Slashdot Mirror
Congress To Consider Age Limits On Violent Games
labrat1123 writes "It looks like Congress is getting ready to revisit the 'Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act.' Cliff Notes version: It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18. Entire article available on CNN." Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.
that in this time of imminent war, collapsed economy and everpresent terror that our legislators have their priorities set straight. I can sleep easier now.
Lessee... Combat, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Warcraft III...
*looks around*
Nope, haven't killed any people yet.
"It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18."
What about giving the games away for free? What about violent freeware games?
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Today Congress decided to follow the model of a popular website and begin re-examining old bills. ...
Next up for review is the issue of women's sufferage. This is expected to be a highly contested
Well, you get the idea. Nothing will be said that hasn't been previously said before on this subject.
Soon, it will be illegal to sell or loan books containing violence to persons under age 18. That would include the Bible, and keeping that mind-warping drivel from our youth will help break the cycle of these right wing conservative fucks who keep making these retarded bills!!!!!
Please add a rider prohibiting marketing, sales, and playing to and by persons over 30 years of age. I've been putting off an awful lot of chores. Besides, my thumbs are starting to hurt. Thanks.
It's good to finally see some legislation on this. If we had had age limits on violent video games, I would have never made the mistake of playing Duke Nukem 3D last week. I don't know if I'll ever recover.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I'm sorry, but children are NOT full blown citizens with all the rights thereof. Even if there is absolutely no research supporting it, parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit by not letting them play video games (or watch a movie, or anything else for that matter).
I've been saying for years that children shouldn't be allowed to buy videogames (or movies or books of anysort) without parental consent. If you want your kid to have access to such things, get them a library card, get them a membership at Blockbuster, or perhaps even have an active role in your childs life by buying it for them.
Granted, in the US it's absolutely 100% impossible to control ALL aspects of your kids life and I would never suggest trying that, but perhaps anything that encourages involvement is a good thing.
Burn Hollywood Burn
This isn't censorship. This is just a restriction against selling these games to minors. A key point is that a parent can still buy the game for the minor if they think their kid "can handle it." Shouldn't the parents be responsible for this? Isn't this what we wanted?
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
The man show can get that little fat kid dressed in a scouts outfit to try and find people to go into bestbuy and buy him a copy of Grand Theft Auto 4 instead of condoms and a 6pack.
The only let down is he wont be able to ask a redhead girl if her carpets match the curtains because unfortunately he will only be soliciting males since its best buy.
And dear god when I have children I may not buy them beer when they are 12 but they can have a gory game anyday...I REALLY dont want to find them in their room with 3 friends huddled around a wired magazine giggling or something *shudder*
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Its parents that need to protect children.
1;
I know a lot of people are going to get all up in arms about this, but personally I think it's a good thing. Having a good ratings system in place for games will help get angry parents off the gaming industries' back.
The truth is, games these days should be rated. I don't think an 11 year old kid should be able to walk into a store and buy GTA: Vice City. Games never really needed to be rated before because they were never really violent before. With a few exceptions, the rise of real violence in games is only about five years old.
The same thing happened with movies. Before the sixties movies didn't have ratings. They weren't needed because before that, it would have been almost unheard of to put graphic violence or sex in a movie. But then filmmakers wanted more mature content in movies, and a ratings system was introduced.
Games are at that point now. Some kind of enforced ratings system is needed, I think.
--
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Yep, predictable (if correct).
OMG! Hes got a knife!!!
I'm over 18 and I don't live in America. Hah, in your face! :)
Canada is considering such a limit as well, I think. Not sure what the status of that is. I know some people got, like, carded - just for buying Soldier of Fortune.
I was a DOOM fanatic when I was 12 and I went on a murderous rampage when I was 13... wait... no I didn't. That's right! I remember now... I would take out the stress of the day's being picked on by shooting virtual creatures and became less violent towards my peers.
-Derick
I don't think most 40 year olds are mature enough to be playing games like GTA, let alone 12 year olds.
As long as they aren't censoring video games out for people of age, there's nothing wrong with this idea. I belive that children are too easily influenced to be playing games like GTA, but once they're 18, let them play.
And if they're under 18, but mature and responsible, let their parents decide what they can and can't play... An 11 year old kid shouldn't be able to rent pulp fiction or a clockwork orange, why should they be able to play GTA?
Aargh!
It's Cliffs Notes, not Cliff, not Cliff's not even Cliffs', okay?
You can check the web site:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/
Thank you.
-Mr. Cliffs (no, not really)
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
..and raise your fist and resist!
Because when they turn 18 they are going to be expected to kill people for Bush's two front war. I mean, lets at least desensitize the kids before giving them real weapons.
~S
If you think about it, Super Mario Bros. is pretty darn violent (you know, smushing all them koopas).
Pac-man is violent.
NCAA Football is violent.
Doom 3 is violent.
Of course, violent to different degrees...where's the line drawn in these cases? I remember having loads of fun with Legend of Zelda and even the original Spy Hunter (remember that?). I was in elementary school at the time. In high school, I do remember having some wierd dreams after playing Doom, however (tell us why Psychologists, before people begin making arbtrary laws).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Note that this is not a law; it's a bill being readied for reintroduction after its original version was killed last session.
I am the president of CAVAB (citizens against violence against Bills). We are attempting to lobby the government to stop the senseless killing of bills. Why not kills some Toms every once in a while? Why must Bills be singled out for killing in our legislative branch.
STOP THE VIOLENCE!
With games such as Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament being directly responsible for the Columbine massacre Video games can go on killing sprees? RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
I remember trying to purchase Mortal Kombat II back in the day at Walmart. They wouldn't sell it to me unless I was 17. That was the last game I bought at Walmart. Now I buy everything at radio shack and they don't card. (Except to get your home address. heh)
Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
thank god! i always wondered why my friend's DOOM manual was a little sticky.
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
I'm over 18, so I could care less. You little turds will just have to wait till you're 18. No big deal. Same for movies.
But I'll say it again. Congress shouldnt have any mandate here. Parents, pay some fscking attention to your kids and what they do!! Take active part in their lives, learn something about their pastimes and games. It works, I'm living proof. Lotsa violent games in my past and I've never decapitated anyone without good cause.
:)
Even today my mom hears updates from me now and then on my progress in the Warcraft3 ladder, and what the game is basically about, even if she has no idea how to play it. She also got a kick out of GTA Vice City and Conkers Bad Fur Day, and feels fine about my little sister playing them since she has established a *firm foundation* in my sisters upbringing to the effect that you don't really maul people with chainsaws...
In otherwords, teenagers, talk to your parents! Show them what you play, encourage them to understand the nonsense that Congress is doing, and have them take a more active role.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
The parking lot of Best Buy will come to resemble the parking lot at the liquor store....
"Psst. Hey, Mister. Here's fifty bucks. Can you go inside and get a copy of GTA Vice City for me?"
I do know that if a child is exposed to sex, drugs, violence, barney or anything else it can be solely blamed on bad parenting. Parents, forget about planning your next cruise, or meeting that special someone now that your divorce is final. Forget about trying for that new premotion to get your career on track. Your job is to raise your children. It is not the job of daycare or school or Gandma. Raising your children is your job. Nothing else matters.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Noone under the age of 17 may watch an R rated film unless accompanied by an adult, and I believe they may not purchase one either. It is a crime to admit someone under the age of 18 to an XXX rated film, or to sell, rent, give it to them.
With more and more games pushing the envelope closer to traditional porn, stuff like BMX XXX, GTA 3 or DOA Volleyball, this isn't surprising in the least.
Nielson and others have shown that upwards of 90% of the video game *players* are over 21, so this really shouldnt have much of an effect at all.
The ESRB has done a great job of rating games, and are much more descriptive than their TV and movie counterparts, but irresponsible retailers frankly ignore them.
I saw a kid who looked to be 9 or 10 buy a copy of BMX XXX from blockbuster the last time I was there. This game is just full of nudity (at about a playboy level), sexually explicit language and swearing. Left unchecked, the sequel will probably spiral into hardcore porn. It's a crappy game, and the nudity is a gimmick to sell it.
I generally cringe at new legislation, but the industry is incapable and unwilling to police itself. It's illegal and frankly wrong to sell pronography to little kids, even if it's submarined into a second rate Xtreme-SpOrtZ game.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
We need good parents not laws We also need younger politicians We also need Doom 3
Cheer up the worst is yet to come!!! -yE oLdE pHaRt
Give me One good reason why this is a bad thing.
Good think all the fucking, drinking, smoking and fighting youth will be kept safely away from Vice City 3. Don't want them getting any bad ideas.
from the article:
"Baca's office told me the new bill is being modeled on a St. Louis ordinance that makes it illegal to sell or rent a violent video game to a minor without a parent/guardian's consent."
Which means that if I think my 10 year old (well, he's only 6 now, but that's not the point) can handle a "mature" game, I can give him permission to get it. This is far from an outright ban, and more palatable in my eyes (the eyes of someone with kids of his own).
Also, there was mention made of having to hire adults to work the registers, under the theory that they'll be more responsible, and less likely to rent / sell "mature" games to minors. I made a leap of logic and figured that maybe minors would be forbidden by this law to work that kind of position. If this were to happen, it could cause problems for all kinds of businesses - how many grown-ups are going to want to earn the wages of a register jockey? This could leave nobody manning the tills, and a LOT of places folding up shop.
Lastly... Postal 2 is going to be a first person shooter?!? Check out that screen shot - wielding a can of gas while the store you're in burns! That game's gonna rock! }:^D
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Maybe this would help to keep all of the 14-year-old 1337 h4x0rz out of my counterstrike games..
Video games are apparently the scapegoat of the new century. I don't see how this proposal is going to help matters -- most retail stores voluntarily enforce the ratings that are already on games. The ones that don't, well, that's where GOOD PARENTING comes in... if you aren't paying attention to what your kids are doing, then the consequences of their actions are on your head.
I haven't learn marksmanship from GTA3, and I've played CounterStrike for years, and I don't think I could effectively defuse a C4 bomb. Violent video games have never conclusively been tied to violent behavior.
Violent movies, on the other hand, have. A more significant problem is the RIAA's granting of the PG-13 rating to movies that are way too violent and gratuitous to be seen by children. Theaters now hardly even enforce the 'R' rating! I have seen a ridiculous amount of news articles about children hurting themselves by imitating popular movies. The RIAA's policies are backwards and inane.
Examples of borderline PG-13 movies:
Eight Crazy Nights
Bad Company
The Fast and the Furious
All the above movies have more violence and obscenity in them than almost any video game in recent memory, but the RIAA apparently thinks constand mindless violence and sexual innuendo is OK!
I strongly disagree with this policy regarding gaming, but since it involves "protecting the children" I don't know a politician who would stand up to it. Seriously, do any of them have the balls to support violent video games?
~D:
Man, now I really want Postal 2.
On the other hand, where do you draw the line? It seems stupid, for example, to prevent a child from buying BMX XXX but allow a different one to buy edible underwear at frederick's of hollywood. I mean, neither one offends ME, but you can see where I'm going with this.
In the end the only things whose sale should be legally controlled are things which are physically dangerous; Drugs (alcohol/tobacco/high-test prescription medication), and firearms. Anything which is not immediately harmful... well, your child has no rights to speak of until the age of 18, save to be free from abuse, and to not be neglected. You have the legal right, and furthermore I think the moral right and responsibility to go through their things. You also have the responsibility to not be a fucking asshole when you find something that upsets you, and take a step back, and ask who it's hurting.
Now HOLY SHIT you people are getting ready to mod me down and scream at me about privacy because you think it's sacrosanct, but let me tell you something, you have a legal responsibility to care for this child until they are 18, and unless you're a shitty parent you have a responsibility to your own sensibilities to raise them right. If you have a child you can trust so you don't have to raid their hiding places, that's fantastic, and I'm happy for you. You're doing your job, and I think you should have some more kids so everyone else can learn from your example. But for those people who have children too young and/or irresponsible to make wise decisions, NOT looking through their shit could literally kill them through neglect.
