Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[lovest harding]

Even with discussion, I don't think there are any positives for letting a child (under the age of 14) play a GTA game. As I've said several times, they are purely adult games.

In complete honesty, there aren't any real negatives, either. There's the old violence-in-children argument, and I do agree there should at least be warnings and restriction to children, but that's purely because I don't believe children can be raised by anyone but the parent. In my house, my thirteen year old brother will sit and play Grand Theft Auto IV, but he's not allowed to do so around his friends, unless we know for certain the friends play the same games at home. I won't lend any of my 'mature' games to anyone underage without parental consent, either.
Except for my cousin. He's nine. I lent him Red Dead Redemption. I know for certain my aunt doesn't care, and I know the game can't possibly mess him up any more than he already is. Note, that doesn't come from parenting. That comes from the fact he's both Scottish and related to me.

As I've said many times, there is a negative in my eyes. To open a child to something that can't handle for their age.

I won't respond to the rest as my point has nothing to do with parental consent.
I'm also tempted to take this discussion a step further, but I won't.

 

[Scout Tactical]

the problem is the BSA is publicly funded, and that means the government is tacitly supporting a religiously-based ban. And that's just wrong

Religious charities that do service for the homeless or for battered housewives also receive government funding, and as churches, many do not allow homosexuals or atheists into their ranks. IE: There is nothing wrong with this from a legal standpoint.

And the government should support the rights of private, religious organizations to exclude others! It's in the first amendment. As a law student, I spent all of last semester taking a course on just the first amendment. In Oregon v. Smith, Justice O'Connor famously quoted, ??uch a test has no basis in precedent and relegates a serious First Amendment value to the barest level of minimum scrutiny that the Equal Protection Clause already provides?.? This is a sentiment I cannot help but agree with.

 

[stone0042]

Now, I'm a Conservative myself in many ways, but these people like her are all nuts and undereducated in this subject matter. I can't wait until the gaming generation takes over political offices.

Again, the parents need to do their fucking job.


MINI-RANT START

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

/rant

Edit: Sorry. I've been playing a lot of Black Ops lately. And working at Gamestop lets me overhear these spoiled brats and their stupid, oblivious parents.

Couldn't agree with you more. People like this make me ashamed to admit my conservative tendencies.

 

[Demongeneral109]

the problem is the BSA is publicly funded, and that means the government is tacitly supporting a religiously-based ban. And that's just wrong

Religious charities that do service for the homeless or for battered housewives also receive government funding, and as churches, many do not allow homosexuals or atheists into their ranks. IE: There is nothing wrong with this from a legal standpoint.

And the government should support the rights of private, religious organizations to exclude others! It's in the first amendment. As a law student, I spent all of last semester taking a course on just the first amendment. In Oregon v. Smith, Justice O'Connor famously quoted, ??uch a test has no basis in precedent and relegates a serious First Amendment value to the barest level of minimum scrutiny that the Equal Protection Clause already provides?.? This is a sentiment I cannot help but agree with.

I never said religious organizations shouldn't be exclusionary, however, such organizations should not be funded by the federal government. It is then no longer a purely private organization. If the government is funding an organization, it should follow government mandates or not get funding. the federal government operates on a separation of church and state, funding an exclusive, denominational organization is a tacit approval of the religion it follows over another; violating this edict. See the highway crosses as an example to demonstrate my point.

 

[Scout Tactical]

I never said religious organizations shouldn't be exclusionary, however, such organizations should not be funded by the federal government. It is then no longer a purely private organization. If the government is funding an organization, it should follow government mandates or not get funding. the federal government operates on a separation of church and state, funding an exclusive, denominational organization is a tacit approval of the religion it follows over another; violating this edict. See the highway crosses as an example to demonstrate my point.

It's pretty straightforward that neither of us is going to change our minds about this one, particularly since I've had a course in it, and I respect that you are well rooted in your beliefs as well. Nonetheless, you cannot deny a group opportunities simply because of their religious tendencies. Preventing organizations from getting governmental benefits strictly because they are religious is an attack on religion, because you deny them rights solely because they are religious. Hence, why we have the first amendment (and later, equal protection cause of the 14th) to protect us from such attempts.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

I think they have more important things to worry about rather than trying to cover for shitty parents. How about we do this? A license to breed and raise children. You and your spouse go to a class to learn how to raise a child. You have to pass three exams to be allowed to have kids and must be of a certain IQ level to gain admittance. There! I just made your problems of violent videogames and other media totally negligible.

It won't work. Why? Because people have free will. Just because they require a license doesn't mean that they will raise their kids like the textbook says. Besides, needing a certain level of IQ to have kids? Stupid people can have smart kids, it depends on the way they're raised and the environment that they live in.
You didn't help at all, just created a more controversial method of birth control.

It's less to do with birth control and more about trying to instill methods of parenting within soon-to-be parents. That kinda shit should be taught in schools as well, come to think of it, but as you said, free will. It's not a full-blown solution, but if it means that parents change, why not?

 

[x434343]

I love how fringe groups are taken to represent the whole.

