California Congressman Demands Videogame Warning Labels [Again]
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Annnnd here's another due who either does not do his research right or simply doesn't care. If he wants to put warning labels on games he might as well knock himself out, but he tripped and hit his head right at the start with this label: "WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior."
No, it has not. If by "linked" you mean "Me and some other dudes from much before you were born think these new fangled thingamajigs are all wrong", sure, but no studies have so far proved that violent games cause agressive behavior on anyone. It has proved said games make people somewhat agitated, but then again, so do violent movies, heavy traffic, noisy neighbors, and jerks insulting the media that you love by putting redundant labels on them.
Another thing is, there are ALREADY labels saying which games are and are not ok for kids. So he thinks even games rated E for Everyone are harzadous? What, is Mario's constant ingestion of murshrooms leading kids to do drugs? Is Rayman's missing limbs implanting the idea that kids should saw their arms and legs off? Is Banjo-Kazooie telling them that slavery is ok? ME THINKS NOT, SIR.
No, it has not. If by "linked" you mean "Me and some other dudes from much before you were born think these new fangled thingamajigs are all wrong", sure, but no studies have so far proved that violent games cause agressive behavior on anyone. It has proved said games make people somewhat agitated, but then again, so do violent movies, heavy traffic, noisy neighbors, and jerks insulting the media that you love by putting redundant labels on them.
Another thing is, there are ALREADY labels saying which games are and are not ok for kids. So he thinks even games rated E for Everyone are harzadous? What, is Mario's constant ingestion of murshrooms leading kids to do drugs? Is Rayman's missing limbs implanting the idea that kids should saw their arms and legs off? Is Banjo-Kazooie telling them that slavery is ok? ME THINKS NOT, SIR.
Who keeps voting for these ppl in California? Seriously, I thought Californians are enlightened hippies with all them left wing hollywood influence! Yet they consistently elect right wing conservatives as their representation XD
Blue State for President, Red State for everything else, derp!
Blue State for President, Red State for everything else, derp!
stupid hysterical mothers who think they do the best for the world and the children.DTWolfwood said:
OK, so I honestly don't see the issue here. If they get labeled with "May cause violent behaviour" will that really affect sales at all? There are plenty who think they will as it is, but games are still being sold.
However you would think that having a label saying you need to be a certain age to play would be enough. Well, good luck wasting your last money on a frivolous attempt at doing something that is in no way useful.
However you would think that having a label saying you need to be a certain age to play would be enough. Well, good luck wasting your last money on a frivolous attempt at doing something that is in no way useful.
Video games HAVE warning labels. You know that little white box in the corner that says "ESRB" on it and features a letter of some sort? THAT'S A WARNING LABEL!
On a related note, idiotic politicians should come with warning labels.
On a related note, idiotic politicians should come with warning labels.
The thing is, a lot of the policies Reagan enacted that were conservative at the time have become common place today and many conservatives think we should take them even further. There has been a massive conservative shift in the US over the last 30 years. Reagan's tax cuts were cuts down to about the level we have them today. The current conservative position is that we need to cut them even further, but Reagan likely wouldn't have agreed, given that he raised taxes every remaining year of his presidency. He increased the national debt and federal government spending by more than 200% during his term.minuialear said:
He was strongly in favor of and raised funding to entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid and social security. Today the generally held "liberal" position is to maintain these programs and the "conservative" position is to cut them.
He was strongly opposed to nuclear weapons and appointed two Supreme Court Justices that refused to disagree with the decision of Roe v. Wade.
All of those positions are more liberal than most Democrats today.
That's not to say on some issues he wasn't very conservative (started the "War on Drugs", opposed to civil rights legislation, appointed Scalia to the Supreme Court). It all depends on how you look at it. If you look at his policies of "we should cut taxes" then yes, he was conservative. But if you look at it as "we should set taxes at X level," then Reagan actually wanted higher taxes than the Democrats are proposing.
Hey, I've got a magical, groundbreaking idea: Make it possible to fine PARENTS who buy the "inappropriate" games for their kids who are too young. Or make a law that forces parents to sign a waiver which states that they understand that the game they buy might not be appropriate for their children. Or a law that allows you to smack the people who come up with the idea that "since video games are violent, the publishers are to blame because parents aren't responsible" with a stick until they smarten up.
