U.S. Representative Wants to Treat Exposure to Violent Games

zaheela

New member
Oct 8, 2010
34
0
0
From teen to Adult.... I have games that feature no blood, violence that would cause physical harm to one's SELF if attempted (i mean, i usually blurt this statement out that "Spines do not fold/twist/bend/contort like that" to art, but it applies here too), and Nothing huge exploding then somethings EGO or in a cartoon poof that is minor compared to say old Looney toons and they would fall under this catagory. Heck, the Okami series does, but it gains that rating from it's humor, suggestiveness, and very cartoony violence. Also isn't persona 4 rated mature? (please, don't bring Persona 3 into this; there are guns, but they aren't beings used to kill the monsters, the personas summoned by said gun are. If a person is naive enough to think that you can do that in real life, you need to either pay more attention to what your 7 year old is playing on a whole or should of gotten help already) You can't just generalize a game by it's rating with a law like this I think. I mean, the majority of the FF series would be hit by this law too.

Even then how would this moronic law applies to things like MMOs or Free to play, whose servers aren't in the aforementioned state? I guess you can force them to apply it, but what company wants to admit to their paying consumers that "we have to charge you cause of where you live."? These kinds of situations usually gets a very pissy response to HR. It's on par to say, trying to throw a law on... the classifications of hamsters. Overall, they're acceptable pets, but then there are the ones that are nippers, biters, gougers, and plain old pissy. So how do we sort out the ones that are ill tempered and are harming our children, or the ones that did it because the kid is trying to see is squishy its insides are.

While this may just be a attempt to appeal to the voters and parents, but it's a poor move.

Also... *Headdesk*
 

soul_rune1984

New member
Mar 7, 2008
302
0
0
When I hear/see things like this happening in the USA I it gives me yet another reason to be glad I'm Canadian. I personally wouldn't mind paying an extra tax if the money was going towards reserch and treatment of an actual mental illness like bi-polar or simmalar disorders. But I won't throw my money away at some B.S excuse as 'vidio games r bad'. Games are no worse than t.v/movies. I find watching the News more damaging to my mental health. I hope the bill doesn't get passed.
 

redknightalex

Elusive Paragon
Aug 31, 2012
266
0
0
As some others have said, I'm fine with a tax on video games (although a game rated Teen is pushing it) that goes to help those with mental health issues, but it's not going to people who need it! Where has there been any study that has shown a causal link between violence and violent video games (and I'm talking causal link, not just an increase in most subjects) that would warrant such measures? Where has there been any study, anything even attempted, that shows there's a mental health disorder that is clearly, or solely, or even remotely associated with the effects of video game exposure?

Personally, video games help me cope with my own mental health issues, not hinder them. I've also spoken with many others who feel the same way. It's a distraction for crying out loud! And to think that someone, someone elected mind you, thinks that there's a "video game disorder" out there? ...Really? Really?!

I'm trying to be calm about this, seeing as every day there's another anti-video game idea thrown out there, but this one hits me in two spots. If the bill, which will never pass, took the taxes and placed them towards treating mental health in general, I'd be all for it. Otherwise, stay away from my mental health!

Also, as an aside, seeing as video games are protected under the First Amendment in the U.S., the most sacred right Americans (including myself) like to brag about, how can you tax it? You don't tax art exhibits, news media outlets, flyers, posters, or movies. States and some federal laws tax the sale of them but that's because they are a considered a sale. I suppose you could technically tax it under that heading except I'm sure that, if brought to court, it would probably lose. This isn't like taxing gas or cigarettes people (which, of course, doesn't help the environment/cancer respectively).

Slightly OT: You aren't going to find the people who perform the mass murders we want to prevent with laws like these. Nor can we force them to do anything, ie take medications, without a damn good reason. You might call them crazy, psychotic, or some other word but they are smart and have civil liberties on their side (something as strong as freedom or speech). They know exactly what to say to get out of a hospital stay, to get out of medications, to make you believe them. I have family members who work with this type of person everyday and they don't even "catch" the worse ones.
 

Samurai Silhouette

New member
Nov 16, 2009
491
0
0
Raise the tax on all forms of violent and sexualized media. Don't just pick on videogames.

Why the fuck are these stupid people in power?
 

Jamous

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,942
0
0
So is she essentially proposing to Tax videogames in order to pay for counselling and anger-management (for issues that -might- be connected with videogames)? Seriously? But why? I just can't see her reasoning behind this. Is there a specific study that has actually spurred her on to 'help' those afflicted by this malign and accursed medium of entertainment? Is she going to propose a similar tax for violent films and literature? PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO MEEEEEEEE.
 

