Slashdot Mirror
Dissecting U.S. Violent Game Bills
Many reactions to last week's violent games bill. Primotech writes "I first heard of California's AB1179 late Friday night. Like most others, who simply shrugged the bill off as inconsequential, my first thought was strikingly indifferent. Beyond the perfunctory glance, however, it becomes evident that this bill brings into focus and, more importantly, actually probes some of the more serious issues facing the industry. Above all else, examining and dissecting the proposal reveals some truly frightening facts." Relatedly, Shodan writes "Hal Halpin, the President of IEMA, today issued a statement in response to California Assembly Bill 1179, which is on the floor to address the issue of violent videogames." Other states are taking their lead from Illinois and California. KymBuchanan writes "I'm sad to say my state is on the bandwagon, and the charge is being lead by Democrats. From the article: 'Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has announced that she will sign legislation later this week that will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games to children illegal ... The fine for anyone caught selling a "violent title" ( apparently defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings) to minors will initially be $5,000, and can go as high as $40,000 ...'"
In my town, teens pay upwards of $10/pack for cigarettes. 21 year olds get up to $50 to make liquor runs for high school parties. The teen black market is very lucrative.
My firm belief is that this is the responsibility of the parents, not the State. Parents now have even less involvement in parenting due to these laws. Kids will still get the games.
The margin on video games is thin (5-10%). Adding the cost of policing adds another burden to the retailers, making them less competitive with the e-commerce sites. retail is a huge portion of a local economy, it is a shame to see more regulations on business owners.
Of course, in the long run the State wins: More tax money for enforcement positions and the red tape jobs they add. Added income from fines and penalties.
In the end, the consumers suffer, parents distance themselves more from their responsibility, and the State profits. Not a worthy solution in my opinion.
I first heard of California's AB1179 late Friday night
Is that a tiger patch? I want it! I want it!
Actually, the proposed bill on violent games would prevent such depraved acts as "dissection" of itself by anyone under the age of 21 without the presence of a parent or guardian. Any minors found dissecting such bills would be fined $5000 and sentenced to 15 hours of community service, scratching X's into original, non-censored copies of GTA: San Andreas.
Er, why is it always about politics with some people? It's not like stupid ideas only come from one political party.... And don't anyone say that it's "always" or "mostly" one party, because it's not.
Stupid ideas are pretty universal.
Anyone that's been out in the real world (particularly the business world we all love to complain about), should know that.
Wanna bet that this bill will increase software piracy? Kind of ironic that by preventing imaginary crime (killing people in games), they'll end up encouraging kids to commit real crimes...
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings
Good thing everyone has the same opinion of what's "realistic" in a video game, or this bill would be absurdly vauge.
sarchasm
Anyways, think of the children!
Violence is a degenerate form of competition. Imagine that degrees of competition are rated from 0 to 10. 10 indicates degenerate, extreme competition: violence via rape, murder, etc. 10 means "I want 'it' now. Society be damned." Then, we plot the number of Americans exhibiting each of the 11 degrees of violence: 0 to 10. We have a Gaussian curve.
Do the same graph for Japan and Europe.
In American society, the sublimal message in the culture is "Compete to win. Free enterprise. Yeah!". This message shifts the Gaussian curve to the right.
In Japan and Europe, the societies are more paternalistic. Europe is effectively a socialist economy with cradle-to-grave entitlements. Japan is also socialist, but its socialism is not mandated by the state. Rather, Japanese culture is socialist. Firing and laying off employees is very difficult in Japan, and Japanese banks are notorious for funding bankrupt companies just to provide a wage or salary to their employees.
Which society is better? You make the call.
Do any of these bills propose equal penalties for people who show violent movies or tv shows to kids? How about violent comic books or novels?
No? Didn't think so. Harsh penalties are reserved for computer games because anything with the word "computer" in it scares and confuses the authorities.
"apparently defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings'
So if a rational person judges that NPC "people" in the game are not realistic human beings? I mean, nobody actually thinks a real person is being injured when I run over a San Andreas pedestrian right? So that isn't realistic to me. But if they are alien zombies or Combine soldiers, will it still be okay? I guess all of next years games will feature aliens, 'cuz aliens don't vote.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Guess this means no more Sony Online Game accounts for my 6 and 11 year-old kids... That's a shame - my son's EQ2 Troll was doing really well, and with all the time I spend on the computer, it was one of the few times we could run around as a family and kill virtual things... must... resist... urge to kill.... virtual... things...
Whoa, weird!
:)
/. must be getting slow! :)
Check my post history, it'll get modded -1 Flamebait soon enough
Even weirder, I post from my h6315 PDA with 9.6k GPRS.
See title.
The fine for anyone caught selling a "violent title" ( apparently defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings) to minors will initially be $5,000, and can go as high as $40,000 ...'"
So if a news story shows soldiers shooting their guns at a target, or if they show a video of a missle destroying a tank, do they get fined? Or is it because you can't see the people being killed, that it's fine? What if a man runs out of the tank on fire on a life news broadcast, will they then be fined since the person doens't just appear to be a human being, they actually are a human being, and they're really on fire. Does the news now then to pay a fine?
Also, minors are only defined as "natural persons." What if I clone someone? Hey, in California, it could happen....
Seriously-
If you realistically portray damaging another human in a movie or television show - you get a $5,000 fine per minor that sees it.
Oh--- what , you mean we've been doing this already for the last 70 years? And before that we did it in plays?
What IS the world coming to?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I firmly believe that there are some people whose morality and upbringing inoculates them against committing violent acts, some who would do it regardless, and some who are borderline cases, for whom the constant diet of violence on TV and in video games (and, who knows, in their real life surroundings) is just the push they need.
Do people who are against video game regulation consider the level of violence in the US acceptable? If not, what do they see as the causes of America's very high (relative to other "first world" or developed nations) rates of violence, and what do they propose to do about it?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
There goes any chance for a ``Passion of the Christ" videogame . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Instead of trying to solve problems, let's just focus on quelling the EFFECTS of the problem. That way we won't have to do any real work, and we will look like saviors to all the lazy, uneducated parents out there who vote for us!
What could be simpler?
Also, apples are red and shiny and oranges are orange and bumpy. So consider that.
It's really odd how every time a new medium arrives, certain people run around like headless chickens. The point of things like the constitution and the court interpretations of the First Amendment is that they're meant to be general principles, applicable to a variety of situations - once we decided that books shouldn't be banned, the question should have been (mostly) settled.
Of course, it's possible that I'm seeing confusion where in fact there's malice - perhaps the people who wish books could be banned see a new opportunity to assert their values with each new medium. I wouldn't be surprised.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
On broadcast TV most nights of the week you can watch CSI with all of it's gruesome details or some other shows/movies with all of it's violence.
Oh wait, those have to be shown after the extremely late hour of 9pm.
I see. Because of that strict security, THE CHILDREN are being protected.
Let's thank the government for doing our thinking and parenting for us again. Where would we ever be without them?
You're both fucking idiots. There is not one iota of difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're both looking to steal all of your money that they can grab for the corporations that put them in power. All the rest of it (abortion issues, storm relief, etc.) is just a three-ring circus act to keep you distracted from the guy who has his hands in your pockets.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
I don't think that all media are suitable for children. You need to be of age to buy alcohol, smoke cigarettes and rent porn. I don't see any reason why video games with sex and violence in them should be any different to movies.
My Journal
Censorship has always been a slippery slope. Every bit of historical evidence supports this. Why should we be suprised that each new medium brings more restrictions? Games more restricted than TV, TV more restricted than movies, movies more restricted than plays, plays more restricted than books...
While the premise is flawed and I agree with most posters on here, the least the people passing these laws could do is ensure the money derived from their enforcement is used to prevent teen violence through education and after school programs. It's inevitable that the laws will get passed; the least we can do is hope for them to do some good in troubled communities through alternative ways (since I know banning sales of certain video games to minors really won't do much in the way of improving things.)
The issue of violence in video games is fairly devisive as the main portion of law makers are not amongst the demo-graphic of game players. Thus it's far easier to run an anti-video game campaign when your voter base and politcal makeup is on average over 25 years old.
Comicly, somehow everyone has missed the boat in regards to the fact the crime and violence in the US has been on a steady decline since the 70's. How can you argue these games and other mediums (gangster rap, death metal, movies, etc...) are causing increases in violence when the stats clearly show we are becoming less violent as a culture?
Maybe these mediums are serving as an outlet for violent behavior which would otherwise be exerted in the very real world with very real consequences.
Another point it seems many people willfully miss under the guise of free speech and/or desire for games with illicit content, is that there may well be a serious moral, ethical, and social problem associated with content that glorifies and/or encourages anti-social behavior.