Mind you, I'm 26 and have no kids and I have this opinion. I just know what my friends were like as kids. Except for not doing much of anything I was told, I was comparatively a perfect angel until the age of 15, which is when I moved out and started smoking cigs, smoking weed, drinking, and so on. Until then I had straightedge sensibilities. But I know what my friends were like, the little hellions, and they desperately needed more guidance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Woldnt it be nice to first _PROOF_ that video games do damage to children?
and by children i dont mean -18 year olds, i mean -13 year olds.
that they try and say during the debates (if it goes that far) that games are helping to breed a state of uncaring twords terrorism. It's getting pretty old that the gov is using that excuse time and again to restrict our rights but the sad truth is alot of people are falling for it.
Here's a short summary of the debate that lead up to this bill:
Here.
It's a good thing they're handling this, otherwise "first person shooter" games might start being produced, and all our kids would be turned into mass-murdering psychos.
Life is too short to proofread.
Dude, make up your mind and stop being such a troll.
If you support denying children privilidges, then fine, do so. But don't come back and say that you don't suppoty controling all aspects of a childs life because that's basically what you are saying.
I do think that children should have access to books, videogames, movies, etc. If your children couldn't get access to these materials without the parent's consent then we would have a nation of people less educated then we already have. I'm thinking more of teenagers here, when you are actually capable of digesting great works of art and literature.
We are too focused on one thing to realize that kids don't have to be told what they can and can not do as long as you provide a constructive pattern to live their lives by.
Think about it. Would you want your 12 year old kid being able to rent Basic Instinct or Natural Born Killers at the video store? Then why would you want them to rent or buy State of Emergency or GTA? Unless you think 12 year olds should be able to go to the movie theater and see Hannibal without adult supervision, you are hereby challenged to explain to me why that kid should be able to rent violent video games.
I think this legislation is a great idea! Instead of kids getting violent ideas from video games, they'll just watch the vin diesel movie XXX and steal a car and ramp it over a bridge. but hey, at least they won't be able to blame it on video games. i'm 15 and i am a gamer. they can take away my mouse and keyboard when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
"Save the Children from Drug-laced shroom hallucinations": (Super Mario Bros.)
"Protect our children from reckless race-driver wannabes": (Ridge Racer, Wipeout, etc etc)
"Save the children from mind-melt controller-tossitis" (Tetris)
"Teach children tolerance for ghosts of all colors" (Pac-man, Luigi's Mansion)
"The Crusade to stop anti-alien racism" (Contra, Half-life, etc etc)
Get a grip! I opine that ratings are a generally a good thing. But I hate the whole "Save the children" "Promote tolerance" angle politicians use... it's demeaning.
There are people who need, want, and/or should be informed for whatever reason about the content of media they may be interested in. Big deal. Settle on a standard and let the people make their own decisions, and parents assume their responsibility. Leave the Children (TM) out of it.
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
thank god you'll never have to be 18 to buy a real gun and commit real violence and kill real people. but maybe now without these videogames kids will never think of things like that.
Hey! Our president didn't waste his time with violence inspiring video games and look at how calm and relaxed and well adjusted he turned out!
It's a joke people!
Well, I'll be 18 in a few years anyway, until then, I can just order games off the internet. Feh.
I'm not saying I like the idea of this legislation, but this legislation could do something great for the game industry, namely, slow the production of First person shooters.
The market saturation with FPS's is worse than it was back in the Street fighter 2 days. Maybe we'll have developers producing clever all ages games, rather than just another romp through a scary mansion.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Mod me down for being a boring old fart if you wish.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If they are going to make violent games illegal for people under 18 then any piece of artwork in US of Bull*I&* that contains graphic violence or nudity in any shape or form should be put in strip clubs to make sure nobody under 18 can have access to them or maybe bars, wonder if David likes to drink?
Are the market dynamics of the game industry such that if a bill was passed that put a lower limit on the age for buying games, would it actually encourage more pornographic content beyond violence? If the buyer must be 18 anyway, it would not be illegal for them to view naked bodies, sexual acts, etc, at least in most states in the US.
Online citizen journalism from the inner city: The View From The Ground
Every law created narrows your rights.
Seems to me, instead of moaning about the incidents (in this case restricting the sale of violent games) we should be thinking about how to restrict the lawmakers so they can't create more laws.
Of course this is revolutionary talk, and with our Homeland Security nonsense in place, I'm sure I'll be getting a visit from my local Citizen Corp (Gestapo) representative.
All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
Should I buy BMX XXX or Postal 2?
Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence?
Think we need to send a few copies to congress?
When every soccer mom believes she'll be Mom of the year if she just buys this game for her kid(s).
What are you talking about? Games for sale in the USA have been rated for the last 9 years. Look up the ESRB. Every game I see for sale in the USA has a rating. The ratings not only show that GTA: Vice City has mature content (it is rated "M" ages 17+), but it also gives specific details about why it got that rating (e.g. Realistic Blood and Gore).
To breed if you're too stupid to be responsible for your kid.
I suggest a minimum age of 5 for PG-13 and R movies please, that way I can go and watch Two Towers without a two year old screaming through the whole first half of the movie...
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
I can see it now.. a room in the back with a black door that say adults only.
Thats just the thing. Those angry parents should look to themselves before yelling at the gaming industry. The fault lies with them initially in how they raised their kids and the (lack of) participation in their lives. They need to take a step back and reevaluate things.
Video games already have ESRB ratings in place which are quite accurate and informative. What remains is for parents and retailers to actually *read* the ESRB and follow its recommendations. IF a parent thinks their 16 year old is mature enough to handle GTA Vice City (and if they're involved in their childs life they'll know this) then they can purchase it for them. Having Congress step in should not be needed, parents should care enough to talk to their kids about it, and stores should care enough to not piss off parents by selling their kids R rated games/movies/etc.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Burn Congress on a stake
Having actually read the editorial, I've discovered that the Congressman wants to make it a federal crime to sell a violent video game to someone under 18.
Already I'm looking forward to funding the VGEA (Video Game Enforcement Agency). Oh goody, yet another excuse for the federal government to pry into our private lives, all in the name of the Children. Well, I've got kids, 15, 11, and 9, and while I let them play Quake, I would never allow them to play GTA Vice City. I wouldn't play that game, myself, and I certainly don't think I need the federales' help in keeping such games out of the hands of my children.
Beyond the legal quagmire issues, there is no Constitutional basis for such a law. The areas in which the feds are allowed to make laws are strictly limited by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution are the feds permitted to make laws against such expressions as books, movies, or games. Of course, that doesn't stop them.
That'll make a difference. Just the same as people under 21 don't drink and nobody takes drugs.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
Huh? Games DO have a widespread rating system.
Besides, do we really need government to do -everything- for us?
I'm going to barf now.
I'm too lazy to police my own kid. Let's pass some laws to do it. How about one that makes it illegal for him to have a messy room. Then I don't have to nag him about that, either!
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
For people who sell or rent a R or XXX rated movie to minors? What about the albums that say "Parental advisory contains blah blah" and so on?
Or is this a case of "we don't know shit, video games are a lot worse, we blame everything on video games" mentality?
It all the same, make a fuss about a new evil, do something about it, ignore it thinking it must have worked, and then start all over again.
I will not make an argument -- I think reading the relevant document, perhaps starting here, will make it clear as to why this is ridiculous.
"It's impossible for me to fire a pistol. If you'll check me medical records, you'll see I have a cripplin' arthritis in me index fingerrrs. Look at 'em! I got it from "Space Invaders" in 1977."
"Aw, yeah. That was a pretty addictive video game."
"Video game?"
~D:
Let me see... so you support the censorship of the Bible, but not other forms of censorship? Ever actually read the Bible from cover to cover - to know what it actually says? Or this this just misinformed speculation?
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Violence.ht m
>It would become a federal crime to sell or rent
>a violent video game to anyone under 18
No thank, I'll GIVE them the games.
Oh wait, I guess they are thinking about the children. And they must be thinking "Children have it so great, they don't have to work, they don't have to make mortgage payments, nor alimony payments... I know, lets take away the only fun thing they can do without a car!"
See folks, children have no lives. As such, they need something so they can 'pretend' to have a life. Violent videogames fill that niche better than any late night viewing of Skinemax.
Please- think about the children.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
"Before the sixties movies didn't have ratings." The Hays Code?? The games are rated. Federal prosecutors and law enforcment have far more pressing issues on which to spend my tax dollars on.
Congress is convinced that it can decide for itself what ethics it will hold its members to and the President doesn't have the balls to order the FBI to launch a reign of terror on corrupt Congresscritters. Congress was terrified of the ABSCAM investigation because the FBI royally pissed on their parade. They're very afraid of federal law enforcement being ordered to take action against them because despite what many believe, the majority of agents in the major agencies are very good at what they do.
The FBI in probably six months could dig up so much dirt on Congress that it would cause our elected government to collapse because >80% of them would be before a grand jury facing felony charges. What we need is consistent and merciless prosecution of corrupt elected leaders. I would like to see a permanent independent council office established that would be charged with policing them and that would have a large group of investigators from the FBI.
We also need to remove the bullshit precedent that everything is interstate commerce from our legal system. That is the ruling that lets these jerkoffs justify their passage of this law. Without that ruling, the courts would strike it down within a week of its being passed because it would be so clearly unconstitutional on its face that the US AG would have no case to argue. We need a constitutional court similar to France's and IMO, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to make it a capital offense to be found guilty of a certain number of instances of corruption such as 5 or more quid-pro-quos.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I'm getting sick of any law being described as having "first amendment issues". Forget the flipping first amendment. Find me a clause in the Constitution that gives the Congress to make this law. This is where a good strict interpetation of the Constitution would do the Congress some good. And this isn't a Democrat/Republican or Conservative/Liberal issue. Each side ignores the Constitution when it suits them.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Children have been raping,bashing and having sex with video games for years. meanwhile when these atrocities are being committed society has shown a blind eye. I'm glad the government is going to protect the video games from violent children.
Chalk this up to lawmakers trying to regulating an area where good old fashioned parenting would do just fine.
Too bad it is a doomed attempt. Not only would this kind of law excuse parents from having to make a real parenting decision (ie. what games should I let my kids play) but it also spreads more "big government" into the every day life and promotes another step towards censorship.
...what you consider "expanding" and allowing free thinking is considered corrupting and even socially distructive by others. The reason we don't allow prayer in schools is because there is no way to allow it that doesn't expose them to a viewpoint that might be in total oposition to the way I am instucting my children.
At what age is the child able to "freely" think and chose for themselves and at which point do they emulate, by rote, their parents?
Every thinking person reaches that point but to what degree and how well they do so can't be set at a fixed date. For the same reason allowing no limits is no good either. Parents are the only ones that can make that call and as they are legally responsable for their children the laws should support them and not do it for them.
Blanket laws are stupid. It doesn't matter if it is a blanket allow all freedoms to children or a blanket law blocking everything from children. Let parents be parents and make them responsable in part for what the children do.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
While the congress is hardly at work, they should also consider age limits on purchasing Fast Food. It would be inline with the current trend of suing food vendors and blaming them for their child's "weight problems", which supposedly kills alot more people over time.
Where does a video game fit in with this crowd, while ignoring music and food? IANAL, but federal law doesn't seem to address any of the other items in my list (except sex).
The next installment of Mortal Combat needs a Saddam character, so we can all do our part in the war on terrorism.
Congresscritters, please protect me from myself, for I know not what I do
Politicians need campaign contributions in the next two years, so they will be threatening Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry. The industry will hem and haw, pony up some cash, and the restrictions will be watered down so as not to hurt anyone's profit margins.
Look, Joe Lieberman is pushing this - he's concerned about violent video games, but he gets a stiffy thinking about sending American kids off to war. Ignore the rhetoric and follow the money.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
...'cause that's what it will do.
I can't think of anything better than a ban on sale to encourage people to pirate, and I can't think of any group more likely to pick up the software-sharing habit than 15-to-18 year-olds.
