he can have all the free reign any adult can have.

Otherwise, it usually goes by this saying:

"My house, my rules"

Isn't there a law that prevents children from working, or at least a minimal age for those that are able to work? I think adults don't want children working without extensive knowledge in that field. Though there are two ways this can go, from what they see. They try to imitate it, or they will learn what not to do. I grew up with M rated, thanks to my older brothers, and I learn what not to do, most of the time. Or at least in Burnout series, I learn why not to crash into random cars and cause a giant fireball of death in real life. And that is what, an E to T rated game?

Modifié par NeroSparda, 28 avril 2010 - 06:36 .

[SarEnyaDor]

You can work at 15 in most places, but at reduced hours and in a reduced capacity. I, for one, started work at Six Flaggs at 15 in the Foods Department, we weren't allowed to work the fryers or grills until 16, and were the only ones guaranteed to get out of work and out on our breaks on time. Big time fines on the park for 15-yr-old violations.

[bzombo]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I am way confused about California now, a county there has now made it illegal to sell Happy meals, or more specifically made it illegal to include toys in meals geared towards children with a thousand dollar fine per incident.

http://news.yahoo.co...llegal-19362009

*sigh*

california is the most backwards state in the country, but we have a couple others too. new york state and texas come to mind as well. it's either the liberal extreme(cali and ny) or the conservative extreme(texas). there's no balance in these places. banning toys in happy meals? just stupid. makes sense it happened in california.

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...


Ok, let's take this chance the compare an ideal with what's practical. Let's say that I , as a parent, do not want my 15-16 year old teenager watching Rated R movies. (This isn't far fetched actually, my parents were like this.) How am I going to stop them from seeing Rated R movies at the theatre when I'm not there? 15 and 16 year olds go lots of places without their parents. That's 100% normal. Many 16 year olds drive themselves places. What mechanism do I have, other than telling them not to see the movies and hoping they comply (yeah right), if the theatre has to let them in?

This is simply an example of where the ideal, though morally correct as you are, is simply not practical in real life.

You shouldn´t decide whether or not your child can see a movie.
Hell, a child that is mentally able to reach a movie theater without his parents is mature enough to know which movies s/he will like, too.

ImperialOperative already nailed this one on the head so I'll just add a little of my own....

WHAT? ARE YOU NUTS?

The RIGHT to make choices comes with the RESPONSIBILITY of taking care of yourself. They are not separate issues. You want to make your own rules....fine by me. Pay your own bills too. Learn to build some character while you're at it.

I'm glad you're not my kid either, I'd have kicked you out the moment I could. Ingrate....

Modifié par Wicked 702, 28 avril 2010 - 08:29 .

[Wicked 702]

bzombo wrote...

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I am way confused about California now, a county there has now made it illegal to sell Happy meals, or more specifically made it illegal to include toys in meals geared towards children with a thousand dollar fine per incident.

http://news.yahoo.co...llegal-19362009

*sigh*

california is the most backwards state in the country, but we have a couple others too. new york state and texas come to mind as well. it's either the liberal extreme(cali and ny) or the conservative extreme(texas). there's no balance in these places. banning toys in happy meals? just stupid. makes sense it happened in california.

Yes, banning gay marriage in CA was the perfect example of liberal extremism gone mad. Another uninformed opinion from someone that doesn't actually live in the state. How useful.....

[Wicked 702]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

That's what happens when you have a large republic of independent states.

EDIT:  And even more so considering the counties within a state.  Laws get confused and random.  Wish there was more consisntancy.

I actually don't. I completely disagree with your federalist desires. While you are correct that allowing states, counties, and even cities/towns to make their own laws/regulations creates less consistency and the potential for more confusion, you completely neglect the fact that local events occurring in say, New York or Florida, have very little bearing on us here in California.

Why would I want a system where a bunch of people in some place 3000 miles away make the laws for me? I much prefer a system that allows local communities to vote and control themselves as they see fit. It allows more direct involvement in our specific localities. My community runs more the way WE want it to.

In a small country, what you propose might work very well. But when you reach the 300+ million point (population) and 3000+ miles of land from coast to coast, federalism can only work so well on the individual level.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 28 avril 2010 - 08:49 .

[Tirigon]

I´ll ignore your childish anger and just respond to your main statement.....

Wicked 702 wrote...

The RIGHT to make choices comes with the RESPONSIBILITY of taking care of yourself.

