Slashdot Mirror
Kmart To Card Buyers Of Violent Games
AbbyNormal writes: "Cnn.com is reporting that Kmart(R) is now going to start carding kiddies who buy violent games (based on the ESRB rating)." Reverend Raven adds a link which paints Walmart's name on the wall of shame as well. All the more reason to buy games from local stores or on the Web, at least from places which don't bend to pressure from overzealous state attorneys general. On the other hand, industry 'guidelines' which mainstream retailers follow as if they were law seem better than actual laws doing the same, sort of like 7-11 being free not to carry pornographic magazines.
Every weapon sold has the possibility of being used.
Every video game sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
You're not being consistent in your comparison. If you rephrase the first statement to more closely match the second...
Every weapon sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
You wind up with a similar statement, not a contrasting one. Therefore, there is not a much more powerful argument for your position. If the proof is in the millions of gamers who don't turn violent, then the proof is also in the millions of shooters who do not turn violent. The violence statistics are the same no matter which postition you take.
Maybe it would be interesting to find out how many people grow up playing violent games who acquired weapons just before 'going postal' vs. how many people who grew up with guns started gaming just prior to same.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
The children of the people who buy firearms there.
When I was sixteen (and as stupid , if not more, as most teenagers), I would have simply stolen it if they would not sell it to me.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
I was watching the news yesterday when I found this out. Instead of filling out the ticket, they just swipe the card and print the thing off now. Just like Police Quest III. :)
Incidentally, it's great for doubling those numbers they show off during "safety blitzes" (read quota filling periods).
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
> First, why should KMart be dedicated to Free Speech? (That's the citizen's job, not theirs.)
And why the Hell isn't it the citizen's job to take care of his kids, instead of letting K-mart, Wal-Mart, the MPAA and other clueless corporate pieces of shit be responsible for them? Tell your kid what you think is inappropriate for him to play, watch, read, whatever. If he disobeys you, throw away the copy of Diablo 2 he bought against your wishes. Just don't tell my kid he can't read, watch, and play whatever he wants--which is what you do if you make stores card people for video games, because parents shouldn't have to take their teenagers up to the counter like toddlers to buy them video games, music, books and films.
Clue: there is no causal link between video game violence and meatspace violence. And there never will be, because as any frustrated teenager will tell you video games are a tool for catharsis--they let you relieve the tension of dealing with obnoxious bullies, teachers who shouldn't have been allowed to graduate college much less teach high school, girls who ignore them or worse, make out in the halls all day in front of you, administrators who bully students who dress, look, or think differently than the tyranny of the majority, and clueless parents who are from a different generation and just don't understand that times have changed.
Here's another clue: stores don't do things like this out of a feeling of beneficence, they do it because they perceive that people like you want them to. They do it because clueless and ignorant parents want them to, since they choose to blame teenage violence on video games and films instead of on bad parenting and a failing school system. It makes parents feel better when they have a scapegoat to blame instead of facing the truth that it's not video games or movies that are to blame, it's parental irresponsibility and the squalor of a school system in which they're "dumbing down" standardized tests because students can't pass them as well as they could 20 years ago. It's the fault of a repressive society which wants teenagers to bottle up their natural sexuality instead of being free to express it and experiment with it in healthy ways. It's the fault of a social machine which pushes away anyone in high school who tries to be different, unique, instead of "just another brick in the wall." It's the fault of an oppressive government which lets the FBI release "profiling software" to schools to try to pick out the potentially dangerous, but probably acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy to make people dangerous by alienating them and singling them out further. All these are the problem, not sex and make-believe violence in cathartic video games and films and music.
So, what;s the solution? Something like this only tightens the noose further, makes teenagers feel even more alienated and underesteemed. Teenagers aren't five year olds, they need to be treated like people who are in the process of becoming adults, people who need to make their own decisions, with some guidance, and make their own mistakes and learn from them. Why is it that we can give teenagers all the responsibilities of adulthood--we can even try them as adults and send them to adult prison when they commit crimes--but none of the rights? America puts more children in prison than any other country in the world, and we have a larger percentage of our population in prison than any country except Russia. Sadly enough, you have a greater chance of going to jail in America, a "free" country, than you do in Iraq, China, Iran, Libya, or North Korea; it's not because we're more violent, it's because we have a no-tolerance system with no room for mistakes, in which a 17 year old kid can go to prison for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, in which getting caught with a few ounces of marijuana for personal use can get you a long prison sentence as a dealer, in which we incarcerate as punishment instead of rehabilitate as treatment. A lack of rights is the fundamental problem that causes teenagers to snap. Taking away more can only make things worse. The kids who go on school shootings and what not are the ones who feel alienated, treated unfairly, not treated like adults by their parents, bullied at school by administrators for being different, feeling the pressures to conform to adult rules of behaviour but not having any of the rights that go along with it. Of course they snap; they aren't being treated like people, they're being treated like objects.
The solution is for us to loosen the reigns a bit, not tighten them. For all the complaining about school shootings being on the rise, violence in schools is actually at a ten year low--it's just that there have been more high-profile shootings, where kids snap and bring guns to school. If we're going to hold teenagers to the responsibilities of adults, and make them subject to prison when they transgress whereas in ages past we just would have sent them to juvenile detention and released them at 18 after counseling, then we have to give them some rights to go along with the responsibilities. We don't do that, and that's why our kids are having problems. We don't treat them like people anymore. Start treating them like adults-in-training instead of like toddlers or property.
"We don't need no education,
We don't need no thought control.
Dark sarcasm in the classroom--
Teacher, leave them kids alone.
Hey, teacher! Leave them kids alone!
All in all,
It's just another brick in the wall...
All in all,
You're just another brick in the wall...
I don't need your arms around me,
I don't need your drugs to calm me.
I Have seen the writing on the wall...
I don't think I need anything at all;
No don't think I need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall...
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall..."
--Pink Floyd
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
Well, anywhere north of the 56th parallel or so, the chances are about 85% they're a subsistence hunter and about 15% they're a trophy hunter on a guided tour.
Between the 49th and 56th parallel, it's probably around 20% subsistence hunter, 50% sport hunter, 20% trophy hunter, 9% target shooter, and 1% SWAT team.
(Numbers pulled out of my butt, but they are honest best estimates and I would be very surprised if they were wrong in any substantive fashion.)
Other than thinking trophy hunters are dickheads and you shouldn't kill anything unless you're going to eat it or it's about to hurt somebody, I don't have any problem with any of this.
You wind up with a similar statement, not a contrasting one. Therefore, there is not a much more powerful argument for your position.
Listen, I don't belive in gun control, and I don't belive in censorship, but saying that selling violent video games is more harmful than selling weapons is just plain ludicrous.
If you take one person, who is realatively non-violent and sell him a violent video game, what is he going to do with it? Bludgeon someone to death with the box? The jewel case? However if you sell him a handgun he now has more potential destructive force, whether he uses it or not is irrelevant.