--G
What about cartoons? I can't think of anything in any game that is more explicitly violent than the action in a Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner cartoon and yet the generations of people who grew up with daily doses of this extreme violence don't seem especially more fscked-up than the generations that have grown up with violent video games.
Actually, when I think about it, there isn't much television at all that I would consider appropriate for children under 12 (except maybe Bill Nye the Science Guy!). So, if we exclude video games and television from the lives of children, what sources of violence are we leaving them exposed to? Movies, music, books, magazines, and newspapers?
Congress had better get busy!
Karma
Let me guess. They will justify this "protecting the children" through some nebulous reasoning using the interstate commerce clause.
:
Has this country just gone flat out insane?
Must we protect everyone from everything which someone may find objectionable?
What the hell ever happened to you mind your own business and i'll mind mine?
I've come to the sad conclusion that my fellow
citizens have forgotten that freedom, liberty
and PERSONAL responsiblity go hand in hand.
Let's blame Mcdonalds because I'm fat and eat their crappy food.
Let's blame tobacco companies because I smoke and got lung cancer
Let's blame the gun makers cause a "sniper" went nuts and killed people.
Let's blame Iraq cause my gas bill for that new SUV is outrageous.
Let's blame Islam for breeding terrorists.
Whaaaaa Whaaa Whaaa
You never hear
1. I'm the fat ass who eats burgers and fries
2. I picked up a stupid habit which I knew was bad.
3. The Sniper killed people not the gun
4. Maybe we wouldn't care about oil if I supported
alternate energy funding and drove a smaller car.
5. Maybe my country has been poking its nose where it doesn't belong
Why? Because these answers DON'T SELL. It seems if the truth doesn't make you feel good, we change the truth to make ourselves feel LESS bad.
In short the Republic is dead. Long live the Empire.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
FUCK the children.
Dude, do you run Capalert?
If not, perhaps you and the webmaster can engage in some mutual religious masturbation. You sound like you desperately need a partner.
~D:
Instead of restricting fake violence, why don't we restrict real violence? Stop the Bush Administration from invading Iraq; give peace a chance. Fact: 28 percent of American troops sent to the Persian Gulf region during 1990-91 ended up becoming caualites.
> Except to get your home address. heh
Not anymore! I couldn't believe it when I heard it, but a very obnoxious commercial came on the radio the other night saying that Radio Shack would no longer be asking for your name, address, or phone number. If their selection, prices, and quality didn't suck, I might actually start shopping there again. =)
[ home ]
why dont we move the same system that we use for movies, and apply it to games? Nobody seems to object to the movie rating system, kids or parents. Also the media and content is very simalar, were talking about violence and sex right? Ive got no trouble with regulating games for kids, I dont really think my 13 year old neighbors need to play duke nukem all day. On the other hand, the system should not be over restrictive. When my 13 year old neighbor cant rent zelda or mario any more then its overkill. I read the article.. and it was good and all, but I would really like to see the actuall bill being proposed to congress.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
Oh the sweet taste of Irony!
If this passes it will be illegal for kids to get
the Americasarmy.com free video game, but
it will be legal for them to kill for real.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
What's the current legal penalty for movie theatre staff that lets unaccompanied minors into R-rated movies?
I don't see why video game sales shouldn't simply be treated the same.
We don't need new laws, just extend existing ones to cover new media.
"Now they're thinking about banning toy guns ... and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!!! "
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Why, oh why is the Federal gummint wasting their time with this kind of legislation. Even ignoring the ham-handed paternalism that is the morality police, why don't they let this get handled at the community level? With finer granularity they could allow conservative communities to restrict game sales/rentals, while more liberal communities could allow the status quo. Stupid gummint.
Daniel Crawford
3D Realms, maker of the Duke Nukem line of games, had only this to say on the matter:
This bill, and not our inability to code, is why Duke Nukem Forever is taking so long to release. We want to be sure that our core target audience will be old enough to purchase the game if this bill were to take effect.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
All adults will have to find something more productive to do with their time.
--- Ban humanity.
Some TVs have chips in them that don't let people watch a show if it's above a certain rating, so when are we going to see video game systems with a similar device in them that try to keep kids from playing games above the rating parents set?
Or...are they here already and I just don't know about it?
THINK! It's not illegal...yet.
I don't see why there would be such a law for movies but not for video games. Perhaps it would make all those idiots who seek to ban some games stop freaking out.
That's the best idea I've seen all week on slashdot!
I mean, maybe teenagers shouldn't be making decisions about economics or whatever, but I think they should have some say in what happens to them. I mean that the law treats everyone under 18 the same is ridiculous. I think it's time the government started differentiating between the two, and I think teens should have some say in government.
I especially support teens being able to vote in city and state elections so they can hopefully avoid being hassled by the cops and such, and having idiotic curfews imposed on them.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If parents would take responsibility for raising their kids, then these types of laws wouldn't be necessary (or "as" necessary). However, since people are content with allowing the government to decide for them, then hey, it sounds like a great law. [This obviously isn't meant for every parent, but there are plenty who fit the bill.]
Today more than ever we are ready to trade our privacy for security (or the appearance of security), so why not let the government decide what's best for our kids as well. A nibble here, a nibble there.
Who knows, maybe at least it will make it harder for parents to sue gaming companies because their kids commit terrible acts of violence while the parents claim ignorance.
Snowdog
This sort of (proposed) law takes responsbility away from parents. This sort of law is trying to create a safe world where parents ignore their kids. Unfortunately you'll never succeed in creating such a world, there are too many loopholes and law breakers. As a kid I had relatively easy access to alcohol, illegal drugs, pornography, and tobacco. While the laws that strove to protect me from these things made it harder, it presents a very real danger to me. This sort of law creates a false sense of security in too many people. "I don't need to educate young Johnny on violence in games and explain why I feel it's wrong, since he can't possibly get access to violent games."
A popular argument for ratings (or worse, limits) is that it gives parents more options and information. Sure it does, but where do you draw the line? Some parents who believe strongly in creationism will object to their children having easy access to books on evolution. Should we label those and keep them out of kids hands? Perhaps they object to their children having easy access to what they consider objectionable political speech (Gotta project Johnny from those evil (Liberals|Conservatives). Another label for that? We'll need to label news and history similarly, there is a lot of violence there. And for the extremely socially conservative a travel brochure showing men and women in swimwear at the beach would be shocking, so another label for them (perhaps, "Women not in burquas"?). Ultimately parents need to take responsibility and monitor what their child sees. A lack of a Violence or Sexuality label doesn't mean that the work is acceptable. The only option gained is the option to not review the work yourself and to trust the simplistic label judgements of someone else.
Ratings and limits also limit what is available to consenting adults. Some businesses will simply decide to not carry works based on the rating (as opposed to reviewing the work itself). A particular rating may have a nasty stigma associated with it, discouraging potential customers. The NC-17 film rating in the United States is a good example. Many theaters will refuse to show such films, not out of a reasoned judgement, but for simple fear of backlash. Potential customers may be detered by a popular opinion that it must be smut. As a result of this many filmmakers chose to self-censor, carefully tweaking their work to fit into the target audience bin of G, PG, or R. Works beyond R are the exception as a result. Works that are a bit dangerous for their category (say, a relatively edgy PG work), get tamed down to ensure the desired rating. While it's still possible to make create films under this system, it does stifle some creativity.
The responsibility for raising children lies with their parents. There were no laws limiting my access to various books, video games, and the like when I was a kid. I certainly had access to many illegal things (alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs). My parents didn't monitor me constantly, so I could have done what I wanted. But I didn't. Why? Because my parents took reponsibility for me. They paid attention to me, they kept an eye on what media I consumed, talked to me, discussed ethics with me, set limits for me, and punished me when I violated those limits. We don't need more laws, we need good parents. Laws can't create good parents.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
When I was 18-20 I was an all-fired-up activist about how unfair the drinking-age laws were.
Now that I'm in my 30s, I just can't seem to bring myself to give a crap.
I walk into the store, and buy an M-rated game. No problem.
Hell, I'll buy an X-rated game.
Better yet, I'll buy 3 M-rated games, 1 X-rated game, 16 hours of XXX DVDs, a case of beer and a bottle of scotch.
I don't see the problem?
=Shreak
Ok I'll probably get flamed for stating this in this community, but...
/me puts on flame-retardant suit
I don't see why video games can't be rated and regulated the same as movies. If a movie is R rated, you have to be of legal age. This permits movie producers and directors to put content in the movies that is 'for adults.' I have always wondered why video games were not regulated in the same manner.
This may actually help to remove the stigma that video games 'have to be for kids since theyre video games', and allow more adult entertainment (ie gratuitous sex and violence) in video games without tons of media hype and right-wing conservatives jumping all over them and saying they're evil and destroying our youth.
So... rating systems may give us better games and less controversy over them. There is no hype that our youth is being corrupted with the release of each R-rated movie.
.
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
I think folks are missing the most frightening aspect of this bill - using St Louis as a model. Their city council hasn't done anything right in years.
That one of the issues he will be running on will have something to do with those "evil violent video games that are distroying American youth."
All generalizations are wrong.
Sometimes they are also flamebait.
it's about time they put an age limit on games. You know how easy it is to frag a senior citizen playing Quake 3? With their aging reflexes, they shouldn't let anyone over 65 play online games.
I have been tossing around ideas for how to maintain a global liberal republic because of a story I've been toying around with. The problem is, how do you hold elected leaders at such a high position of power accountable to ordinary people. My solution is a bottom->up republic where the local governments can force issues on the states which can force it on the nation. You have say..... 20 counties that each are petitioned by a certain number of their residents. That forces them to call on the state assembly with a mandate to consider a resolution in favor of the petitions. Extrapolate that accross the entire country. If a sufficent number of states pass the resolution then Congress must immediately drop all debate and debate the action demanded by the states. Depending on the situation say, if the issue is corruption then it would go to the President with a mandate to order an investigation. It would be non-negotiable, he would be required to order a full investigation and carry out legal action demanded by the states in order to preserve the integrity of the federal system. If the President refused, the states could bypass Congress and issue a "vote of no confidence" in the President or as appropriate in the entire Congress. In such a case you would have to get permission from your state assembly to run in the new election. That way in the event of mass-corruption, the few good leaders could be easily put back into power... and it would give the people the opportunity to elect an even better leader if say they grew tired of his/her lack of principles on key issues.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
That the sponser is a democrat from California? I wonder if introduceing this is an attempt to stop the iraq war or has some other type of issues that they dem's are trying to stop up.
I might be canadian, but I'm a republican.
Om, nomnomnom...
Or does that already exist somewhere?
This sounds silly to me. Most if not all of the violent games I play (UT 2K3, Americas Army) have parental controls which can turn down the violence to a minimal level. Granted that in some violence is the point, I mean whats deathmatch without the death, but most people realize that its a game.
It then follows that since these games have these parental controls in them, does that make the entire premise of the bill somewhat worthless? Maybe junior cant run the "full" version of the game, but it can be toned down enough for him with the controls. If it can be toned down, why ban it since it could be run more PG?
If they are still against selling the games, then they are just out to ruin the fun factor.
PFC Gruhn
U.S. Army
Violent video games do harm children, unless it's a game produced by the Defense Dept.
oh ya, I guess there was sooooo much success at keeping teens away from booze, tabacco and violent movies and TV that it just *had* to work. Someone better find the pinhead who introduced this legislation (again) and pull his head outta his ass because I think he is oxygen deprived.
...to keep the 14-year-olds off counter-strike servers. At least, I'm guessing they're 14....
As others have said, there is already a rating system on video games. The real issue here is criminalizing the sale of "M" rated games to the under-18 set.
R rated movies are supposed to forbid access to those 17 and under without adult (read, 18+) supervision. When is the last time you saw the police show up at a movie theater and arrest the 16 year old ticket seller for selling tickets to the latest R-rated action flick to his under-18 friends?
Ratings, yes. It helps people be more informed. Criminalization of "ratings violations", no? How many more non-violent offenders does the US need in its jails?