Ticonderoga117

New member
Nov 9, 2009
91
0
0
Seriously? Out of all the actual issues that the American government needs to work on, someone instead decides to jump on this stupid "Blame video games" band wagon in an effort to appear to be "doing something"?
 

soren7550

Overly Proud New Yorker
Dec 18, 2008
5,477
0
0
Let me get this straight. We *finally* get someone who wants to make a move to do something about mental health, but that person wants to do so by taxing video games rated Teen and up because they cause mental problems?
*headmonitor*
 

Regiment

New member
Nov 9, 2009
610
0
0
I can only assume that there will be similar taxes on movies rated PG and up, and that listening to music with a parental advisory warning will count as a risk factor. Right? Otherwise, this bill would come across as ludicrously hypocritical.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
soren7550 said:
Let me get this straight. We *finally* get someone who wants to make a move to do something about mental health, but that person wants to do so by taxing video games rated Teen and up because they cause mental problems?
*headmonitor*
it's a strategy that involves acting like the rest of the reasonable and truthful people but slipping the lie under the door

i forgot what it's named

either way since it gives an avenue to people who want to be on the moral high ground (NRA, parents and politicians who "don't blame violent video games" but do things like endorse and create violent video game bans, boycotts, exchanges and burnings) between what they think and what sounds like reason, it is politically more popular than the outright first position, but still allows them to get everything they wanted (in this case, the vilification of violent video games as being equated to drugs and liquor by applying similar measures and using them as a social stigma by association, and taking money from them to fund something that actually won't happen but is being used as a moral justification for convenience)

as i've said before, we need a stronger interest group that isn't influenced by money in order to start arguing for equal rights for our form of media, and as long as we aren't actually represented in politics by people with power, we will be subject to being the strawman that can be bartered for goods and favors
 

the doom cannon

New member
Jun 28, 2012
434
0
0
Well if this by some work of a random deity actually passes, digital sales will go up and retail sales will go down, simple as that. Why pay even higher prices when you could have the same thing without paying taxes on it?
 

Gearhead mk2

New member
Aug 1, 2011
19,999
0
0
Nicolaus99 said:
Gearhead mk2 said:
Nicolaus99 said:
There's a reason all the stupid quotes come from Republicans.

Republicans are freaking stupid.
And reading comprehension, like the point, totally missed. Thanks for being part of the problem. Enjoy your PIPA.
I missed your point? I thought the point you were trying to make is that there seems to be an anti-republican bias on the Escapist's news articles. I was pointing out that yeah, there may be a bias, but even if there is, frankly the party doesn't seem to be trying to hard to dispell it. I know every party has extremists, but the stuff I've seen some of them come out with... I'm not looking to get in a big debate or anything. I'm just giving my 50p.
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
Thought when I first saw the article title: Bet it's the republicans.
Thought when that suspicion was confirmed: I fucking knew it!
 

Kuro Serpentina

New member
Dec 10, 2012
50
0
0
...
Now I just want to walk up to this person & go "Hey, I heard about this Tax on violent video games", then let her respond with something like "Yes, I think its very important to protect the children. I assume, I have your support"
And then... "No, its stupid and you are stupid for thinking it up. So much so in fact, I took a flight from England to come here to tell you just how stupid it is because I wanted to meet the person idiotic enough to think this up for myself, as I didn't think that there could be a human in the world this dumb. Good day, madam" and then I catch a flight back to england, safe in the knowledge there is one less person unaware of their idiocy thanks to me
That just makes me feel warm inside just thinking about it
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
Republicans:
We want big government out of our lives, unless it's in your bedroom.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Baresark said:
You are assuming I'm assuming, but I am not.
I'm not assuming anything. Don't got putting words in my mouth even as you accuse me of the same sort of negative action. It's poor form.

You have accused me of ignorance, false assumptions, and given vague examples of numerous instances that supposedly support your claim. That's a conspiracy theory, and one "sheeple" away from the perfect storm.

If you wish me to discuss this further, I would be happy. Just give me something tangible to discuss, rather than vague statements with no actual proof and continuous evasion. Not to mention attempting to finger-point at me instead of those.
OK, you want examples:

Education: The government funnels money into school systems that need it. The money is never spent on tangible things that benefit the students directly. A program needs new text books, they get some but not enough to accommodate all their students or they departments are left squabbling over who gets it. I'll use my local state as an example, that is New Jersey. Newark School system spends in the neighborhood of $44k per student but even though that number has almost doubled since 2000, they still don't have new textbooks, more teachers, clean schools, etc. That is one example of how money spent for the improvement of schools for the benefits of students sees no actual improvement for students despite ever increasing cost of schooling.

Road systems: I'll use the State of PA as an example on this one because I would imagine that every single person who knows anything about politics and money are familiar with the debacle that is the Garden State Parkway and it's construction and ever increasing cost. So, the people in the State of Pennsylvania pay ever increasing road taxes. The issue isn't them paying the taxes, but the coffers almost completely emptied by the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburg. so when the roads need to be repaired in a place like State College, it goes undone because they won't properly allocate funds to the rest of the road systems.

War on Drugs: The Federal government spends billions of dollars per year (it's estimated that since January 1st of this year they have spent $2.324 Billion at the time of this typing) on trying to prohibit the influx of drugs into the US. They not only hire law enforcement that is just for that, but the bulk of the US prison population is from that fruitless war. Yet, there has been no noticeable fall in availability of illegal drugs, and the bulk of their work catches marijuana users and dealers and not so much for the actual bad drugs, such as heroine and cocaine.

There, three examples off the top of my head. I still think it's silly that you would call bad and inefficient spending a conspiracy theory.