This is quite a paradox, crime is on the wane, so its hard to say if these games are causing a problem or helping it. However as an adult who does play GTA and every FPS i could get my hands on, i can definitly say this isnt the type of stuff ill want my children playing. And while many would argue(and i do agree somewhat) that this falls into the realm of parental control and proper parenting, i say that our society has made such parenting increasingly difficult to do.
The average white collar family has TWO working parents who spend 50-60+ hours a week at work and commute another 10+ hours. Blue collar families face similar if not worse conditions leaving less and less time for adequate parental supervision. Maybe the solution is a reduced work week, but i dont think ANY of us believe that will happen in the near future (not to mention the effect on our economy), so in the interim i cant help but support better controls for parents.
Those controls are inadequete and nearly laughably easy to circumvent right now, as such the only moderation available without industry support is through strenuous law. Which puts us directly in the path of free speech.
How do i, as an adult gamer maintain my right to view whatever content i want, and leave the industry free to PRODUCE that content, without endangering the wellfare of my child in todays society? A society where even as a top-tier earner it is difficult for me to keep my child in a safe environment of my choosing.
This is a very serious problem which everyone seems to be avoiding by pointing at each other.
sadly enough it may be DRM is the only dependable solution. Now THATS a scray thought.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Could this make it harder for smaller independent game developers to enter the market? For example, imagine the following scenario:
Your a small independent game shop that decides to forego using a major publishing house to distribute your titles, but rather decide to distribute/sell your video games from your own website. In many ways this could be a smart move since it avoids that whole you putting the majority of effort into making the video game and somebody else pocketing almost all of the profits thing. In any case, after setting up the website and posting a few games online, lets say that one or more 15 year olds gets a hold of his/her parents credit card and buys a couple of games the could be considered 'violent' under this law (e.g. almost any FPS). The kids buy the game even though there is a clear warning on the web site that it should not be purchases by anybody under 18, which of course is a pretty useless deterrent to a 15 year old. Then later, lets say the kids parents find out and decide to go after your company using this law.
Now, for a few sales that brought in $20 to $30, your company has to pay out $5,000 $40,000?!? That's probably going to be a significant chunk of the development budget for your next game. Heck, if you're a one man shop, that might be all of your development budget.
So, it seems like this will pretty much force independent developers to distribute with major publishing houses who can afford to shoulder the liability. Or, even better for the publishing housing, shift that liability over towards the brick and mortar shops that most people buy their video games at.
>> Dissecting U.S. Violent Game Bills
Dissecting them? No.
Actually it's more like beating them repeatedly with a crowbar, then stabbing them a few times with a kbar, a double-tap in the head with a Glock, a few rounds of buckshot from the ol' assault shotgun, a clip from a 9mm sub-machine gun, several three round bursts from the assault rifle, one bazooka round, a blast from that thing that makes you turn to ice and shatter, and a direct hit from a plasma rifle.
Then you can see what's really on the inside of these things.
I agree with that, but why not the industry police itself as does the film and music. And on top of that, I's REALLY like it if the damn Government would stay out of peoples lives. Let the parents do their job.
(I know it is not 9/19, but aaarrrrgggg)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
You don't get fined for porn. Alcohol and cigarette fines are set by the community, not federal.
This is taking away control from parents. In come communities, it is illegal to pubicly punish your kid (read: whip, just a little smack, not beat)
In some communities, if the (public) school recommends your kid is to be put on Ritalin, you have to abide for the best interest of the child. Who the f*k made the school the doctor? The same people pushing this law.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
California governor's office 1 (916) 445-2841. While the bill might be ruled unconstitutional, it's better it not get signed into law in the first place.
Thank god Im 21.... That and the fact that from what I see, its not illegal to GIVE The game to a minor... Here little timmy!! Go play the car thief! Dont forget to use the cheat codes to use the tank to blow up people! Thats important!
Just me
It'll be like the liquor store parking lot as the weekend comes near. There will be hoards of "minors" outside waiting to find the one shady looking person who will buy them the booze... er, uh video game without question.
Minor: "Hey Mister, I'll give you 20 bucks to buy something for you if you go inside and buy us the new GTA video game."
Mister: "Ok, but you're not working with the Feds are you!? Cause if you are, that'll be the last thing you'll be able to ask anyone for without having to write it down!"
Does anyone else see this type of thing happening? I mean, c'mon. I don't want my young kids playing those types of video games, but if they want them, there are a myriad of ways for them to get them. Or at least get to play them say at a friends house.
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
Let's ignore that fact that banning the sale of games with certain content is blatant government censorship (good or bad). Let's ignore that whole "freedom of speech thing" (even if that refers to only political speech).
Nobody is saying that they can't make these games. The issues is that games with graphic sexual content, violence, or appropriately adult situations are NOT APPROPRIATE FOR KIDS. We're not talking quantum physics here (we could if you want).
Have you ever seen the movie Hellraiser? (Unbelievably graphic horror movie, for the uninitated. More than you can probably imagine.) Would you consider this to be a movie which should be made available to a 14 year old? I know I wouldn't -- and I'm so unbelievably for freedom of speech that it's sick.
If the government wants to fine retailers for selling adult games to children, I say GOOD. People talk about it being the parents' responsibility, but guess what? Parents don't give a fuck. I work at Best Buy, and I've seen mothers purchasing GTA for their 12 and 13 year old children without batting an eyelash.
Parents, unfortunately, are retarded and don't pay ANY attention to the content of games.
Furthermore, the average person has little to no idea about what the video game industry is actually like, and will get all their information from the politicians and the mass media.
Laws WILL be passed to further restrict what can and will be consumed by everyone because there is no large groundswell of slashdot visitors to offset the current loud groups of politicians/mothers/etc.
If we don't want these types of laws to be passed, the only viable answer is to make our voices heard by writing to newspapers, calling into radio stations, writing to the politicians, and so on.
Protesting in online forums, voting in online polls, and so on will do nothing significant because the vast majority of people are not connected, or are so ill-equipped to know about places such as slashdot, or whatever your favourite site is.
Don't just sit at home posting, and agreeing with everyone else online. Get out and make a difference by getting into the media channels which the average person consumes.
Fight the fight on their own territory, because they certainly aren't coming into ours.
How does this affect me selling my old "Rated M for Mature" games on Ebay? Would I or could I be held responsible for this? Contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
I sure wouldn't want to be hit with a $5,000 fine for pawning my old game off online for $4.99 plus shipping!
it seems to me, all of this is about giving parents the right to choose for their minor children ... which seems consistent with most other laws. for some reason, i don't find this particularly troubling. if i want my child to have access to a violent game, then i purchase it for them. i am okay with allowing other parents to choose as they see fit.
i understand the argument that it's the parent's job to police such things, that is unfairly punishes non-internet retailers, etc. that makes sense. but i don't see this as some first step on a slipperly slope to complete governement control of the media.
i suppose the closest analogy is movies. movies have ratings and are restricted to minors on the basis of the level of "adult" content. it's hard to argue that the same rules should be applied to video games, when the precedent exists for movies.
Religious shamans have been with us since time immemorial. Do this, don't do that, eat this, don't eat that, wear this, don't wear that, have sex now, don't have sex now. What is modern or post modern about Inquisitions?
"I don't like meddlers and the worst meddler of all, is a meddling man of god." - Shane.
Oh well, what the hell...
People say that they can separate fantasy from reality. But this misses the point. A brain is a neural network that is exposed to stimuli and makes associations. It sees "opponent" and "me killing him" and the neurons between these two things are strengthened. If you can separate fantasy from reality, it meens that the neurons linking "opponent" and "me killing him" and "fantasy" are strengthened. Which inevitably spills over onto just the first two.Maybe you can separate fantasy from reality perfectly well. But can your neurons? -- No.
I hope you're a lawyer, 'cause I've got this first degree murder charge I need representation for, and since I played GTA once, I'm pretty sure this new persuasive, scientific defense you've just offered is just what I need to beat this.
Hmmm - no more cartoons for the kids. I guess they haven't consulted with Disney or Warner yet.
Oh well, what the hell...
At least we're not afraid to call a Schwarzenegger a Schwarzenegger.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Yes, Computational Neuroscience was a component of my undergraduate degree, and I studied this area for my masters in Philosophy of Science.
I agree with your view of Europe, but Japan could be viewed as being more competitive than U.S. In Japan, there are far more suicides than any other first world nation (more than double U.S.). And about 1/4 of these suicides are from "joblesses and bankruptcies." You're right in that they don't have much of a "i want it now, society be damned" view, but their view of suicide being acceptable* in the face of economic failure is troubling.