Every time you think the "state's rights" people are whackos, think of bills like this. If you're in favor of Washington regulating things like the legal drinking age, or whether to let guns near schools, then you're going to have to live with this sort of interference as well.
Note: I'm aware that Washington doesn't have those particular direct powers right now. Congress induces the states to knuckle under and pass the laws the feds want by witholding things like highway funds. Which is a good reason to reduce federal taxes and derive the revenue for those things at the state or local level, if the people of those locales decide they want, for example, better roads.
it's not really about whether a violent game did or did not make YOU, personally, behave violently. it's about whether or not you trust every other moron on the planet with access to violent games to handle their content responsibly. personally, i do not.
soupy twist
I mean, really. It's illegal for kids to drink, smoke, and have sex, to name but a few. They are doing it anyway.
Ever notice that when something is criminalized, the people still get what they want, albeit at a premium, and other people turn it into a money-making opportunity.
People, quit screwing around and vote, and write your representatives!
Microsoft: Linux is best after all
That generalization is wrong.
slashdot!=valid HTML
Think about it. How backwards is it that our laws are more restrictive about sex(something that's a part of everyones life) than they are about killing and hacking people apart?(something that we all hope NOBODY has to have in their life) More tits, Less death
games kill people.
Has anybody else noticed how since the graphics of consoles have been getting better, the ratings on the games are getting higher? I'm sure sure loads of "KA" SNES games would be "T" or "M" if they were recreated in High-res 3d.
Perhaps its time to re-think the rating system?
It is important to remember that the movie industry came up with their own self censorship/age rating scheme in responce to public cries for a government mandated one. Perhaps video game manufactures and resellers should get together on a similar scheme of their own in order to avoid government regulation.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Excuse me for reading both the article and the Constitution, but Congress only has the authority to do this in the case of interstate commerce. They can require I verify the age of a buyer if I'm selling over the internet, but if I open a video game store, regulating what I sell to people who come in off the street is overstepping their bounds.
Kids under 18 usually don't buy it themselves. Most of them don't drive either. Usually they go with their parents to buy these things and the parent is the one who is paying for it. That is a legal and congress can't stop them, so what is the point. Also if your buying online your parent has the credit cards and you need to use that to do online purchases so how are you going to stop them then? Your parents, they should be incharge not the goverment, if they feel you can handle these things then so be it. I don't think that this bill is going to go into a law, its efforts are useless and fruitless. Go about your buissness.
topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
- Holier-than-thous see something they dislike, demand it be censored
- "Moderates" appeal for private-sector solution - "voluntary" labelling
- Years pass
- Holier-than-thous say the labelling isn't working
- Congress-weasels pass law to criminalize possessing / selling content with certain ratings
- Practical effect: private voluntary ratings now have force of law behind them: de facto censorship, especially as retailers get cold feet about selling higher-rated content.
Just something to remember the next time someone plays the voluntary / private / market-solution canard. Maybe one of these days we'll learn it's bullshit.--realinvalidname
-tp
I think maybe we need to set an age limit for Congress. Local Judges in my state can not work past the age of 70. Yet the people who create the laws can be 80, 90 almost 100. When Strom Thurmond left office at age 99 he could barely do anything on his own.
I really think it's time voters started controlling congress instead of the other way around. Although seeing as how less than half (at best) of the population votes I don't see this happening anytime soon. If all the voters between the age of 18-30 voted we could pick who is elected out right.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
No, they have one agenda. Pandering. The right want's to, for the sake of the children, give them religion (preferably in school so they won't be so difficult on sundays). The left wants to make sure that every kid grows up in a sitcom enviroment. Everyday a new lesson learned amid all the wacky hijinx, but never anything the least bit threatening.
It getting to the point where a politician with personal convictions is in serious danger of being shot, stuffed and mounted in the museum of natural history. But now that we have super-nepotism powers running the country, that'll soon be a distant memory.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I am not justifying terrorist acts.
I am trying to point out there is ALWAYS A REASON behind terrorism.
In order to stop terrorism from occuring you must eliminate the reason behind it, or you are doomed to fight a never ending war. Look at Israel and Palestine.
As for your point regarding the nations listed,
our citizens ARE targeted when in those countries
(except Canada) thats why corporations spend big $$$ hiring corporate security...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
They really need to give this one a good acronym. Because really, PCFVGSAV is rather hard to say. I mean, look what a good acronym did for the PATRIOT act.
I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, it is up to the parents to monitor their child's behavior. But have you ever heard of a child sneaking something that he shouldn't? Kids in my neighborhood who go to middle school (7th and 8th graders), walk right past Blockbuster on the way home from school. In the 3-4 hours they are home alone before their parents came home, such a child can easily rent the game (many 7th and 8th graders have an allowance) and play for a few hours, before hiding it under their mattress when their parents come home.
That said, I think the effects of video games on people are overstated. I've played first person shooters since Castle Wolfenstein and I have yet to kill anybody. I finished GTA 3 and am halfway through GTA:VC and have yet to run over anyone or carjack anyone.
that give Congress the mandate to regulate the sale of video games to minors.
I'm looking at it, and i'm not seeing it.
"so what"? you ask?
The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
That means that unless there is a state law regarding the sale of video games, then, Constitutionally, there is no way the federal gov. has any jurisdiction in this area.
the constitution outlines the complete set of rights of the federal government, not YOUR rights. Any rights not enumerated to the federal government are therefore transferred to you, the citizen (or illegal alien, or terror cell).
The Constitution is a LIMITNG document to the government, not to the people. it maximizes people's rights and limits governments.
-US Civics 101.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The FBI reports to Bush, not my congresscritter.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
If kids really want them, they'll go download them. All it takes is a click on "Software" instead of "Audio" in the Kazaa search engine. Same thing with rated (R|X) movies.
This bill is sponsered almost entirely by Democrats. Kind of goes against the grain of the perceived view that Democrats would never sponser such a radical bill restricting violence in the media.
That's my point. Allowing under 18s into an R rated movie is entirely analagous to renting an M-rated video game to an under 18. We don't need laws regulating movie theaters, and we don't need laws regulating renting/selling video games. Period.
Does this mean that it would be a federal crime for any linux distribution containing xbill to be sold to a minor?
The worst video game has nothing on the network news. In one hour I can get murder, rape, child abuse, drugs, and sex. While congress is so busy saving the children how about banning the news?
And I guess they'd have to ban most movies too.
And playing 'cops and robbers'.
Probably Presidential State of the Union addresses too.
Oh, and the bible. Definitely have to ban the bible. It's got mass murder, sex, violence of all kinds...
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
The entire age based system is completely arbitrary anyway. If I'm 17, I'm immature and shouldn't be allowed to play violent video games, but the day I turn 18 the maturity fairy visits me and I can realize I shouldn't actually go out and slaughter people? When I was playing violent games like Doom when I was 10, I knew full well there's a difference between games and life. More teenagers do than do not.
Obviously alot of adults still don't realize what should and shouldn't be done.
More credit should be given, by the time they're teenagers most kids aren't ignorant lumps of clay for the media to shape. Not only that, the fact that it's illegal will make it more appealing to some kids, as illegal acts encourage some adults. Oh, but that's right, all that matters to lawmakers is pleasing the extremely vocal minority group of negligent parents who think it's the governments job to raise our kids. Maybe if people raised their kids right they'd be less apt think video games are real.
Indirect influence on violent behavoir? Maybe. Studies haven't considered the 3rd variable problem. Are violent adults violent because they played video games, or did they play violent video games because other factors made them violent. TV is just as bad in terms of violence, but it's not illegal for kids to watch violent shows.
Welcome to the confused hypocrisy that is censorship.
I'm tired of Sinatra singing about drugs and casual sex too! There outta be a law!
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I find this kind of funny.
Considering our government developed a freely available violent game http://www.americasarmy.com/. Guess it is okay if the kiddies learn violence, as long as it is in the context of dying or killing for our country?
"I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, it is up to the parents to monitor their child's behavior. But have you ever heard of a child sneaking something that he shouldn't? Kids in my neighborhood who go to middle school (7th and 8th graders), walk right past Blockbuster on the way home from school. In the 3-4 hours they are home alone before their parents came home, such a child can easily rent the game (many 7th and 8th graders have an allowance) and play for a few hours, before hiding it under their mattress when their parents come home"
;) But the point remains.)
Yes, sneakiness can be a problem with kids, and I know its a hard one for parents to deal with. They've got to give the kid a fair run at stuff first to try and head-off the need to sneak around. But it is hard to do.
"That said, I think the effects of video games on people are overstated. I've played first person shooters since Castle Wolfenstein and I have yet to kill anybody. I finished GTA 3 and am halfway through GTA:VC and have yet to run over anyone or carjack anyone."
Agreed. I'm in a similar boat-- a past full of violent outside influences, from games to books to movies, and I turned out just fine. I've done tech support for 5 years and still never killed anyone (although there were a few times the court wouldnt have convicted me
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
"It would become a federal crime to sell or rent a violent video game to anyone under 18."
I know Congress has stretched the "interstate commerce" clause of the constitution all out of proportion, but come on! Unless you buy the games mail-order or otherwise cross state lines to buy your games, how can this law apply?
you should think about the retailer.
If a retailer decides to activly enforce the game rating system, that will mean customes will go to the next retailer, but if all retailers enforce it, that levels the playing field.
I am active in my kids life, but kids push bouderies. I would like to be able todrop my teen aga child off at the mall so the can hang out with there friends. However, I don]t want them purchasing alcohol, smokes or violent games.
JFTR: I have played every generation of 'video' game every released, as they have been released.
The different level of violence, and detail of graphics as gone from some blocky guy with red squares around them, to some pretty realalistice, graphics, and in 10 more year we will probably have games that look real.
Also as a parent, I have seen the behaviour of children change based on what they watch and do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
- Age limits on violent crimes?
WWI was not an indecisive outcome. It set the stage for II becuase of the draconian measures
thrust upon germany at its end.
It broke germany into many parts, and caused
hyper inflation (due to the reperation payments)
and thus set the stage for social unrest
which led to hitler.
The reason it worked for the allies after WWII was the Marshall plan, and the rather benign
treatment of certain "war criminals" such as Japan's emporer Hirohito....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You ill never figure me out.
-tps12^H^H^H
I mean, come on, if nothing else it would just help stop whiny parents from blaming their inadequacies on video games.
--
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
I think it is a good idea,
Look at the games that are comming out
BMXXX ??? and Xtreme Beach Volly Ball, these gmae shave nudity or damn near close to it, When I was under 18 I was allowed to watch any movie with the exception of porn, I tink I turned out ok,
Parents need to have an active role in there childs life, from birth till death, BUT especially from Birth till 18, to many parrents let there kids lose at 13, come on, at 13 hormones are raging and there is no blood in your brain, how can you make an educated desision?
I would like to see Ratings on Games, and enforced penalties on Buying and Renting Games, and Movies if they are inforcing games, inspectors could be the same as we do for Tobacco sales in Ontario, an underaged kid is hired they work for 1-3 years depending on age and test out local merchants giving a report. its good pay and it keeps people law abiding knowing some kid could be working for the government.
(And after this comment, I expect the number of real life killers showing up on my doorstep to increase dramatically too... tehehehe)
I mean, here we are in the second leg of the double dip recession
The economy grew at 4% last quarter. You do realize the '01 recesion was the shortest in 20 years right?
we've got at least 10 years of ever escalating budget deficits ahead
So? The absolute size of the defecit isn't important, it's the size of the defecit relative to the size of the economy. The current estimates are much smaller than the defecits of the past. Look at the bond market, ie the market where this debt will be traded. The yeild curve has hardly budged.
the main reasons that the unemployment rates are lower now are that a) a large number of people have given up, which takes them off the list
And you know this how? And how do you know that this is different than in the past?
a larger number of people are employed at lower paying service jobs that require both spouses to be fully employed to make a percentage of the money that one alone used to make
Wrong median income has been consistently rising.
