detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 The ratings on games all ready restricts sell to minors when it's rated M(mature). I guess the point of this law was to make sure those game didn't get sold to minors are garage sales or out of a truck of a car. Perhaps whomever mentioned it earlier was wrong, but apparently these ratings, just like an R rating, is not a legally binding restriction, but rather something that many stores or theaters can choose to abide by or not. So, it would seem like this law would make it more like porn, smokes, or booze. It would no longer be a guideline, but a true age restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I'm waiting to see counterpoints taken to court. You know it is just a matter of time before some child protective services unit charges a parent with neglect for allowing too young a child to much unsupervised access to these games, or before a parent brings the issue forward during custody battles as proof that the other parent, who allows such use, is unfit. Once again, how would you feel about knowledge that a parent allows their kid to watch porn being used against them in the same way? I'm pretty sure a story about something like that would be ripe for one of those "Dad of the year" threads that get started around these parts. So, ironic point number whatever: The US has much higher restrictions on porn than other countries. Nearly every study I've seen shows that US adults lag way, way behind the rest of the world in the amount of sex we have. And one of the issues that often comes up among couples with a troubled marriage is that they don't have enough sex. So, it's rather safe to say we don't have enough sex in this country. That we've recognized that as something that is wrong in this country. And we have tighter restrictions on porn than countries who seem to have a healthier relationship with sex. But it is seen as idiotic that someone would suggest that porn be seen as no worse than graphically violent games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Once again, how would you feel about knowledge that a parent allows their kid to watch porn being used against them in the same way? I'm pretty sure a story about something like that would be ripe for one of those "Dad of the year" threads that get started around these parts. So, ironic point number whatever: The US has much higher restrictions on porn than other countries. Nearly every study I've seen shows that US adults lag way, way behind the rest of the world in the amount of sex we have. And one of the issues that often comes up among couples with a troubled marriage is that they don't have enough sex. So, it's rather safe to say we don't have enough sex in this country. That we've recognized that as something that is wrong in this country. And we have tighter restrictions on porn than countries who seem to have a healthier relationship with sex. But it is seen as idiotic that someone would suggest that porn be seen as no worse than graphically violent games. Interesting correlation would be we love violence and have less sex than the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Repetitive, violent games with some studies showing strong corrolations to lessened inhibitions to violence, fine. I'm gonna need you to cite a study showing these strong correlations. I've read studies that violent video games actually relax the people playing them and I know statistically violent crimes have diminished as violent video game sales have increased the last couple decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Interesting correlation would be we love violence and have less sex than the rest of the world. Or that we take sex too seriously and don't take war seriously enough. I guess that's my point. We don't send soldiers into war, we send "troops". "Send in the troops". They're not living, breathing people with families and friends and hobbies, they're "troops". Given how much more readily our country accepts going to war than other 1st world nations, I would say that is something that poses a bigger problem than other things. Not that we should never go to war, but rather we should think bloody long and hard about it and realize what we're asking of the people we send (as well as their loved ones). And I don't think we do that enough. And I can't help but think that the number of games where war is a strategic challenge, rather than something that should be avoided at all costs, does not help provide the proper perspective. So, if it's between desensitizing our children to sex or war, I guess I'd choose sex. In terms of things I think we should protect our kids from, I would rank them as such: Things that you consume that could be dangerous all rank above the rest. 1) Heavy drugs (obviously) 2) Smoking (the % of smokers who have a healthy relationship with tobacco, as in, dude who tokes up a cigar now and then, seems to pale by comparison to those who are smoking themselves to death. And even those who don't smoke much are not enjoying any health benefits at all from it.) 3 Drinking (though just the purchase and unsupervised consumption. I think if parents shared a good beer or glass of wine with their kids every now and then, showed it's place at the table with a good meal, etc., they might help foster a healthy relationship.) Way down the list because nothing is actually being ingested. Exposure to games and videos that act out the following: 4) Violence. There's nothing good about violence. Sometimes violence is needed, but it should never be glorified and we should avoid making our kids blase about it. 5) Sex. A completely legal and healthy act when done by consenting adults. And it is something that studies have shown we don't do enough. reducing the taboo associated with it does not seem like a bad