Slashdot Mirror
Congress Sets Sights on Videogames
boarder8925 writes "According to CNET, Congress has set its sights on 'the purported problem of violent and sexually explicit video games.... A U.S. House of Representatives committee on consumer protection says it will hold a hearing on the topic later this month, with a focus on 'informing parents and protecting children' from the alleged dangers of those types of games.' " The article goes on to describe seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children, or study "the effect of electronic media on youths." Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.
The article goes on to describe seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children, or study "the effect of electronic media on youths." Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.
I love how our political system works. You can either vote for the party that pisses all over the middle of the bill of rights... or you vote for the party that pisses all over the top of the bill of rights.
AWESOME!
Push Button, Receive Bacon
According to this article, parents already seem to oversee game purchases.
And anyways, isn't this what the ESRB was started for?
If you can't convince them, convict them.
If games can't have bad effects on people? Then doesn't that mean they can't have good one's either?
It's my, and only my, responsibility to raise my kids. Not that of government, not that of special interest groups, not that of any political party. Mine!
I, and I alone, decide which values to give my kids.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
that they have solved all the big issues and now focus all their attention stuff like this.
Morons.
... the republicans and the democrats are two sides of the same coin.
It makes no sense to differentiate between the two anymore. Sure there are "polarizing issues" -- like them god damn queers and whatever else is on the docket today -- but for the most part it is fairly certain that regardless of a given particular cause, the cause itself seems to be a restriction on individual liberty.
Ridiculous. Cant we let the parents do the parenting? It's really their responsibility for watching what their kids are doing, not the governments.
None of these bills are going to pass, and even if one does, it will be swatted down in court for being unconstitutional.
But feel free to get hysterical anyway. I'd hate for any of you have to actually venture out of your rooms and try to have fun or interact with people.
Or... write in "No Confidence."
I think the fines and restrictions are totally unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional, but I'm 100% in favor of the studies. We've heard enough about violent and sexual video games warping children and turning them into serial killers; let's shine some light on it. Ultimately it's an empirical question with an accessible truth value. I suspect we'll find that video games do not damage children in any statistically significant way, and I think that'll go a long way to deflating this particular political football. If I'm wrong, and it turns out that video games do damage children, then I'd be first in line to regulate their sale. Either way, we're better off knowing for sure.
Recently, watching the Da Vinci Code movie, I marveled at how we have movies that allow PG-13 to contain "disturbing violent images" but only mild sex. There's a lot of sex not in that movie that's in the book. But the violence that was only passing in the book is really graphic in the movie. My conclusion was that the government cares only about limiting sex and not violence. p>
Now I read here that the government cares about violence in video games. Why not in movies?
It's the random way in which the government incoherently stabs us with little points of pain rather than ever creating any notion of consistent policy that troubles me way more than just whether they want ratings on video games or not.
I wouldn't care if they rated all video games heavily for sex and violence, and then left it to the market what to buy. But when they rate some but not all, regulate some but not all, what's the point? The only obvious result I see is the eventual strangulation of all US business by litigation.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Does any of the bills address the Pentagon's usage of video games as a recruitment tool? Last I heard, the military can't even wait for students to get out of middle school before signing them up.
This is where you find out that the Democrats are the other political party and not "liberal" by definition.
They're just following the most basic of political teachings: It's easier to get people to vote if they're "protecting" their "children" from the "bad people".
You don't hate the children, do you?
You don't support the bad people, do you?
The only way to prevent this from happening is by writing letter to your Congress Critters and telling them exactly how you feel about the issues and that they will lose your vote (and the votes of anyone you can convince) if they do not vote against those bills.
Then you just have to convince enough of your friends/family to become an active voting bloc with you.
Freedom is not free. At the minimum, it takes time and effort.
Oh, whoops, I guess it is.
Well, I guess the Democrats have to find something to do with their time this year. After all, if they couldn't find something to keep themselves busy, they might have to start taking on the Republicans on things like systematic corruption-- or the process whereby the management of federal departments like FEMA or NASA have now been bungled to the point where they might as well not exist at all-- or the handling of a "War on Terror" that's long since stopped being about any actual threats to America and started being about just pouring money into a big pit-- or the Republican Congress' refusal to investigate the President's admitted violations of the law.
And of course the Democrats don't want to do that. So it's time to concentrate on the things that are really threats to America's wellbeing-- video games!
I think that sports are way to violent. I think we need to tack an amendment that prohibts all children from watching sports. And makes it a federal offense to let a child play football. Think of the Children. Can someone get me the data for how many children that play sports in school have any sort of illness or injury before they graduate so we can get this passed.
This is what happens when one claims that the reason the opposition party is losing is because they are "immoral" as a whole and approving of measures that infringe on people's rights in order to inforce "morality." The polititians start acting super-extra-jackboots-all-in-your-business "moral" in order to try to convience you to vote for them.
There are people begging for authoritarian "morals" inforcement in this county. And because it seems they are the ones that decide elections, not the rest of us poor bastards, they are getting the attention. Regardless, I do not suffer people willing to steal my freedom for their personal profit.