Oh, and the ruling Party is planning on giving the richest 1% of the population more money
Actually they are letting them keep more of their own money.
Did I mention the upcoming war, which will further deplete the economy
Deplete it of what? And what will be the benefit of a larger supply of oil?
Look I'm sorry if your career dot bombed, being poor sucks, I know, but try to keep some perspective.
Or the geeks will now be forced to get fake ID's as well, not to drink but to play games, and all the best Buy counters will have that "wont sell games/tobacco/liquor/guns to anyone under 18" Would be a funny one to enforce as well, since mosto fe the employees at best buy are only likw 17.
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
I'm so sick and tired of getting my butt kicked by all the 13 year olds on Counter-Strike. :-D
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I still think that American society should revert to a semi-feudal system, where parents raise their children however they want. They could make them labor slaves, educate them so they could make the country bigger, or send them off to war. Hell, if they wanted to have their children grow up to fuck a hole in the ground, they could teach it with no repercussions!
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
First, the top 1% make 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, yet pay 37.42% of all federal income taxes paid in the United States. For the Excel-impaired, this AP-based article largely recites the relevant statistics.
Second, the government does not "give" the rich (or anybody else) money when it cuts taxes. If you believe that the government owns your money and only gives you what it deems necessary to maintain your lifestyle, then it would appear that you're all for government paternalism and should have no objections to this video game bill at all!
Under 18 = no rights anyway, so why bother... now if they start tracking our purchases and making us out to be terrorists because we bought violent games that could be used for terrorist training that would be another question entirely...
new zealand has been doing this for years. every game that comes into the country is looked at and rated according to our films, videos and literature classification act of 1993.
game shops can't even allow demos of games that are R16 and over to be played in public.
this is not heavy handed at all. in fact it works really well. parents look at the titles in the stores and know right away whether it's suitable. they hold all the same ratings and classifications as videos and DVDs.
and the distributors are the ones who pay for the classification to be done.
australia do this too.
Actually they are letting them keep more of their own money.
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Now let's go slow here: The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society. Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish. Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function. Without the military to protect the system. People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that! The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
I deeply dislike when lawmakers feel that have to step in and dictate rules to any industry, but I have watched for the last couple years as this issue has come and gone and I've watched the video game industry as a whole sit firmly and stupidly on their thumbs and do nothing in response. We've decided as a society that this kind of content should be regulated in films and elsewhere and if the video game industry can't step up to the plate and rise to those reasonable expectations, then I guess they need a governmental nanny to do it for them. My response is a great big shrug of indifference.
And yes, anticipating the onslaught of "you don't play games," I've got a drawer full of very violent games next to me right now. I keep them locked up so my kids can't get at them. It's not hard to do. It requires a little maturity and responsibility. If the video game industry needs a bunch of pinheads in Congress to teach them the same, then it's nothing short of a major embarrassment for them.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Limiting who can buy what kinds of games based on age and content is not unreasonable. Books, music, movies, magazines, alcohol, cigarettes, rental cars, prescription drugs, hotel rooms, and all kinds of other stuff is similarly limited, although not always by law. I don't see why video games should be an exception, especially given the direction that content is moving towards, just because kids like them.
On one hand, I don't like any legal action that discourages parents from having accountability for their children, and these kinds of laws encourage lazy parents to slack off further. "Oh, good, I don't have to screen Billy's video game choices any more." The real concern I have is that game produces will compromise content to secure "safer" ratings so they have a wider sales base, just lke how movies are getting more and more watered down.
The idea of limited games by age/rating is ok. If the Cliff Notes version is accurate, this incarnation of the law is complete crap. And to the people bitching about congressional priorities, you'd probably vomit if you knew how much tax money is spent on the consideration of bills that are FAR more asinine than this one. We're paying elected officials hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to sit in committees and bicker over incredibly stupid things.
That's the real problem being addressed here. I saw some blurb about some study recently (no I don't have a reference) where they sent a bunch of kids to try to buy video games . . . in most cases they walked away with whatever they wanted.
The truth is, games these days should be rated.
The truth is, most games HAVE had ratings on them since today's 11-year-olds were in diapers. What's being proposed here is federal legislation making it a crime to sell games with certain ratings to children.
There's no need for this. The same rulings that upheld states' and cities' power to prevent mature books and films from being sold to children, common sense says, also apply to video games.
Why did the movie industry adopt the system of ratings we have now? To hear Jack Valenti tell it, it was so that the government would NOT interfere. Similarly, the government should not interfere here either.
However, I don't want them purcahsing alcohol, smokes, or violent video games.
Because, as we all know, video games are just as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco... I mean, if you play too many violent video games, you'll end up with cirrhosis of the... um... or cancer of the... um... or emphy... er...
Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
I would explain it all to you again, but I did that just a couple weeks ago...
Oh, well, one more time...
NO child can be HARMED by EXPOSURE to ANYTHING (excepting nerve gas, Ebola virus, you get the idea).
Over 200 studies of media violence impact on children have been done and NONE have established any significant impact without fudging the figures or manipulating the observations.
Any parent who believes his child must be "protected" from reality is a SHITTY PARENT AND SHOULD HAVE HIS CHILD TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM and reared by someone with a brain! (Or, more precisely, the child should be offered the option of dumping his asshole parent and living with someone he likes better - THAT policy would put fear in the hearts of 95% of parents who KNOW they are lousy parents just as THEIR parents were lousy...)
You domesticated primates really don't have a clue...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Demo.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Five years old? Doom has been around for 10 years as of this year. Before that was Wolfenstein. There is a rating system in place, and it is the parent's responsibility to enforce it. Unfortunately it appears that the average parents is too damn lazy and wants the government to do their job for them... again.
This may actually help to remove the stigma that video games 'have to be for kids since theyre video games', and allow more adult entertainment (ie gratuitous sex and violence) in video games without tons of media hype and right-wing conservatives jumping all over them and saying they're evil and destroying our youth.
wrong. These conservative right-wingers will never stop. Tipper stickers didn't stop them, a perfectly fine ratings system for video games hasn't stopped them, and already unconstitutional laws regarding movies has not stopped them. They won't stop until chrisitianity is the official religion of the U.S. and everyone goes to church on sunday. (please note here that i'm not talking about chrisitians in general, just the "esteemed" political figures like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Buchannan, the AFA, etc.)
So... rating systems may give us better games and less controversy over them. There is no hype that our youth is being corrupted with the release of each R-rated movie.
Or it could create a chilling effect that companies will not want to make games that get an "M" rating.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Arrested: 34 year old parking lot attendant at a plant that makes resistors and diodes that's used in the Sony Plasystation 2 that was played by a 11 year old kid who punched out his little sister. Police say the child was playing an ultra violent video game named Football 2003. The charge: Contributing to the delinquency to a minor.
Shit rolls downhill, dosen't it?
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
20.81% of all income covered under the income tax
Because for that top 1%, an enormous amount of their wealth isn't covered as income under the income tax. A great deal of their wealth is derived from mechanisms (trusts, capital gains, shelters) that conveniently don't fall under the designation of taxable income. And when they figure in losses (often manufactured for the purpose of reducing taxes) the top 1% often find themselves with an even smaller portion of their total incomes being taxable.
So limiting your statement to 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax is obviously an attempt to manipulate the argument and ignore the reality of the vastly larger sums that the top 1% are raking in.
So the Party is absolving the top 1% of the responsibility to support the system that allows them to make the money's the do, and forcing the rest of us to subsidize them. Let the 1% try safely making their money somewhere without the underlying structures of the US. I'd like to see them try.
A rating that allows only adults to buy a video game is already in place, and there's only a little under 20 titles in the category. If 'experts' thought a video game wasn't meant to be viewed by minors I'm sure they'd pop it in there. But then again, I don't think any game makes Joe and Jane Doe violent. I go to at least 1 lan party every month, and after 10-12 hours of shooting, stabing, and blowing each other up in Global Ops the 15-25 of us could hardly be considered violent. A little wacky at times, but not violent.
Banaaaana!
When I first read the headline on Slashdot, I thought it had said that all video games were trying to be banned for under 18 people. I had missed the 'violent' part and instantly became worried.
rm -rf sig
I know this is offtopic, but its the fastest way I can think of. Will everyone be so kind as to beat the hell out of my server:
[pyroxpro.com]
so I can get a quick stress test? I have no paid ads, or popups, or crap like that, just want slashdot effect stress tested. *PLEASE*
Sorry, but this post is typical of the semi-literate ungrammatical poorly spelled brain droppings that show up every time /. runs a story from the adult world. Do you guys live in Never-Never Land with Peter Pan?
Thousands of bills are introduced in Congress every year. Most don't pass. If you're convinced this bill is a real threat, do something about it instead of spewing dribble. If you don't want to vote or don't want to play politics, stop whining.
By the way, the Supreme Court is the constitutional coourt in the U.S., and the Constitution gives Congress to power tp regulate interstate commerce. And, of course, states can regulate the sale of games within their borders, if they wish.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Offtopic. Especially when they don't support the ruling Party.
Politicians are evil! Parents should decide what's right for their kids! I played GTA:VC 27 hours a day back when I was 6, and look at me now! For the love of cake, there's been like 500 people saying that already. They don't all need +5s.
"Having a good ratings system in place for games will help get angry parents off the gaming industries' back."
Yep--just like nobody's mad at the tobacco companies since minors can't buy cigarettes.
The gaming industry (or "Big Game") will be hauled off to court for delibarately targeting children with their advertisements. I have two words for what comes next: "Target Market!"
This post may contain high levels of sarcasm and is not suitable for readers.
char *mySig;
So will there also be laws introduced to prevent minors buying automatic assault rifles, sub-machine guns, cigarettes, cocaine and Harry Potter books?
Dumb law.
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Childish rants like that hurt your credibility.
The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society.
This is generally where the Leftist starts to equate "society" with The State. Have you read Also Sprach Zarathustra?
Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish.
This assumes that all the laws that the government creates allow the economic system to flourish. This is false. Many of the laws hinder our economic system. Consider what was passed just recently in my great state of Georgia: a so-called "anti predatory lending" law. What it allows is for a mortgagee to sue the mortgagor if some predatory lending laws were violated. The effect of this is that mortgagors do not want to finance any mortgages under $350,000 becuase of the potential liability. Well, so much for *that* market segment, right?
Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function.
This assumes that infrastructure is always superior with increased government meddling.
Without the military to protect the system.
This assumes that what the military is doing is "protecting the system." Believe me, they have other priorities, such as fighting the ridiculous War on Some Drugs (intervention in what should be a free market -- so much for *that* market segment, right?) and bullying around other countries.
People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Suppose I buy a run-down house in a mid-range neighborhood. I put in some money to clean it up, get the car off the front lawn, repaint it, kick out the crack dealers, and then I sell it for profit. The neighbors love me for cleaning up the neighborhood dump, and I made some money. Win-win, right? Not exactly. The Imperial Federal Government takes HALF of my profits. Tell me, what work did the government do to help me clean up and repair the house? Nothing! If anything, the government is a hindrance to that business. The "underlying structures" give me no confidence whatsoever in this investment. Do you think this is the only example?
You might try to respond with "but the federal government provided all of the services for that neighborhood to exist!" Sorry, I don't buy that. What the federal government does specifically for particular neighborhoods is dwarfed by the cut they take from my profit, and is also dwarfed by the positive change that I make in that neighborhood by refurbishing the neighborhood dump.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that!
Kicker, schmicker. Taxes pay for a fraction of what goes on in the economy, and pay for all sorts of things they shouldn't. For example, the War on Some Drugs, support for Israel, interest on the federal debt for the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, Antisocial Insecurity, promotion of the Christian religion, the list goes on and on.
The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
The government is not the structure. They are, in fact, a hindrance and an annoyance to the structure in many cases. They infringe on my rights, they deprive me of my liberties.