We're talking about potential forces here, someone with a box and a CD in a jewel case has a lower potential destructive force than someone with a weapon. Picking apart the words of one argument does not negate all arguments.
-- iCEBaLM
Mister...here's a fifty, could you get me a copy of Solider of Fortune?
Sig it.
There's a powerful argument to be made that selling violent video games is a lot more dangerous than selling weapons.
And there is a much more powerful argument to the contrary.
Every weapon sold has the possibility of being used.
Every video game sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
Millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of people play violent video games every day, yet crime is dropping. I myself have played violent video games ever since I was, 10... 11? I've never killed anybody, I've never wanted to kill anybody, and I'm 22 now.
VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT, the proof is in the umpteen millions of people who play these games and have never turned violent. This video game stigma strikes of the AD&D stigma of the 80s, if you played them you'd go insane, it was a work of the devil, etc. Give me a break.
-- iCEBaLM
Yet another reason that I won't go into a K-Mart. I'm tired of corporations and government protecting us from ourselves. I've never seen any _convincing_ evidence that anything other than lousy parenting contributes to kids growing up with a taste for blood.
-This sig intentionally left blank
I mean, I do watch over her (she's only 4 at the moment) but when she gets older, and has her own spending money, I'm not going to be able to watch over her shoulder all day and keep her from age inappropriate stuff.
I'm a little thankful that corporations are being a little more conscience of the effects on society of what they sell. If only advertisers would follow suit.
That being said, I am letting her mess around with Deer Hunter.
I am totally for this sort of thing in general. There is no reason not to limit what young impressionable people are able to do without parental consent.
One thing that worries me is comparing this to the movie industry.
An R rating in the movie industry isn't good for the film, but it certainly isn't a fatal blow. An X rating is, however.
What is the difference? Both ratings indicate that the movie should not be seen by children. But since the restricions on R movie admittance are so lax, it doesn't REALLY mean no minors.
But an X rating does. And virtually no mainstream movies are made with X ratings because it would kill their sales. Especially since no suburban cineplex will screen an X rated film. There ARE legitimate films that were cut (or never made) to avoid an X rating. And there are adults who wouldn't mind seeing the uncut version. But any film with an X rating is construed as pornography.
So, the bottom line is that I don't want the M rating to become the equivalent of an X rating. That is, something that hurts the games sales so much that games are modified by the developer to avoid the rating.
If they start to really enforce the M rating and many games change their content to drop just below the M threshold, we may lose the others since it might not be profitable to produce them.
Personally, I don't see who really buys games at K-Mart, they're likely to be more expensive, I know their CDs are and have no selection. Though this does set a dangerous precedent that I'd hate to see other larger stores follow. I wonder if this will contribute to downloading the games off warez rooms on IRC since the kid can't buy it for real in the store.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Just a thought here, instead of the games causing the children to be violent, did you ever stop to think that maybe it's because the children are violent in the first place that they want to play the games?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
The truth is, fairly recently, Montgomery Ward and Sears buckled to the pressure from Joe Lieberman and the others and stopped carrying M rated games all together. Walmart and K-Mart cannot afford to ignore the orders of the man who will be the next vice president of the United States. America hasn't been a free country or had an effective Bill of Rights for quite a long time now, claiming First Amendment protection is a good way to get beaten by police or shot. No one is going to go to the wall over a few video games (well, except me maybe, but considering I don't care for modern polygonal games, maybe not.)
I will admit that American's cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment rights they used to have bothers me. If you know the whole story behind this, it is similar to the infamous Smith & Wesson gun control deal, in which Smith & Wesson agreed to do things that the government couldn't get legislatively. Lieberman and Brownback wanted (and still want) the same type of deal. They want M rated games off the shelves of every major retailer in the country, so they will be impossible to purchase. This is because they have been completely unable to accomplish this through either legislative or judicial means. By not doing this, Wal Mart and K-Mart are in fact standing up to the senators who signed the letter (I have no illusions, they don't want to lose sales, its not because they want to defend Free Expression. However, I still consider it somewhat admirable, even though I expect that they will ultimately buckle to this pressure.) and the senators are not happy about this. Neither American law nor American judicial precedent are on their side in this matter, but this new tactic may work for the latest attempted power grab by the government. I don't really think this is about video games, really, it is about testing the limits of governments power to intimidate people into surrendering their rights. Just as it didn't start with video games, it won't stop with video games, I can assure you of that. It's also not about carding, it's about banning, the wholesale elimination of any video game meant for people age 17 or over from the American market. Yes, it's true that the letter said:
but the emphasis was clearly on pulling the games from the shelves and keeping them out of anyone's hands, no matter how old the customer.The situation is not quite as bad as the 1950's comic book witch hunt, which for many years restricted the content of comic books to stuff which would be considered safe by even the most fretful and overprotective mother.
I do consider it serious though. I think people who are not currently in the thrall of one form of fascism or another will see that the First Amendment, across the board, is at one of its lowest points in the history of the Republic. Not because of this, this is merely one symptom of a larger problem. Ironically, as our popular "reality" TV shows (such as "Survivor") become increasingly about real sadism directed at real people, stuff which is purely fictional is more harshly criticized than it has been since the 50's. People are so eager to give up their First Amendment rights these days.
It took two wars to get us out of the nightmare we created for ourselves in the 50's, I hope it won't take anything to that drastic to get us out of our current national flirtation with authoritarianism.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
anyway, we don't need proof to pass laws. People think it's a good idea not to drive too fast, so we pass a law against it. we think that heroin and marijuana are bad, and alcohol is ok (now, anyway). So what? Is there a law that says we have to have proof? I like the idea of my kids going to public school, but not being surrounded by a bunch of boorish kids who I think learned their behavior from TV and violent video games Right now, most people don't agree with me. But if most people did, we could pass laws against it. I don't see why that gets your panties in a bunch. Mine aren't now... but, there's no law that says your panties can't be in a bunch :)
Statement linking media violence to violence in kids draws criticism
I'm glad you brought that up, it is a sickening example of organizations using junk science to curry favor with the current political mess we have in Washington. It's sort of like the way people were sent to insane asylums in the Soviet Union if they published books which were critical of the communist system...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
When I was a youngin' (not that I'm so old now) I was, one week, restricted by a curfew law. The next week I participated in an election to ban it. Seven days separated my maturity level between "too young to know what to do at ten in the evening" and "old enough to vote on this law, and for the president of the USA"?
Same sort of thing happened here: there was a $10000 drawing in my community, held ONE WEEK before my 18th. And no, they wouldn't let me participate. Point is, drawing distinct age lines such as the one KMart is drawing is dangerous at best for a number of reasons, one of the most prominent ones being that different people mature at very different rates.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
California issues a state ID that looks a whole lot like a driveres license, but isn't one. There is no age limit that I know of to get one. I never got one, because kids under 16 didn't need ID much back in the 70s and early 80s. My wife did have one, because she didn't get a driver's license until she was 25.
