Violent video game law scotched by US judge

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You are right. It is all about the lack of qualification to be a parent.

 

Because the only qualification you need to be a parent is to want to conceive AND raise a child. Most people only want another toy to play with and can't be bothered to quit their job to take proper care of a living, breathing person.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well if one of my kids is sick I take them to a doctor I dont try to treat them myself. So it's quite natural that parents should look towards qualified "experts" for guidence when it comes to what you should and should not be exposing your children to.

 

It's a nice idea. But in the real world quitting your job isnt an option for most people. People need to eat, pay the rent , that sort of thing. Some people are clearly unfit to be parents for a number of reasons. But if people object to something as trivial as rating of games. Not likely you will see any intervention in that area.

[astr0creep]

You are right. It is all about the lack of qualification to be a parent.

 

Because the only qualification you need to be a parent is to want to conceive AND raise a child. Most people only want another toy to play with and can't be bothered to quit their job to take proper care of a living, breathing person.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well if one of my kids is sick I take them to a doctor I dont try to treat them myself. So it's quite natural that parents should look towards qualified "experts" for guidence when it comes to what you should and should not be exposing your children to.

 

It's a nice idea. But in the real world quitting your job isnt an option for most people. People need to eat, pay the rent , that sort of thing. Some people are clearly unfit to be parents for a number of reasons. But if people object to something as trivial as rating of games. Not likely you will see any intervention in that area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, you take them to a doctor. When your screaming kid takes your empty gun to his friend's face and pulls the trigger repeatedly because he's mad he just got beaten at Soul Calibur 3 will you take your child to the ratings board or a psychiatrist? If you knew your child the way a parent is SUPPOSED to know her/his child would this situation even take place?

 

A choice needs to be made when having a child. One parent has to be with the child. In an ideal world which was, apparently, in the fifties... It is essential but our current lifstyle does not permit it. We will pay for our greed and materialistic values later...

 

I'm not objecting to ratings. I'm objecting to ratings being used as more than a warning to parents. I'm objecting to situations described by Pixies earlier in this thread, that will become very common if the ratings are subject to some of the laws that some politicians want to have adopted. I'm objecting to this entire issue as it is another blatant example of people in general neglecting their responsibilities and asking the government to do something so that they don't have to face those tasks, which will result in more taxes, more needs to work, more lost opportunities to spend time with the ones we love.

 

This issue is a drop in the ocean but the oceans are full.

Edited April 12, 2006 by astr0creep

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm not objecting to ratings. I'm objecting to ratings being used as more than a warning to parents. I'm objecting to situations described by Pixies earlier in this thread, that will become very common if the ratings are subject to some of the laws that some politicians want to have adopted. I'm objecting to this entire issue as it is another blatant example of people in general neglecting their responsibilities and asking the government to do something so that they don't have to face those tasks, which will result in more taxes, more needs to work, more lost opportunities to spend time with the ones we love.

 

This issue is a drop in the ocean but the oceans are full.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Should parents be able to buy 18 rated games for 12 year olds ? What if you saw a parent walk into a store , buy some beer. Then give it to thier 12 year old kid outside ? Is that good parenting ?

[Judge Hades]

In an ideal world people would take personal responsibility for their actions but this isn't an ideal world.

[astr0creep]

What if you saw a parent walk into a store , buy some beer. Then give it to thier 12 year old kid outside ? Is that good parenting ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That example is bad. No matter what you know about your kid, giving her/him a beer, a cigarette, a line of coke will always be an action of activelly trying to hurt your child.

 

Some kids won't be hurt psychologically by watching Kratos tear the limbs off of a harpy. Others will kringe in fear and disgust, traumatized for the rest of their lives.

 

Restrictive ratings and consumer laws put all the eggs into one basket when eggs come in all shapes, colors and sizes.

 

Ratings should stay a warning, not a restriction of freedoms. If only to allow "good" parents to do their job.

Edited April 12, 2006 by astr0creep

[Fenghuang]

You are right. It is all about the lack of qualification to be a parent.

 

Because the only qualification you need to be a parent is to want to conceive AND raise a child. Most people only want another toy to play with and can't be bothered to quit their job to take proper care of a living, breathing person.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well if one of my kids is sick I take them to a doctor I dont try to treat them myself. So it's quite natural that parents should look towards qualified "experts" for guidence when it comes to what you should and should not be exposing your children to.

 

It's a nice idea. But in the real world quitting your job isnt an option for most people. People need to eat, pay the rent , that sort of thing. Some people are clearly unfit to be parents for a number of reasons. But if people object to something as trivial as rating of games. Not likely you will see any intervention in that area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, you take them to a doctor. When your screaming kid takes your empty gun to his friend's face and pulls the trigger repeatedly because he's mad he just got beaten at Soul Calibur 3 will you take your child to the ratings board or a psychiatrist? If you knew your child the way a parent is SUPPOSED to know her/his child would this situation even take place?

