I see the major difference as being the distinction between a minor child and an adult. If someone tried to ban certain behavior by adults, or tell them what games they could play, what pictures they could view, what books they could read, or how they could have a good time in the privacy of their own homes then I would fight it all the way. Adults should be able to make those choices for themselves (and pay the consequences when that choice is a bad one).
Kids don't have the level of maturity nor the experience to have a very good batting average when it comes to those kinds of decisions. Neither should they be held to the same level of accountability when they screw up. That seems a fair trade-off in the long run.
It's already against the law to sell violente or mature games to minors. The only diffrerent is that Cali wqants to take the definition of 'mature' and 'violent' away from the ESRB, and give it to the state. There is already a precident for this: The movie industry. We let them decide which movies are bad.
What if Nebraska decided to tell the movie industry (esentially: Southern California) that they were gonna stop participating in the movie ratings system, and start making their own judgements about which movies minors are allowed to see...
Do you think that the movie industry would just say "Okay, whatever you want, Mate!"?
I do believe the burden of proof is on those attempting to say it's harmful or negative, Qeldroma, since they are asserting the claim and attempting to make changes based upon that assertion.
So, Mister Ulic, you're on a logically-unstable ground to ask Prime to prove that it doesn't, when you are responsible, in fact, for proving that it does. What's more, your analogy about inmates loving violent video games is hardly legitimate, as you can't state that they didn't like the game as a byproduct of their violent tendencies and the game's mimickry thereof. I've been playing violent games since I was five years old, and I am now nearing the age of twenty.. I've played them all; Doom, Duke Nukem, Corridor 7, Rise of the Triad and more. Since the earliest days, all I've done is fired virtual weapons, killed virtual creatures, and bathed my avatar in virtual blood.. I have no criminal record, a very peaceable outlook towards living things, a solid work ethic, and I had good grades in school. Why? Because I had good parents. I am not an aberration.
If this argument fails, I'll hunt you down with a plasma rifle.
How are these issues still.... issues? You get ID'd if your trying buy a game that is restricted to youth. Doesnt matter what state it is as far as I know.
Same goes for renting movies and games at blockbuster. Im 17 now, so I dont think it matters anymore, but my parents just gave me "clearance" on the blockbuster account so I could rent whatever game or movie I wanted. I could not get an R-movie or an M-game without my parents consent.
To me, the problem seems to be with the vendors, not the publishers/developers. Atleast if the issue is minors getting their hands on mature/restricted content.
...To me, the problem seems to be with the vendors, not the publishers/developers. At least if the issue is minors getting their hands on mature/restricted content.
Agreed. No one is saying they can't make and sell the game; they're just placing an age limit on who can buy (or rent) it.
How is this different than current age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, naughty pictures, or obtaining a drivers license? I guess when one of my fourteen y.o nephews isn't allowed to drive down to the mall, buy GTA, then pick up a six-pack, a carton of smokes, a Glock, and the latest edition of Hustler while he's there, he should piss and moan about censorship.
I don't even particularly think that pornographic material should be limited to those above 18, for a variety of reasons, censorship amongst them. But all the other instances you listed, Prof, have clear, scientific, unarguable consequences for their misuse.
Video games have nothing of the sort, so it's hardly a legitimate analog.
A kid can go to an R movie with some boobs in it and as long as they are with a parent, it doesnt matter. So its not completely limited to those above 18. Its more along the lines of giving the parents the choice to decide whats ok for their kids to watch and whats not. I think the same should go for video games.
But yea, censoring and taking products off the market completely is a no-no
A kid can go to an R movie with some boobs in it and as long as they are with a parent, it doesnt matter. So its not completely limited to those above 18. Its more along the lines of giving the parents the choice to decide whats ok for their kids to watch and whats not. I think the same should go for video games.
But yea, censoring and taking products off the market completely is a no-no
fudgam I like the way you put it the best for the most part. But I can't say there shouldn't be any censorship period and Just leave it up to the adults to decide whats appropriate to buy. I'm sure you could think up products that should never reach the hands of certain types of people.
Comments
Kids don't have the level of maturity nor the experience to have a very good batting average when it comes to those kinds of decisions. Neither should they be held to the same level of accountability when they screw up. That seems a fair trade-off in the long run.
What if Nebraska decided to tell the movie industry (esentially: Southern California) that they were gonna stop participating in the movie ratings system, and start making their own judgements about which movies minors are allowed to see...
Do you think that the movie industry would just say "Okay, whatever you want, Mate!"?
They would not say that.
So, Mister Ulic, you're on a logically-unstable ground to ask Prime to prove that it doesn't, when you are responsible, in fact, for proving that it does. What's more, your analogy about inmates loving violent video games is hardly legitimate, as you can't state that they didn't like the game as a byproduct of their violent tendencies and the game's mimickry thereof. I've been playing violent games since I was five years old, and I am now nearing the age of twenty.. I've played them all; Doom, Duke Nukem, Corridor 7, Rise of the Triad and more. Since the earliest days, all I've done is fired virtual weapons, killed virtual creatures, and bathed my avatar in virtual blood.. I have no criminal record, a very peaceable outlook towards living things, a solid work ethic, and I had good grades in school. Why? Because I had good parents. I am not an aberration.
If this argument fails, I'll hunt you down with a plasma rifle.
Same goes for renting movies and games at blockbuster. Im 17 now, so I dont think it matters anymore, but my parents just gave me "clearance" on the blockbuster account so I could rent whatever game or movie I wanted. I could not get an R-movie or an M-game without my parents consent.
To me, the problem seems to be with the vendors, not the publishers/developers. Atleast if the issue is minors getting their hands on mature/restricted content.
How is this different than current age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, naughty pictures, or obtaining a drivers license? I guess when one of my fourteen y.o nephews isn't allowed to drive down to the mall, buy GTA, then pick up a six-pack, a carton of smokes, a Glock, and the latest edition of Hustler while he's there, he should piss and moan about censorship.
Video games have nothing of the sort, so it's hardly a legitimate analog.
But yea, censoring and taking products off the market completely is a no-no
fudgam I like the way you put it the best for the most part. But I can't say there shouldn't be any censorship period and Just leave it up to the adults to decide whats appropriate to buy. I'm sure you could think up products that should never reach the hands of certain types of people.