I'd like to see someone kill me at a range of fifty yards using only ...
You would, eh? Why do I always see this argument? Is this supposed to be some kind of game, where you can kill the most people from farthest away? Yeah, a rifle was made to do that job. But people do gather together every day at the office, the stores, etc. A skilled maniac with a hammer can kill faster than your typical first person shooter with a rifle. With a rifle, you have to carefully aim for each shot, otherwise those high powered rounds just rapidly punch holes off target. Might as well bludgen the victims with the barrel. Violent video games should teach you this fact.
There is a strong assumption in our culture that if someone is young, that anything and everything they see, hear, taste or touch is going to have some kind of profound influence on who they are and the content of their character.
I've never been able to reconcile this assumption with reality. A person's basic personality is set by the time they reach elementary school. Also, people are not tape recorders. The things we know and understand about the world stem from our own conclusions based on observation. Our conclusions may change as we go through life, but at no time are we changed by some outside force, especially a video game or a movie or a song. If someone bases their view of the world off a violent video game, it is because they are mentally ill. Don't blame the game because a crazy person chose to play it. They'd be crazy whether they played it or not.
All of this seems perfectly obvious to most people when discussing those over 18. But the moment "children" become the topic logic goes out the window and is replaced by hysteria and just plain stupidity.
Basically what I'm really trying to say is that the world needs to learn that video games and movies aren't responsible when a kid goes bad. If they were we'd have a nation full of bad kids. Instead we have what we've always had, a nation of more or less normal average kids with a few bad seeds thrown into the mix. Don't let those bad seeds determine policy concerning the other 98% who aren't nutcases.
If you're a good person, a good parent, and you live a life that sets a good example for your children and you're there for them and involved in their life, then they're going to turn out fine. No number of video games or movies or "obscene" lyrics in songs is going to make one bit of difference. However if you're not a good parent, if you are abusive towards your children and a terror in their lives, or you neglect them and aren't there when they need help or guidance, then they're probably going to up as broken individuals with emotional scars, which may or may not manifest as antisocial behavior. Now if you've got a fruitcake for a kid then all bets are off.
Its time that people woke up and realized that conscious thought and moral consideration don't begin at 18. They begin the first time an infant looks around himself and tries to understand what he sees. I used to think that everyone did know this and only pretended otherwise as an excuse to discriminate against the young. For a long time that seemed to be the only possible reason. But now I think that maybe people really do believe that young people are imbiciles, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy or right and wrong. Does that make sense to anyone here? It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
I'm 28 years old, so I'm not some kid who is "too young to understand." I don't have children of my own, but when I do I'm not going to make the mistake of underestimating them and treating them as possessions or pets with the power of speech. Exactly how I'll treat them and exactly what I'll do as a parent I can't say. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can say that they'll have my respect and my treatment of them will be based upon their actions, not their birthday.
As for K-mart, its their bottom line. If they don't want to sell video games this is a very good way to do it.
>
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
It kind of shows that you don't have children of your own. I believe in privacy, both of myself and of "my" children. It works both ways--I don't go rummaging around in their stuff, and they don't go rummaging around in mine. I lead a very busy schedule (work 60+ hours/week), and so does my fiancee. We welcome all tools that will allow us to enforce our rules that we set, such as this K-Mart bit.
Seriously, there is no way that anyone can reasonably maintain a 24/7 surveillance on their children. Like it or not, this is what will be required to filter most of the social rubbish that will be imprinted on our children. Instead, let the society and the corporations help you in building the tools to monitor the products' influences on our children. This is precisely what K-Mart is doing; as the other posters have suggested, if I wanted my children to grow up playing violent video games, I will personally buy them myself. This new-age "society has no place in rearing my children" rubbish really sickens me; for thousands of years, small communities imprinted their values on the children. This indoctrination still happens daily at schools. I guess that your children will be homeschooled as well?
If you don't like it, fine. Boycott K-Mart and Wal-Mart. That is your right as a consumer. However, when you have your own children, and they're at the age where they want to play video games, even violent ones, and are playing them in your living room, at least have the decency to listen to us when we say, "We told you so.".
--
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
In case you've been napping, this conversation was about whether video games are more dangerous to the general population than firearms. I don't think that it's much of a stretch to suggest that firearms are inherently more dangers than, say, hammers. In USMC basic training, you're taught to field-strip and reassemble a rifle in the dark. "Advanced Hammer Combat Tactics" isn't anywhere in the curriculum, to my knowledge.
Phew. Good thing there aren't more "skilled maniacs" running around. If there were, why, I suppose we might see a huge spurt in the crime rate as banks, convenience stores, and supermarkets are held up at hammer-point. Drive by hammerings might become common. And thank god those damn Columbine killers, with their TECDC9s, combat shotguns, and homemade explosives, didn't get their hands on any ball-peen hammers. The carnage could have been... even more carnagey.
Whoops. You're right. I'll have to file that away with the other lessons I learned from violent video games, including "dismembered alien arms are great for taking out enemies around corners," (Half-Life) and "a fully loaded marine can just about outrun a LAW projectile."(DOOM)
Does anyone remember the Comics Code? (It's still in effect today.)
What happened was that the government was cracking down on comics as a cause of juvenile deliquency, and as a gesture of "Look, government! We're policing ourselves! Go away!", they enforced ratings -- if you worked for one of the big boys (the *only* boys, with one exception I'll get to in a moment), your comics had to be 'clean'. Except that it was all a dastardly ploy to get rid of EC Comics by ostracizing them. No one sold EC comics, and they folded.
Are there parallels here? I think so. Any rating system enforced like ours is causes a separation of for-kids and not-for-kids. Cinema split into Hollywood and 'One Day Wonder' porn flicks. Will we see specialty shops where the basest desires of violence and carnality are expressed in video-game form, on an under-the-counter business which everyone buys from but no one admits?
Or am I on a wild tangent here?
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
A story that I tried to submit but was rejected was on 4 major medical groups (AMA was one) connecting violent games to violent behavior. But as this report stated - not all violent game players are violent, and not all violence comes from violent game playing. Only that there is significance in the data connected violent actions of youth to violent game playing. I don't doubt the result, considering that they probably lump things like tempertantrums, disobedience, and such rather mundane things into violent actions.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I don't agree with the people in slashdot who would like to criticize K-mart for enforcing a pretty good standard.
The rating system is there for a reason, and reasonable people can support it. My 12 year old sister is currently begging me to get Diablo 2. But our parents, I know, just wouldn't want this for her. A control like this can stop the kids who want to go against their parents, and help kids who can convince their parents WHY they are responsible enough to enjoy the latest gore-filled game.
As a parent myself now, I feel that "parental control" is a good thing in and of itself. Yes, it can be overdone, but gosh when it's underdone the results can be disasterous!