 

A choice needs to be made when having a child. One parent has to be with the child. In an ideal world which was, apparently, in the fifties... It is essential but our current lifstyle does not permit it. We will pay for our greed and materialistic values later...

 

I'm not objecting to ratings. I'm objecting to ratings being used as more than a warning to parents. I'm objecting to situations described by Pixies earlier in this thread, that will become very common if the ratings are subject to some of the laws that some politicians want to have adopted. I'm objecting to this entire issue as it is another blatant example of people in general neglecting their responsibilities and asking the government to do something so that they don't have to face those tasks, which will result in more taxes, more needs to work, more lost opportunities to spend time with the ones we love.

 

This issue is a drop in the ocean but the oceans are full.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I like you we should be friends.

 

As for your second point, this is why I am hella opposed to government paid for daycare, which several groups in the US are trying to launch and already exists in some European countries. If this happens, economies and lifestyles will adjust to make a single income family even more unfeasible. People should have the option to leave one parent at home raising kids and the option to have both parents work. If both parents want to work they need to arrange to pay for their own daycare.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Fenghuang

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That example is bad. No matter what you know about your kid, giving her/him a beer, a cigarette, a line of coke will always be an action of activelly trying to hurt your child.

 

Some kids won't be hurt psychologically by watching Kratos tear the limbs off of a harpy. Others will kringe in fear and disgust, traumatized for the rest of their lives.

 

Restrictive ratings and consumer laws put all the eggs into one basket when eggs come in all shapes, colors and sizes.

 

Ratings should stay a warning, not a restriction of freedoms. If only to allow "good" parents to do their job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So would giving them a game that would cause psychological harm.

 

And your just supposed to know which catagory yours fall into ?

 

Yes but then you leave the way open for equally irresponsible parents (like the ones buying their 12 year old beer). The law would actually protect children from such parents.

[mkreku]

The only reason I won't let my kids (whenever I get kids) play videogames is that I don't think it's healthy to be playing CounsterStrike for 16 hours a day. I want my kids to participate in sports, spend time outside and build themselves a real life network of friends. I actually believe videogames can be good for kids, but only up to a certain amount of playtime per day.

 

Also, I wouldn't let my five year old play BloodRayne or GTA..

[astr0creep]

So would giving them a game that would cause psychological harm.

 

And your just supposed to know which catagory yours fall into ?

 

Yes but then you leave the way open for equally irresponsible parents (like the ones buying their 12 year old beer). The law would actually protect children from such parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Psychological harm is inevitable. You get psychologically harmed everyday of your life.

 

Good parenting will allow children to get through obstacles, psychological or otherwise and move on with their life with little consequences.

Keeping children completely shielded from every possible form of harm is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Children(and adults) NEED to get hurt from time to time, to learn and experience so that when certain similar situations happen again, they are prepared to face them.

Imagine this situation: A 14 year old girl, having lived a life of pure joy, with no violence or bad things so far in her life, is witness to a cat being run over by a car, it's head exploding under a wheel. There is a pretty good chance she will be catatonic for at least a few minutes, probably traumatized.

I don't think the shock would've been as powerful if the event would happen 10 years earlier in her life, when a child understands a lot less about the world.

 

The law will protect children of bad parents, perhaps. But it will do so at the expense of the large majority of parents who are decent, good people who only want the best for their children and who go out of their way to provide it for them.

 

The law will put another limit on the amount of parenting options. And that is not good.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Psychological harm is inevitable. You get psychologically harmed everyday of your life.

 

Good parenting will allow children to get through obstacles, psychological or otherwise and move on with their life with little consequences.

Keeping children completely shielded from every possible form of harm is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Children(and adults) NEED to get hurt from time to time, to learn and experience so that when certain similar situations happen again, they are prepared to face them.

Imagine this situation: A 14 year old girl, having lived a life of pure joy, with no violence or bad things so far in her life, is witness to a cat being run over by a car, it's head exploding under a wheel. There is a pretty good chance she will be catatonic for at least a few minutes, probably traumatized.

I don't think the shock would've been as powerful if the event would happen 10 years earlier in her life, when a child understands a lot less about the world.

 

The law will protect children of bad parents, perhaps. But it will do so at the expense of the large majority of parents who are decent, good people who only want the best for their children and who go out of their way to provide it for them.

 

The law will put another limit on the amount of parenting options. And that is not good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont really see how sticking your 12 year old in front of GTA is wanting the best for your child.

 

Are you suggesting it's a good thing to intentionally harm them a little each day so they build a tolerance to the shock ? Because thats much the arguement used (in the opposite way) when people speak about being de-sensitised to violence.

 

As I said I'm not seeing the big deal. So it's illegal to buy M rated games and let my kids play them.