What you have written is the first article in the Leftist book of faith: people are great because of government, not because of anything they did through hard work or sound decision making. You've kind of drawn from the second article of faith as well: all wealth is owned by the government to be distributed to the people at its whim.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'm coming to the discussion kind of late, but while reading through the comments it struck me that there's an important point that seems to be getting overlooked: If it becomes a crime to sell M-rated games to those under 17, we're entrusting a non-governmental organization (the ESRB) to decide what is and is not a federal crime.
There are all sorts of checks and balances in government precisely because they have that power. What if this becomes law, and we're unhappy about the job the ESRB is doing? Do we get to know who's on the rating panel? Do we get to elect them? Are they subject to recall? Can they be bought or influenced? What recourse is there if they damage a business by unfairly rating a game because of baises? Etc etc.
There are reasons we entrust the government, and the govenment only, to decide what should and should not be legal. This is an abdication of that responsibility, and one that I'm certainly not comfortable with.
I thought the MPAA regulated the rating of movies, and that there wasn't any federal statute one way or another on that. I'm really not sure, though. In any event, why couldn't the computer game industry self-regulate in this situation?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
At the moment, in australia, if a game is deemed unsuitable for an MA15+ rating, it is banned from sale. Period. Even for adults. At least films have a R18+ classification so that adults can se it but not children. If they brought in an R rating for games then at least adults would get to buy the games (or an uncensored version).
Yes, not everyone grows up at the same time, some 14-year olds are almost adult in their reasoning skills and maturity and some 30-years olds act like they are 12. That being said, there comes a point in time where you have to be held accountable for your actions if you are ready or not. Rather than give a test to every living person we have decided that at 18 you are a (mostly) adult, and that at 21 you are old enough to drink, an at 36 you are mature enough to run for President of the United States. And for the most part most people fit into these catagories at these ages.
We do not have the time or money to test each and every person. So we find a system that, while imperfect, works most of the time and we try to make the best of it.
And you are still able to expose your children to whatever you feel appropriate at the age you feel appropriate. This law does not outlaw you letting your kids play GTA3, it mearly makes it your responcibility to buy it for them. If you want your 12-year old playing DOOM3 that's your business. But you will have to trek on down to the store and buy it.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Violence wants to be free.
Good job, and I have one comment:
But I know what my friends were like, the little hellions, and they desperately needed more guidance.
What children need is limits, and it's up to the children's parents to decide what limits are appropriate on a child-by-child basis. Children of almost every age will test their limits and complain about them, but those who live without them wish they had them. So I disagree with almost all attempts of government to impose limits on children. Do we really want the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Byrd telling us what's best for our kids?
I'm writing this as a parent, and I now understand why parents always start their soapboxes with "As a parent...." Being a parent has changed my perspective on just about everything.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Here's a stupid idea. But it's no more stupid than proposing banning software to certain individuals. Instead of spending money enforcing smaller markets for software, why not give tax incentives for companies that produce non-violent games. Seems like a win-win and it's not putting a single programmer out of work. They should give the first money to me. Play tranquility at www.tqworld.com
Video game producers tried to buy some relief from political pressure, much of it from parents, by creating a self-imposed rating system, much like the movie industry did. But although the movie theateres made at least a visible effort toward enforcing the ratings the video game stores just looked the other way and took the profits. So since they did not voluntarily enforce the ratings that they voluntarily placed on themselves I am supposed to feel sorry for them?
No, they made this mess and now they are going to have to live with it.
Entertainment rating systems and law enforcement have opposite priorities. Mass murder is a far, far worse crime than profanity or indecent exposure, but movie and game ratings feel just the opposite. It's true that all countries are too lax on violence; a game or movie with mass murder can get in the PG-to-T range as long as the viewer/player can't see the suffering, but only USA is so irrationally strict on profanity and nudity. Amelie got an R in USA, but a PG or PG-13 in the rest of the world.
Only in USA do people prefer to see death more than life.
...I can advise that we are likely to help you invade Iraq, try Saddam for crimes against humanity in a U.N. court that you will not recognize for your own troops and will likely be involved with peacekeeping in Iraq long after you are off invading another country, regardless of whether you get a U.N. mandate for same. We helped you before, and we'll do it again. Remember where most foreign flights sent to the U.S. on September ii, 2001 were redirected (Canada) and who has been your friend and partner in the past. But, once in a while, take the time to listen to your friends.
This proposed law falls under three main categories:
1. Interesting, but not good.
2. The Republican version of legislating morality.
3. Brownie-point lawmaking.
One
A law mandating federal penalities for distributing violent games to minors is nothing new. They trotted it out before without control of both houses and it didn't make it. Now that the Republican party has both houses, it's time for some of the best-loved bubbles to come out of the mud again. It isn't surprising and it isn't interesting except as part of a historical study in chutzpah--it stank on ice with the Democrats capable of blocking it, but now that they're out, it's a brave new world and nonsense is golden.
With the Republicans in control, It's time to bring back everything that was nauseating six months ago, like judicial appointees who think that hate-crimes really aren't so bad and parental augmentation by way of capital hill. By threatening to put video-game distributors into orange jumpsuits, the government will try and take decisions out of parent's hands while placing an unfair burden on a commercial entity that is not equipped to know that much about who the final recipients of its products are.
You want to sell ninja-swords? Keep them out of California and New York and you're fine. You want to sell a copy of grand-theft auto without knowing who's going to play it? That's a federal crime.
Two
'You can't legislate morality' is a good modern finger-pointer of a phrase and both sides of a political debate love the sting of it. The first time I heard it, it was applied by conservative, semi-rural friends of mine while talking about liberals/democratic gun-control legislation. Now, it seems that the Conservatives in power have taken it up (again) in their own idiom.
It kind of makes you wonder: I mean, what you allow you kids to see or not is essentially a right, a form of free speech and what we choose to control is an interesting mirror that societies hold up. In our society, sex and nudity are way out of the fringe, limited to signals and metaphors on Television and wildly in demand on the internet. Violence has always been available in the mass media. You have to wonder if the people who put the paddles to this thing's chest really imagine that children can be made to sit through eighteen years of the Velveteen Rabbit without going insane.
Three
If the human race woke up tomorrow and found itself ten IQ-points smarter on average, we would bury laws like this one in the same pit into which we threw graft-fueled copyright-extensions and minimum sentencing.
It's the classic appeal to the middle ages: 'you believe that the dark magic of computers has enslaved the minds of our youth, turning them into blood-crazed zombies who read the reports on the Columbine Massacre one-handed.' The truth is, neither you nor we have any idea why the same games sell in other countries without raising the murder-rate there, but we know what you believe and we're going to feed you the ineffectual and harmful pablum you demand. Think of it as free sound-bites come election time... Ignore that man raving about free speech and the rights of parents behind the curtain. Have a nice day.'
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
No kidding the Mexicans won't be telling your kids what games they can buy. They'll be too busy not caring that they're buying viagra and vallium over the counter :).
If there wern't enough people really concerned about this, it would not be as big as an issue. The fact is that there are a whole lot of Americans who think that the US Government should regulate video games, and - if there is enough consensus - there should be a bill drafted. This is how the system works.
Congresspeople very rarely fly by the seats of their pants - the American people (at least a pretty powerful group) must think that Americans have trouble deciding for themselves what is offensive for their kids to see.
Predatory lending laws: Subprime loans, often to those with supposedly poor credit (though industry statistics show that at least 35% could have qualified for loans at 'A' rates). On top of the higher rates supposed to reflect the borrowers poor credit, they are filled with other abusive features like high fees, large and extended prepayment penalties, and financed single premium credit insurance - that cost borrowers even more money, and can lock them into the higher rates. While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
Seriously - look at the MPAA - self regulating that stuff.
There don't need any laws to make it happen.
The day that ebworld.com has to only sell to adults or people who can verify the age is the day I start helping 6 year olds get AdultPass'es or whatever sort of AVS the government will require.
grr.
I thought you were serious until the regressive tax part.
The especially amusing part about your rant is describing the top 1% as being productive. Considering that large segments of the wealth of that top 1% comes from trust funds and investments set up by the parents/grandparents of those currently benefitting, it's always amusing to see them described as useful/productive.
It's almost like imagining that W would have gotten into Yale on his academic record. Or that he was a successful businessman. Amusing.
As games become more like interactive, photo-realistic movies, it seems only reasonable that they should be moved into the same realm of rating.
It's either that, or I'm going to be facing a self-regulated industry that produces "The Care Bears Go Shopping" for ID Software's next product.
What the fuck? Go back to the ShareReactor forums, you BBCode wanker!
Games never really needed to be rated before because they were never really violent before. With a few exceptions, the rise of real violence in games is only about five years old.
I was beheading people in Barbarian sometime around 1985.
I was raping an Indian woman in Custer's Revenge years before that.
Before the sixties movies didn't have ratings. They weren't needed because before that, it would have been almost unheard of to put graphic violence or sex in a movie.
Yes, because things like spousal abuse were *funny* back then, and not considered violent. Ever watch the Honeymooners? Ok, so that's TV and was broadcast live into people's living rooms (read: more kids could see it).
If anything, movies and television were a lot worse before the 60's, if only because no one realized just how sick some of it was.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
By saying "All generalizations are wrong" is in and of itself a generalization. Once again proving my point (assuming (s)he's a Christian) that all you need to score major hypocrite points is to be a Christian!! lol... best post ever, thanks hypocrite.
Of course we're against this claptrap, but let's for a second say OK, do it. BUT, if you're going to do it for games, do it for all entertainment media.
Make it a federal offense to allow anyone under 17 to see/rent/purchase an R+ movie without a parent's written permission. Better yet, come up with a "V" rating for violence -- that way those films that have all the killing without the R-baiting sex can be excluded from exposure to kids as well. Do the same for all music with the Parent Advisory sticker on it.
And after we've done that, we can move on to books. You know how much violence there is in The Lord of the Rings, Catcher in the Rye, The Chocolate War, etc. One of our youngsters might go out and hurt another while "pretending to be Aragorn." And don't forget all the articles about the violence in Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Chechnya one finds in your local newspaper. Perhaps we can have a law that makes them put all that in a special sealed section of the paper.
If you're trying to cleanse our media of violence, this is the road you travel down. Conflict. Anger. Opposition. These are parimary, basic elements of plot and story. They're also endemic to living on this planet. Trying to pretend that you don't need violence or conflict to have a good story is more than dumb, it's positively Orwellian.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
This is wonderful. Only in America would parents not be responisble for their children.
Apparently, it's a bigger crime to let children rent and buy "violent" video games than it is to let them watch TV or movies. I have to wonder if this is due in part to the MPAA owning the majority of Senators and Congressmen.
What is the charge if my 15 year-old child gets into a movie rated "R"? Can I put the theatre manager in jail for years? How about the 16-year-old kid that sold my child the ticket? Does he or she go to jail? I suppoose not.
Thank god we have people that tell us how to live our lives so we don't have to!!
Low income does not equate to low contribution. Just as high income does not equate to high contribution.
Low incomes are often associated with primary or secondary producers. Farm workers, factory workers, waiters, shop assistants do not earn as much as CEOs - but are their contributions worthless?
If you tax a $100K income at 20% the recipient would get 80K. Someone that earns 15K is not taxed at 20% because $12000 is not much to live on. So even though the high income earner pays 87% of that total tax, the tax rate is still not fair to the low income earner.
The government does not OWN your money, but as a high income earner, you have a responsibility to pay more. I don't think that everyone should have the same income because not everyone does contribute evenly, but a flat tax rate is just as nonsensical.
I like the movie ratings system. I feel it is more of a guide for viewers to avoid content that would be offensive to them than a system of censorship.
I would think that the gaming industry would welcome a ratings system. It will enable the industry to make mature content without offending people. Vice City is a great example of the kind of content that can be based on mature themes. This title has nothing to apologize for, but it is not siutable for my seven year old. Give me a system to keep this title out of my childs hands. Also give me some more mature titles, I want to see the "Clockwork Orange" or "Eyes Wide Shut" of video games.
Forgive me for the post length; also, I state some pretty basic concepts throughout, and for that I would apologize except they are vital for understanding my argument...