*I'm not saying the society is pro-suicide, but the people in that society are more likely to think (and act on) the idea than in U.S.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
"I hope you're a lawyer". Silly comment. Legal culpability relates to whether you're of sound mind; as long as you're of sound mind, the behavioural tendencies (like violent media/aggression) don't constitute a legal excuse.
I think it is more likely that the retailers will just not sell anything that is determined to be violent. It probably doesn't make financial sense to take on the extra risk and the extra cost for the bit of money you'll get from those games.
People will have to buy the games by mail from someone who doesn't operate business in California.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If my neurons can't tell fantasy from reality, how can I!?
I wouldn't worry about it - the Nazis tried to get me in Return to Castle Wolfenstein, but I kicked ass. Just make sure you have the chain gun, and lots of grenades and ammo and you'll do ok.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Eh? Japan is less competative than the United States? That is debatable at best. Japan though has societally ingrained sportsmanship to counteract their competativeness. America only has... showmanship.
Europe too has a great competativeness, though it's seen at soccer matches, pubs, and governments more often than with children or business.
thank goodness we have the democratic party to save us from ourselves.
this "video game" thing has just gotten way out of hand, and it's time that somebody put a stop to it!
I'm just so happy that future generations might not have to deal with the pain and sadness violent video games, movies, tv, and other depictions of realistic events or concepts can cause.
That's what our government is here for isn't it?? Honestly who knows better what is right for all of us than those thousands of wealthy lawyers??
And as usual, the best way to ensure our safety and freedom is to make lots more widely defined and confounding laws and precedents.
Yes boys and girls, just go along and everything will be hunky-dory in the United socialist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H states of america...
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
firmly believe that there are some people whose morality and upbringing inoculates them against committing violent acts, some who would do it regardless, and some who are borderline cases, for whom the constant diet of violence on TV and in video games (and, who knows, in their real life surroundings) is just the push they need.
And I firmly believe that a normal person, by the time they are ten, has no trouble at all distinguishing reality from make believe and will not become violent simply by playing a violent video game.
So should we ban violent videogames because a tiny number of borderline psychotics might find GTA or Wack a Mole to be the thing that pushes them over?
Well, if we agree to that, what about everything else that might push one person out of a million over the edge? TV? Books? Paintings? Some of that Rennaisance art has some pretty graphic imagry! What about discussions about violent crime -- couldn't the nightly news be that very same trigger? You can't possibly predict what will be the thing that pushes someone over. So rather than dealing with psychopaths on a case-by-case basis, we have to ban everything that might "set them off". Ludicrous.
Fact: An extremely tiny number of kids commit violent crimes out of an extremely huge number who play videogames. Probably the same ratio to those who read Harry Potter books, watched Barney or Seasame Street, or any number of things which nobody thinks need to be banned for causing crime. The simple statistics of the matter is ignored only because the kids at Columbine played DOOM. So what? Millions of kids played DOOM, and 2 decided to go on a rampage. That's about as good odds as you are going to get.
Do people who are against video game regulation consider the level of violence in the US acceptable? If not, what do they see as the causes of America's very high (relative to other "first world" or developed nations) rates of violence, and what do they propose to do about it?
Since video games are played just as much in other developed nations, it obviously isn't our video games.
Right? Isn't that obvious? So why do you ask "people who are against video game regulation" as if that has anything to do with violence in America? You've already assumed that video games are a possible cause despite the complete lack of even a correlation.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but no correlation does imply no causation.
So as to "what do they propose to do about it?" As always I propose dealing with the underlying causes of crime, which are more difficult to pin down. I can't say for sure what they are, but I'd suggest comparing America's violence vs other nations with America's rates of the following:
1) Child abuse
2) Child neglect
3) Single parent families
4) Two parent families where both work full time
I could go on speculating, but the point is you need to look at deeper social and economic issues than what media a kid consumes when his parents are never around.
Though honestly that still may be missing the mark, since the rate of crime among minors has been dropping steadily for a couple decades now (even as video games become ever more prominent -- I detect a correlation; video games prevent crime). Then the question becomes why are adults comitting more crime than in other nations, and those answers are almost always socio-economic in nature.
But nobody ever wants to actually address difficult socio-economic problems. They'd rather ban video games. That's easy and gives them a good feeling of doing something, even if it is useless.
The enemies of Democracy are
People in the army receive similar neural training.
Yet these people are allowed to return home and lead perfectly normal lives, for precisely the reason that they can separate that training from their everyday lives.
Besides, when the government starts telling me not to make certain types of neural connections, I will be very very scared...
It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn
I'm sad to say my state is on the bandwagon, and the charge is being lead by Democrats. From the article: 'Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has announced that she will sign legislation later this week that will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games to children illegal ... The fine for anyone caught selling a "violent title" ( apparently defined by the bill as real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings) to minors will initially be $5,000, and can go as high as $40,000 ...'"
So...basically, your for selling adult rated material to children or I am missing something? Let me guess, your under 18 and your pissed you won't be able to buy the next version of topless titi BMX racing without your mommy's consent.Why does it matter if people under 18 are pissed off. They can't vote anyway. Technically, you have no rights until you come of age so. Be patient. One day you too will be 18 and you can buy all the hot coffee you want.
Does anyone else realize that if this law where in effect 10-15 years ago, arcades as we knew them would never had existed? Games like street fighter and mortal kombat would have been illegal for kids to play, thus making arcades in general equivalent to a place for minors to gather and view porn!? The whole arcade industry survived off the popularity of fighting games for a while. Its hard to see these games as ever have existing if this law were in effect then. Thats truely a scary thought.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
What type of 1st amendment rights do people under 18 even have?
MOD -1, Simplistic
There is no such thing as a neuron for fantasy, or a neuron for opponent, me killing him, or whatever. The brain does not work by connecting a set of indivisible concepts. You schema which would let fantasy spill over from reality isn't supported by evidence - an infinity of other structures of thought are possible.
For example, a player may simply associate 'agression' with 'socialisation'. Or 'opponent' with 'appropiate reaction'. Or even 'enemy' with 'click mouse on his face repeated whilst pressing the D key to side strafe'. The question of separating fantasy from reality is a question of how these things are structured. Your approach would lead us to ban chess because it leads to megalomania.
Question1: are there neurons or other bits of your brain which fire in reponse to fantasy, but not in response to reality? Answer: yes, and when you say that you are consciously aware of the difference, it's through these. Question2: the low-level local mechanisms that strengthen the channel between neuron1 "violence" and neuron2 "I-kill-him", do these low-level mechanisms use the fantasy/reality center of your brain to decide whether to strengthen that channel? Answer: no, not really. What they'll do is strength the violence=killhim=fantasy bonds in one case, and the violence=killhim bonds in the other. Question3: If a person has violence=killhim=fantasy bonds strengthened, will the violence=killhim neurons fire together even without input from the fantasy neuron? Answer: yes, to some extent, but not as much as if the brain had been trained with reality.
nice sig, it must be nice to live in your own farm and stuff so you can boycott everything...
:-)
also I guess you are personally not entitled to social security?? or any tax returns?? or national security protection?? good, less financial strain on all of us
thanks so much for giving up all your rights and priveleges for the rest of us. If this is what just one person with a total lack of faith in humanity can do, I say we need more of it.
so heres my easy steps to success:
1-dont go to church, you might learn that god loves you and all people, and that could ruin everything..
2-dont let yourself or anyone else ever have a job or pursue any non-anarchistic ideas or goals. trust me in the future they will thank you for the freedom you have ensured them!
3-be sure to remind yourself regularly that its all hopeless.
dibs on your medicaid!!!!
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
So...is the gov gonna fine itself for all the times teenagers/kids download America's Army? Let's all move to Michigan and see if we can bankrupt a gov branch.
Soldiers? They return home and rely on the conscious control we all have to stop from acting on neuronal associations in inappopriate situations. But the conscious control isn't black and white. It works on levels and probabilities. People with violent neuronal training are more violent than those without. Are we as a society prepared to accept this? Are we willing to accept a 1.5% more violent society if that's the consequence of allowing violent video games? I for one don't think it's a worthwhile tradeoff, but I accept that other people disagree. What I hate is when people say "I'm an adult, I can separate reality from fantasy, violent media doesn't affect me". Not true. It does affect everyone exposed to it.
neither the manufacturers nor the fans do a very good job of describing why large amounts of violence are somehow integral to the games being designed.
Who says they have any obligation to do so?
If someone puts out a video game where you score points by poisoning adorable little kittens, it's nobody's business but the sellers and the buyers of the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
My understanding is that school in Japan is a constant meatgrinder of pressure. In the USA, it's possible to flunk every class, drop out and become a millionaire. In Japan, that is pretty much impossible because, as far as I can tell, the society is a lot less tolerant of people trying to make a living outside the usual social structure.