Out with them all
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
I think it's great that they're going to hold a study on this topic -- the study will PROVE that violence in video games does NOT cause people to be violent. HEY GOVERNMENT, GOOD JOB... now if only you could do things like NOT spend my tax dollars on studies to find out things I could already tell you.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Does it seem odd to anyone else that additional laws are typically enacted to make previously criminal offenses even more criminal-y instead of enforcing those laws already enacted (or perhaps punishing the non-enforcement of said laws)? For instance: killing someone is already a crime - does it really need to be extra crime-y if the victim is somehow different from the perp?
The problem is you won't turn out to be right or wrong. You'll be both alleged right and alleged wrong because each side will pay for biased studies. It's not that good science is not done, it's that bad science is done, too.
See Ron Rivest's very interesting paper on chaffing and compare his theory of security through what amounts to a formalized and theoretically sound notion of smokescreen with the way the market is going.
I think in the end it will be something where people make up their minds and we just have to vote and hope. But I would hope we vote for freedom if we're unsure because freedoms lost are hard to get back. There probably is some occasional effect of violence in movies against weak minds, but the effect of lost freedom is not without tangible cost and I weigh the latter more heavily in my own book of public accounting. No scientific survey will ever sort that out.
For most of us, though, video games still come down to choice. Does letting someone pull a trigger not also let them not pull it? Rather than removing violence, maybe we should focus more on seeing the consequence of violence. In the studies I've chosen to believe (heh), the idea of consequence-free violence is closer to the root of problems than the mere choice of violence.
The Sims, for example, is full of ways to torture people to death with no consequence to the player. I might argue that practice, bloodless as it is, was worse than a game with guns that lets you rescue a princess or save a hostage or a nation, which some might argue instills basic values.
And what about movies, which offer no choice but force you to just ride the course. How is this better than sitting in a movie where you want the violence to stop but can't make it stop without leaving the people you came with. At least a video game gives you a choice at each moment.
It might be kinda cool, actually, if some movies were more videogame-like and you could press a button saying "no more of this kind of scene please" and it would dynamically tone things down for either just you or for the whole of an audience if everyone voted likewise... Then seeing the movie multiple times would give you a different experience every time, too, which would be great for the movie houses...
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
its illegal for me to sell you this video game and I will get fined for it BUT you can tell your mommy that we do have a special on Fighers For Freedom toy guns today.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The only way to "prove" that would be to take groups of kids and allow certain groups to play "violent" video games while the other kids are not allowed to.
Since we probably won't be doing that
This isn't about any real research into this. This is all about "supporting" their views so that they can get more laws passed.
Commercial speech does not get the same protection as other expression. Ads are not protected as free speech (and it's a good thing they are not.) Products are not speech. This board, or an editorial in a newspaper, or a public debate, or whatever you talk about in your own living room is free speech. A game or a product has no status of any kind under the Bill of Rights.
Stuff gets left alone until a certain point is reached. You have to be reckless and be abusing the line with impunity to get the legislature on your case. The abuse of the threshold of violence has been crossed, kids are seeing examples they should not be seeing, and are in effect learning to have zero self-restraint and no remorse about doing terrible things.
If we are mostly dissatisfied with these law-breaking piratical leaders, imagine when a lot of kids come of age with their values and willingness to break laws instilled by video games.
IMO The parents who allow the kids to see these games are abrogating their responsibility to instill values. This is one of the ways the threshold has been crossed and this will get you some kind of governmental intervention every time. If you don't want a nanny worried about how unhealthy these games are, then accept some responsibility and stop whining in defense of things that are indefensible.
Studies into this kind of thing are a bad idea. Such a thing as "violent tendencies" tends to be fairly subjectivly measured. For example, what might be considered normal in a male, might constitute "violent tendencies" in a female.
When it comes to video game violence, no doubt increased adrenaline levels will be seen as justification for an outright ban. Despite the fact that such levels could probably be seen after watching a football game.
What we are seeing here is a classic moral panic. Irrational fears, spiced with only superfically valid arguments, delivered by a hysterical media coverage, all combines to give you... prohibition. And we all know how well that one went down.
People like this do not need to be fed studies and test, surveys and psychology tests. That would feed the troll. These people need to be called what they are. Scaremongers. They need to be publically laughed at, not listened to.
May the Maths Be with you!
make sure to drink a cup of hot coffee
sulli
RTFJ.
It makes me wonder why no other forms of media are affected. Surely encouraging parents to be more wary about what their children watch is also a bonus? I can appreciate that playing a game is more hands-on, but everything can have an effect on a growing child.
Of course, most people who have played violent games in their life are perfectly normal, it's just the occasional few that the media latch onto, when I'm sure just as many people have been affected by watching TV.