-Ben
I'm waiting for them to say next that advanced dungeons and dragons is violent because you go around slashing people up with swords and bludgeoning them with maces, and casting satanic magic. Not to mention all those post-apocolyptic role playing games, where you have actual guns and shoot people. My god.
Yes, I'm being facetious, but my girlfriend's younger brother is just getting interested in role playing and I hope not to get a letter from his teacher one day saying that I have to stop my perversion of his poor little innocent mind with my violent and obscene "role playing".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Of course. But Lieberman speaks from a more educated position on the computer industry than does the Republican party.
After all, Al Gore invented the internet.
Both parties make me sick, though the Democrats are clearly the lesser of the two evils.
Remember, the Republicans want to make the country into a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state, move to Iran. I hear real estate in Tehran is cheap.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Being older this really doesn't affect me since I have to show my ID other places (cigarettes, beer, credit card sometimes, checks, the airport, speeding tickets, clubs, Sylvian Prometric testing)... so I think I'm just going to punch a hole in my ID, and attach a belt zip chord thingy along with my building access card.
Ya know, in Ohio, we now have a magnetic strip on the badboy, and I've never seen it swiped... ever.
----
>Unfortunately, the same is true of LSD and automatic weapons.
No, I don't think you understood what I was trying to say.
I mean, given enough determination and money anyone can get just about anything in this country. I think attempting to draw a parallel between violent video games and illegal drugs and weapons is stretching it a bit.
I think handing $40 to a 17-tr old and having them get you a copy of Quake from K-mart is a totally different thing than scoring an AK-47.
Having a violent video game in your posession doesn't have the same potential for harm as taking a hallucinogenic or wielding an automatic weapon. What is your point?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Then you get your ass down to the K-Mart and buy the game for them. Problem solved. But I'll bet $20 that this is a moot question and you don't have any kids, Alleria.
In fact, I'll make a blanket statement right here -- I suspect that 95+% of people posting that this is evil censorship don't have kids. In other words, this isn't your problem (unless you're under 17). And don't give me some "slippery slope" argument. As long as K-Mart is carding people who buy violent games, that means that they'll still carry the games, which is a better result than lots of stores have chosen.
I have a zero year old daughter, and I don't see any problem with having stores card kids who try to buy mature products -- alcohol, tobacco, firearms, DVDs, video games, whatever. If I want my kid to have that stuff, I'll buy it for them.
Best Buy is carding people when buying games like Soldier of Fortune (at least their Durham, NC store is).
But is this such a bad thing?
Screw Micro$oft.
In and of itself, this is not a Bad Thing. Ratings were not created to keep games out of the hands of kids. Quite the opposite, actually; ratings were created in recognition of the fact that some kids are mature enough to handle violent games, while at the same time recognizing that some are not. Ratings, as they were originally intended, provide a way for kids who are mature enough to still get the games... but only if they can prove it, as evidenced by the fact that an adult will vouch for that maturity by being the one to actually purchase the game. That is something I can support; it's not a threat to free speech in and of itself. Ideally, it keeps the games out of the hands of kids who really shouldn't be seeing this stuff, while still letting those who can handle the game's subject matter do so.
The problem is that lazy parents will use this as a crutch. Rather than actually carry out their responsibilities as parents by taking (or, if need be, making) time with their kids and getting involved, will simply go along with the post-Columbine hysteria and say kids can't play any of those games. It's an insult to the intelligence of a lot of kids, but it's simply a sad fact that many parents shirk their responsibilities today.
So in the end, I can't support the carding. I don't remember when the last time was that I shopped at K-Mart or Wal-Mart, but I won't be anytime soon, I know that.
----------
If K-Mart decides they don't want to sell any product to a minor, I believe that's their right. Discrimination laws (including those based on age) are all aimed at adults, as in 50 vs. 20, not 20 vs. 12.
Whether such law even applies to sales from a private company (as in, non-government -- I know K-Mart is publicly held), I'm not sure. I would think a store can say "We don't want to sell gummy bears to Blondes because they're too air-headed already" if they want, but maybe that's illegal...
Bad PR is what keeps such activity from occuring, by and large.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
If this were _law_ that was being applied unilateraly to all retailers to enforce what is (I think) a voluntary industry content rating system, then I'd be yelling.
Aren't there plenty of other places to buy video games? I guess if you live in a smaller town that only had a Wal-Mart, that could be a problem.
This seems to come right on the heels of the Democrat's schpeil at the convention about parents having the right to have control over what sex/violence their children are exposed to in their own home. PR for K-mart and Wal-mart to say 'see, we support family values too. Come shop with us'. So what?
Any determined 16-yr-old is going to be able to get his hands on DOOM 2000, regardless of its content rating or controlled distribution at a couple of major retail outlets.
Flame away.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
when you think about it... the violence on tv and video games have been increasing at a very fast rate.. And guess what.. teen violence has gone DOWN..
.. you masturbate.. you feel fine for a while.. you feel blood lust.. you kill something in a game... you feel fine for a while.
:)
Why don't the politicians see this? How about the news media? I don't frickin know..
seems to me.. these sort of things suppress ones lust for blood (a natural thing).. not encourage it.
Its like masturbation..
You are really horny
(Although, if you where doing both at the same time.. I then I would start to worry....
Luke
Because children do not have full legal rights. Period. Whether you consider that good or bad, it's the law. Stores can set arbitrary limits on what they will sell to children.
I've seen hardware stores that don't let kids buy spray paint. The Lechter's chain of kitchen stores won't let kids buy nitrous oxide cannisters (I think they're used in automatic whipped cream makers or something). This is not a new issue.
I'll raise my kids the way my parents raised me.
By the way, I'll never take any comment you make, on any issue seriously.
It's fascists like you that are ruining this country.
Bah, and I was one of the ones defending Walmart and K-Mart, scumbag...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I have no real problem with any retailer choosing to enforce ESRB ratings on software if it will help once and for all put an end to the 'violence in video games is bad' line of thinking. Plus I will always have the option of purchasing a game for my child if the store won't sell it to him so it doesnt infringe upon any adult majors rights. Not to mention it will allow accountability to be 'enforced' (IE sue walmart) the next time some kid shoots up a school AND plays quake. I don'agree with the sue anything that moves mentaility, but it does take much of the bit out of a trite and tiring platform. Cynical? Yup.
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341
I realize I've had to be redundant myself to do it!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341
That's like saying I never lived in the Soviet Union, so how dare I criticize it. What a disgusting parasite you are!
Moderators, note the redundant comments, if ever there were a need for the redundant tag, it's this guy!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
A nonviolent person with a rifle in his hand is not going to hurt you.
A violent individual will make it his goal to hurt you with all available weapons... or even with none. That's something I saw firsthand in the joint.