OT: I was planning to say "look at the suicide rates, then try to tell me Japan is less stressful". The figures I found did indeed show this, but I can't bring that in because, by the same logic, the most stressful place in the world is East Europe/Russia. Anyone got any thoughts as to why that should be?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
The jury's still out on whether there's a single neuron which fires for "opponent", or whether "opponent" is represented by a pattern over a region of neurons. But the argument is the same in both cases. Fantasy spilling over to reality IS supported by the bulk of evidence linking violent tv+games to aggression. Your list of possibilities is interesting. Yes, I'm sure all these things get associated. After a few days of playing Civ4 I fall asleep and dream of grids of squares around cities. I wouldn't ban chess on grounds of megalomania. Why? Because there isn't literature studying the connection, and because my instinct says the answer will be only a small connection, and because my instinct says that megalomania will have minor actual effects on society. On the other hand, there is lots of literature showing the connection between violent media and individual aggression, and the link from that to negative effects on society seems obvious.
I'd argue the difference in Japan is that the good of the many comes before the good of the individual. And that is what prevents a view of selfish action. Competition is extremely high, but it is never at the expense of others.
At least, that's my sort of unsupported take on things.
Um, I'm over 30, Dude...
My point had nothing to do with underage rights. It isn't the government's job to make decisions about how you raise your kids. They should be devoting their efforts to important things, draining New Orleans, or getting properly organized so they can actually do some good the next time there is a major disaster, not waste time and taxmoney deciding if the latest 'quake' clone qualifies for a mature or adult sticker in walmart.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Lets fight against age restrictions of all kinds.
R rated movies will be a thing of the past. Porn movies won't have to be hidden in video stores anymore. Alchohol should be sold to 14 year olds for their "my parents are gone" house parties. And one could argue that driving is a form of expression, so driver licenses should be awarded to everyone! Oh, and, age restrictions on bars should be removed as well. Yes, let darwinism take its effect on humanity. So what if a few kids get raped, killed, beaten, or damaged in some sort of way? After all, if they had good parents, none of it would've happened right?
You are never, ever going to have a society full of perfect parents. It just will not happen, and this is why the government has to step in. This is not going to affect game companies in the least, and no one should worry about Rockstar making a bland and boring GTA as a result.
It hasn't harmed the movie industry has it? Give it up...
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
The California Assembly's 2005-2006 legislative session ended last Friday. If I understand the rules correctly, that means the bill died on the same day. If so, was discussion of the bill purely grandstanding?
Your neurons can't tell anything, other than what chemicals are tingling their receptors! It is only by combining them into a huge, massively parallel network called "the human brain" that it can begin to compose concepts such as "opponent", "killing", or "fantasy".
In other words the distinction you make between "you" and "your neurons" is illusory. "I" can distinguish fantasy from reality therefore "my neurons" can as well.
But to nevertheless address your problem directly: The stimuli and responses involved in playing a video game versus killing someone in real life are completely different and thus do not reinforce the same pathways. And those stimuli and responses are always conditioned by the internal state of the brain which is aware of whether a situation is reality or fantasty.
This is obvious. Or do you think if you dropped a compulsive Counterstrike player into the middle of Falluja with an M-4 he would react in a way at all similar to how he reacts to a round of CS?
The enemies of Democracy are
The only flaw I see in this argument is that there is actually much more competition in Japan and other Asian countries than there is in America, in the academic realm. Schoolchildren even at very young ages are pressured to perform well in school, and in many places (such as India), competition is fierce for getting into the best schools and universities. In Japan, it's not unheard of for teenagers to commit suicide because they didn't measure up academically. This kind of thing is totally foreign in America; we're lucky if we can get kids to be interested in academics at all, and while we do have a large portion of the population attending college or university these days, most American students have very easy majors (like business) and do a lot more partying than studying, and low GPAs are both common and accepted.
Also, while competition is a popular theme in America, I've never seen a lot of it at the interpersonal level. In grade school, kids aren't usually competing directly against each other in classes. In college, while there is a small amount of competition since relative grading is used and a curve established, in easy classes nearly everyone does well, and in hard classes everyone does terrible and the curve brings everyone up, so again it's not like you're all that worried about your classmates' performance like you are in these other countries where 10 people out of 1000 will be accepted someplace.
In the workplace, there isn't much competition either. In most companies, I think, your performance is measured by your management, so if they liked your performance, you get a raise, regardless of what your coworkers did. Some companies (like my current one) do have a system where people compete against each other to a certain extent (the people at the bottom get in trouble, the people at top get a promotion, and the vast majority in the middle just get a small raise), but I think this situation is not the norm for American business.
I think a more likely explanation for the difference in violence between these societies is that America tends to be an independent society, whereas Europe and Japan tend to be much more interdependent, and also families have a far greater influence there.
"You hit the succubus..."
AccountKiller
You see, it's NOT the parents that are getting the punishment for not keeping the kids from the games in question. It's the vendors who get punished- just like with Tobacco and Alcohol. Now, it remains to be seen whether or not their definition of "adult" is going to be reasonable, but don't be deluding yourself like you have been as it's not going to have the result you seem to think it will.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
So then you're obviously aware that labelling neurons as "killing neurons" and "opponent neurons" is over-simplifying a much more complex learning process that is going at any given moment in any given person.
And further that the neural connections that are created (and destroyed) over one's life are, in fact, not disassociated from other thought processes that are happening at any given moment, like context recognition.
Implying that your neurons are somehow working against you because you played video games is basically saying that your brain is attempting, outside of your own spiritual free will, to turn you into a frothing green beast that is bent on smashing everything around you - probably due to some horrible nuclear experiment gone wrong, or being in possession of a magically cursed item.
One's mind is perfectly able to include the variable "context" into everything it learns. That's why we know its ok to defacate while sitting on the toilet, but not while sitting at the dinner table. In situations where one's mind is not able to introduce context into its behavioral analyses its generally considered that person suffers from a behavioral disorder such as psychopathy.
And once you get into that realm, you can't really blame it on video games anymore. Unless you're a politician. Or a lawyer. Or (shudder) both.
I am an Australian older than 18, so nothing is restricted for me, but I still find the whole deal ridiculous. Part of their reasoning for trying to ban 'violent' video games is that they are teaching us to use guns and violence against others. They are wrong. When I was younger, I would spend many an hour playing my Super Nintendo, from Super Mario Bros. to Jurrasic Park, and i can tell you right now, it sure as hell never made me think of jumping on my enemies heads to defeat them! Or that if i type fast enough on a keyboard, I would be able to hack any computer. And then where do they draw the line between 'realistic violence' and 'cartoon violence'? And as someone mentioned earlier, all they are going to do is encourage piracy.
Bah... so primitive. Try skillfully and creatively applying a canister of gasoline and a box of matches instead.
The distinction I made: "you" is the conscious mind that claims in a slashdot post to be able to distinguish reality from fantasy; "your neurons" is the low-level mechanism by which neuronal pathways are strengthened. There is a real difference between the two.
I agree that the stimuli and responses are very different. I don't think they're COMPLETELY different. Similarities: increased blood pressure, adrenaline, feel of threat, aggression... I think if you dropped a compulsive Counterstrike player into a tense business meeting he would have some crossover. (the falluja case would probably have everything overridden by fear). There have been lots of anecdotes in previous slashdot threads about instinctively checking out the meeting room/street/whatever for cover or sniping positions.
"Introducing context"? You paint it as black and white, either able to introduce context or psycopathically not.
There's a much bigger grey area between contexts. Words like "grok" and "n00b" carry over from online computer discussion into everyday computer life. (well, "grok" carried over from Heinlein into everyday life into computers and back). We only call it a disorder if it's extreme.
But everyone does smaller inappropriate context mixes all the time. Trilingual people speak in the wrong language. People make inappropriate rude contexts in polite social circles.
The distinction I made: "you" is the conscious mind that claims in a slashdot post to be able to distinguish reality from fantasy; "your neurons" is the low-level mechanism by which neuronal pathways are strengthened. There is a real difference between the two.
/.-posting mind can even recognize that they are in any way related.
Only as a matter of how closely you are looking. "I" am the neural pathways and the mechanism for strengthening them. The thoughts I'm having right now feed into the next, which can both be expressed as a series of conscious thoughts or a sequence of firings and strengthenings of neural connections. There is no difference, if you're talking about a level at which concepts such as "opponent" or "killing" exist. It is only through that conscious mind that posts on slashdot that the neurons create a connection between actions in a video game and responses.
I agree that the stimuli and responses are very different. I don't think they're COMPLETELY different. Similarities: increased blood pressure, adrenaline, feel of threat, aggression...
But at that point you've generalized the experience so much that it applies to everything even remotely competitive.
