U.S. Court bitchslaps ban on "Violent Video Games."

[Decavolty]

GrowingDandelion

Decavolty

Argumentatives aside, you guys are still acting like this is 'DURR HURR BANNING VIOLENT VIDEYAGAEMZ'. It isnt.

It's banning the sale of games to Little Timmy, like it OUGHT to be.

Good point, but where in the heck is little Timmy getting the money to buy these games? I've never seen a 9 year old pull out $60. And I've never seen little Timmy down at the store himself either. Usually he's with a parent, or a group, or an older sibling or cousin, and then the older person can just say that they're buying it for themselves.

And they banned the sale of cigarettes to people under 19, but kids still smoke them. (And I am NOT making a comparison to health hazards, just legal market.) If the day comes that they stop showing commercials for M-rated games, lock them behind opaque shelves, and make it so that you can't play them on your PSP as you walk down the street, don't be surprised if you eventually can't play them in the house anymore stare .

You've obviously never been to a Walmart. Kids run around EVERYWHERE. Seriously. Kids are more than capable of stealing 60 bucks and asking for a game.  

[Syn of Sin]

This may be irrelevant, but it reminds me of how porn is illegal in China. Anyone with porn in China is prosecuted, and almost any porn site there is blocked. >>;

Respect the Ratings. That's all I can really say. I never purchased or begged for a rated M game when I was under aged. I was patient with my growing up. If anything, the game would be more affordable when I was old enough for it. :/  

[GrowingDandelion]

Decavolty

GrowingDandelion

Decavolty

Argumentatives aside, you guys are still acting like this is 'DURR HURR BANNING VIOLENT VIDEYAGAEMZ'. It isnt.

It's banning the sale of games to Little Timmy, like it OUGHT to be.

Good point, but where in the heck is little Timmy getting the money to buy these games? I've never seen a 9 year old pull out $60. And I've never seen little Timmy down at the store himself either. Usually he's with a parent, or a group, or an older sibling or cousin, and then the older person can just say that they're buying it for themselves.

And they banned the sale of cigarettes to people under 19, but kids still smoke them. (And I am NOT making a comparison to health hazards, just legal market.) If the day comes that they stop showing commercials for M-rated games, lock them behind opaque shelves, and make it so that you can't play them on your PSP as you walk down the street, don't be surprised if you eventually can't play them in the house anymore stare .

You've obviously never been to a Walmart. Kids run around EVERYWHERE. Seriously. Kids are more than capable of stealing 60 bucks and asking for a game.

I try to avoid Walmart as much as possible. And how old are these kids? If little five-year-old kids are alone at a store without an older person to at least meet them at the exit, that actually worries me a helluva lot more then them finding a Grand Theft Auto game.

(And I'm pretty darn sure that if a parent found out that the game they bought was innapropriate, they'd take it away until they were older/return it and get a different one. If not, then there ya go.)  

[problematic briefcase]

-Hel the Reaper-

Rhed King

This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming?

actually I guess China already did that.

oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they?
no I'm just kidding, we're fine.

or am I?

<.<

>.>

-.- 0.0 oh god they got him!

Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one.

We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway.

Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent.

Video games are just a popular scapegoat, you know, like how Hitler blamed the people of the Jewish faith. O:

Parents don't want to be blamed for the s**t their children are emulating. Violence on TV is out, it's a lame argument now because we know it desensitizes violence and sex.
So, parents blame video games because it allows you to create violence in a victitious world.
It's basically parents who don't want to take the blame. Who does, anyway?

I think violence should be allowed in video games. That way, Timmy's less likely to blow some heads off because he can do it where he won't get in trouble. Of course, get mesmerized in a world in a video game, and cut yourself off from society and there's a problem. D: Begin to hate how society is, and how it works and you're a sociopath.


You know, at my library, you're able to take out smut books, and adult movies. No one ever rates the books. :/

(Timmy seems to be a popular example. I just noticed after I picked the name. xD)

 

[Decavolty]

GrowingDandelion

Decavolty

GrowingDandelion

Decavolty

Argumentatives aside, you guys are still acting like this is 'DURR HURR BANNING VIOLENT VIDEYAGAEMZ'. It isnt.

It's banning the sale of games to Little Timmy, like it OUGHT to be.

Good point, but where in the heck is little Timmy getting the money to buy these games? I've never seen a 9 year old pull out $60. And I've never seen little Timmy down at the store himself either. Usually he's with a parent, or a group, or an older sibling or cousin, and then the older person can just say that they're buying it for themselves.

And they banned the sale of cigarettes to people under 19, but kids still smoke them. (And I am NOT making a comparison to health hazards, just legal market.) If the day comes that they stop showing commercials for M-rated games, lock them behind opaque shelves, and make it so that you can't play them on your PSP as you walk down the street, don't be surprised if you eventually can't play them in the house anymore stare .

You've obviously never been to a Walmart. Kids run around EVERYWHERE. Seriously. Kids are more than capable of stealing 60 bucks and asking for a game.

I try to avoid Walmart as much as possible. And how old are these kids? If little five-year-old kids are alone at a store without an older person to at least meet them at the exit, that actually worries me a helluva lot more then them finding a Grand Theft Auto game.

(And I'm pretty darn sure that if a parent found out that the game they bought was innapropriate, they'd take it away until they were older/return it and get a different one. If not, then there ya go.)

Any other associate around here can attest:

Kids are always in places they shouldnt be. Especially at a Walmart. Hell, I've personally done some s**t at a Walmart I'm not proud of. Back in my day. >.>  

[GrowingDandelion]

Harupiggy

-Hel the Reaper-

Rhed King

This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming?

actually I guess China already did that.

oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they?
no I'm just kidding, we're fine.

or am I?

<.<

>.>

-.- 0.0 oh god they got him!

Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one.

We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway.

Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent.

Video games are just a popular scapegoat, you know, like how Hitler blamed the people of the Jewish faith. O:

Parents don't want to be blamed for the s**t their children are emulating. Violence on TV is out, it's a lame argument now because we know it desensitizes violence and sex.
So, parents blame video games because it allows you to create violence in a victitious world.
It's basically parents who don't want to take the blame. Who does, anyway?

I think violence should be allowed in video games. That way, Timmy's less likely to blow some heads off because he can do it where he won't get in trouble. Of course, get mesmerized in a world in a video game, and cut yourself off from society and there's a problem. D: Begin to hate how society is, and how it works and you're a sociopath.


You know, at my library, you're able to take out smut books, and adult movies. No one ever rates the books. :/

(Timmy seems to be a popular example. I just noticed after I picked the name. xD)

So let's all just forget about violent video games, kick back, and read some smut as we wait for the commercials on the XXX movie to end.

Problem solved! ^^  

[Rusti Fire]

Hey guess what people suck and there will always be an opposition.



[/thread]  

[Nathan TB]

agreed pirate  

[The_Ky-Guy]

Just like the article said, these "campaigns" are "wasting taxpayer money".

But hey, at least it isn't Jack Thompson that's doing that anymore. Thank the Lord that he got disbarred.