thing. So, I say you certainly draw the line below #3. If you really want to be protective, you draw the line below #5, but I just don't see how you justify switching positions between #4 and #5 and draw the line below that. Edited June 30, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 Like Azz, you seem to be using the logic that, since we've already decided porn should not be sold or marketed to kids and haven't yet done so with violent, crime-related games, that, in and of itself, is justification. Where's my Snuggie blanket?? how do you type so many words of such vapid substance? look, it's real simple. the court here on "bi-partisan" grounds took an expansive reading of the first amendment right to free speech. to me, that is a good thing, I am glad to see them taking constitutional limits on government power seriously. I wish they also would have ruled similarly in some of the "obsenity" cases (mostly from decades past), and maybe this ruling signals that they will be moving in that direction in the future. if you're interested in how they are reconciling the different decisions and drawing distinctions between different types of speech, I recommend you read some of the cases, rather than perpetuate these inane rants against weird strawmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 whippersnappers 2: get off of my lawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 "obsenity laws" pertaining to porn have generally been upheld by the courts as a first amendment exception. This was your response to the first comment I made. Sounds a lot like you were using the fact that the courts have previously decided that porn is something to keep away from as a reason for why it is certainly worse than something that they had yet to make the same distinction with. And that seems like a pretty lame basis. If, in fact, you also feel that obscenity cases have gone too far in the past, I might have thought you'd have mentioned it. But you didn't. So, sounds like you also feel that our kids should be no more sheltered by the state from porn than they are from violent games. Perhaps we don't have much to argue about. More importantly, I do get the distinct impression that there are others in this thread (and certainly in this country) who are happy, not only about this ruling, but that porn is not seen in the same light. And, as I've said, I find it unfortunate that we take sex more seriously than we do violence. An issue whose symptoms raise their ugly heads on both fronts. Both in that we're afraid of sex to the extent that our relationships seem to suffer and seemingly give little regard about sending our sons and daughters into war. Where's my Snuggie blanket?? how do you type so many words of such vapid substance? look, it's real simple. the court here on "bi-partisan" grounds took an expansive reading of the first amendment right to free speech. to me, that is a good thing, I am glad to see them taking constitutional limits on government power seriously. I wish they also would have ruled similarly in some of the "obsenity" cases (mostly from decades past), and maybe this ruling signals that they will be moving in that direction in the future. if you're interested in how they are reconciling the different decisions and drawing distinctions between different types of speech, I recommend you read some of the cases, rather than perpetuate these inane rants against weird strawmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Det, a few things to be noted here. First, as far as I know, there are no studies that show a correlation between porn and sexual deviancy, and in fact might reduce violent sex crimes by providing an outlet to "release tension". This doesn't mean that I disagree that we should shield our kids from what is a private act between adults behind closed doors, but it's not like it's the end of the world if the kid sees some porn. Same for violent video games. Is there not a certain age when you can watch a fictional violent movie and realize that this is not accepted behavior? Playing a video game not only in most cases shows the consequences (you kill people, and get shot at and die if you don't get the sequence exactly right), but more importantly provides an outlet to live out a fantasy you'd never dream of taking part in real life (kinda like Cowboys and Indians). Can it desensitize kids to violence, maybe, but I think glorifying bloody wars might be more dangerous for kids not understanding the full consequences of taking arms. I don't think that you can blame violent games for violent actions, because there are so many other factors that are far more consequential... At Columbine, we might be led to believe that violent music contributed to their massacre, but it didn't. It was because the kids were bullied, and their parents obviously weren't doing a good enough job at knowing what was going on their lives. I'm sorry, but to try to blame these pieces of media for the woes of society is not only unfounded, but it provides an easy "solution" scapegoat to far more serious problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 QUOTE (Azazello1313 @ 6/29/11 6:31pm) "obsenity laws" pertaining to porn have generally been upheld by the courts as a first amendment exception. This was your response to the first comment I made. Sounds a lot like you were using the fact that the courts have previously decided that porn is something to keep away from as a reason for why it is certainly worse than something that they had yet to make the same distinction with. uhh, no. you asked a simple factual question, and I gave you a simple factual answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Or that we take sex too seriously and don't take war seriously enough. I guess that's my point. We don't send soldiers into war, we send "troops". "Send in the troops". They're not living, breathing people with families and friends and hobbies, they're "troops". Given how much more readily our country accepts going to war than other 1st world nations, I would say that is something that poses a bigger problem than other things. Not that we should never go to war, but rather we should think bloody long and hard about it and realize what we're asking of the people we send (as well as their loved ones). And I don't think we do that enough. Completely agree with this, which is why I support a mandatory draft every time Congress or the president contemplates yet another round of war for fun and profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Completely agree with this, Meh, even if I agree who wants to read that much blather? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Det, a few things to be noted here. First, as far as I know, there are no studies that show a correlation between porn and sexual deviancy, and in fact might reduce violent sex crimes by providing an outlet to "release tension". This doesn't mean that I disagree that we should shield our kids from what is a private act between adults behind closed doors, but it's not like it's the end of the world if the kid sees some porn. Same for violent video games. Is there not a certain age when you can watch a fictional violent movie and realize that this is not accepted behavior? Playing a video game not only in most cases shows the consequences (you kill people, and get shot at and die if you don't get the sequence exactly right), but more importantly provides an outlet to live out a fantasy you'd never dream of taking part in real life (kinda like Cowboys and Indians). Can it desensitize kids to violence, maybe, but I think glorifying bloody wars might be more dangerous for kids not understanding the full consequences of taking arms. I don't think that you can blame violent games for violent actions, because there are so many other factors that are far more consequential... At Columbine, we might be led to believe that violent music contributed to their massacre, but it didn't. It was because the kids were bullied, and their parents obviously weren't doing a good enough job at knowing what was going on their lives. I'm sorry, but to try to blame these pieces of media for the woes of society is not only unfounded, but it provides an easy "solution" scapegoat to far more serious problems. OK, so this is not the first time that the whole "fictional" argument has been made with regard to violence in video games but, somehow does not apply to porn because it is actual filmed footage of real people having sex. So, am I to understand that those videos where the pizza dude shows up and gets laid by the MILF who ordered it or the babysitter gets busted by the dad for pleasuring herself and needs to suck him off to keep him quiet are all documentaries? As far as a link between porn and sexual deviancy, that's sort of my point. Everyone is so quick to explain why kids are likely going to be fine if we expose them to graphic war and crime related games. Has anyone bothered to find out if kids will become sexual deviants if they see porn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) OK, so this is not the first time that the whole "fictional" argument has been made with regard to violence in video games but, somehow does not apply to porn because it is actual filmed footage of real people having sex. So, am I to understand that those videos where the pizza dude shows up and gets laid by the MILF who ordered it or the babysitter gets busted by the dad for pleasuring herself and needs to suck him off to keep him quiet are all documentaries? As far as a link between porn and sexual deviancy, that's sort of my point. Everyone is so quick to explain why kids are likely going to be fine if we expose them to graphic war and crime related games. Has anyone bothered to find out if kids will become sexual deviants if they see porn? Of course they've looked at a porn/sexual deviancy link, but I'm pretty confident that the only studies you'll find that support that position are going to be from groups who have an agenda against the porn industry. As far as I know, there is no credible study that concludes that pornography contributes to sexual deviancy. At best, you can find a correlation between violent offenders and porn use, but that should be no surprise, and doesn't show causality when the vast majority of those who are exposed to porn, even as a tween/teen, are not sexual offenders in the least. There are far more relevant factors, such as being abused, that are much stronger predictors. I have to assume that violence in video games is going to yield a similar very loose correlation, only supported by the happenstance that violent people might happen to like violent video games. It does not equate to causality... Though perhaps there is some danger in how this is yet another media outlet that glorifies war and violence (the military even has it's own games that are used as recruiting tools), but that seems a different discussion alltogether than the government impeding free-speech. You mention how many porn storylines are fictional, but that doesn't make the sexual acts any less real (unless we're talking about Showtime pron, but I'm even more certain that you're not going to find a causation between viewing soft-core porn and sex offenders). My guess is that the public fixation on the negative effects of porn has more to do with our judeo-christian values to hold sex as a sacred act than it is grounded in reality. Does restricting pron stop predators on myspace and facebook? My guess is it would only make the problem worse... (ETA: I guess this last paragraph is getting a little off-topic, but I don't see a need to change or examine the