Let me spell this out.

1. Conservatives love buisness
2. Video games are technically a buisness, a very profitable buisness
3. Restricting video games would hurt buisness
4. Therefore, conservatives support most forms of gaming

Therefore,
1. That woman is a fringe leader


Seriously, I've seen conservatives be more lax with games than liberal parents. My parents? Both conservative, both bought me violent games at age 14. My friend? One conservative father who doesn't care about what he plays, one liberal mother who restricts him from getting M-rated games (he's 17 at this point and cannot bring anything beyond, say, Left 4 Dead in the house. Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Fallout must be snuck in and played in private).

So, calling a woman who is a fringist the common opinion of consevatives is as wrong as saying Obama is a Kenyan citizen because of the shoutings of nutjobs.

 

[Jfswift]

It's not that i'm against this exactly, but what is bothering me is that the government is trying to enforce something that really is the parent's responsibility.

 

[feather240]

We already don't like them because of the video game thing. You don't need to dig up dirt about them.

 

[demoman_chaos]

If it becomes law that M rated games can't be sold to kids (it is already store policy in every store), games enter the same realm as cigarettes and lose all access to the freedom of speech. Cigarette companies can't advertise on TV (though beer companies can oddly enough), for example. Games will become a regulated substance, on par with porn. Gaming companies will turn to other mediums beside tightly restricted gaming and we would lose quite a lot of great games.

Extra Credits did a bit on this, watch it and then you'll understand why we can't let that happen.

 

[Demongeneral109]

I never said religious organizations shouldn't be exclusionary, however, such organizations should not be funded by the federal government. It is then no longer a purely private organization. If the government is funding an organization, it should follow government mandates or not get funding. the federal government operates on a separation of church and state, funding an exclusive, denominational organization is a tacit approval of the religion it follows over another; violating this edict. See the highway crosses as an example to demonstrate my point.

It's pretty straightforward that neither of us is going to change our minds about this one, particularly since I've had a course in it, and I respect that you are well rooted in your beliefs as well. Nonetheless, you cannot deny a group opportunities simply because of their religious tendencies. Preventing organizations from getting governmental benefits strictly because they are religious is an attack on religion, because you deny them rights solely because they are religious. Hence, why we have the first amendment (and later, equal protection cause of the 14th) to protect us from such attempts.

I think you misunderstand my point, and I agree that we aren't going to convince each other, but i want to clarify what i'm saying. I don't think that an organization being religious is a problem, only if they become exclusionary that a problem forms. BSA is fine because they accept all people(did a bit of digging first. ) but should the government fund a religious charity/ community service group if they don't permit Muslims? No, because that is permitting a state-sponsored organization to bias itself against a certain religion. Also, the 1st amendment does not state the government needs to aid religious organizations, only that they be permitted to exist, here is the exact wording.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

as for the 14th amendment clause, if anything, funding an exclusionary group is a violation of that clause, by funding an organization that does not grant equal opportunities to all who wish to work within it, they are supporting an inequality.

Thanks for hearing me out, you are a good debater my friend

 

[paragon1]

Okay... So she's a Conservative Anti-Feminist.

The fuck is she doing in politics?

Found that weird, since from her stance it seems she'd like to see women in the kitchen rather than doing anything else other than cooking or taking care of kids.

(Sorry if I offend anyone, just pointing out something I found odd)

Damn, you cut me off at the pass there. I was about to say the exact same thing, except in distasteful joke form.

Something along the lines of "Oh look, the silly woman thinks she has an opinion how cute!"

 

[The Cake Is Annoying]

Instead of yet another "videogame are brainwashing our children into atheisatan" political moral panic can we just get crap like this added to one singular and updated-as-necessary timeline?

For a news item on a gaming site this is isolated and lacking context.

 

[JemothSkarii]

/facepaws
Oh my god, why does this always happens?
"Damaging to our youths" Yeah, but it's their fault, but MORESO THE PARENTS!
If the rating is black, red, or even blue, DON'T BUY IT FOR YOUR KID!
and if you do, I hope to God that Darwin's Survival of the Fittest slaps you in the face, because you are on your way to being a bad parent!
...Sorry, I'm tired, and this kind of thing really annoys me...and all the kids nowadays (I'm only 18, but still) around me are feral and just disrespectful. Not necessarily videogames, but still....I want to cave in their skulls with a shovel.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

This is a non issue. Video games have been subjected to abuse and threats of bans for half a decade, if not more, and yet continue to maintain a constant flow. One senile old woman who garners not a shred of knowledge upon this topic will not impede gaming development. Frankly, censorship as a whole should be removed and parents forced to parent their own god damn children.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

It won't pass. If it does, it will is a law that will be to my pleasure to break.

 

[DanDeFool]

Also in the news, Conservatives continue their proud tradition of pursuing unrealistic goals for the wrong reasons. First it was trying to stabilize the Middle East through military force and the imposition of democracy. Then it was trying to ban gay marriage. Now this.

Hey Conservatives, how about in 2011 you pursue a realistic goal--like resolving to get your fucking heads out of your asses!