The general sensations may have some similarity, but the actual actions of a game of CS do not translate at all into the actions of killing in real life. The only possible way to create such a connection is through high-level associations because killing in real life is fundamentally not the same as "killing" in a video game and only my conscious,
I think if you dropped a compulsive Counterstrike player into a tense business meeting he would have some crossover. (the falluja case would probably have everything overridden by fear). There have been lots of anecdotes in previous slashdot threads about instinctively checking out the meeting room/street/whatever for cover or sniping positions.
Sure, that becomes second nature. Now do they also instinctively move to that sniper position, and attempt to kill anyone who is wearing a different color of clothing than they are? Just because someone thinks a lot about things like sniper positions doesn't mean they are unable to tell that it is not actually an appropriate situation for sniping.
And are you also suggesting that a person who participates in tense business meetings is also going to become a killer?
The enemies of Democracy are
"If the bill were to pass, games put on sale in California would need to be rated and labeled by the state government, not the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)."
Not only do I doubt the ability of the government to judge what is good and bad for our kids, but this is unfair. Movies and music are not rated by the government; why do they think games need to be? And, when Idaho and Alaska pass their own bills, do I have to submit for a rating from them too?
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
The fact that you think first amendment rights require a distributor of information to give a reason why he's distributing that information before he's allowed to do so indicates to me that not only have you never heard of the USA before, but that you're probably from a place completely out of light-wave contact with the planet Earth.
Congratulations on finally getting that internet line strung up to the dark side of the moon, bud.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The conscious mind normally refers to the frontal cortex. That's where the subjective experience is. The bit that posts to slashdot is using this and the linguistic/analytical bits of the brain. Which are physically distinct from the neuronal-connection-strengthing happening elsewhere in the brain.
I'm sure the actual actions do translate to some extent. Here's a minor example. When we experience a cat, the "cat" bits of our brain light up. This is true whether the cat is on a video-screen, in a book or in real life. If we play a cat-killing game, it will inevitably trigger the same cat centers that are triggered by real life cats.
I think the same is true for killing. You say that killing in a video game is fundamentally different from killing in real life. I agree that they're very different, and more different than the video cat vs. real cat. But not completely different. And also, I think the general aggression responses are more like cats than killing.
"Unable to tell" appropriate situations? Sure, most of us can tell, most of the time. Can all of us tell all the time? No. If 50% of society has 1% stronger bonds between cats and violence, there'll surely be an increase which slips through the appropriate-situation filter. Not enough to trigger legal culpability or to call someone a psychopath, but enough I think to make a real and undesirable change on society.
It's not illegal to punish your kids, it's illegal to hit them.
Doh, comma splice.
Evidentally, some. In my state (Tennessee), there is a curfew law for minors under 17. There are a few specific exceptions to the law, but the most broad and sweeping is the "First Amendment Exception", which is one of the few without a time at which the exception expires:
Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1702 (2004)
(d) The following are valid exceptions to the operation of the curfew:
(8) When exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and the right of assembly. A minor shall show evidence of the good faith of such exercise and provide notice to the city officials by first delivering to the appropriate law enforcement authority a written communication, signed by such minor, with the minor's home address and telephone number, addressed to the mayor of the county specifying when, where and in what manner the minor will be on the streets at night during hours when the curfew is still otherwise applicable to the minor in the exercise of a First Amendment right specified in such communication
IANAL, but when they taught you in school that you had no rights, it was indoctrination, not based in fact.
But can't your parents technically take any right you have away? If minors had the same protection adults did, then it would be illegal to penalize kids for talking in class.(name on the board). Parents would not be allowd to restrict their childrens driving, or put them in their room for fear of civil rights violations. You can't just lock someone in a room against their will, but its ok for parents to do so.
Yeah, Europe has just enough tolerance of censorship that all of the most violent, greedy bastards can be given slots in the government and the rest can be silenced. In the US, we have a bit of overflow, since majority parties aren't allowed to supress their competition just because it's competition.
Which society is better? Take your pick.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
"neither the manufacturers nor the fans do a very good job of describing why large amounts of violence are somehow integral to the games being designed."
Well here let me give it a shot then
Who said that large amounts of violence are integral to games? Violence in games is one of the major forms of confrontation used in video games. All games require a goal and something standing in the way of your goal. The getting around the items in the way for your goal is what makes up they gamplay of a game. Now if that game is based on the human world where you have a goal and the things standing in the way of your goal are other people. There are multiple ways you can go about this; you can make an adventure style game where you then get around the people by talking to them and figuring things out in conversation, you can make a stealth game where you attempt to avoid all the people in the game to get to your goal, or you can made an action game where you get around the other people by using physical and violent methods. All of these game types have been made and sold on the pro level. The reason that there has been a tendency in the industry to fall back on violent type of confrontations is because previous sales have shown that those types of games have sold more then others.
There are a lot of games that do not have highly violent factors. The point of view that games should not have violence because there are other forms on confrontation that can be used is bias to what you prefer in entertainment. To me your question of "why do games have to be violent?" is about equal to the question "Why did they have to go and make Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon when we already had the Care Bears Save Christmas?" it's just different styles of entertainment set up to cater to the target audience.
So you mean that soldiers who play too many videogames won't be able to shoot, because all of their 'killing people' abilities are tied to their 'hey, this is fantasy' sense?
Yeah, I'm thinking you don't quite have a grasp on how the brain works. Increasing one set of associations doesn't decrease another, necessarily.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
You act as if you're surprised that it's led by democrats. Democrats/leftists/liberals, whatever you want to call them, are NOT liberals. The only Liberals around these days are the Libertarians. Democrats are only about free speech as long as they agree with it. As soon as they don't, they introduce things like the Fairness Doctrine to deal with it, all in the name of "open-mindedness" :)
No I don't mean that, and no I never said that an increase in one set leads to a decrease in another sense.
If not, it's only fair to point out that the seemingly high crime rate in the U.S. is almost entirely a result of the war on (some) drugs, and that if you don't deal drugs or associate with those who do, your chances of getting murdered are basically non-existent.
The controversy surrounding many of these video game sale regulation bills is whether video game (and other forms of entertainment) violence leads to actual violence. Apparently, this depends to a large extent on personality. That is, people with certain personality types (namely psychopathy) will be more likely to develop negative behaviors from negative entertainment than control populations. The Dark Triad Returns: Entertainment Preferences Among Narcissists, Machiavellians, and Psychopaths has some research on the matter.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
Frankly this is so fucking stupid.
:)
I dont care if they want to make it illegal to sell adult content to minors but lets finally be consistant about this. Lets make it illegal period to use adult imagery to advertise ANYTHING publically viewable.
This would include beer commercials, 16 year old MTV pop singers that dance and dress like strippers/whores, automobile commericals, insurance commericials, toy commercials, etc.
LETS just do away with free speech period.
Lets finally rid the world of Porn (good fucking luck)
Lets cut our peniseseseses off and stop being humans beings.
Seriously if the issue is about minors getting a hold of GTA, we need to first address Minors watching acts of real violence on TV news. How about 9/11 ?
Frankly with the current thinking behind these bills/movements, wouldnt they make showing the 9/11 footage of real violence, illegal?
What is the difference between selling violence to children and having them witness advertising or live news events aimed at adults that feature violence and sex?
What is the difference?
One is a game and the other is real? Is that the difference?
So fake violence bad... real violence good...
Yeah i have a problem with that as a progressive American that beleives government should stay out of our lives when it comes to pissing on our rights.
As kids we grew up with mortal kombat, and slasher films. We all lived through the nightmare on elm street days, the friday the 13th's, The Thing, Evil Dead, and yes.. most kids in their teens at some point tried beer, and a third of them probably tried weed. AND ALL OF THEM SAW PORN before the age of 18. AND if you were lucky you got some tail too
So lets recap. All children turn into teenagers, and teenagers turn into adults. It's a process that has gone on for years. My father played cowboys and indians in the backyard with realistic looking toy guns...
My generation did the same but we played "soldier" , and then we got into videogames as teens, which really is just in addition to the cars girls and beer that previous generations were into. Toss in rebelious music and movies... and you have what we call... "GROWING UP"
So whos generation is better? Mine? the new generation of kids? my Fathers generation? How about his fathers generation?
I bet they're all quite similar... and yet we always refer to the "current genreation" as being the one in decline. It happens over and over and over which each generation.
Before it was the PMRC after Explicit Lyrics, or it was the evil communistic devil music of the 60s... Now its violent videogames.
We put more effort into this nonsense than we invest in fighting oppression within our own government, or corperate abuse, the decline of our working class, the huge gap between the wealthy and the poor.