[Jediphile]

Should parents be able to buy 18 rated games for 12 year olds ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Should parents be banned from taking their 11-year old children to see "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"? It was rated PG-13 IIRC, and most children of age 10 and up want to see it. I remember a lot of controversy when the movie came out, because the parents ignored that warned and took their children to see it anyway. And yes, some parents *DO* go and watch a movie first before deciding whether their children may see it. I respect such parents very much. But I suppose now that the dvd is out, you would want the people working in the video store to refuse selling it to people if they are accompanied by children of 10 years or less? Do we want a society like that, where parents have to leave the children outside while they sneak in like thieves in the night to buy these products? I wouldn't want to live in it with you...

 

Ratings should be ADVISORY only. Personally I won't tolerate a government that tells me what is "good and right" for me or for my child to experience - I'm an adult and will make up my own mind on that, thank you very much!

 

Sure, they may make suggestions. They may give advice and seek to inform me. That I welcome. And finding reviews of a game your child wants to play isn't exactly rocked science in today's world. If parents can't be bothered to spend a few minutes finding some reviews about a game and then reading them, then they're probably going to screw up the child in any event.

 

Would the law protect such children? Perhaps it would from video games, but it's naive to think that means it's not a harmful law, because we know that the next law will be about "abusive language" or "not smoking in your house" or whatever an opportunistic politician can sell as the "shock and horror" of the week to the public opinion in the media. Far too many politicians are nothing by fearmongers IMHO, and they don't hesitate for a second to mobilize the "angry mothers of America" or whatever behind their cause-of-the-week, whatever it might be.

 

What if you saw a parent walk into a store , buy some beer. Then give it to thier 12 year old kid outside ? Is that good parenting ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would you let them taste if they're really curious? Because I might... But that does not mean that I turn children into alcholics. You almost make it sound as if a single drop of alcohol is going to corrupt an innocent child forever.

[astr0creep]

Would you let them taste if they're really curious? Because I might... But that does not mean that I turn children into alcholics. You almost make it sound as if a single drop of alcohol is going to corrupt an innocent child forever.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When I was around 12, my father let me taste his beer. My mother was outraged but my dad looked at her and said I was old enough to know what I liked to drink and eat. he slept on the couch that night.

After tasting beer and realizing my own pee tasted much better, I never bought beer in my life and I would never in the future either. I will only have some when it would be rude not too, such as at a familly BBQ.

Same thing with cigarettes, drugs and huh... other things.

 

You try, your learn. You don,t try, you never learn.

[Jediphile]

I dont really see how sticking your 12 year old in front of GTA is wanting the best for your child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nor do I, but that's an extreme and must therefore be compared to the other extreme, which is to isolate your child so much all the "bad things" in the real world, that the child remains completely clueless to what the real world is even like.

 

For example, did you "shield" your child from the horror of 9/11 because it was too harmful? Did you ban all use of tv and radio, remove all newspapers, and cut the internet-connection? If you did so, did you protect your child, or did you do it a disservice, because you found it too disturbing to explain what happened?

 

Are you suggesting it's a good thing to intentionally harm them a little each day so they build a tolerance to the shock ? Because thats much the arguement used (in the opposite way) when people speak about being de-sensitised to violence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You should intentionally "harm" your children, no, but nor should you shield them completely from what the real world is like. You can't do everything for them, and one day they have to live in that world.

 

As I said I'm not seeing the big deal. So it's illegal to buy M rated games and let my kids play them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with those who say that it should not be made illegal to buy such games for children. If parents can't be bothered to take an interest in what their children spend their time on, then why did they decide to have any children in the first place - the responsibility comes with the choice to have children. If you don't want that responsibility, then don't have children (or let them be adopted)!

[metadigital]

What if you saw a parent walk into a store , buy some beer. Then give it to thier 12 year old kid outside ? Is that good parenting ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In France, for example, it is traditional for children to have a glass of wine with dinner, some as young as pre-teen (though more like half-a-glass, in those cases).

 

The alcohol problem that the "developed" world has is more due to binge drinking, which arguably can be tempered by a more realistic attitude. (Might have something to do with the Calvanistic wish for prohibition trying to wrestle with repressed desires for losing sharp focus of the responsiblities of the world. That, and / or the wage-slavery of most people, and what that causes some people to do to others, which drives them to drink to excess to drown out their reality.)

 

If your example was with a packet of cigarettes, then I would concur with your implication that such parenting is not good.

[Jediphile]

When I was around 12, my father let me taste his beer. My mother was outraged but my dad looked at her and said I was old enough to know what I liked to drink and eat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think was even younger than that, less than 10, when (both) my parents first let me taste alcohol. I have scarcely turned into an alcoholic as a consequence. On the contrary, my parents have often commented how I never drink anything (which isn't true, but close enough).