It is mindset, not weaponry, which makes someone a danger to society. If it were to be proven that violent video games increase the likelihood of acquiring a violent mindset (which I rather doubt, however) it would be perfectly reasonable to ban them... while keeping the .22 rifles available.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
You hit the nail on the head: this is an annoyance. One that can grow larger -- especially since K-mart is such a big corporation, and covers so much of the US. And considering that a great percentage of low/middle income Americans shop there, they have considerable leverage, in effect having the power to create somewhat of a de facto standard when it comes to the restriction of violent video games to minors.
All that said, you are perfectly correct in asserting that they have every right to do so. They do. And I have every right to take my business elsewhere for K-mart's stupidity, Wal-mart's censorship, and Amazon's idiotic patenting. You may also note that, I, in fact, do.
All that said, Kmart is encouraging parents to take less responsibility for their kids. I can't wait to see the day when some redneck parent who's usually far too busy watching redneck TV and getting drunk off of cheap beer sues EB or Baggages because some other fuckhead kid shot their precious little Johnny, with the argument that they didn't card like Kmart did, thereby helping to create a killer.
What utter bullshit this will lead to. Parents are responsible for raising their own kids. This is not the government's responsibility. It is not the corporation's responsibility. It is not the neighbor's responsiblity, nor that of the little bugger's algebra teacher. The responsibility of raising a kid belongs to the parent.
Okay, you might well say, but what about those parents too busy to take care of their kids? And I say:
1) If you've instilled your kids with the right values, you shouldn't have to worry. They'll grow up right -- knowing not only that something is off-limits, but also why. Instead of "Soldier of Fortune is off-limits because that fuckwit behind the counter won't sell me a copy," it'll be "Soldier of Fortune is probably something I should wait until I'm older to play -- it's not good for me right now." and 2) If you were too busy when you shit out the little bugger in the first place, then you're an idiot!!! Go give your kid up for adoption.
You have no right to diminish the convenience and choices of others because of your own laziness. What if I want my kids to be able to buy whatever video games they want? Under this policy, if my kid wants to buy it at Kmart because they're selling it cheap and he's poor (and all kids generally are), I'd have to go with him. I don't want to do that. You are making me. You're refusal to take care of your kids on an individual basis is causing ME inconveniences! Comprende?
As for movies: AFAIK there is a law saying that they must card. The ratings on videogames are an advisory at this point. Witness how EB doesn't card. Nor does, oh, say, Outpost. Until it becomes law, I'd like my advisories to stay advisories!
As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them ... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
You've missed the point. They're taking choice away from parents. If parents really were responsible, they shouldn't need "assistance" of this sort from K-mart. Lemme ask you this:
What if I'm of the sort who believes that kids should be allowed to play whatever video games they want? And instead focus on controlling other areas, like making sure my kids finish their homework on-time, and correctly?
If my kids wanted to buy Quake III at K-mart, I'd have to go with them. Despite my philosophy. You can assert that the converse is also true: if there were no carding, the other group of parents who believed in control over their kids would have to go with them to Kmart.
But that's the point!!! They believe in control, they'd better actually be there, and in control! Why do they need the clerk to be a surrogate parent???
I'm over 17 and enjoy playing games of all types, violent and non-violent alike. The ESRB ratings were created so that parents and merchants could be aware of which games were not meant for children. For years, the ratings were blissfully ignored by arcade operators (who put games like Soul Calibur, rated "Life-like violence -- Strong" in public view) and merchants (who wouldn't want to risk losing a sale because their customer is too young). I'm glad that a corporation is stepping forward to make sure that the ratings are actually put to their stated purpose.
Call it censorship if you'd like. Say it's Big Corporate America trying to say what's right for Our Children. (Don't worry, JonKatz will say the same thing soon enough.) Threaten to boycott K-Mart if you're really that active about it. This is just a realization of the ratings system, much like a young kid can't go into an R-rated movie -- assuming that the person behind the counter knows to card.
This will be an annoyance, but it's something that parents have asked for. The world doesn't revolve around whiny Your-Rights-Online activists.
For more information, click here.
Soon I will have to buy my software from the mafia.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
http://www.penny-arcade .com/view.php3?date=2000-06-02&res=l
Because all of life's problems can be solved through better Web Comics.
> Nobody's saying that your kid can't read, watch, and play what he wants. If
;-) That's the way it's always been; kids will see what they want to see, regardless of what the parents want.
/. when it comes to tech matters. What can I say, I don't think Windows is so bad, because it's so functional and easy to use. But I share the more progressive views which the majority of /.ers tend to hold. After all, a lot of people here were geeks in high school who played video games or roleplaying games or got into violent films as a relief of tensions that geeks above most others are subject to. As such, we can understand better than you can what it's like to be a stressed teenager, and how cathartic such release valves are. Without them, many teens would become the next Eric Harris. Is that what you want? No? Then stop being selfish and start to think about what teenagers need, instead of thinking about what you personally dislike.
...the majority of parents have some ideas of what they do and don't want
...And anyone that's going to "snap" because they're denied their video games
> you want it that way, go to KMart yourself and buy it for him or her.
You are missing the mark by a mile or two. How am I to teach my kids to be free and use that freedom responsibly, if they're living in a very un-free country which requires them to "present their papers" to buy a CD, video game, or film? That's what this is about. Making a parent go up to the counter and buy a video game for a 16 year old, as if he were a child of 5 instead of a young adult, sends a message to that teenager: you're a child; we may say you're a young adult, but that's just lip service since you have no more rights than a 5 year old; if you hurt someone we can try you as an adult, and put you in adult prison, and you have all the responsibilities of an adult--but you have *NO* adult rights, even though the responsibilities are yours; you have no rights; you are property, unable to make any decisions for yourself, your parents must make all decisions for you; your parents matter, you do not. You may not think it sends that message, but it does: ask teenagers about it, since they have a perspective different from yours.
Now, it would be impossible--*IMPOSSIBLE*--for me to treat my teenager as a young adult if I have to go to the counter with him to buy him a CD or video game. All of a sudden, he's being treated *exactly* like he's five years old, and all my work is ruined. Way to instill self-confidence and self-sufficiency in someone, oh wise society.
That's not even bringing up the issue of rights and fairness. If someone is expected to behave as an adult, he should be given the rights and privileges attendant upon those responsibilities. To do any less is a gross unfairness. I find it revolting and disgusting that we can and do try and sentence young teens as adults, and yet we don't give them any adult rights whatsoever. A fifteen-year-old, legally, has no more rights than a five-year-old, and yet has far more legal and social responsibilities. there is something quite wrong with that.
> (Of course,
> you have other things to do than that, and couldn't be bothered to take any
> responsibility for your views by taking some action.)
On the contrary, I am clearly much more able and willing to be involved in raising my children than you are. After all, I have thought out the implications of treating them like children when they are no longer mere children, but young adults; and you seem content to treat teenagers like second-graders with no regard for their maturing process and self-esteem. And, I take as much action as I can to make sure my kids will grow to be adults in a world which is friendly to them--I write and have published in actual print media articles about the troubles facing teens these days, most of which come from parents and other adults who are well-meaning but misguided.
