<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 23 2003, 05:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 23 2003, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you seriously suggesting that only parents should be censoring the content that their children receive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is pretty much exactely what MonsE and I (to think that I won't continue this phrase with 'disagree about'...) are suggesting. From a strictly juristic standpoint, <i>only</i> the parents have the right to raise their children. Period. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the society must take care of family life as well. That implies also raising children. It must provide guidelines, such as the obligation to visit school in Germany... To a certain extent, there must be governmental restrictions in the raising of children
Now we're getting very theoretical, and I agree - if the regulations are necessary for the children to be brought up into the frame of society. In the topic at hand, this is not the case.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 23 2003, 10:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 23 2003, 10:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Blanket ban = bad Sensible age rating and guidelines on taste and decency = good <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this point. The interesting thing is, this condition already exists. <a href='http://www.esrb.org/' target='_blank'>The ESRB</a> is a non-governmental board that independantly reviews and rates products. They have a huge list of participating companies who voluntarily have their products rated. If these politicians would spend half their time on camera promoting this program they'd probably do alot more good. The more parents are aware of the system, the easier it is for them to make decisions.
As for the point regarding society, we should ask ourselves if we make up society or does the government do that for us too?
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Apr 23 2003, 12:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Apr 23 2003, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 23 2003, 10:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 23 2003, 10:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Blanket ban = bad Sensible age rating and guidelines on taste and decency = good <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this point. The interesting thing is, this condition already exists. <a href='http://www.esrb.org/' target='_blank'>The ESRB</a> is a non-governmental board that independantly reviews and rates products. They have a huge list of participating companies who voluntarily have their products rated. If these politicians would spend half their time on camera promoting this program they'd probably do alot more good. The more parents are aware of the system, the easier it is for them to make decisions.
As for the point regarding society, we should ask ourselves if we make up society or does the government do that for us too? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exxxaccccctttlllyyyyy...
The argument that a parent doesn't know what the contents of a game are is already moot in the US - the ESRB operates just like the MPAA movie ratings, and so everyone sees the ingredients. At that point, a parent can make a decision on whether or not their kids are playing a game the parent finds objectionable. Although this would *gasp*, involve actually <i>paying attention to what your kids do</i>.
The logical progression of all this (not to steal Nem's excellent argument) is to say 'you are not allowed to have children because we have determined that you are not fit to be a parent'. Eugenics. And then we are in a world of ****...
I think 90% of all gamers agree with you, that's why we are <i>gamers</i> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yea, but 90% of all humans agree that killing people isn't exactely desirable, either, and yet, we've had big discussions about Iraq <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
The important difference between video games and movies is that video games by their nature are consumed in a domestic environment. If there were no restrictions on movie viewing, children would very easily be able to see 'inappropriate' movies without their parents having the slightest idea. Video games, however, are played in the home, and if the parents aren't aware of what's going on in their own home then they aren't doing their job. As I see it, this is why age restrictions on movies are permissible in a way that they aren't for games.
A link you might find interesting <a href='http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0504jen.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0504jen.pdf</a>
Every study done to date that has any relavant backing and proof that it wasn't skewed toward one side has proven that there is NO relavant link between violent video games and violence in real life.
Let's think about this for a moment in perspective. Everquest has over 500 thousand players. Other games sell a million titles EACH. Does this mean we have litteraly billions of people playing video games? Yes, yes it does. Then why haven't we killed each other yet? Why have these games not warped our little minds to the point of breakage? I'll tell you why. It's because the people who already have little to no hold on reality are the ones that "copy" the video games. It's the people that are already screwed up in the head.
Just like the man says:
"Guns don't kill people, I do"
(replace guns with video games for those that can't make that connection)
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Apr 23 2003, 04:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Apr 23 2003, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A link you might find interesting <a href='http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0504jen.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0504jen.pdf</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A fascinating read - I highly suggest everyone at least skim it to get some truly cogent and scientific thoughts on this issue...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cultural artifacts are not simple chemical agents like carcinogens that produce predictable results upon those who consume them. They are complex bundles of often contradictory meanings that can yield an enormous range of different responses from the people who consume them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd no more want Sonic the hedgehog on the shelf in a software store next to hot butt **** chix 17, than I would the Tweenies mag being next to "50 and gagging for it"in a newsagent. There is some content that children should be protected from (and I'd question how many of those posting here are actually parents, not just gamers too.)
As stated above I'm well in support of the ESRB (or its local equivalent), and against blanket banning.
I censor the input my kids receive (more than most, since they're home-schooled) I would like to think I'm a responsible parent. At the same time I don't want the input I receive to be banned or censored, I'm an adult, I can make the choice for myself.
As for society and governance, we've argued it in other threads. Extremist views do gain credibilty at times, ultimately a balance will be struck. If you think censorship is too swingeing, or too lax, make your voice heard. As it stands, I'd like an age rating system, but not a blanket ban. Some controls need to be in place, as I've said, not all parents care about what their children do after they squeeze them out. ( I saw a mother give a child of maybe 2 yoa a bottle full of coke on the bus this morning. ffs) Unless you're suggesting that children should be allowed to see things like 18 rated movies because their parenst should be there to stop them, then you must agree that some things are unsuitable. The state needs to take some responsibilty too. Your government is your elected representative, and as such has a duty of care to each and every member it represents, and those too young to be make their voice heard.
just for clarity <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I AM AGAINST THE BLANKET BANNING OF GAMES FOR ADULTS. I AM FOR AN AGE SPECIFIC RATING SYSTEM TO PROTECT CHILDREN.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and Germany won't be using it since will retain its own rating system - 'cos that's the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting to note - this law is exactely 24 days old.
/me goes and sends some white powder to adresses in Berlin.