This is just a very stretched out cycle of erosion of our Constitutional liberties. Our government wasn't created to regulate our lives, it was created to create a federation of States linked together by common laws regarding national defense, roadways, and commerce. The press (ie, Media, Information, Knowledge) is *specifically* excluded from this arrangement.
It was believed that the free flow of information(free as in speech, not beer) could do some harm, but the benefits would far outweigh the harm, thus being overall very good for our nation's welfare and well being.
The slide has been consistent, but slow for 200 years. Now, there are laws censoring all kinds of things, because some ultra-prideful people think they should really focus on eliminating the negative without really acknlowedging the positive (this is largely the fault of TV - anyone care to debate this fact?).
I don't believe that parents shoulder the entire burden for their childrens' growth. Society plays a large role in behavior patterns, and should help police the environs, but I believe that can accomplished better by civil protest than by government regulation. A law is easily ignored for most merchants. They will make up in profit from sales to minors what they would lose in fines unless they are caught far more often than is the norm.
But can you honestly imagine Blockbuster's reaction in policy to a group of Moms & Dads who stand in the parking lot with signs reading, roughly, "This place sells obscene content to minors"? It's easy for the community to police: go to the store with your kid, and send him/her through a different checkout with something they shouldn't be allowed to buy. If they get through with it, call the manager and inform him/her of the 'sting', and that you'll be arranging a protest next Saturday afternoon/evening.
Any sane business will react with an instant policy change. The newspaper is also an indispensable resource; letters to the editor carry a lot of weight with company managers.
And you can bet your ass that policy will be better enforced if it is through lost profit than if it is through the threat of another law our overworked police have to enforce.
In short, don't tell me you have no time when you're surfing slashdot this deep. And your friends who spend their nights in the E-Z boy watching the boob tube? They don't look busy to me. So what if you look like a crackpot, in a sandwich sign at your local store of choice? If you don't/won't stand up for yourself, government will happily fill that void. Let me know when it becomes too overbearing for you, eh?
Oh, and the Internet is next. You can bet your ass they'll have it regulated shortly down the line. ISPs will be forced to track your service, so that they can ensure minors aren't being exposed to 'corrupting' influences.
Where will you turn when all the doors are closed in your face?
While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
I agree that there are some lenders who do things that I find unethical, such as what you describe. It does not justify a law which does what it's currently doing in Georgia!
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
Your sarcasm hurts your argument.
Now, let's talk about what you didn't reply to. Because of how poorly this so-called "anti predatory lending" law was written, no lending institution will finance a mortgage in Georgia for less than $350,000. How does this affect all of the apartment dwellers who have dreams of home ownership? It says to them, "Sorry, but you're not rich enough to deserve a house of your own. Pay your rent and be satisfied with it!" Thanks, government!
So I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. You seem to disregard facts in the name of protecting the poorest and weakest segments of society.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The idea that "turn the other cheek" is meant as forceful or not a sign of humility isn't as controversial as you might think. I think by reading it in context, you can see that too:
First, Matthew 5:38-39 (all quotes from the NIV):
"You have heard that it was said 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
From this much, yes, you could argue from the cultural viewpoint, that it's making a person use the other hand, etc, etc, although the phrase "do not resist an evil person" casts doubt on that. Now, the rest of the paragraph (Matthew 5:40-42):
"And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Especially the first sentence of this passage contradicts the idea that turning the other cheek is a forceful gesture of assuming equality.
Yes, culture is an important part of understanding what the Bible says. But context is more important. After all, the Bible also says "there is no God." (In context, Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'").
Hope this helps...
Matt
Having a ratings system for computer games could be a good thing. This will make it real easy to see exactly how much gratuitous violence and nudity I can get for my gaming dollar.
to kill every mother fucker in the room, then shoot thier dead remains...
now i'm waiting for that BFG i bought off ebay... sure is taking a long time... then i'll show em...
(yes this was a joke. now that i am 18, i will probly leave this country, too many laws and lawyers.)
Now we have premiscuous sex
I, Senator Horace W. Flywheel, promise to make our hot, slutty teenage daughters wait until after their first miscuous for sex!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's your right to feel as you do, just so you realize that I feel that my kid should be able to buy GTA or whatever is like it by the time he reaches that age.
See, now we disagree on this, yet congress is thinking of mandating your opinion as the correct one. How is that fair? Suddenly my parental rights are being trampled while your parental rights, which existed before any laws, are not.
So by what right do you think you and congress have the authority to raise my children in direct opposition to my values?
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Gee wow! I'm sure absolutely nobody (least of all its author) would have realised that. You must be a genius or something! Like that couldn't have been the point of the statement or anything, could it. Did you know that the word 'irony' is not in the dictionary? Go on, try to find it!
Remember, always avoid using the word 'never', and never use the word 'always.'
and agree. That doesn't mean that children under 18 can't play a violent video game, just that its the parent's decision and not the government's, the video game maker's, or the store's. That's the way everything should be for children. We've made a really bad mistake by letting government and Hollywood get involved in the raising of kids. Its not that parents are perfect, its just that the government and Hollywood are far from perfect. Better to have a wide variance of bad/good than a government/Hollywood enforced nonvariance of all bad.
so you can have quality time with the reality TV shows
It is a strawman that people think that playing a violent game will make you go out and kill people. The claim is that the excessive exposure to violence desensitizes people to it. In some this may lead to increased violence. In others it changes their attitudes of how they feel about violence.
another good note is on the radio. ISP's have to give up a list of people who are supected of downloading music off the web, NOW THATS A WARM FUZZY...
What exactly is the harm?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Second, nobody is claiming that viewing violent media will turn you into a killer. The claim is that violent media relaxes attitudes towards violence and detaches them from making a negative value judgement of it. This may in some trigger violence urges, however, that isn't the important claim.
That just isn't true, though. A multi-billion dollar advertising industry knows that images you feel people affect them. The often claim is that mass-media had induced shitty culture in people. That belief isn't harmonious with this one.
1. Fails to stop Microsoft from committing illegal acts. Not just violating anti-trust laws, but breaking contract laws and the like.
2. Extends copyright in perpetuity for all practical purposes, effectively legislating away the public domain.
3. In the interest of two big media cartels (RIAA and MPAA), passes laws like the DMCA.
I'm supposed to believe that they are going to pass a law that seriously harms Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Walmart, Target and most of the members of MPAA/RIAA who sell licenses to their copyrighted content to video game studios or own interests in video game studios?
No, I'll tell you what this is. This is a shakedown. It's very simple, the State is looking for money. It will probably come in the form of campaign contributions or quid-pro-quo ("Representative Smith, while we don't agree with your law, we do find your ideas on protecting our children insightful. Ah! If only we had someone like you working for our company as a media consultant. Well, maybe someday...")
Of course, you should write your Congresspersons and Senators, but remember, people who actually matter in Washington will also be fighting this idiotic law. Washington isn't St. Louis.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I also noticed the article said "making it a federal crime to sell or rent violent video games to anyone under 18". So what is this saying? Is it saying that they're going to put an umbrella over "Teen"- and "Mature"-rated games, and put them all in the same category as "Adults Only"? Those categories of games both have "violence" in them. Or, does it simply mean it's bumping the "suitable age" for "Mature"-rated games up to 18 (it being 17 right now), and making the rules regarding selling/renting more strict? If it's the latter, i don't suppose it matters to anyone around here, except for maybe those people that are just about to turn 17, and think they're going to be buying all kinds of M-rated games, heh.
Anyway, from the point of view of someone like myself, who can't rent or buy those games anyway, all it means is that i'll have to have my mom with me on the very rare occasion that i go to a store and buy a violent video game. Generally ordering off the Internet solves that problem, and if this law affects that, i'll just use my parents' credit card instead of my own. The only lame thing is that i'll have to wait an extra year before i'm able to buy the games i've been playing my whole life, because some 70-year-old Congresspersons who've never played a fucking video game in their lives decided that i couldn't handle it yet.
That's the real problem here, i think. These people in Congress, they've never played a video game in their lives, much less a violent one. Why're they doing this, then? Probably because some horrible and over-protective parents called them and told them about how Goldeneye and Metal Gear Solid and Half-Life are undermining their effectiveness as parents. The problem, then, extends to the parents, who obviously can't control their children by themselves, and need the government to hold their hands. Because these super-conservative blame-the-media retards see stuff like Columbine happening, and think to themselves, "gee whiz, this couldn't be caused by people ridiculing and discriminating against these kids, and making their lives miserable, it's gotta be THE GAMES and THE MUSIC!". Which is flawed thinking, either way you look at it.
Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much. As long as they don't pass a law that says my parents have to be in the room with me when i play the games (<COUGH>stupid-fuck-rated-R-laws</COUGH>) , heh.
Maybe it is just me, but I do not understand why Congress wants to take the parenting away from the parents.
Yes, but the law wouldn't be barring childing from playing violent games. It would be prohibiting them from buying violent games. Those are two very different things. You, as a parent, can go and buy the game for your child. This way lazy parents can't just give their child eighty bucks and send them off to the mall to buy a game. If a child wants to buy a violent game, he'll (presumably) have to ask his parents.
--
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
I know this is probably a little late to get read, but seriously... who's funding these kids? I know when I was 10 years old, I didn't have $50 cash that I could just go spend at will. Kids don't have credit cards, so they need cash. And on the rare occasion (birthdays, whatnot) that I did have that much cash, you could be damn sure that my parents knew where it went. No kid should be able to bring home a $50 anything without their parent knowing what it is. By the time the child can get a job and earn the money for themselves, I think they're probably old enough to decide what kind of games they can play.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again anyway. It's the parents' job to take care of their kids, not the government's.
So I can get some QUIET.
Laugh, it's funny. I would never, ever support anything this inane. If you keep these things locked away, when the child finally sees one of these games, he or she will go totally Scanners. Parents: you're supposed to be preparing your kids to deal with the graphic nature of life, not shielding them from it.
I'd still like some quiet in movie theaters, though.
Do not touch -Willie
Maybe some of the tking llamas will vanish off of game servers now.. this could be a blessing in disguise.
Protect Children from Video Game Sex
What sex? The closest thing to sex on video game screens is Lara Croft and WWF bikini-clad girlies in Smack Down! And now we're getting DOA Extreme Beach Volley Ball...
Tell me where the sex is. I have yet to see a game where it tells me "Press the (X) button repeatedly to rub her harder..." and when that happens u can be sure it's an Xbox exclusive.
When vote to let Republicans run the government.
While I'm not saying Replicans are bad and Democrats are good, a large part of the political base for many Republicans is the religious right. While I prefer people explore religion and spirituality (and accept or reject it based on what they learn, not on what they are told to do/believe), it seems to me the churches and organizations in the religious right have always had a strong focus on telling people what to do and how to behave.
What do you expect when the government is controlled by politicians that depend on this religious right for a large number of their votes?
The violent video game shops... The type of place all people notice, but none dare get caught looking in the same direction as. You see someone walking out of the store and just think... he just bought a violent video game. They shops would never advertise in busy areas, and parking would almost always be located behind a privacy fence, or behind the grungy building itself to protect the patron's identities. Of course, in addition to the video games you could buy associated toys and accesories.. People could buy steering wheel and gun attachments, even camo paint, etc. for role playing. It sickens me to think about. But it could be another boom for the internet economy.
I think this subject was best summed up inside a Talking Heads album cover,"The only children who are affected by television are those whose parents act like television characters".
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
They're getting off easy! The top 1% controls about 43% of the wealth in the US. Top 10% has 77%.
It's an income tax, not a wealth tax. Because of that, the original poster's comment is correct and yours is irrelevant.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'm not arguing about the playing, I'm talking about the buying. I want my son to be able to go out and be able to buy any game he wants. You and congress are the ones wanting to override my parental perogative to say he can't. I'm his parent and morally neither you nor congress should have any say in the matter.
Games are *not* harmful. If you choose to believe that they are, that is your concern and within your perogative to teach your children. However, as far as I'm concerned this law would be equivalent to congress mandating that kids couldn't buy meat products because the vegan lobby has convinced them that meat is harmful (and frankly the vegans have a much better argument than Sen. Lieberman).