Man yet another one who does not understand that if youve been voted down you do not get to keep bringing it up and crying foul until you get your way.
Honestly what would even be the point of this warning label that the ESRB rating does not already explicitly tell you.
Let it go already. Youve been told no twice before. Stop acting like a spoiled and petulant child and accept what others have told you. Your failing to represent the interests of your constituency with this as well because your wasting time by bringing up an issue thats already been resolved instead of focusing on any of the MANY other problems on your plate in your service to the citizens of the state of California.
Honestly what would even be the point of this warning label that the ESRB rating does not already explicitly tell you.
Let it go already. Youve been told no twice before. Stop acting like a spoiled and petulant child and accept what others have told you. Your failing to represent the interests of your constituency with this as well because your wasting time by bringing up an issue thats already been resolved instead of focusing on any of the MANY other problems on your plate in your service to the citizens of the state of California.
I believe this email I just sent sums it up nicely (I apologize for the couple spelling mistakes, but the window to type this in was TINY)
Dear Mr. Baca,
Regarding your recent legislation towards video game labels, I would like to propose the following suggestion. Rather than attacking the developers of the products in question, why not make it the parents' responsibility to watch over their children and their purchases/acquisitions? If the topic were pornography, surely the parents would be ostracized for they let their children acquire such materials, but it seems when it comes to video games, you are trying to place the blame on the manufacturers of the product.
New video games cost around the $50-$70 range, an amount on child can ethically come across on their own, so more than likely, the parents are procuring the games for them. Is it not then their responsibility to read the clear warning label on the back of the box to determine whether or not it is suitable for their child? Is it not the parents' responsibility to determine which movies they take their children to, regardless of the violence therein? Why it is so different for video games? It is the JOB of a parent to watch over and protect their child and ultimately is it not their responsibility if they procure harmful products for their children.
If a child is caught smoking/drinking, do you attack the tobacco/alcohol companies? No, you attack the parents for allowing their child to procure such harmful substances. Video game companies are a vital subsection of the computer-related economic section that is on the grow. Certainly you do not want to put people out of work simply because some parents cannot be bothered to take a minute and consider the ramifications of purchasing certain products for their children.
We in America are taught to take charge of our own lives. If someone is not caring enough to investigate what their child enjoys in their life, I think that that reflects poorly on the parents, not on anyone else. Education is what's needed here, not punishment.
Thank you, C. Muttengrimer
Dear Mr. Baca,
Regarding your recent legislation towards video game labels, I would like to propose the following suggestion. Rather than attacking the developers of the products in question, why not make it the parents' responsibility to watch over their children and their purchases/acquisitions? If the topic were pornography, surely the parents would be ostracized for they let their children acquire such materials, but it seems when it comes to video games, you are trying to place the blame on the manufacturers of the product.
New video games cost around the $50-$70 range, an amount on child can ethically come across on their own, so more than likely, the parents are procuring the games for them. Is it not then their responsibility to read the clear warning label on the back of the box to determine whether or not it is suitable for their child? Is it not the parents' responsibility to determine which movies they take their children to, regardless of the violence therein? Why it is so different for video games? It is the JOB of a parent to watch over and protect their child and ultimately is it not their responsibility if they procure harmful products for their children.
If a child is caught smoking/drinking, do you attack the tobacco/alcohol companies? No, you attack the parents for allowing their child to procure such harmful substances. Video game companies are a vital subsection of the computer-related economic section that is on the grow. Certainly you do not want to put people out of work simply because some parents cannot be bothered to take a minute and consider the ramifications of purchasing certain products for their children.
We in America are taught to take charge of our own lives. If someone is not caring enough to investigate what their child enjoys in their life, I think that that reflects poorly on the parents, not on anyone else. Education is what's needed here, not punishment.
Thank you, C. Muttengrimer
I am bashing the bible bashing homophobic church that allows people who spread slander others form's of leisuire just to earn A few points with A bunch of people who poke there nose into other peoples buisness yet Are only doing it because they have to sleep in seperate beds even though they are married.ecoho said:
Christian and theists who Don't fuck up the world with there attempts to force their own petty versions of moralaty are excluded, all others can go and stagnate.
I Slanderise in the name of those who have been slanderd if you have to ask
*californian