We worry about what our kids are playing... an historical arguement that has been proven time and time again to be worthless. A parent is to decide how to raise their children, and that includes allowing their underage child to take a sip of beer, or listening to whatever music they want, or even teaching their child about safe sex and masturbation, or that its ok to be gay, to homeschool a child, to teach a child how to hunt and fish, to teach religion or not...
These are parenting discisions and not the governments.
If we're to be consistant about rating systems and the likes, then we END IT THERE. We do not dictate what can and can not be sold content wise. We can make it illegal to sell sexually explicit material to a young child, but violence? GOOD LUCK.
If violence is the issue, little league football should be illegal.
I'm being quite round about and silly but, i beleive a child needs violence in their life. It teaches right and wrong.
Violence is a part of life that we witness. It is OUR REACTION, that determines what kind of person we are. A parent needs to raise their child with love and co
"What do they see as the causes of America's very high (relative to other "first world" or developed nations) rates of violence, and what do they propose to do about it?"
Sure, I'll bite. Uh, how about
- High rates of poverty and near-poverty by "first-world" standards?
- School systems that are often operated like understaffed prisons, inhibiting socialization and acculturating children to violence.
- High rates of incarceration due to Draconic drug laws, making violent criminals out of non-violent ones.
- The almost total destruction of the public mental health care system?
- The low rate of two-parent families with a full-time parent caregiver?
- The relatively widespread and easy availability of weapons of all types?
I could probably think of other likely causes, but I'm tired of typing.How much of each of the above contribute? I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. How would we fix them? In most cases, it would require significant social investment of money and effort.
What I'd be willing to bet on, though, is that effects of fixing any one of the above problems would dwarf any positive effect of banning violent video games...
Of course, there's the off chance that after turning 18, the kid who couldn't buy GTA will remember the dickhead politicians who stopped him.
when politicians are spending more time with video games then the kids that play them....
factualy what is a "State"?
I don't see you grumbling because kids can't buy beer, smokes, and porn. Why is this such a hot topic for you?
Because beer and smokes have proven detrimental effects when misused. Video games don't. If there were some good studies done that proved that violent video games turned kids into serial killers, then sure, let's pass a law. However, there aren't, so this is the government jerking off when they could be doing something useful. This legislation looks like the sort of thing politicians support to show the soccer moms that they 'care' about family values.
Porn is a great example of something that the government has meddled in that they probably didn't need to. While lots of people will say that it is 'evil', and 'Immoral', nobody has any real solid evidence that seeing a naked chick before you are 18 mentally scars somebody for life. While I'm not suggesting you give a stack of Hustlers to a preschooler, do we really need a law that prohibits sale of porn to people under 18?
I'm going to take a wild guess and and say that you are male and close to if not over 18. Did the government ban on porn keep you frome EVER seeing anything pornographic before you were 18? I'm going to guess not. Oopsie, the government's ban on porn has failed.
As for the California legeslature personally draing New Orleans, yeah that is exactly what I meant. They should be personally filling sandbags. Or, perhaps, I was implying that the legislatures of all the states would better serve their constituants by working on real issues, and not such frivilous laws as fines for stores that sell GTA to a 17 year old.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I have read slashdot for years, but never responded to any subject. This time I felt compelled to say something.
I do not care what age you are, I do not care if you are a democrat or republican, but if you play violent video games, you are a FUCKING FREAK. You are a nut case that should be confined. You should be treated as the worst possible insurgent.
I cannot believe I am reading all the insane comments above. Are all slashdoters a bunch of insane nerds?
There are no connections. Exept, maybe, that youth violence is at an all time low. Since the boom in the gaming industry, youth violence rates have steadily been dropping. This was from PC Gamer. Granted, it is a gaming magazine, but the research was convincing. I have also done research on the topic, and many science journals have found little or no negative (violent) effects on videogamers. I do believe that children should not be seeing scenes displayed in the cliched GTA series and the like, but these laws are going a bit far.
There is no spoon.
The fine for anyone caught selling a "violent title" ... will initially be $5,000, and can go as high as $40,000 ...'"
From where I stand, this appears simply to be another "screw the clerk" law. Most stores will deem the person at the register responsible, forcing them to front the entirety of the fine. It seems the results from this law will be doubled. Fine the minor at the register, that way we will see two fewer people without their video games, not to mention the government may even see a bit of profit.
And who picked this 'pricing' scheme? Everything is inversely scaled to the damage the product can cause.
Fine for selling booze to minors: a few hundred
Fine for selling tobacco to minors: ~ $1000
Fine for selling video games: $5000!
My mother is a mental health professional in South Carolina who does workshops on Suicide for other Mental Health Workers who need more continuing education credits to keep their licenses.
In America, all of the diagnosises you will see in the DSM IV are based on 'societal norms.' She and I have had many talks about ethnocentrism -- judging one culture's X or Y from the view of another.
It's wrong, and you don't do it.
In Japan, suicide is more acceptable and in more (And different) forms, for different reasons than in the US.
The right to commit suicide is the most important right there is (in my opinion,) even above that to freedom of speech. The Right to Commit Suicide, the right to choose the manner and time of your own death, is the ultimate right to make your own choice in life. You should never take it away from anyone (who is in their right mind -- this can cause problems, especially if you feel that someone who wants to commit suicide cannot be in their right mind, which is how American Mental Health professionals tend to view it.)
The reason in the United States that Suicide is Illegal (yes, it actually is illegal to attempt suicide in some places and states) is because that suicide and murder are the greatest crimes against the state you can commit -- you deprive them of a Tax Payer.
That is why murder cases are always "The State Versus So-and-so," never "So-and-so's Relatives versus So-And-So's killer."
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
It seems like the Democratic party is searching for a MORAL issue to parade in front of the voters. The Republicans used Gay Marriage as a wedge issue for the election and a way of saying that they are somehow the MORAL party of America.
It just looks like Hilary Clinton and the Democrats are using a easy to fight issue to get some MORAL capital. As usual when politicians can't or don't want to talk about real issues they go after easy targets like TV/Movie/video violence/sex/etc or music. There is little risk in this for them right now. They need to take the Republicans head on, you aren't going to get more Born Again votes then they are just by saying I outlawed adult themed games to minors, it isn't really a wedge issue.
Who is really going to fight this. I mean they are just ratcheting up laws and fines for things that are already technically illegal. The industry SELF-POLICING Mature rating on video games makes it 'illegal' to sell to minors. Most stores already ask for ID when buying M rated games. So why do we need to add fines and penalties. Are there gangs of minors just buying up the store of all the M rated games without IDs. I mean who's money are they spending. How many kids not in high school with a job can afford on their own, without their parents to buy a $50 or $60 game.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
Whenever politicians rant and rave about how games are aimed at turning kid into killers, we all rally around the battle cry of "well, duh, some games are not for kids. See that 'M' or '18+' rating on the box? It already says it's not for kids."
So now there's a law saying just that. Why is that a bad thing?
Sure, resourceful kids will always find ways around restrictions, and parents still have to pay some attention to what Junior is playing. And talk to Junior, so he/she doesn't get all the education from games and TV.
But still, the law basically doesn't say anything that we were't already saying: well, duh, some games are not for kids.
Will it bankrupt anyone? I can tell you first hand that it won't.
Here in Germany for example GTA games had an 18+ rating all along for violence. (Which is basically what it's just been re-classified as in the USA too: from 17+ to 18+. If for a different reason.)
Did it stop shops from selling it? Well, no. You can go to Saturn or Media Markt or whatever and pick it off the aisle just the same.
Did it involve some major effort or burden on those shops? No. I'll tell you how Saturn does it, for example. They put these games in a sort of a big red (transparent) plastic box each, that the cashier has to open for you. It takes exactly 1 extra second to open that box, and it's something that's (A) big and obvious even for the most retarded cashier, and (B) obvious to any kid that they're not gonna just pack that between Barbie Fashion Designer and The Sims: Another Expansion and sneak it past the cashier.
I don't see huge queues where an army of cashiers have to ask everyone for ID. Most of the time the Saturn I go to has one cashier at a time, and frankly they couldn't go any lower than that anyway.
Did it make those stores utterly uncompetitive with e-commerce sites? Not more than they already were. At any rate, I didn't see Saturn or Media Markt packing their bags and vacating the premises yet.
So the huge problem is?
As I've said, yes, it's not perfect and there _will_ be some black market, but then again it won't bankrupt anyone either.
Whatever problems the USA has with the 18+ rating are utterly artifficial, and due to some hypocrites' (e.g., WalMart) taking a "nooo, we can't sell 18+ games 'cause they're, like, pornography" stance for purely PR corporate-image reasons. The rest of the world has managed to function just fine with 18+ rated games, and with not selling them to minors.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Using the FBI's own statistics for unbiased analysis:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/arrests.wk1
If you take a look at the FBI's statistics, violent crime (and, separately, property crime), in teenagers, has dropped every single year since the release of the original PlayStation - the point where graphics (and hence violence) started to become lifelike.