 

After tasting beer and realizing my own pee tasted much better, I never bought beer in my life and I would never in the future either. I will only have some when it would be rude not too, such as at a familly BBQ.

Same thing with cigarettes, drugs and huh... other things.

 

You try, your learn. You don,t try, you never learn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, exactly. The point lies in "demystifying" things like alcohol or cigarettes. How many children have tried drinking or smoking precisely because their parents wouldn't let them try it? In my experience, it's better to do this at home, so that it at least happens under circumstances that the parents have control over...

 

Because the children *will* drink and smoke sooner or later! It's in human nature to question why there are things we may not do (unless it is obvious why not, like killing other people or stealing from them). Heck, I got out and bought GTA San Andreas just to see what all the fuss was about over the last year or so (and it's brilliant, though I can't get the "hot coffee" mod to work right...). I'm sure the next time someone tries to ban a movie or a game, I'll probably rush to get it just to see what the big deal is...

[Dyan]

I don't buy a new game unless it's M rated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here, here

[omnimutant]

The purpose of gaming(in most cases) is to waste time, to fight boredom.

Isn't that the purpose of life?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Should parents be banned from taking their 11-year old children to see "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"? It was rated PG-13 IIRC, and most children of age 10 and up want to see it. I remember a lot of controversy when the movie came out, because the parents ignored that warned and took their children to see it anyway. And yes, some parents *DO* go and watch a movie first before deciding whether their children may see it. I respect such parents very much. But I suppose now that the dvd is out, you would want the people working in the video store to refuse selling it to people if they are accompanied by children of 10 years or less? Do we want a society like that, where parents have to leave the children outside while they sneak in like thieves in the night to buy these products? I wouldn't want to live in it with you... 

 

Ratings should be ADVISORY only. Personally I won't tolerate a government that tells me what is "good and right" for me or for my child to experience - I'm an adult and will make up my own mind on that, thank you very much!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

PG 13 is exactly that. Either you need to be 13 or have parental concent. It's completely ambiguous you get situations like that arising. Now a 15 is just that , if you take an under age child to a 15 movie it's quite clear your doing something you shouldnt. Likewise if the movie had been 13 (not a rating as far as I know but 12 is) anyone under that age had no business there. Which is part of the problem with "suggested" ratings.

 

Movies really dont take long to watch. You can watch them on fast forward and still get a sense of anything shocking.

 

PG-13

Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard.

 

Compare to the UK 12 rating.

 

No one under 12 years of age may see a "12" film or rent or buy a "12" video.

[Dark_Raven]

I am so glad I will not be having kids.

 

On topic parents need to step up and be parents. They created a new life, they can proper educate that new life with proper morals of society.

[Krookie]

That's just at the ticket booth though. I'm 15 and I've seen plenty of R rated films in theaters. Buy tickets for a PG-13 movie, and walk right into the R film. The kids that work at the theater are only 2 or 3 years older then us, they don't really care.

 

Again, it's up to the parents. Now personally, I've told my mom that we've snuck into a couple R rated films. Was she happy? No. Did she sue the company like that crazy mother who sued Rock Star games? No. The point is there is a certain level of trust and maturity a parent see's in their child, my mother must see a high one. Some other parents may see a low one.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's just at the ticket booth though. I'm 15 and I've seen plenty of R rated films in theaters. Buy tickets for a PG-13 movie, and walk right into the R film. The kids that work at the theater are only 2 or 3 years older then us, they don't really care.

 

Again, it's up to the parents. Now personally, I've told my mom that we've snuck into a couple R rated films. Was she happy? No. Did she sue the company like that crazy mother who sued Rock Star games? No. The point is there is a certain level of trust and maturity a parent see's in their child, my mother must see a high one. Some other parents may see a low one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

 

UK 18 Suitable only for adults. No one under 18 years of age may see an "18" film or rent or buy an "18" video.

 

Sneaking into movies your not supposed to be in is a right of passage.

[metadigital]

Again, it's up to the parents. Now personally, I've told my mom that we've snuck into a couple R rated films. Was she happy? No. Did she sue the company like that crazy mother who sued Rock Star games? No. The point is there is a certain level of trust and maturity a parent see's in their child, my mother must see a high one. Some other parents may see a low one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The parent who decided to sue (whether at the lead of an ambulance-chaser, or not) demonstrates the truth beneath the thin veneer of pretense: greed. Just like the bottom-dwellers that thought to make a score off Michael Jackson, "parents" like these think nothing of using "their" children to further their own gains, irrespective of the jeopardy in which the innocents may find themselves.

[Dark_Raven]

They set up a grand example for their kids to follow. Hey kids it's ok to steal and lie, we will get large sums of money in the end.

[Llyranor]

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's a cultural thing. I heard earlier people in New York are going to sue because of the dust they breathed in during 9/11 and the aftermath.