Oops, never mind. I guess that would just be the same thing, wouldn't it?

 

[DanDeFool]

Oh Jesus... look, I love Conservative bashing as much as the next (left-leaning) chap, I really do. But there's a difference between justified Tory bashing, and completely misrepresenting what someone has said just so you can e-slap them around a bit. The title of this piece completely misrepresents what this woman says, and encourages people to dismiss her without actually looking at [i[what it is she's saying[/i].

She is not calling for the banning of violent videogames. She is calling for violent games to be kept out of the hands of children. You know, just like we do with porn, Die Hard movies and alcohol. Nowhere does she call for any videogame to be outright banned, nowhere does she say any violent videogame should have inappropriate material removed. There is a difference between advocating censorship, and advocating responsible selling of goods not suitable for children.

As far as I can tell, most of the comments here getting up in arms over this fall into a few distinct categories:

1)

Why should the government step in, when it's the parents' responsibility to monitor what their kids are playing?

Translation: My parents are going to buy me Red Dead for my birthday, and I don't want the government stepping in and saying I can't play it.

Seriously though, while it is indeed the parent's responsibility, ultimately there are too many shit parents out there for the government not to step in. This is why things like Social Services exist. Because if those shit parents are left to their own ways without the occasional reminder to do their fucking job, we'd be left with entire generations of kids with fucked up upbringings, and even worse outlooks on society.

Parents should monitor what games their kids are playing. Millions, however, don't. We're happy to ***** about parents who let their kids play Gears Of War, but as soon as the authorities do anything to try and step in and help sort out the mess (by making it illegal for parents to buy war simulators for their kids), we then ***** about "Oh no! That government is stepping on our freedoms! ANGER!!!1!!" and paint them as evil Communist overlords.

2)

Well, there's actually little-to-no evidence to suggest violent games have any kind of effect on the development of children, so there shouldn't be any problem in letting parents buy games like God Of War 3 for their children.

Translation: I'm halfway through the final level of God Of War 3, and if you tell me that I'm too young to finish this game, I will rip your eyes out through your arsehole.

Again on a serious note now: there is little to no evidence to suggest that adults are affected by violent videogames. That is because by the time we reach 18, most of us have gone through puberty (and all that hormonal mess), learned to morals and laws of society, and learned that throwing a tantrum whenever you are faced with a problem doesn't get you far in life.

Children, however, are different. They have yet to fully realize how society, the law and morality all fit together, and are still learning much of this. Hence why, in the UK, films such as Saw and Sin City are rated 18, and it is illegal to sell copies of them to children. Oh my, much like this woman is suggesting with games...

Would you let your child sit down and watch Pulp Fiction? If yes, then what the fuck are you smoking? And if now, then why is it ok to let them play Grand Theft Auto?

Personally, I agree with what you guys are saying. Children may be negatively affected by violent media, and maybe parents suck too hard for the government to just sit back and watch while the next generation gets messed up by their shitty upbringing.

That said, I have a deeper problem with this type of legislation. These sorts of laws are basically reinforcing the points you just made; people can't take responsibility for themselves and their actions, so we need the government to protect us from ourselves and from each other.

Yes, there are bad parents out there, who don't give a damn about their kids. There are also good parents out there, who teach their kids early on that there is a difference between fantasy and reality. The children whose parents are in the latter category know that video games are walled-off little fantasy worlds where anything goes, and that in the real world it's wrong to hurt people by being violent and destructive.

Legislation like this takes rights away from everyone, whether they're behaving responsibly or not, and it takes the focus away from the root cause of the social ills it hopes to redress (in this case, shitty parenting).

Rather than trying to find scapegoats for all our social problems and clubbing the citizenry with ham-fisted legislation, maybe the government should be letting us keep our freedoms and investing in education to help people make the right choices for themselves and their children.

Sadly, most conservatives think everybody who isn't an Evangelical Christian is a soulless, Godless Satan-worshipper, so ham-fisting it is! I'll be sure to thank you guys in twenty years when the only entertainment we're allowed is Christian cable because Washington thinks that's the only way to keep me from becoming a child-murdering serial rapist.

 

[Romidude]

Aren't the really far out there Conservatives pretty much in the same group as Christians? I honestly don't see the difference between the two groups or most radical parties for that matter, they're all about the "let me tell you how you can live your life" sort of ideal.

No offense to anyone, I respect your right to an opinion and everything, but I find it hard to respect any view where you think (actually thinking I don't have an issue with, but enforcing said thought through various means) someone else should be prohibited from doing something that isn't directly harmful to someone else and after growing up with a number of different people, I haven't seen one person who was incited to violence by gaming who wasn't otherwise violent due to a number of far more contributing factors like family abuse (which afaik the often patriarchally-leaning Conservatives aren't necessarily against) and such.

Well, I've never known a Conservative Atheist, and the morals, ethics and interests of the Conservative party and Christianity are extremely similar, if not the same. (Mostly making other people do what they want.)

 

[Ashcrexl]

i looked at her picture before reading the article. the article made a lot more sense.