Let's look at the immediate issue, though; if stores card everyone for video games and CDs with mature content, and therefore either parents or older kids have to buy such materials for their teenage kids, what are the effects?
1) I and other parents who actually desire to treat our teenagers as young adults, in an effort to nurture responsibility and self-worth, will be unable to avoid treating our teens like they're five years old whenever they want a video game or CD. Of course, this sends our kids the same message we try so hard not to give them, and it can't be avoided.
2) *Your* teens, whom you wish to treat like immature little kids instead of nurturing their growing minds and self-consciousness, will still get the games and music you don't want them to by having older kids get them or by playing them at friends' houses. Your kids won't like you because you're an overbearing bastard who tries to give them all the responsibilities of adulthood but NONE of the rights and privileges.
Nothing truly constructive, in other words. Now, compare that to what heppens without such restrictions:
1) Progressives like me have one less thing to worry about in raising our teens.
2) Teenagers may still be put upon and held back by clueless parents, overbearing administrators, and some fellow classmates, but at least the video game store/CD store/arcade is one less place that they're treated like five-year-olds whose opinions and self-esteem are worthless.
3) People like you will have to actually *parent* instead of letting retailers do it for you, but you can still have control over what your kids bring into your house. If you find a contraband copy of Diablo 2, throw it away and chastise your teen.
4) As with the other list above, your kids can still see all the video game violence and arcade sexuality they want--by going over to the houses of friends with more progressive parents. Like, well, my house.
So, we can clearly see that censorship-at-the-store helps no one, and hurts parents who actually trust and nurture their children.
> You can disagree with KMart
> and WalMart all you want, but saying that they should share your views is
I don't say they should share my views; I say they shouldn't share *yours*. Retailers should be parenting-neutral; it isn't their job to make decisions for anyone's kids, mine or yours. *Yours* is the only opinion that would have corporations making parenting decisions for us, not mine.
> unfounded arrogance on your part,
Well, I already disputed this above, but on a side note: yes, I'm arrogant, but my arrogance is well-founded. Unlike you, I've actually read most of the best, most recent literature on adolescent development. Unlike you, I care more about raising teenagers to be healthy and completely developed adults, rather than in misguidedly exposing them only to things which I personally approve of 100% and attempting to shield them from the world.
> that's shared by most of your clueless slashdot colleagues.
I disagree with a lot of people on
> If graphical depictions of violence are considered good psychological
> replacements for actually dealing with you problems, or even are treated as
> a generic escape route, then I think that there's a problem, and it's not
> KMart's.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it; but it's an unfounded opinion and you shouldn't try to force it upon everyone else. Every single human being is an escapist--why else do we dream? Without dreams, we cannot function. If you allow a person to sleep as long as he wants, but wake him briefly whenever REM sleep indicates he's ready to dream, you'll have a very agitated and unhelthy person in short order. This has been proven by clinical studies. For whatever reason, we need to dream. We need that escape. Video games perhaps serve a similar function--we exercise our reflexes in ways we can't in day-to-day life, but which were common in our primordial days; we exorcise our violent impulses, which otherwise would stay bottled up inside us until they flare up IRL; we can be powerful, important characters in video and roleplaying games, to make up for the lack of power and importance which plague so many teenage lives.
Using games as a cathrsis doesn't mean that you're not solving your problems IRL; but often there are problems in real life which we cannot solve. For example, when society gets medieval with teenagers and starts treating them like little children, as in the present example of restricting the purchase of simple games, there's little a teenager can do about it. He can complain all he wants, but sadly enough, adults won't listen to him because too many of them are as thoughtless as you are.
>
> their kids to see, and appreciate a policy that agrees with them.
Yes, but the majority are often wrong. That's why the founders of our country and its Constitution used phrases like "the tyranny of the majority" and "the rights of the minority." Just because a majority of parents--and I don't think it's anywhere near a majority, but for the sake of the argument--have an opinion does not mean that they have the right to violate the rights of other parents and the rights of teens. Sadly enough, though, in legal terms teenagers have few rights--not much more than young children do, and that's not right. Just because the majority desires something doesn't make it right; in fact, the majority is typically wrong. That's why there are so many safeguards in the Constitution against tyranny of the ignorant masses, like the Electoral College. Who should be making decisions, smart people (the minority) or average people (the majority)? And, before you answer, realize that the "average" person can't locate South America on a globe, or learn to use Windows without calling tech support *a lot*.
> The rest of your paragraph is a fine argument that
> unrestricted access is ideal, but it misses the point. KMart is taking reasonable
> actions to fit in to the society that it caters to.
If indeed unrestricted access is ideal, you should support it. "Society," though I hate to use such a blanket term here, should be changed through education if it's wrong, and ignored if it won't listen. After all, what makes the U.S. fairly unique is not the rule of the majority, but the respect we maintain for the rights of the minority. So, if unrestricted access is, as you say, ideal, then that's the way it should be.
>
> has mental problems anyway
Where have you been lately, my friend? Most teenagers have mental problems--or at least what society chooses to call mental problems. A very significant portion of the teenage population are permanently medicated--why, you can't walk into a classroom these days without finding someone who'd at least on Ritalin, if not anti-depressants. Personally, I chalk most of these "mental problems" up to being merely symptoms of adolescence and the emotional intensities that are always a part of it. Many doctors agree that Ritalin is definitely over-prescribed. I've also known teenagers on Zoloft and Wellbutrin. Most of them should not be. But, most teenagers have clinically diagnosable "mental problems" like depression. But largely they're just part of growing up. It's sad that we medicate our teenagers to remove the symptoms of adolescence, but we do.
> Everyone has limits on what they're allowed to do.
Yes, but in the U.S. we have far too many. That would be why the only country with a larger percentage of its population in prison is Russia. That's very telling and hideous. "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"--Tacitus, *The Annals*
> Teenagers have a few more; they always have in our society.
True, and many of the "extra" limitations are necessary. But new ones are not. Unfortunately, every year we oppress teenagers more. Legally enforced curfews--in my city, a teenager can't legally spend the night in a friend's house, even if they stay indoors all night, without written parental consent. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ABOUT?!? In Michigan(?) a 16 year old boy was found guilty of statutory rape and subject to the sex offender registry for having consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. That's *wrong*, and would never have happened even during the height of the Reagan morality police. Kids are now being profiled in schools by FBI software. We have tried 11 year old kids as adults and given them life in prison for murders which they quite frankly could not have understood--no rehabilitation, they're just thrown away. Our young people are at risk--from their elders. This video game business may be a relatively minor thing, but it's one more thing which should be stopped, one more thing which goes over the line. A small evil is still an evil.
> Learning to live with that is part of growing up.
