Yeah that was my initial reaction. Give em time though and they'll no doubt move on it!Hybridwolf said:
Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
How cute, a crazy old lady who claims that women should only be pleasing their man, buying food, and making food forgot that by saying anything at all in a public forum outside of the local womans club is going against that! Shes an old ass batshit insane bible thumper who like all of those type of people, are hypocrites. Dont bother putting any stock at all into what she says, sometimes they just go senile.
Here's a resolution for parents worldwide
I will not allow or pay for video games for my child that still reside in the home, if I deem it to mature, violent ect ect. I won't allow the gov't, any gov't to decide how I should raise my own child. If I have a problem, moral or otherwise about the games my child plays I will speak with said child, to discern their level of maturity and intellect to know that my child knows what is make believe and what is real life.
I will not allow or pay for video games for my child that still reside in the home, if I deem it to mature, violent ect ect. I won't allow the gov't, any gov't to decide how I should raise my own child. If I have a problem, moral or otherwise about the games my child plays I will speak with said child, to discern their level of maturity and intellect to know that my child knows what is make believe and what is real life.
I say, there are tiny numbers on the gameboxes. They aren't on there for no reason, silly woman!
See those Numbers? the 1 and the 8?[yelling] THAT MEANS CHILDREN SHOULDN'T BUY IT! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR 18 (+) YEAR OLDS[/.yelling]. damage [if any] done to those poor children is their own fault. Or at least their parents, who have been {tricked/talked} into buying these 18+ games by their offspring.
hooray for brackets!
See those Numbers? the 1 and the 8?[yelling] THAT MEANS CHILDREN SHOULDN'T BUY IT! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR 18 (+) YEAR OLDS[/.yelling]. damage [if any] done to those poor children is their own fault. Or at least their parents, who have been {tricked/talked} into buying these 18+ games by their offspring.
Quick Google search shows me that it was quickly overturned after it was created but I could swear that they still enforce it. *shrug*danpascooch said:
It's probably that the store's are just really careful to not sell M rated games to minors because it goes against store policy.AlternatePFG said:
I salute you for actually doing the search, Good to know.
These are not real conservatives.
A real conservative would never stop someone from playing video games.
They believe in liberities. A libral or left wing nation would ban violent video games.
A real conservative would never stop someone from playing video games.
They believe in liberities. A libral or left wing nation would ban violent video games.
I know this is a little off-topic (so don't call me out on it) but I always find it somewhat amusing that a lot of America is still obssessed with "protecting the children" like bubble-wrapping them will make them better people, blind to the horrors their governments in future will perpertrate because they're so docile they don't want to know and will unquestioningly obey and...
Oh fuck they're coming for me, spread the word Escapist, the NWO has taken over!
/shitty humour.
Oh fuck they're coming for me, spread the word Escapist, the NWO has taken over!
/shitty humour.
You know, that kind of furious nit-picking kind of rationalisation comes up every time that people use loaded language, and I think it's just a pile of ... something. We're not saying "Person X thinks we should ban violent video games" which would be fair and unbiased. We're saying "Conservative wants to ban violent games" which unfairly associates a fringe extremist with a mainstream political movement. It's biased. I wish people would quit it.manythings said:
The title was a little mislead
The title was a little misleading, wasn't it? She's not actually talking about "Banning violent games", she's talking about age restrictions. That's not nearly as bad but, in my opinion, is still a serious problem.
If you say that young children should not be allowed to have access to games like GTA or movies like Saw, then you are absolutely right. The big question is: who should be doing the "not allowing". I think it's a tremendous mistake to be the putting something like that on the government. Bureaucrats are neither equipped nor inclined to do any sort of responsible policing of consumer content, and putting them in that role can only result in serious abuses. The role of parents should still be played by parents.
Assassin Xaero said:
The title was a little misleading, wasn't it? She's not actually talking about "Banning violent games", she's talking about age restrictions. That's not nearly as bad but, in my opinion, is still a serious problem.
If you say that young children should not be allowed to have access to games like GTA or movies like Saw, then you are absolutely right. The big question is: who should be doing the "not allowing". I think it's a tremendous mistake to be the putting something like that on the government. Bureaucrats are neither equipped nor inclined to do any sort of responsible policing of consumer content, and putting them in that role can only result in serious abuses. The role of parents should still be played by parents.
Didn't say it in a l2readnoob sort of way, it's literally the BASICS, just go on wikipedia and look up the First Amendment. It's also been explained so many times over the course of the Schwarzenegger vs EMA debate that really, if you don't know what I mean, go check out the related episode from Extra Credits/Zero Punctuation on the subject (though Yahtzee was mostly talking about a counter-organization, but you can still find what you need in the comments) or read the Battlefield Washington article by Greg Tito.Lyri said:
To give you the skinny, it's basically:
1. First Amendment protects free speech
2. Art and related mediums (books, movies etc.) are therefore protected by it
3. To pass a law that would allow a government to regulate (what's already being regulated remarkably well by stores and various private organizations like ESRB, especially in comparison to other mediums) the sale of games would effectively brand games in the same category as porn, painting it with a very broad brush as a medium that has no artistic value (amongst other things, again, go watch Extra Credits) and place the gaming industry under the risk of a massive number of frivolous lawsuits every time a parent feels a game is too violent and they haven't been informed well enough by the massive sticker saying "18+"
Imagine a slightly similar state of that of the current US health care system of everyone just waiting to sue someone's ass off every chance they get, but in about 1000 times worse way considering how negatively a significant portion of the population (and sadly a good deal of those in power) views gaming as a medium.
99% of it should be the parents. I think they are just trying to blame it on the companies so the parents don't have to take responsibility if their children do something stupid.Capslockbroken said: