GameStop Manager Refuses to Sell to Stupid Kids

[Dr. Hellno]

While your points on wisdom and emotional intelligence are on the mark, I still think you're missing the critical idea that until we actually allow teens to earn responsibility, there's no motive whatsoever for them to act responsible.

To bring this discussion back to gaming, consider this:

If you tell a 16 year old that, by demonstrating emotional and intellectual sophistication - perhaps by providing recommendations from adults and/or through performance on certain emotional and moral competency tests -- he'll be able to earn a license to play M rated games, the teen is much more likely to develop and exercise such sophistication.

Conversely, tell him that ending poverty, starvation and disease won't get him an iota closer to being recognized legally as a responsible adult with the right to play mature games - our current system. Why should he bother to cultivate the better aspects of his nature?


Only by allowing teens to earn responsibility can we ever expect them to develop their intelligence, empathy, and so on. Perhaps, as a teen myself, my view on this is a little skewed. But I doubt it would kill us to give it a shot.

 

[Redfeather]

(Jist) If teenagers are able to earn the right to buy Mature games, they're more likely to develop positive attributes to do so.

Not really. The analogy is driving a car, something far more serious in our society because you're putting teens behind a couple of tons of metal which will then travel at a high rate of speed around other human beings.

It would be great to somehow also measure maturity, responsibility, etc. ad nauseum in teens prior to giving them a license...but it's not reasonable. A teen might possess all those attributes, and be a horrible driver that will be a danger to others on the road. A teen might possess none of those attributes in any other area, but will demonstrate reasonable capacity to safely operate a car.Again, it's not that I can't understand why many would believe the sentiment to be a positive one, but placing others in a position to measure arbitrary attributes which are difficult to impossible to measure (responsibility, maturity, etc.) is a bad idea. Asking others to take on that mantle...an even worse idea.

Making parents responsible for their children? A much much better idea. Does it mean that unfortunately some children are stuck with parents that don't provide the best environment for them to succeed? Absolutely.

But it's not the job of some cockjockey gaming store manager to presume to parent children. It's the parent's job.

All that being said, could a company institute such policies? Sure. They could simply refuse to sell to all children without identification showing they're adults, unless they bring in a parent, blah blah blah.

But they won't. Because they'll lose money, and punitive programs are bad for business. Think about it, you're offered 'discounts' (a reward you pay less) not forced to pay additional when you check out because you DON'T have a coupon. You can set this up so customers are paying the exact same either way, but people don't like to feel punished. Listed price is $20...no coupon, okay it's $25.00 now. Versus, it's $25.00...oh you have a coupon it's $20 then for you. Same price, but which feels better?

They could simply do a program which is presented as a bonus, and it can't be access...because they'll simply go elsewhere to get access. But if they offered a "Good Grade Discount" then sure, parents would be happier about it, and so would students who do get good grades. Would it actually result in grade improvement? That I doubt, but it wouldn't hurt.

 

[MalchiaNet [deprecated]]

Reminds me of Gord.

http://www.actsofgord.com

 

[Osmod [deprecated]]

"And in reality, the world needs people to make french fries and clean toilets"

- RedFeather.

And who should those people be? I can't quote a study or other Ivory tower nonsense, but I do know that it's common sense that Kids do better when someone gives a flying #@# about them.

Your view ignores the basic fact that the modern world cares very little for it's future.

Saying it's "the parent's job", while not calling said parents on their neglect is standard 1984 style doublethink.

What if he had rather called child services any time he saw a neglected child? Would that be better? More involvement from the state?

The ugly truth is that we live in a Zero parent world. Dual-income couples are just as guilty of it as single parents.

Remember the YMCA? Youth Centers? Aren't they doing a "parent's job"? Who gets more "kid traffic" these days?

Anyone who promots the idea of a "underclass" has never been on the wrong side of the divide.

I, however, think that no child should have it's future taken from it simply because mom or dad couldn't make a relationship work (or their finances in the case of dual-income households).

Osmod

 

[JBX06]

geez u sound like Jack Thompson give it a break

 

[Geoffrey42]

Just anectodally, look at statistics of car accidents. Teenagers are several times more likely to be involved in an accident than adults.

*gasp* People with less experience driving cars are MORE likely to get into accidents? Oh noes! I better go warn everyone!!! If only we could raise the legal driving age to 25, then no more 16 year olds would die in horrible, fiery car crashes.

If you'd like to provide some sort of control group of people that don't get to start driving until they're older (Europe would be a good place to start) and prove in some way that the key factor is puberty, and not inexperience at driving a car, then I'd be glad to listen. If you do provide a study, I would make sure to try and account for the various ways in which the area being studied doesn't inherently have fewer driving risks, like, I don't know, really tiny cars, fewer cars, no tractor-trailers, less time spent driving per person, or a high cost of entry culling the herd.

If teens were really as competent as adults in the practical areas, wouldn't it logically follow that they would be running the place, as it were?

Forgive my inflammation, but, if [insert oppressed group] were really as [insert measure of merit] as [insert oppressing group], wouldn't they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps by now and become societally equal by now? [Oppressed group]'s oppression must then be evidence of their inferiority. It's all so obvious now...

Teenagers, as mentioned already, don't share equal legal rights. Who exactly is going to legislate to give teenagers the vote they would need to make a difference in their situation if they're not allowed to influence elections to start with? I've always been fascinated by historical times where the age of maturity has been lower out of necessity (not enough people over the age of 18 to fill the ranks). Society didn't exactly fall apart (any more than it already had, given the dire circumstances required for adults to start treating their offspring as equals)

I do not think that most adults, when asked, would say they were as wise or as able to make the right decisions when they were young compared to now.

I would bet that adults would say exactly that. Do you believe that your questionees are the most unbiased, impartial judges of their wisdom or abilities? Is their answer really useful in determining the truth of the statement? I don't know of a better measure, but I think this is equally as worthless as all the others.

 

[Arbre]

It's a funny discrimination... one that is quite positive, motive-wise... oh well, it forces the parents to be more involved in their kids' education. But it's not his job to police the customers.

I assume he could create a social support group, start an advertising campaign on the issue he's trying to underline.
The manager had a theoretical point, but it's more political than anything else.

It's like warning smokers of the dangers of these little things called cigarettes. Hey, those things hurt you on the long term.
Now... Hey, games don't make brains grow and your kid's likely a twat, so maybe you'd like to spare those bucks and pay evening lessons instead?

The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

 

[Osmod [deprecated]]

Interesting sidepoint (related to the gord reference).

If this was a indie store, he would have the right to refuse service, correct? At least that's how it still is in the US(sr).

But as the face of your standard souless company, he's in the wrong, wrong, wrong.

Did he break corp. policy? No doubt. Was he doing something "wrong"? Doubtful.

"Not his job" doesn't mean it's not the right thing. Equating corporate policy with morality makes commodities out of us all.

Smarter kids mean a smarter tomorrow which means even cooler games for the rest of us.

Osmod

 

[raesquirrel]

The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Sounds like someone is bitter about a woman beating him at his favorite game.

 

[Redfeather]

The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Sounds like someone is bitter about a woman beating him at his favorite game.

He probably hasn't seen a vagina since his mother shoved him out of one.

 

[Arbre]

The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Sounds like someone is bitter about a woman beating him at his favorite game.

More bitter than the one who signs up just to post his first message here?

Nevermind, it was humour. Just let it go down.