California Senator Defends Anti-Videogame Law
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Thank you, Mr. Root.The_root_of_all_evil said:
When Yee says
I would like to see these studies, for they are completely unknown to me.
What Mr. Yee states here is an unreasoned argument bursting with pathos. I suspect he's trying to promote his argument with his ethos, which is where his "child psychology" helps him, although it falls through due to lack of solid inferencial evidence.
Illegitimately claiming ethos, appealing to power (IE, forcing his opinion through) and overusing pathos. You, sir, have nothing to contribute to this discussion on videogames.
And learn your argument theory.
It's funny that you'd say that as Republicans have been against this law from the start. It's more a law from the Democrats than anything.LightPurpleLighter said:
OT: I can make up facts and statistics too! There is a correlation between eating cake and committing genocide. Hitler ate cake once, then he committed genocide. Cause and effect people, it's so simple.
Though compelling, his arguments lack a certain cinematic feel that keeps them from greatness. Seven out of ten.
Seriously, though, I'm getting awful sick of all this censoring of media "for the children." I mean, children are great and all, but in the long run, how much does this kind of thinking really help them? How do you expect to get more interesting, intelligent, and creative thinkers if you not only stifle cultural development in general, but cripple their own exposure and internal cultural development, not based on their own ability, but by their age, which becomes more and more arbitrary as they grow? Why are we so quick to swing the banhammer at such things? Shouldn't we not be removing these "impurities," but rather learning about them, and teaching others to look beyond the violence, at the fantastic architecture of the game systems and the stories told by them? Why destroy, when it is so fruitful to adapt? This confuses me immensely. People are odd. And stupid.
Seriously, though, I'm getting awful sick of all this censoring of media "for the children." I mean, children are great and all, but in the long run, how much does this kind of thinking really help them? How do you expect to get more interesting, intelligent, and creative thinkers if you not only stifle cultural development in general, but cripple their own exposure and internal cultural development, not based on their own ability, but by their age, which becomes more and more arbitrary as they grow? Why are we so quick to swing the banhammer at such things? Shouldn't we not be removing these "impurities," but rather learning about them, and teaching others to look beyond the violence, at the fantastic architecture of the game systems and the stories told by them? Why destroy, when it is so fruitful to adapt? This confuses me immensely. People are odd. And stupid.
As I've said before, I honestly hope they crush this stupid law and cram it down Yee's and the Govenator's throats for wasting everyone's time with this crap. Also, don't they have pay back the legal fee's for the other side if they lose? Cause if they do I'm gonna wonder where are they going to get the money since California is pretty steep in debt.
Ahhhhhh.
This non-sense isn't over yet?
Come on Americans, shake some gray matter and send this garbage into oblivion. The bill that is.
And while you are at it, abolish the "patriot act" and "federal reserve act".
This non-sense isn't over yet?
Come on Americans, shake some gray matter and send this garbage into oblivion. The bill that is.
And while you are at it, abolish the "patriot act" and "federal reserve act".
*sigh*
I love how all these politicians never blame the parents for their children getting violent games.
A kid cannot just walk into Wal-Mart and buy God of War 3. I knew a kid who tried to, they wouldn't sell it to them.
The PARENTS have to walk into Wal-Mart, and the PARENTS have to purchase the game for their child.
This bill is pointless. "Erasing the sale of violent games to minors" is already done. "Power to the parents in deciding whether the game is appropriate" is already done.
Perhaps research a little and make parents more aware of the ESRB rating system.
God damn, I hate when the Government has to take over for the idiotic parents of this country. Parents need to learn to parent, and the Government needs to research the violent games instead of automatically dismissing them as horrific plagues of society.
I love how all these politicians never blame the parents for their children getting violent games.
A kid cannot just walk into Wal-Mart and buy God of War 3. I knew a kid who tried to, they wouldn't sell it to them.
The PARENTS have to walk into Wal-Mart, and the PARENTS have to purchase the game for their child.
This bill is pointless. "Erasing the sale of violent games to minors" is already done. "Power to the parents in deciding whether the game is appropriate" is already done.
Perhaps research a little and make parents more aware of the ESRB rating system.
God damn, I hate when the Government has to take over for the idiotic parents of this country. Parents need to learn to parent, and the Government needs to research the violent games instead of automatically dismissing them as horrific plagues of society.
Holy shit, you just tore his whole argument apart, phrase by phrase. Kudos to you, sir.The_root_of_all_evil said:
anyone want to help me make the most violent, graphic game in the history of gaming and give it out for free?
Who can stop the internet?
Who can stop the internet?
And again with this. I don't care how many studies get published with yay or nay results to violent games being bad for children. Video games have been avaliable to children for over 25 years. If they were bad why are we not seeing that reflected in the violent crime rates that are going down rather than up. Or that the parts of the world where most kid play games are less violent rather than more. These arguements are such rubbish science when the results in the real world are so obvious. It is that simple.Logan Westbrook said:
I will give them that there might be some children and adults who get affected due to underling mental issues. But I don't want to live in a world where something is banned for everyone just becuase a minority cannot handle it. If so you would have to ban alcohol, driving and movies as well.
