Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole "video games make kids violent" thing is bull****. I play plenty of violent video games; I logged about 1000 hours on a first-person shooter, Battlefield 2. And I'm probably one of the least violent, non-confrontational people you'll meet.
You don't seem to know that the Columbine shooters played violent video games religiously.
As for the rest of your post, I won't even justify it with attention.
A US federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit against AOL Time Warner and other major media and game companies, brought about after it was revealed that the gunmen involved in the Columbine massacre enjoyed violent video games.
What you do with your son is honestly none of my business. But the key is that you are doing these things WITH him. You state that you don't let your son watch any sex or nudity....how would you feel if he got a hold of the next great video game that is just a mere programming line from being digital porn?
Would you be upset knowing that he was able to walk over to blockbuster and rent it no questions asked?
I would play any game I'd give him first, and they are usually quite well listed on what they have in them.
Its up to a good parent to understand what they are exposing their children to, not the governments.
This was a good decision. I agree with others that if parents don't wish for their kids to play Mature games, then be the parent and don't let them. Or don't let them watch the R rated movie, or read the adult book, etc. Be the parent, but don't go screaming to the gov't to be the parent for you.
In my opinion this is not a first amendment argument. I would be fine with minors being able to have whatever video game they want with parents permission, but allowing them to buy directly is not OK with me. If the same standard was applied, minors could buy hard porn under "the first amendment". It's a bad decision in my opinion.
Your comparison is flawed, as I already explained Pornography is classified as obscene by the courts and thus is non-protected speech and has restrictions placed on its distribution. Thus such an unlikely progression of events would quality as Slippery Slope Fallacy because overturning a state mandated control of protected speech materials has no effect or relevance to existing restrictions regarding non-protected speech materials.
Quote:
And to all the comments about "I got carded at Gamestop". Well that is voluntary. I applaud Gamestop for being a good company and a good corporate citizen, but it is voluntary, and there will be other companies out there that are more interested in the dollars, then the kids' best interest.
This makes me wonder if you actually read the ruling in question. The voluntary ratings system was actually mentioned as one of the reasons it would be unconstitutional to restrict sale. As was the fact that the law in question actually limited purchase by all minors... and was thus deemed too inclusive because it actually removed the option of parental consent as the courts viewed it. The law in question was not to enforce what is currently voluntary regulation... it was to create a state controlled standard that would determine what games had "violent content" and then mandate or restrict sales of those titles. In essence letting the state judge the expression of developers without an objective measure beyond some very vague language involving "violence on humans"
Quote:
(I only read page one, so forgive if this has been stated already.
Most of your points were actually addressed or clarified later on, but no harm done really.
A US federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit against AOL Time Warner and other major media and game companies, brought about after it was revealed that the gunmen involved in the Columbine massacre enjoyed violent video games.
I'm sure good and bad people think that cheeseburgers are all right also?
"They did it, and they are evil" is not conclusive either.
What kind of consequence are you jumping to?
I never said people who play violent games are "evil." Clean your reading glasses.
My point was that just because they think they are unaffected by immersing themselves
in such violence does not mean it hasn't affected them in any way.
But I believe it's more fun for you to amp up an argument than to actually read.
I never said people who play violent games are "evil." Clean your reading glasses.
My point was that just because they think they are unaffected by immersing themselves
in such violence does not mean it hasn't affected them in any way.
But I believe it's more fun for you to amp up an argument than to actually read.
My point is that if one million people do something, and one of them takes guns and kills people, then that one thing that everyone did is likely not a cause of the murders.
Just as many people buying guns, then one idiot using them to kill people doesn't mean that all guns are bad.
I would play any game I'd give him first, and they are usually quite well listed on what they have in them.
Its up to a good parent to understand what they are exposing their children to, not the governments.
Haha, I like imaging you doing this!
"Um sorry son, I'll have to play through Portal 2 before you get to look at it. To make sure that it's suitable for you. You understand, right?"
*next day you're laughing and having a great time playing, son just outside the den wants to watch so badly...*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.