No, for all the kids I knew growing up and know now as an adult, learning to get around those rules is part of growing up. After all, when I was a kid, movie theaters didn't even card for R-rated movies--the ratings were a "suggestion" and not enforced. And now, I can't buy a damned cigar without being carded even though I look about 34 with my beard and all. We are becoming a pathetic country in which no one is free anymore. I remember back in the 80s we used to say that what separated us from the Soviets was that a Russian had to show his papers everywhere he goes, and an American could go wherever he wanted to and no one would question him about it. Now, we have to show our papers as much as anyone in the Soviet Union ever had to. And we treat our teenagers like they aren't even people. in 20 years, America has gone from being the soul and savior of the world, to being a mocked and ridiculed and hated caricature. Our children are failing because we've failed to protect them by guaranteeing basic rights.
> BTW: Great song, great Lyrics, and great point, but completely irrelevant
If you think so. But I think it's the whole point. It's why Columbine and Jonesboro happened. Violent video games didn't do it; boxing our teenagers in, treating them like veal, did.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
"playing video games or watching a movie will not cause a formerly peace-loving individual to go on a shooting spree"
It's doubtful that just playing some games or watching some movies will cause someone to wig out, I can't help but wonder what the total effect from years of playing realistically violent games is.
Also, how does it influence the totality of our culture? I believe in a feedback-type system. We play violent games. We watch violent movies. We have violent TV shows. We talk about violence, think about violence. After a while, this degree of violence is passe, and no longer shocking to the masses. So the envelope is "pushed", and the violence in movie & TV increases. Video games follow suit, as the gamers now want more violence; increase in computer power allows the violence to be more realistic. Repeat cycle.
Where do we end up? Where does a child starting here, now, end up in 20 years with a steady diet of murders, deaths, and slayings?
Most of us separate it from reality fairly easily. But can everyone? Can a small child? Or even a young teenager?
As for censorship - there is none. Companies can still make violent games. Adults can still buy games. Kids can play games if their parents buy it for them. Kids just can't buy them directly. This is restrictive, the way movie ratings are, but it certainly isn't censorship.
I like violent games here and there. I'm also 29, understand the impact of real physical suffering, and I don't confuse pretend for real. I don't believe that's the case for the typical 10 yr. old. Parents are responsible for their children, but they can't monitor their behavior 24/7. So why not make parenting a little easier by having mandatory carding on high-violence games, just as we do with beer, movies, and magazines?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
And you keep missing the point again and again.
It must be because your argument is illogical...
What if I believe in freedom to play whatever games they want? What if I believe in teaching my child that I (gasp) trust them? That they should be doing what I want them to do without my supervision?
Well, perhaps you could go into the store, grab whatever titles they're interested in, and buy them without questioning the content. During the car ride home, you could tell them that you disagree with the need for the restriction, but as it exists there's nothing you can do about it. Kids are amazingly understanding.
Why, K-mart is now infringing on my principles, and I can point back at the 'we-want-control' parents and ask "why are you too lazy to take your kids to Kmart, if you really believe in supervision?
This doesn't make sense. No parent, no matter how smothering, is going to watch over their child 24/7. Some kids, amazingly enough, disobey their parents, even when their parents are acting in the child's best interests. Kid is at school, kid goes to store at lunch and buys game, parents can't do anything to stop them.
Have you never been responsible for a child (or, for that matter, a puppy) in your life?
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Buying a DMX CD for my brother. At the time of the sale the clerk asked, "How old are you?" Not expecting such a question, I stammerred, "Uh, 21." The asked to see my ID. I let them see it all right. Fascist pigs! B'wa ha ha ha...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
It's not illegal to own these games (yet). It's not illegal to possess these games. There's no current age restriction on most of them (I have yet to see a violent game carry a sticker saying that you have to be 18 to own it).
So how the heck can they legally enforce this? While I am not a parent, I can understand that maybe all of these violent games are not the best for little Junior, but shouldn't that be my decision, not K-mart's?
I really find this to be an infringement on the ability of the public to freely purchase legal products. What's next, refusing to allow minors to buy aspirin because of the "no-drugs" policy at many schools?
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Yes, it certainly takes choice away from parents.
Scenario A - No ID. Parent says, "I don't want you playing that game, so I won't buy it for you." Kid goes down to the store, buys it, goes home, and plays it.
Scenario B - IDed. Parent says, "I don't want you playing that game, so I won't buy it for you." Kid goes down to the store, tries to buy it, fails. Sure, if they look hard enough they may find some person who will buy it for them, thus circumventing the parents' ability to parent. The parents can only do so much, but at least they tried. Hopefully, though, the kid has been raised well enough that he/she will not even try to go down to the store.
If you're the sort who believes your kids can play whatever games they like, the least you can do is go buy it for them. I mean, really - if you're too lazy to get off your ass and go to the store to FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, you mustn't feel all that strongly after all.
It's kinda like one comment on a story about online voting. The person says that he cares a lot about politics, but that it's too hard to leave the house for ten minutes to go vote. We should be able to vote on the computer. Please.
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Well exactly. They reserve the right to not sell anything they want to anyone they choose at anytime for any reason they want. This is PR, pure and simple. Sounds really good in an election year when everybody has been crying 'protect the children, they are our future' at the national conventions.
Is this really going to stop kids from getting games behind their parent's backs that the p's wouldn't otherwise let the kid's have? No. Is it going to stop kids whose p's don't care what their kids buy. Don't think so. What does this do? Makes the Rosie O'Donnel-watching K-mart shopping soccer mom set feel good that big companies are going to do their parenting for them. Will it work? Did anything they tried to do to protect you from yourself make any difference when you were groing up? Me neither.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Hmm. You must just give off that vibe or something.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Grown ups can still buy games
The shops are showing "responsibility"
The pressure groups are happy
The shops have less hassle
Kids can still buy games (albeit in a roundabout way)
As a side effect, kids learn to work around inconvenient rules
Everyones a winner!
I don't see why this is a big deal. The ratings are there for a reason aren't they? Just like movie ratings, why shouldn't game ratings be enforced by those retailers who want to? I don't see any federal or state authority forcing K-Mart to do this, they simply feel it's responsible and that's their right.
... you're not an adult and like it or not, you can't get whatever you want or do whatever you want.
... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
... but as far as I'm concerned, K-Mart is doing the responsible parents of this world a favor by giving them yet another safeguard to make sure their kids don't buy what they don't want them to have.
Wal-mart asks for ID when I buy an R rated DVD (I'm 27 mind you) and I have no problem with that.
People seem to want to give CHILDREN all sorts of freedoms but the simple fact is, if you're not 18
If I were a parent, I'd much rather drop my 15 year old kids off at a theater that ENFORCES the ratings knowing that if by chance my kids do want to buy tickets to an R rated movie after I leave, they won't be able to. The same goes for stores that enforce game ratings. As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them
Suggesting a boycott or "wall of shame" in these cases is just ridiculous and makes it seem like this story was written by a 14 year old who's mad he can't get Soldier of Fortune without his mom knowing.