This is a parental issue, not one that congress needs to butt its nose into.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I see a major problem here - the US would be officially sanctioning (making law, in fact) a standard passed by a private business, the Entertainment Software Rating Board. I don't know if this is legal, although Congress does have dealings with specific businesses (i.e., guaranteeing loans) from time to time. However, it seems undemocratic. I didn't vote for the ESRB's members, but the final word on whether games are acceptable is officially theirs if this bill becomes law.
Why not?!?
GTA has some interesting story elements that a he/she could enjoy. Also, what if the child wants to research current video game trends? What if the child is interested in real time graphics, and wants to see how gta did some things?
Violence is bad. But no game is pure violence
If Congress is trying to fight for the protection of the youth, how comes it's not a felony to allow minors into R-rated movies??? It's kinda one-sided just to attack videogames.
Sorry, but I don't think a rigorous proof of the conjecure exists (except of course proof by exhaustive enumeration).
It is not even possible to prove beyond doubt that 2 + 2 = 4 (the "Peano Axioms" proof leaves one wondering whether the Peano Axioms are consistent and, if so, whether they lead to the number system with which we are familiar [see Hersh, "What is Mathematics, Really?", ISBN 0-09-974831-2 for more on this topic]), let alone rigorously show that "The probability that a person exposed to violent video games under the age of 13 will commit acts of violence in later life is greater than the probability that the public at large will commit such acts of violence". Please do post if you know of a rigorous proof (rather than, for instance, an answer with a non-zero probability, however small, of being wrong).
Of course, even mathematicians write non-rigorous proofs (by this standard) and people are sentenced to death without even the semblance of indoubtability, or even mathematical "rigor". Such "proofs" will not be entirely satisfactory.
They'll just steal a gun and go steal the games, and pick up a few bucks in the process. Seriously, markets go where the consumers demand, and there's nothing laws can do about it. And kids with cash are consumers... they'll get anything they want. I was doing it over 35 years ago, and many things have changed, but not that one. Oh, and they can probably get on a usenet site and download whatever they want for free. Trying to stop this is like standing on a railroad track and holding up your hand in a "halt" sign to stop the train. I wouldn't recommend it. I don't approve of a lot of these games, but there's not a damn thing that can be done to control them, (and here's the punch line) except by PARENTS.
As long as there's some kind of 'parental discretion' thing involved (i.e., like how parents can escort their kids to R rated movies), I think this isn't such a bad idea.
Frankly, and I am a gamer, I find some of the sex and violence in games to be a bit annoying. (Of course, the most irritating thing for me is the large 3D rendered boobs on the front of most magazines, which keep me from bringing them in to work to read. Grrr!)
Some quick calculation thoughts for you:
Mean: Also called the arithmetic mean. This number is derived by taking the sum of all the numbers in a series and dividing it by the number of terms in that series. In relevant terms of income, this means that the mean is the average income of everyone in the US - this is a relevant number when determining the state of the economy.
Median: This number is nothing more than the humber that appears in the middle of a series of numbers. In the case of 1,2,3,4,5 - 3 is the median. This number means exactly jack shit when looking at income as a determinant for the state of the economy.
Numerical example:
The mean for: 3,5,7,50,100=33
The median for: 3,5,7,50,100=7
The median does not take into account how MUCH money people have. When talking about the economy - that's whats relevant.
Don't sweat it though, politicians have been using the median as a bullshit statistic for years.
Toddler Vomit
Toddler Vomit
Toddler Vomit
Toddler Vomit
This letter has three main sections. In the first, I argue that it's a sad world where militant yobbos have the power to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. In the second, I make it clear that Lord Rob-molester "Butthole Felcher Gerbil Fucker " Malda-kiddie-diddler looks down with a really limitless condescension on anyone who has not been dragged through the obligatory schools and had the necessary knowledge pumped into him. And in the third and final section, I conclude that Rob-molester's followers are empty-headed at best, the downfall of society at worst. The first thing I want to bring up is that if I didn't think Rob-molester would alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations, I wouldn't say that if I may be so bold, while we do nothing, those who waste everyone else's time are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we comment on his treatises.
Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what Rob-molester is up to, look at what he is doing and what he has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that as that last sentence suggests, I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Rob-molester want to impact public policy for years to come.
He maintains that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Even if this were so, Rob-molester would still be feeble-minded. But Rob-molester can't discuss anything without talking about cameralism. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. If you were to tell him that in the genesis of his self-fulfilling prophecies, hidebound begat grotesque, which begat unimaginative, which begat illaudable, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.
Rob-molester says that he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. Should we care that large numbers of libidinous morons actually believe such self-absorbed things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I must ask that his followers tell you a little bit about him and his flippant outbursts. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture.
I want to make him answer for his wrongdoings. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to create division in the name of diversity. "How could Rob-molester be so peevish?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is indubitably possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Rob-molester plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that I correctly predicted that he would tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. Rob-molester is totally unmovable by truth or reason. This is all well and good, but you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with rude libertines?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that pathetic bigamists do not deserve the assistance they receive from society. No joke. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so, he's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from him are utterly delirious.
While there are many cocky bribe-seekers, Rob-molester is the most mumpish of the lot. Now that I've had time to think about his sophistries, my only question is this: Why? Why contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply? Well, we all know the answer to that question, don't we? But in case you don't, then you should note that if he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. And, more important, he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally phlegmatic ravings.
Rob-molester should have instructed his henchmen not to pursue a fatuous agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. That's self-evident, and even Rob-molester would probably agree with me on that. Even so, almost every discussion of sesquipedalianism ignores the critical importance of his iconoclastic exegeses. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Rob-molester has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because Rob-molester wants us to believe that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says intemperate things. How stupid does he think we are? It's an interesting question, and its examination will help us understand how Rob-molester's mind works. Let me start by providing evidence that Rob-molester says that black is white and night is day. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to make saturnine psychotic-types out to be something they're not. The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, Rob-molester has written volumes about how every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.
If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I work beyond the predatory plasticity of Rob-molester's belief systems. It seems that no one else is telling you that from the very beginning, dangerous urban guerrillas have labored to recruit into their ranks the sons and daughters of the powerful, famous, and rich. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, Rob-molester is guilty of a shocking display of dishonesty and sophistry. Of that I am certain, because Rob-molester ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Rob-molester has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Rob-molester's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. Rest assured, in his newsgroup postings, misoneism is witting and unremitting, peremptory and bookish. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to instill distrust and thereby create a need for his soulless views. Unless all any child needs is a big dose of television every day, it is simply wrong to conclude that Rob-molester's decisions are based on reason.
Although Rob-molester obviously hates my guts (and probably yours, as well), I have a problem with Rob-molester's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, his emissaries are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Rob-molester "Butthole Felcher Gerbil Fucker " Malda-kiddie-diddler, who wants nothing less than to make bigotry respectable. I don't like to repeat myself, but he should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. You don't have to say anything specifically about Rob-molester for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should ratchet up our level of understanding. Materialism is dangerous. His insufferable version of it is doubly so.
Now, I hope Rob-molester was joking when he implied he was going to poke and pry into every facet of our lives, but it sure didn't sound like it. It should be clear by this point that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his vicegerents have always found a way to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. Mark my words: he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. Because of Rob-molester's eagerness to participate in riots, he is indisputably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Rob-molester is thoroughly mistaken if he believes that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. I am shocked and angered by Rob-molester's quixotic improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. It is high time for someone to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Will that someone be you?
the only problem with a tax break for the mortgage is this: it helps only the banks. yes. a benefit that is given to everyone isnt really a benefit. here is the scenario. people dont buy a house with regard to its cost, its purchased based on a monthly payment. this monthly amount is reduced by about 30% by government subsidy (read: taxpayer money). So joe gets a mortgage payment of about $1000. $300 comes back to him, he doesnt even have to wait for a refund if he knows how to set his deductions correctly on the payroll. Now, you say this is good. Yes, but you see everyone's purchasing power went up. So the relative cost of housing goes up, oh, id say about the same 30% that you are giving yourself (because you are a taxpayer, that 30% you get back is really yours to begin with). real fair to most of the population that rents, btw. Anyways, now that everyone purchasing power went up 30%, and housing prices adjust accordingly, based on supply and demand, who makes out in the end? Well, the clever banks that lobbied to get the mortgage give-back laws to begin with. How? well, that $100,000 home (as if these exist anymore, lol) is now $130,000. And now who gets to lend out an extra $30,000 while culling interest? Mister Bank! Hehehe. Ingenious how retard voters took the bait. Anyways, lets all face it. Fuck the 401k, and the bonds, and everything but the Roth IRA. Fuck it. you ARE a slave, you WILL BE A SLAVE forever UNLESS you own your house, FLAT OUT. If you dont own a house, you are helping house owners and banks out, but fucking yourself!
I love how they try and get young people to 401k (this is still a decent idea if its matched as in your employer matches what you put in) and all this shit. Fuck, buy a house ASAP. You might be able to make 10% if you are really, really lucky on the markets. Meanwhile, you have a 30 year 6-7% mortgage. And people rarely do the smar thting and overpay by about 100 bucks. MORTgage. Mort - meaning death, from mourir. Amortize your loan out for the life of it and see what the bank gets. Do this, get an amortization formula out, calculate what the total interest if for a $100,000 house at 7% over 30 years. Then do the same for $130,000. Wow. Hoooweee! Banks! Gotta love them. Wish I owned a house (which i would probably leverage and then rent, if at all possible, rich people collect real estate and bonds).
Also, tax law professors, laywers, etc etc. They all make shitloads of cash dealing with this overly complex assholic tax code.
Alternate tax codes? VAT [states get money from sales tax], pay-by-use[tolls, road fees, etc] and either a flat income [everyone gets a 35K deduction, then pays 17-18% on every dollar after 35K]... Or maybe a real progresive tax [the richer you get, the harder your ass get reamed - yes i know what the top 1% pay 17% of all fed tax, and the top 5% pay 50% or some such number, but life is harder when you dont own a house or have cash saved up, and im working my ass off to get my first house, its getting ridiculously hard. I'm probably going to do the two family thing and rent out the bottom portion.] would be nice. By real progressive I mean bill gates get a really, really nasty tax bracket.
Does anyone know why they didn't come up with a nice continuous function to caclulate your tax. You could call it the progresive continuous tax function.
The USA has fairly low taxes, and besides the seirous health care problems (and the fact that your have to plan for your own retirement because SS is fairly austere), you get a lot of infrastructure and opportunity here, and everyone admits that green is the best color. I do like it here. But I hate when social aid programs get implemented here. Its almost always self-fucking. Its like GreenPeace protesting nuclear power, then creating a world oil mafia. Meanwhile, sweden and france and several other EU countries have clean, efficient nuclear power, we use mostly coal, propane and other fossil feuls for powere generation. People protested nuclear power, and now they bitch about this oil mess. Leave the fucking system alone. I swear, the politicians that screw with it too much always hand payola to the "big guys" - hard money givers - to apologize for the mess 'the people' get to make. Would have been better off with nuclear power, we would have been better off with no mortgage deduction, etc.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
the federal tax rate for $23,000 is 15%
the federal tax rate for anyone making over 27500 is 27%.
the federal tax rate for anyone making huge money is 36%.
how the fuck is this system fair? if anything its not fair to the rich people. but it ends up working out. if i was rich and had to hear all these fucking whiney lazy pukes wanting MORE of my money for doing LESS, i would do things like HIDE MY FUCKING WEALTH. ingrateful bastards
and most rich people buy property and bonds, the stock market is for retards or losers trying to get rich. most of the money is made in financial services, aka , you broker fucking you over.
Amortize
$100,000 , 30 years, 7% interest compounded monthly
TOTAL PRICE = $239,508.89
$130,000 , 30 years, 7% interest compounded monthly
TOTAL PRICE = $311,361.56
30% more on base price = $71,852.67 more on your final cash out price.