I agree 100%. But I think that, essentially, both are things that everybody has from birth.
Only the failed evolution of humanity that prevents us from being able to take care for ourselves for a very long time - usually the first 12 - 15 years in primitive tribes, in "developed" society even the first 18 to 25 years - forbids to live up to this ideal.

The parents responsibility for their children does not give them control over them but simply comes from the fact that parents are responsible for their child´s existence. They could have used contraceptive if they don´t want children.

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

That's what happens when you have a large republic of independent states.

EDIT:  And even more so considering the counties within a state.  Laws get confused and random.  Wish there was more consisntancy.

I actually don't. I completely disagree with your federalist desires. While you are correct that allowing states, counties, and even cities/towns to make their own laws/regulations creates less consistency and the potential for more confusion, you completely neglect the fact that local events occurring in say, New York or Florida, have very little bearing on us here in California.

Why would I want a system where a bunch of people in some place 3000 miles away make the laws for me? I much prefer a system that allows local communities to vote and control themselves as they see fit. It allows more direct involvement in our specific localities. My community runs more the way WE want it to.

In a small country, what you propose might work very well. But when you reach the 300+ million point (population) and 3000+ miles of land from coast to coast, federalism can only work so well on the individual level.

Isn´t Onyx_Jaguar rather centralist than federalist?

Except for that, I agree with Wicked

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

That's what happens when you have a large republic of independent states.

EDIT:  And even more so considering the counties within a state.  Laws get confused and random.  Wish there was more consisntancy.

I actually don't. I completely disagree with your federalist desires. While you are correct that allowing states, counties, and even cities/towns to make their own laws/regulations creates less consistency and the potential for more confusion, you completely neglect the fact that local events occurring in say, New York or Florida, have very little bearing on us here in California.

Why would I want a system where a bunch of people in some place 3000 miles away make the laws for me? I much prefer a system that allows local communities to vote and control themselves as they see fit. It allows more direct involvement in our specific localities. My community runs more the way WE want it to.

In a small country, what you propose might work very well. But when you reach the 300+ million point (population) and 3000+ miles of land from coast to coast, federalism can only work so well on the individual level.

Isn´t Onyx_Jaguar rather centralist than federalist?

Except for that, I agree with Wicked

Apparently I've forgotten much of what I've learned in high school. I'm apparently the federalist, since federalism applies to the division of power as I've described, and yes Onyx would be something else....

But federalism does involve a strong central government as part of the deal so maybe I'm not using the term properly still. I can't seem to remember the proper term for a country with only a strong centralized government.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 28 avril 2010 - 11:00 .

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

I agree 100%. But I think that, essentially, both are things that everybody has from birth.
Only the failed evolution of humanity that prevents us from being able to take care for ourselves for a very long time - usually the first 12 - 15 years in primitive tribes, in "developed" society even the first 18 to 25 years - forbids to live up to this ideal.

The parents responsibility for their children does not give them control over them but simply comes from the fact that parents are responsible for their child´s existence. They could have used contraceptive if they don´t want children.

The problem, as I've stated before, is that parents are held LEGALLY responsible for the acts of their children. It's illogical to give minors rights but then make the parents pay when they do wrong. If you want your world vision to come to life, I demand that all minor protection laws be abolished so minors can be tried as adults from birth, held to any and all contracts they sign, and be sued directly in civil court.

If you want the rights, you have to take responsibility. How's that sound?

[Beocat]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I am way confused about California now, a county there has now made it illegal to sell Happy meals, or more specifically made it illegal to include toys in meals geared towards children with a thousand dollar fine per incident.

http://news.yahoo.co...llegal-19362009

*sigh*

Oh my gosh   The toys come in every kids meal package...healthy or not....  These people are like the Grinch, but in a bad way!

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...


The problem, as I've stated before, is that parents are held LEGALLY responsible for the acts of their children. It's illogical to give minors rights but then make the parents pay when they do wrong. If you want your world vision to come to life, I demand that all minor protection laws be abolished so minors can be tried as adults from birth, held to any and all contracts they sign, and be sued directly in civil court.

If you want the rights, you have to take responsibility. How's that sound?

You are right, that´s the problem.

But there are different "levels" of rights.

I can see why minors aren´t allowed to buy a car, own weapons etc...

But I really fail to see why they shouldn´t have the right to watch movies or play games without their parent´s permission.