If you want to be an irresponsible parent, fine
A few thoughts:
1) Funding and promotion for the entire media industry (entertainment, news, Slashdot, etc.) is largely predicated on the belief that people's behaviors can be influenced by the media; hence, commercials, ads, celebrity endorsements.
2) Nearly everyone in the media who earns money from the sale of violent, salacious, or obscene material holds that their work does not affect people's behavior. Interestingly, that work is usually funded & promoted in part by commercials.
=> The media is hypocritical.
Of course we are influenced by what we mentally "consume". Our entire culture is based upon information transfer. We read newspapers, books, magazines to gain info and thus have our behavior influenced and modified. We send our kids to school to hear teachers teach, so they gain knowledge & wisdom, and have their behavior change with that. Most of this is self-caused, and often purposeful. But not all. Young kids watch "Power Rangers" and then karate-kick friends and family in emulation. Teens watch hit comedies, and then talk about them, and introduce new slang into their language ("Not that there's anything wrong with that", "D'oh!", etc.)
To hold that the content of movies, books, music, games, etc. has no effect on anyone is naive, to say the least.
It seems a useful question to ask is whether we should have any restrictions on who can access what content, or none at all. (e.g. > 17 for "R" movies, "Playboy" can't be purchased by minors, need parents' permission to call the TV Psychics).
Perhaps first, we should ask not whether we are influenced by intellectual intake, but to what degree.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Excuse me, but wasn't it the now-vice-presidential candidate and Democratic Senator Leiberman that spearheaded the entire games rating process in the first place?
Incidentally, Lieberman was one of the people who pushed very strongly for video game ratings after the game "Night Trap" was published for the Sega CD system. Under Sega's short-lived GA/MA-13/MA-17 system, that game was rated MA-17. Lieberman has always been in favor of things like this.
All candidates, though, have to sound soft on things like family issues for fear of offending the Voting Public. (Who votes? Mostly family-oriented middle-aged and older people.) If Gore/Lieberman had opposed this, you would have seen Democratic advisors on every talk show in the country fielding questions like "Are you saying that it's all right for a 14-year-old boy to buy a game that features gory violence?" They wouldn't be able to answer that question without sounding like they're against the Ideals of the American Family.
For more information, click here.
sorry, my mistake.
some of those were laws. the ratings were not. what I mean to say was that it's nice that some companies are taking the intiative without them becoming law
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
A rifle is insignificant if that person can kill you with his hands and arbitrary nearby objects.
Now there's a fascinating argument. If I understand you correctly, that which can cause me to become violent, or at least, to "acquire a violent mindset," should be banned. Let me ask you a couple of questions, though: is it merely enough to try and attempt to keep people from acquiring such a mindset? If, after all, it's people and not the easy availability of weapons that are the problem, wouldn't it make sense to take a proactive stance to prevent people from becoming violent?
It is a long-held tenet of law in the US that you can't be held accountable for something you're thinking, only for things that you actually do. (Or don't do. Whatever.) To suggest that we start to legislate based on the thoughts or general mental state of the public is to push us a notch closer towards "acceptable beliefs" and "thought police."
You're also much more likely to see someone use a shiv fashioned out of a purloined spoon "in the joint" than you are to see someone hold up a convenience store with one. While I concede the possiblity that people who are incarcerated are more prone to violent behavior than the populace at large, I also ask that you consider that the reason people tend not to hold up stores with spoons is because guns make it a whole lot easier.
- There is ridiculous hoopla over child-committed violence (a child is much safer in school, church, home, on the playground than in a car driven by an adult).
- Someone needs to be left holding the bag or newspapers don't sell, lawyers don't get paid, politicians don't get elected, etc.
- Blaming parenting or parental methods can only be successfully done by children of same after therapy (I forgot to mention therapists above).
- The parenting problem this is supposed to band-aid: children using their disposable income unwisely. If a child of 16 can purchase these and other games, he can also:
- Help with car insurance (if old enough)
- Help with car payment (if old enough)
- Save for college
- etc...
- So rather than use disposable income to teach what monetary responsibility is, a hands-off neoclassical idea of 12-yr-olds being miniature adults capable of making a sound monetary decision about things that cost more than $10 (admission to a movie plus snacks--maybe), parents this is aimed at are happy to rely on MegaCorp to raise their child for them.
- I have exactly the same views about drinking ages. Can't drink it if you can't pay for it. Once a child can pay rent, pay car payment, insurance, college, food, etc.., then that child can do what s/he will with the rest of their money without approval.
These things may seem draconian. However, I believe a child's spending money should be proportional to the responsibility the child takes on with fiduciary decisions (ie, how much of his own life s/he is paying for). Otherwise, serious (and often reprehensible) ramifications will arise.Anyone who thinks a teenager should keep all the money they make is teaching the teenager a bad lesson: the wantful things in life are a higher priority than the needful things in life.
I am 25 years old, however I can still remember when I was a teenager, and how I felt about age discrimination against teenagers: unfair.
It may be easy to forget many of you probably felt the same way, but when you become older you probably do forget, and begin looking at things in your own interest. You come up with explanations about why the current situation should be perpetuated, which you would never believe if you were the subject of that discrimination.
I am not going to say, "Oh, I don't care if teens can't buy a computer game or CD or go to a movie, because I'm 25 now. It doesn't affect me." I still think it's unfair and I'm still pissed off about it.
What to do about it, then?
What is the legal basis of majority vs minority status, and how does that relate to civil rights?
Interesting... looks like some other people care about these issues too. Google search: "teen rights"
here are a few appetizers:
http://pages.prodigy.com/teenrights/agediscr.htm
http://pages.prodigy.com/teenrights/
I'd like to see someone kill me at a range of fifty yards using only his hands and "arbitrary nearby objects." You don't need guns to kill someone. They just make it a whole lot easier.
But, out of deference to your argument, I suppose we should make an effort to destroy all the remaining copies of "Donkey Kong," in the world, just in case some big yahoo walks past a stack of barrels and starts getting ideas.
This will help the game industry more than hurt it. They came up with age based rating ages ago, and would have been saved most of the headache had stores enforced the ratings this way all along.
It isn't like this will hurt game sales. How many people under 17 buy their own games anyway? Games are expensive, not too many teenagers (Much less young children.) have $50 to blow on games on a regular basis. This will just result in parents purchasing the games, just like they do with R-rated movies. How many dads do you know that would tell their teenage sons no if the kid wanted to play a violent game? Chances are that if a kid has parents stupid enough to shelter the kid from violent games, the kid is probably too stupid to figure the games out anyway.
It frees the game industry from people being able to claim that they didn't know what their kids were into. That will really do a lot more good than harm in the long run. Age limits were never able to stop porn, or R level content in movies, or cigarettes, or alcohol. They won't stop violent games. If anything, they will help.