current statutes on pornography, particularly child porn, and same goes for video games). Edited June 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Interesting correlation would be we love violence and have less sex than the rest of the world. Or that we are releasing our pent up sexual frustration through violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Once again, how would you feel about knowledge that a parent allows their kid to watch porn being used against them in the same way? I'm pretty sure a story about something like that would be ripe for one of those "Dad of the year" threads that get started around these parts. So, ironic point number whatever: The US has much higher restrictions on porn than other countries. Nearly every study I've seen shows that US adults lag way, way behind the rest of the world in the amount of sex we have. And one of the issues that often comes up among couples with a troubled marriage is that they don't have enough sex. So, it's rather safe to say we don't have enough sex in this country. That we've recognized that as something that is wrong in this country. And we have tighter restrictions on porn than countries who seem to have a healthier relationship with sex. But it is seen as idiotic that someone would suggest that porn be seen as no worse than graphically violent games. How I feel is not really an issue for me. I believe that it will happen, and that the courts will have to try to resolve the matters with some consistency. I believe they will fail. Whether I think they are even the exact same issue was not my point. I believe that others will think so, and will pursue that line of reasoning. But, since you asked I think decency demands an honest response. As a parent of course I would like help in raising my children in such a manner that they reach their full potential and that they avoid learning or considering disfunctional behavior. My problem is that I am not sure what route gets them to their full potential. It is possible that exposure to a braod range of thought, even thought sometimes belieeved to be destructive by me, others, or some mythical majority of enlightened folks may be an essential step in their development. I don't have all the answers. i also know that help often comes with hidden onorous strings attached and that seeking help from government may be making a deal with the devil, so to speak. I do believe generally in that government which governs less, and which leaves discretion to parents. This may burden me, but it is a burden I voluntarily signed up for when I became a parent. Nobody said it would be easy. I support the court ruling in the instant matter as it comports with my political philosophy. In this case it may make my job as a parent more difficult, but that happens. Who knows, doing the difficult may have benefits while seeking ease may have unforeseen negative consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 How I feel is not really an issue for me. I believe that it will happen, and that the courts will have to try to resolve the matters with some consistency. I believe they will fail. Whether I think they are even the exact same issue was not my point. I believe that others will think so, and will pursue that line of reasoning. But, since you asked I think decency demands an honest response. As a parent of course I would like help in raising my children in such a manner that they reach their full potential and that they avoid learning or considering disfunctional behavior. My problem is that I am not sure what route gets them to their full potential. It is possible that exposure to a braod range of thought, even thought sometimes belieeved to be destructive by me, others, or some mythical majority of enlightened folks may be an essential step in their development. I don't have all the answers. i also know that help often comes with hidden onorous strings attached and that seeking help from government may be making a deal with the devil, so to speak. I do believe generally in that government which governs less, and which leaves discretion to parents. This may burden me, but it is a burden I voluntarily signed up for when I became a parent. Nobody said it would be easy. I support the court ruling in the instant matter as it comports with my political philosophy. In this case it may make my job as a parent more difficult, but that happens. Who knows, doing the difficult may have benefits while seeking ease may have unforeseen negative consequences. So, if I understand you correctly, you'd just as soon as allow both porn and violent video games to be allowed for open sale and let the parents govern their children? I can certainly get with that, as I've made my stance clear that watching people have sex is likely better than watching people kill one another. Make love, not war right? Surely, any parent worth a crap is capable of reminding his child that both taking it in every hole as well as going to war are both things that shouldn't be entered into lightly. There are times on this site where I come out against groups that seem to intentionally make a parent's job harder in the name of profit. However, I don't call for the government to step in but rather for the people to remind these companies, with their wallets, how effing sleazy it is that they beg kids to whine to their parents about wanting crap that's really not good for them. But that's as far as I think it should be taken. Plenty here find that to be an affront to all that is good and American. But I just see that as making the market work as it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Completely agree with this, which is why I support a mandatory draft every time Congress or the president contemplates yet another round of war for fun and profit. Michael Moore tried to get Congress