No, that is not what it does at all - what it actually does is classify certain games as unacceptable for minors, based on a rating system that has yet to be established or clearly defined; the law is not simply enforcing the Industry's own rating system (ESRB) because they cannot make a rating system generated by an outside agency a legally binding one, it has to create an entirely new system... which the state of California is in charge of. And it doesn't restrict the sale of games deemed unacceptable (by the state of California, using entirely hypothetical standards that already seem ludicrous based on their lawyers statements during the Supreme Court proceedings) so much as it makes retailers criminally liable for sale of unacceptable games to minors.Piflik said:
Stores already card - kids can't just buy M-rated games now, there's a very effective internal system of rating enforcement in place that does a better job of preventing minors from acquiring mature content than the film or music industry can claim; this is a poorly thought out solution for a problem that we do not have, and it runs roughshod over the 1st amendment protections that video games enjoy. The same 1st Amendment protections that every other form of media (with the sole exception of pornography) already have - this bill would make video games the one thing besides hardcore pornography to ever be classified as unprotected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Saying "but it's just to keep kids from buying it!" and ignoring the ramifications of this extremely significant paradigm shift is willful ignorance - if a medium is considered to fall outside the protection of the 1st Amendment, that means the government can regulate it in any way they might choose to. Today the buzz is all about violence, but there would be nothing stopping our state or federal legislature from deciding that games should be regulated on whether or not their overall message is "un-American". If you can hold retailers criminally liable for selling violent video games to minors, you can hold them criminally liable for selling violent video games to adults - you can make it illegal to sell games containing "unacceptable levels of violence" (as deemed by whoever is making the laws) at all, to anyone. You can make it illegal to even possess games that deviate from the acceptable content guidelines - the sky's the limit when you broadly classify an entire medium as exempted from the 1st Amendment free speech protections!
This is why we bloody have that Amendment in the first place.
Fear of over-reacting politicians deciding to negate free speech protections is what brought us crap like the "Comics Code", where an industry censored itself unnecessarily for decades - the difference there is they didn't have a legal obligation to do so, and could therefore come to their senses and stop. If this bill is allowed to stand creators of video games won't have that luxury.
Except for when you can't, because your government decided to ban certain titles entirely, or threaten to ban them if certain content isn't censored (leading to the German version of quite a few games being different than the version everyone else gets to play). And of course Australia has a track record of frequently banning things via refusing to classify them - our constitutional protections on free speech are the reason you never see headlines like "America bans sales of [game X]!" or "All instances of [something vaguely offensive in some way] removed after America threatens to ban sales of [game X]!", while Germany and Australia have been in news headlines exactly like that with some regularity.Piflik said:
You hear about American politicians trying to ban or censor games all the time, but up till now they keep getting curbstomped in court because their legislation is flagrantly unconstitutional; hence the worry that the Supreme Court might overrule all those earlier decisions and decide that congress can pass laws like this after all, and then it's goodbye 1st Amendment protections.
Essentially, we're worried that our government might become more like yours or Australia's.
I am still dumbfounded by the fact that WE ALREADY HAVE a labeling system that identifies which games are appropriate for different age groups and WE ALREADY DO restrict the sale of mature games to minors!
I tried to buy Call of Duty 4 when I was 15 and the guy at the counter in Gamestop told me, "No," because I was 15 and that I'd need a parent to buy it for me, which I then waited for my dad to finish whatever he was doing in the store next to Gamestop so he could buy it for me! Two days later I walked into K-Mart and found an unrated movie (with NUDITY and DRUG USE as the major selling point. Specifically, the movie was "Far Out Man," a movie about Tommy Chong, similar to the Cheech and Chong series, but after they split up.) for $10 and bought it with no hassle. In fact the cashier that sold it to me was a girl that was a junior in high school that thought I was way younger than I really was.
What was the point of the proposed law then? They wanted a clear ratings system? We got that, thanks to the ESRB which does a pretty good job. They want to make sure minors can't buy mature games? We already had this established as far back as when GTA: Vice City was released! So what then? Oh, I know, they are just FUCKING RETARDED!
So, how about this: Make a program that better informs parents of the ESRB rating system and have public service announcements running on television that lets parents know about rating system that has existed for the last 10 years!
I tried to buy Call of Duty 4 when I was 15 and the guy at the counter in Gamestop told me, "No," because I was 15 and that I'd need a parent to buy it for me, which I then waited for my dad to finish whatever he was doing in the store next to Gamestop so he could buy it for me! Two days later I walked into K-Mart and found an unrated movie (with NUDITY and DRUG USE as the major selling point. Specifically, the movie was "Far Out Man," a movie about Tommy Chong, similar to the Cheech and Chong series, but after they split up.) for $10 and bought it with no hassle. In fact the cashier that sold it to me was a girl that was a junior in high school that thought I was way younger than I really was.
What was the point of the proposed law then? They wanted a clear ratings system? We got that, thanks to the ESRB which does a pretty good job. They want to make sure minors can't buy mature games? We already had this established as far back as when GTA: Vice City was released! So what then? Oh, I know, they are just FUCKING RETARDED!
So, how about this: Make a program that better informs parents of the ESRB rating system and have public service announcements running on television that lets parents know about rating system that has existed for the last 10 years!