I _strongly_ dislike Sen. Lieverman, and have because of his stance on violent video games for a long time. He says that "games like Grand Theft Auto that celebrate violence against women." Where exactly is the mission to kill or hurt a women? It's not the point to the game, you can "celebrate violence" against men too. Why did he say women? because it sounds better. bah.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Apr 23 2003, 10:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Apr 23 2003, 10:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 23 2003, 05:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 23 2003, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you seriously suggesting that only parents should be censoring the content that their children receive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is pretty much exactely what MonsE and I (to think that I won't continue this phrase with 'disagree about'...) are suggesting. From a strictly juristic standpoint, <i>only</i> the parents have the right to raise their children. Period. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the society must take care of family life as well. That implies also raising children. It must provide guidelines, such as the obligation to visit school in Germany... To a certain extent, there must be governmental restrictions in the raising of children <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Society does not have to do anything. Its is the family which must raise the children to fit into society.
Comments
I think this is pretty much exactely what MonsE and I (to think that I won't continue this phrase with 'disagree about'...) are suggesting. From a strictly juristic standpoint, <i>only</i> the parents have the right to raise their children. Period.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the society must take care of family life as well. That implies also raising children. It must provide guidelines, such as the obligation to visit school in Germany... To a certain extent, there must be governmental restrictions in the raising of children
Sensible age rating and guidelines on taste and decency = good <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this point. The interesting thing is, this condition already exists. <a href='http://www.esrb.org/' target='_blank'>The ESRB</a> is a non-governmental board that independantly reviews and rates products. They have a huge list of participating companies who voluntarily have their products rated. If these politicians would spend half their time on camera promoting this program they'd probably do alot more good. The more parents are aware of the system, the easier it is for them to make decisions.
As for the point regarding society, we should ask ourselves if we make up society or does the government do that for us too?
Sensible age rating and guidelines on taste and decency = good <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this point. The interesting thing is, this condition already exists. <a href='http://www.esrb.org/' target='_blank'>The ESRB</a> is a non-governmental board that independantly reviews and rates products. They have a huge list of participating companies who voluntarily have their products rated. If these politicians would spend half their time on camera promoting this program they'd probably do alot more good. The more parents are aware of the system, the easier it is for them to make decisions.
As for the point regarding society, we should ask ourselves if we make up society or does the government do that for us too? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exxxaccccctttlllyyyyy...
The argument that a parent doesn't know what the contents of a game are is already moot in the US - the ESRB operates just like the MPAA movie ratings, and so everyone sees the ingredients. At that point, a parent can make a decision on whether or not their kids are playing a game the parent finds objectionable. Although this would *gasp*, involve actually <i>paying attention to what your kids do</i>.
The logical progression of all this (not to steal Nem's excellent argument) is to say 'you are not allowed to have children because we have determined that you are not fit to be a parent'. Eugenics. And then we are in a world of ****...
The end is nigh!!!
A link you might find interesting <a href='http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0504jen.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0504jen.pdf</a>
Let's think about this for a moment in perspective. Everquest has over 500 thousand players. Other games sell a million titles EACH. Does this mean we have litteraly billions of people playing video games? Yes, yes it does. Then why haven't we killed each other yet? Why have these games not warped our little minds to the point of breakage? I'll tell you why. It's because the people who already have little to no hold on reality are the ones that "copy" the video games. It's the people that are already screwed up in the head.
Just like the man says:
"Guns don't kill people, I do"
(replace guns with video games for those that can't make that connection)
A fascinating read - I highly suggest everyone at least skim it to get some truly cogent and scientific thoughts on this issue...
Now thats a brilliant piece of insight.
I'd no more want Sonic the hedgehog on the shelf in a software store next to hot butt **** chix 17, than I would the Tweenies mag being next to "50 and gagging for it"in a newsagent. There is some content that children should be protected from (and I'd question how many of those posting here are actually parents, not just gamers too.)
As stated above I'm well in support of the ESRB (or its local equivalent), and against blanket banning.
I censor the input my kids receive (more than most, since they're home-schooled) I would like to think I'm a responsible parent. At the same time I don't want the input I receive to be banned or censored, I'm an adult, I can make the choice for myself.
As for society and governance, we've argued it in other threads. Extremist views do gain credibilty at times, ultimately a balance will be struck. If you think censorship is too swingeing, or too lax, make your voice heard. As it stands, I'd like an age rating system, but not a blanket ban.
Some controls need to be in place, as I've said, not all parents care about what their children do after they squeeze them out. ( I saw a mother give a child of maybe 2 yoa a bottle full of coke on the bus this morning. ffs) Unless you're suggesting that children should be allowed to see things like 18 rated movies because their parenst should be there to stop them, then you must agree that some things are unsuitable. The state needs to take some responsibilty too. Your government is your elected representative, and as such has a duty of care to each and every member it represents, and those too young to be make their voice heard.
just for clarity <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I AM AGAINST THE BLANKET BANNING OF GAMES FOR ADULTS. I AM FOR AN AGE SPECIFIC RATING SYSTEM TO PROTECT CHILDREN.
<a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30382.html' target='_blank'>SPOOKY!!!</a>
Interesting to note - this law is exactely 24 days old.
/me goes and sends some white powder to adresses in Berlin.
No doubt it'd arrive there on time, in perfect condition, and delievered with a smile.
I think this is pretty much exactely what MonsE and I (to think that I won't continue this phrase with 'disagree about'...) are suggesting. From a strictly juristic standpoint, <i>only</i> the parents have the right to raise their children. Period.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the society must take care of family life as well. That implies also raising children. It must provide guidelines, such as the obligation to visit school in Germany... To a certain extent, there must be governmental restrictions in the raising of children <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Society does not have to do anything. Its is the family which must raise the children to fit into society.