Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[Demongeneral109]

Honestly, any government censorship has never turned out well, the Hays codes and the Comics-Code authority are prime examples. It works for a little while, and then people want the taboo so the censorship is removed. Censorship only delays the inevitable, just put it out there and people wont see it as anything special. Banning it only makes it a taboo, and therefore more interesting to explore.

 

[Demongeneral109]

Again i understand what you're saying and it just seems foreign to me. so let me ask you this: Do YOU agree with the BSA system? I know i don't know you, but still. Do you think it's right that BSA has religious restrictions whereas most scouting organizations in the world do not. Do you think it should be secular like most other organizations?

I think any private organization should have the right to be faith-based if it chooses to be.

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

 

[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.