Arrest Rate For Violent Crimes/100,000 by age
1995 - PSX Released
14 and under: 77.2
15-17: 947.1
18-20: 982.7
1998 - GTA1 Released
14 and under: 59.3
15-17: 661.9
18-20: 811.5
2000 - PS2 Released
14 and under: 55.0
15-17: 549.5
18-20: 709.9
2002 - GTA3 Released
14 and under: 49.1
15-17: 511.7
18-20: 669.2
2003 - Most Recent Year Recorded
14 and under: 50.1
15-17: 504.6
18-20: 645.9
Or, in terms of DEcrease:
14 and under: 35.1%
15-17: 46.7%
18-20: 34.3%
So, since the arrival of the PSX and healthier outlets for violence, there's been a 34.3-46.7% DEcrease in violent crime amongst children and teens?
At what point will those campaigning against them will admit to either deliberately lying or, at best, being woefully ill informed of the actual truth?
Perhaps a question, along with those statistics, worth asking of your congressmen and senators. As they're only politicians, perhaps you could draw them a nice graph.
That is one way to look at it. Another is to see it as the ultimate act of selfishness. We do not live in a vacuum and our actions have consequences for those around us.
Also bringing this down to the level of the state being annoyed at being deprived of a taxpayer is a rather strange way of looking at things. It assumes that the state runs like a business that is only concerned with making profits, by way of taxes. It assumes that the state does not care for its citizens.
meh
Just because something seems obvious doesn't make it true. Individual agression is of benefit to society, because agression comes in any forms. It can be argued that goal orientated, competitive agression which is what is usually involved in games, and sports in general makes us better, more productive individuals. There is also the catharsis effect.
The violent media/violence link has been extensively studied, and has been fully inconclusive. That's no basis on which to build large restrictions on personal liberty, and to give the say on what's bad and what's not to an unenlightened few.
Being as I am a philosopher, I think I'm actually in a position to give a little critique of your response.
The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. -- Proof by reference to obscure authority is not a sound argumentive technique. If you are going to make such a claim, the burden is upon you to support it. Further, word choices such as 'vast majority' simultaneously attempt to represent claims as being strong while leaving them vague. Philosophical arguments are not well founded or defended using superlatives nor vagueness. You're making a large claim. How, exactly, do you actually plan to support it?
'theism,' incidentally, refers to the belief that there is/are a god or gods, and that they are some way involved with existence. It is not, as a theologial position, restricted to, or inherently supporting of, Christianity or any other specific religion.
The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. -- Again, you make a completely undefended claim, yet attempt to represent it as a widely accepted fact. This is also an unsound argumentive method. If you are going to try to make a claim about the opinion of a large number of people, you must clearly define the members of the group, and then present evidence to support your claim. Further (while not making a critism of either Plantinga or Swinburne), someone making a career out of a debate upon suppositions does not in any way in and of itself have any bearing upon the possible existence of god(s).
Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). -- Yet again, you make an attempt to invoke a reference to a seperate authority, rather than present an argument of your own. While you've provided a specific reference, there is still an expectation that one will present at least the outline of an argument, rather than expect someone to infer it from an entirely seperate work.
Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". -- You attempt to claim your unsound references in some way actually constitute and argument, and form the basis for a conclusion. They do not. Your conclusion in no way follows from them, and in no way actually addresses Grishnakh's statement of personal opinion.
If you held the necessary academic qualifications -- philosophers (formally credentialed or not) refer to this as the Genetic Fallacy, the source of an argument in no way actually affects the validity or soundness of the argument itself.
and were able to frame an argument correctly, -- perhaps this is an unfair aspertion, since you have not demonstrated you yourself would recognize a correctly formed argument if you saw one, not having presented one yourself. (People in glass houses...)
people might care. -- You cared enough to respond to begin with, so it's apparent that other people might care about the topic regardless of your own opinion of a position different than your own.
"Seems obvious"? If a thing has been researched, I refer to the research. If it hasn't, I have to go by instinct but with less confidence in my instinct.
"Fully inconclusive"? Only if you read slashdot. Not if you read the literature.
Ah, the traditional redneck talking out of the ass about other countries he has _zero_ clue about. How refreshing.
Parties being silenced? Well when was the last USA election that involved more than Democrats and Republicans? (Both of which currently have the same ideology and catter to the same corporate sponsors.) How often have you been told that voting anything else is throwing your vote away?
By comparison virtually any European contry's elections are won by a fragile alliance of several parties. A small party here can and routinely does get seats in the parliament.
And here's a much more fun effect: since neither party has a majority by itself, it can't proceed to whore itself to the highest corporate bidder with impunity for the next X years. Alliances can be formed the other way around within days, and a former majority leader can find itself being _the_ opposition real quick if it did something unpopular.
Other parties being silenced? You don't know what you're talking about. The common complaint here is that those small parties have disproportionately too much power. A coalition's ideology usually reflects more of those small parties ideology than that of the dominant party in the coalition. Because those small parties are what makes it be a majority coalition, and could go form a majority coalition around someone else at any time.
Want some real suppression of a party and an ideology? How about the McCarthy witch-hunt for communists in the USA? Yeah, that sooo makes your point about parties not being allowed to suppress their competition there. Not.
European government slots being filled with the most violent bastards? Geeze, care to support that accusation with any actual case where a minister was even accused of any violence after WW2?
So basically, I won't even try to be diplomatic: go get some real education before you spew such idiocies. And no, Hollywood movies don't count as an education.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There are massive cultural differences between Europe, USA and Japan, but viewing it all as a competion scale is so over-simplified it's not even funny.
There is plenty of competition and competitive people in Europe. The difference is _how_ we view that competition. (And even that is just one aspect of the cultural difference, and not _the_ one criterion that explains it all.)
The difference in a nutshell is just that willingness to view violence, all the way up to rape and murder, as just normal competition. That's a USA-specific cultural quirk.
If we're talking games, the cult of the free enterprise is, if anything, stronger here. Economic games routinely outsell FPS in Germany. (Well, maybe not ID and Epic games, but they outsell a lot of others.)
E.g., I remember "Die Gilde" (called "Europa 1400: The Guild" in the USA) selling more than 100,000 copies within the first week in Germany. If you put that into perspective of the population size, it's comparable to a PC game selling anywhere between 300,000 and 400,000 copies in the USA. We're talking a _major_ success for a game that's mostly about hiring apprentices, buying raw materials, having those apprentices hammer them into goods, and selling them on the free market.
So there you go: the "Compete to win. Free enterprise. Yeah!" message is very alive and kicking in games down here.
Japan too has a lot of competitive games, but again, just in a very different way from the USA. The focus there is on winning through hard work and functioning within society, rather than the USA message that you're cool if you're a gangsta and bust a cap in the ass of everyone in your way.
I remember one particular truck driving game, the name escapes me now, which illustrated that very difference. The USA version gave you extra points for breaking traffic laws, smashing property, and generally being a homicidal psycho at the wheel. The original Japan version got you fired and finished your game for the exact same things. In the Japan version you got ahead by driving responsibly, obeying the laws, and carfully avoiding the obstacles instead of smashing into everything.
Or take japanese RPGs for example. It's not that those don't have violence or challenges to overcome. But _the_ message is the emphasis on the message that you only won because of your friends, and the help of all those people you've helped too. I think about half the japanese RPGs I've played even felt a need to literally tell you that, at some point.
As you say it yourself, "Violence is a degenerate form of competition." I took the liberty of emphasizing that, because that's the keyword for the rest of the world. In other parts of the world, e.g., Japan, the competitiveness scale is between 0 = lazy, and 10 = total workaholic, not a scale where 10 = murder and rape.
The difference isn't competitiveness, it's that the USA culture values being a psychopath, in the medical sense of the world. Either the ultra-violent serial-killer kind, or the corporate kind climbing his's way to the top over dead bodies and broken lives, or whatever. It's not just wanting to win, it's the "Society be damned" part. Sometimes not even for an actual "win" in a "competition", but just as just personal entertainment at the expense of others.
Now it's not that other countries don't have their own psychopaths. About 1% of people everywhere are psychopaths, and that's that. But they're not viewed as _the_ role-model and ideal member of society.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
But this is really an anti-business bill. The bill will over-regulate one of California's biggest growing industries. Even Silicon Valley's own legislators have reliable anti-business anti-technology voting records. Arnold's veto pen is California's tech industry's best friend.
You can call Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, or email opposition. But if he does veto this, Democrats will claim that it is a conflict of interest because he appears in Terminator video games. Ignore them!