to sign their kids up for the Iraq war. None signed up because they are too important to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 There are times on this site where I come out against groups that seem to intentionally make a parent's job harder in the name of profit. However, I don't call for the government to step in but rather for the people to remind these companies, with their wallets, how effing sleazy it is that they beg kids to whine to their parents about wanting crap that's really not good for them. But that's as far as I think it should be taken. Plenty here find that to be an affront to all that is good and American. But I just see that as making the market work as it should. that's exactly what happens now with the voluntary, private movie and game ratings system. so what is it you're complaining about again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 rings start it at the 6:42 mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 that's exactly what happens now with the voluntary, private movie and game ratings system. so what is it you're complaining about again? That some seem to have no problem with putting age restrictions on porn but see it as an affront to what our forefathers wanted to do the same with violent games. Did I really have to say that again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 So, if I understand you correctly, you'd just as soon as allow both porn and violent video games to be allowed for open sale and let the parents govern their children? I can certainly get with that, as I've made my stance clear that watching people have sex is likely better than watching people kill one another. Make love, not war right? Surely, any parent worth a crap is capable of reminding his child that both taking it in every hole as well as going to war are both things that shouldn't be entered into lightly. There are times on this site where I come out against groups that seem to intentionally make a parent's job harder in the name of profit. However, I don't call for the government to step in but rather for the people to remind these companies, with their wallets, how effing sleazy it is that they beg kids to whine to their parents about wanting crap that's really not good for them. But that's as far as I think it should be taken. Plenty here find that to be an affront to all that is good and American. But I just see that as making the market work as it should. Whether I would "just as soon" or I don't see a reasonable alternative at this time which would fit within my philosophy of the power government ought to have; you do indeed take me pretty much correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I'm not saying we should open the flood gates on porn for kids. I'm simply wondering why selling kids violent games is an example of "freedom of expression" if porn is not. I know. In fact I was agreeing, ie the logic being applied here is flawed at best, a flaming double-standard at most (which is ridiculously common these days). We should either protect kids from decidedly "adult" things or not. But the sex vs violence inconsistency has been around a long time, and movies are a perfect example, although they do sometimes bump up a movie rating based on violent content vs sex (eg Cuckoo's Nest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 There's really no need to worry about video games: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Report_finds_t...h_problem_in_US Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Perhaps whomever mentioned it earlier was wrong, but apparently these ratings, just like an R rating, is not a legally binding restriction, but rather something that many stores or theaters can choose to abide by or not. So, it would seem like this law would make it more like porn, smokes, or booze. It would no longer be a guideline, but a true age restriction. Haven't had time to catch up, but minors can not buy tickets to R Rated movies and need a parent or adult guardian age 21 or over accompanying them. I got this from the website for AMC Theaters. Here is a C&P of the policy for UA/Edwards/Regal theaters: For films rated “R” by the MPAA: REG will not sell tickets to any person under the age of 17 (18 where applicable). A person must be at least 21 years old in order to purchase multiple tickets without providing additional photo I.D. for additional tickets. The purchaser must also attend the movie for which the additional tickets are purchased. Patrons 17 to 20 years of age may only purchase more than one ticket if they are able to provide photo I.D. for proof of age for each additional ticket being purchased. Managers may empower Ushers to check for photo identification if a guest appears to be underage and is holding a ticket for an “R” rated feature. Kiosk ticket sales are an important service for our guests. Tickets can be purchased online and picked up at the theatre, or an individual may purchase tickets directly from the kiosk. It is important to remember that the admittance procedures still apply to those individuals that make purchases or redeem on-line ticket purchases from a ticketing kiosk. Theatre Employees may be stationed at the entrance to theatre(s) playing MPAA rated “R” films to check tickets and photo identification for all you enter to prevent minors from improperly entering. REG reserves the right to refuse entrance to anyone that cannot present valid photo identification along with a ticket for the proper show time of the “R” rated film. So it seems you were given bad information regarding theaters selling to minors. Now, the enforcement of these policies by employees may be a different matter altogether. The rarer NC-17 rating is much stricter an no one under 18 is allowed into the theater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.