I watched Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula when I was 12 or 13. It's not like I turned into a vampire or a sadistic killer. "Oh my god, I let my kid watch Die Hard and he'll turn into a psycho." Problem is you take things too seriously. It's a goddamn game! It's not real. You know, it's supposed to be fun! The more you make a big deal out of it, the more it backfires. You want teenage boys to play with Barbie dolls? Of course they want to play Doom. It's male nature. Whenever I read something about a new restriction coming up in the US or the Western Countries, I'm grateful that I'm living in Eastern Europe, where this mentality has just started rearing its ugly head.
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this in the posts, there are too many too read, but I find that alot of people download games illegally. I know of several people below the age of 18 who have done this. It's easy, so when this law goes into effect and there is a real crackdown kids will simply download it off Shareazza or some other way without their parents knowing. I think that it is more important that children/kids/teens be taught right from wrong etc... instead of banning them from violent games. Kids will always want to try something especially if it is forbidden.
Sure, go for it. Remembering of course that there have been wars & genocides commited by all of the areas under discussion here: Europe, Japan & America. IIRC, Europe's is genocide was smaller than the other two's over the last 200 years.
Government does not care for its citizens. Government exists solely for the same purpose that every other living thing exists: To keep on existing.
The way you can tell government does not care is in the fact that it will put its own welfare ahead of yours.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Its called, "Lick My Feet"
..."
the story line goes, "You wake up and discover your Bin Laden's father. Every Mega World Power Leader is compled to make you very happy. In order to win, you must find things for these world leaders to do, or they will
"parties who realistically appear to be human beings"
I can't think of a single game that meets this standard (I'm sure some exist). Is it in the bill this way (no I didn't rtfa) because if it is, it'll never hold up.
They all look like VIDEO GAME human beings. Not even close to "realistic".
Let's add another, shall we?
Among other similar "fairness" we expose our children to, they can't vote on (or have any voice about) issues and/or laws which allow them to be tried and convicted as an adult for crimes they commit as a minor.
It is one thing to try, convict and punish (and/or execute) adults for criminal activities they commit, because in theory those and other adults have voices they can use prior to the commission of their acts to help shape laws and society such that the legal response to those acts can be said to in some way have been shaped by themselves (ie, live by the rules and laws you help set). I say "in theory", because as we know, most supposed "adults" couldn't give a damn about the laws and such which govern them, let alone vote on those issues - but they do have the option.
For all of the talk about "think of the children", we adults don't seem to be too keen on giving them the self-same rights we enjoy to let them have a voice in the process, which may arguably one day kill them.
Of course, given what I have stated above that most adults don't even participate in their own governance, I suppose it is folly to presume that they would participate in helping their children do the same...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
That, or become the president of the country.
I am not saying that our current president "flunked out". He certainly was a millionaire, but it is debateable whether he got there by his own initiative or via family help. I suspect the latter.
What isn't debateable is the fact that he stood in front of a graduating class of university students, proclaimed that even a "C" student could become president of the USA, and people cheered...
Sickening, and despicable, to say the least.
People, here is a man in what could arguably be called "the top office in the world" - who by his own recollection in public - is merely average. In my limited experience, average people do not tend to care to learn about and apply reason and logic to their everyday activities, let alone activities happening during a crisis. Average people tend to instead apply emotion and knee-jerk reaction (instead of logic and pro-active reason) to most events and situations, especially those which occur without foreknowledge or preparation. Even with foreknowledge, logic and reason are rarely applied by these individuals.
This is a man walking around carrying "the football", with the capability of launching more man-made death and destruction than the world has ever witnessed in the past. A man who tends to rely on knee-jerk reactions and emotion, rather than logic and reason. A man, by his own words, who is "average".
We reap what we sow, people...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If competition for resources is greater in the US, and violence is also greater in the US, then competition causes violence?
Correlation != Causation. Repeat this to yourself about 50,000 times.
Furthermore, you can't say that competition is greater in the US than in Europe or Japan. There are still limited resources for people to compete for -- if anything, the US historically has had less competition for resources (though maybe not for women and other things previously treated as commodities).
Violent behavior simply represents one method of competition. Another method of competition is to minimize risk by acting within societal standards, while working hard for resources.
Cultural standards define what we find to be acceptable methods of competition. For whatever historical reasons, the US culture is more accepting of violence.
Perhaps it's due to the frontier nature of the first four centuries of caucasians in North America, and the risks people had to take in order to be successful. If someone had to risk their life to make a living, I'd bet they'd be more willing to defend their property (or attack another's) with violence.
Perhaps it's because of the wide open spaces of North America, because society had a much harder time enforcing cultural norms.
I'm sure there are a ton of factors influencing why violent actions are so common in the US. And it is possible that one of those is that other methods of competition are not as effective as violence for some people -- which might be the only conclusion that your "study" might be able to support.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The Three Article Code was promulgated ~206 BC in China. As the name indicates, there were only three laws:
1) Anyone who Murders shall be executed.
2) All other crimes shall be punished according to their severity.
3) All other laws are abolished.
I think this qualifies as the "simplest, easy-to-understand legal system in history."
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
For a horror movie, you are right, Hellraiser is a very graphic movie. However, for a kid, I am not sure if it is the worst movie you could show them.
Hellraiser relies on fantasy, to show demons which rend the flesh from those who relish in violence, using chains and hooks - among other things. Some would find it a sensual movie (series) depicting ultimate pain as ultimate pleasure. These things tend to go beyond child-level understanding. That, coupled with the imagery on the box, and the knowledge of what it is about, might at least cause a bit of hesitation on the part of the retailer and/or parent, about whether to sell it or let the child watch it.
But is it really that horrible of a movie? Let's take another movie for instance: Silence of the Lambs. Here is a movie that is almost pure psychologically thrilling, with very little (compared to Hellraiser, at least) in the way of blood or gore. More about the naivete and development of the main character of Clarice Starling, as she battles "evil" in the form of "Buffalo Bill", who is killing young women in a seemingly random fashion, for unknown ends. A man who knocks out and kidnaps his victims, then puts them in a deep hole in the basement of a house, while he goes about his business of killing them in a slow, methodical fashion. In the background, helping both himself and Clarice, is the repulsive and enigmatic former-psychiatrist Hannibal Lector, contained in a special cage, given his crimes of utmost depravity - for which he can give very reasoned, logical explanations as to the whys of, which are, it seems, rather convincing...
Does it help that while Hellraiser is based on pure fantasy, Silence of the Lambs draws from the real life terror that the dude in the house three doors down may be a serial killer? That people just as depraved and indifferent to life as both Hannibal Lector and Buffalo Bill walk around among us, have killed among us, have tortured among us, have made couches and lamps with the skin of their victims - in both the past, and likely the present - and that this is real, and has gone on likely as long as mankind has existed?
Which is more frightening? Hellraiser and its fantasy world, or Silence of the Lambs and its based-on-reality world?
The unfortunate fact is that people will continue to hound on the former and ignore the latter - whether it comes to children or adults watching it. People, for some reason, seem oblivious, and likely frightened, of the fact that the ordinary can easily hide the extraordinary and depraved. That the clown hired to tend to a child's party is actually a serial killer hiding the bodies under his house (J. W. Gacy). That a woman can go on a "rampage" and kill her family and friends for seemingly no reason at all (Lizzy Borden). That a person could stalk and kill prostitutes without provacation (Jack the Ripper). That a respected "Doctor" could so easily lure and kill his victims in a "house" constructed to lull and confuse his victims before he killed them (Dr. H. H. Holmes).
They have numbed themselves to the fact that humans are, at base, animals, and that some of us lack both reason and empathy, and are able to commit these crimes without remorse - and day in, day out - these people exist among us, work among us (and in some cases, over us), live next door to us. That, in my opinion, should be way more frightening than any fantasy depiction of violence...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I wrote to Arnold against this bill, you can too: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
... is cleare a "lets pretend" game. There is no way whatsoever that a child could understand that as a glamourazitaion of violence.
Violent games on the other hand depict graphical situations that resemble reality very closely.
You may be forgetting like primates (which is what we are ) learn by imitation, children are imitating all the time behaviour that seems socially acceptable.
If they play 3 or 4 hours a day a game that portrays as acceptable to solve all your problems by killing and maiming other people, in a plausibly realistic environment, how can you compare that againt cowboys and indians?
Gamers should get real and stop the denial. They have a responsability to stop any negative effects that gaming may have in society.
Children should not get adult material without a supervising adult, I don't care if that is a game, a movie or a magazine.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
While governments put their welfare ahead your personal welfare however they put the welfare of their citizens ahead of its own existance. This is still mostly true in the west.
The way I can tell the government cares is that it puts our welfare ahead of its own.
meh
I believe parents can make any decisions for minors, unless the court takes away their custody or something similar.
IANAL, of course
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.