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emporer has dissolved the council permanently.
both parties do a lot of social engineering. the republicans are big supporters of extreme christianity, and religion is a major form of mind control, etc...the democrats seem willing to fight to "fix" any social issue if they can get a check and a letterhead...no matter what the facts say.
me? i wish we could toss them all out. you know, my friend has a poster on his wall of a bunch of guys sitting in beach chairs and watching a atomic bomb go off...they're all wearing shades, just having a blast. supposedly some of the new nukes have very little fallout, and are very safe if you are outside a given radius...i ought to be able to buy tickets to go watch one of those bad boys go off, maybe on the 4th of july...in the right settings atomic blasts are very beautiful. but noooooo it's too frickin' politically incorrect.
these absurd social engineering politics, where some up and coming NGO or small-time politicians gloms on to a cause to get a name for hisself, it makes me sick.
there ought to be a constitutional ammendment allowing 10% of a popular vote to override and disqualify any law or policy...and fastracked straight through the supreme court...the justices would have to prove actual harm is likely to keep the law in place, else it swirls right down the shitter. Modern communication tools (internet, telephone) should make such a ammendment both possible and workable.
and the authors of said laws are prohibited from serving on committees for 2 years.
which was payed for by taxpayer dollars and is basically a recruiting tool for the military?
i think we have to ask ourselves: why do anti-video game senators hate our troops?
after all, you are either with us, and our tax funded army recruitment FPS, or you are with the terrorists.
Untill they start jailing parents who take their 7 year olds to an -R- rated movie, they should leave games alone!
What is the opposite of progress? Congress!
Seven coin flips. 128 possible outcomes. 42 of those split five and two and 58 are at *least* that lopsided with toss-up odds. That who-did-more count will mislead the ignorant and irk the rest.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Game makers should just cover their asses and make an agreement/disclaimer that pops up before the game can be played that says,"By pressing the button, you agree that you are playing a game and understand that any violence in the game is for entertainment purposes only. You also agree that the author is not liable for anything detrimental you do in real life as a result of playing this game." Even if people don't read it, at least the game makers won't get in trouble for it.
I propose the tag "breadandcircuses" for articles like this.
I've been waving my shotgun around at the slightest noise while cowering behind this upturned dining table for years! For a long time I've been expecting video games to smash my doors down or climb through my windows and anally rape me, but now that the Guvmint is going to spend many hundreds of millions of tax dollars to banish this terror once and for all I can finally take this old blanket off my head at last.
In other words, exactly what happens with fines for selling cigarretes to minors right now... it doesn't stop dick.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Normally when a blurb like this comes up about 95% of slashdot freaks out and starts screaming "It's the bible beating republicans". Now that the blurb actually points out it's the democrats the posts are suddenly "the problem is both parties!"
This kind of double standards piss me off. Come on fuckers! Vote em out! Vote em all out! or was the rest of that just bullshit talk because you keep your fucking blinders on when it comes to the democrats? Do you vote on ideals or do you vote on the party line? I think the answer is apparent.
not from the us.
my question is that when in movies, if it is rated r-18 (restricted as far as it goes for me,) then people watching below the age of 18 are prohibited from doing so. reasons for the restriction may include violence and sex.
for the video game side, people are saying that there should be no rating (or if there is, mature ratings can be sold to young people.)
i'm just baffled as why it is ok for the movies and not ok for the games. it can either be the movies and games both ban sale depending on the rating. (on the basis of moral grounds as argued by people.) or ratings in movies will be removed and everyone including kids will be able to watch those restricted films. (on basis of free speech as argued by people.)
maybe someone can shed some light to this?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
What do you want for nothing? Rubber biscuit?
This stuff never worries me.
the wedge issues:
abortion
race
gay marriage
sex and violence on tv
etc..
they will never go anywhere because there are always large numbers of people representing each side, but theyre nice little red herrings to drag up and grandstand upon during elections.
meanwhile, the real issues get swept under the rug so the incompetent can remain in office.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The reason congress isn't seriously investigating activities that the press has called "illegal" is because they approved of all of those activities in the first place. Not only that, but the still do approve of them. And not only the republicans support it, so do the democrats. Why would they want to draw attention to the fact that the approved of some politically unpopular programs? You'd be better off if you'd just look at the facts and realize that the democratic party is not now, nor has it ever been the party of civil rights.
I guess the real problem isn't that the political parties are against civil rights, so much as the american public is. At least two thirds of this country is obsessed with inappropriately controlling aspects of other peoples lives. Some people want to tell you not to do drugs, some people want to tell you not to have gay sex, some people want to tell you you can't shop at wal-mart, some people want to tell you that you can't decide how to spend you own money, some people want to tell you that you can't play violent video games. Add all of that fucked up shit together and you have millions of people using the ballot box to try to control and regulate every little aspect of your life.
And then, people pretend that just because you can vote, they aren't trampling all over your rights. WTF? If I want to buy pot and gay porn at wal-mart, why the hell shouldn't I be able to? These people always talk about what's good for society, and the common good and all that crap, but you know what's really best for society? Everyone staying out of everyone else's shit. That's what's best for society. When it comes down to it, democracy is just another way of doing the same thing dictators do.
Pslaee ecsxue me, as Enslgih i'snt my fsrit lagnauge. I d'ont tihnk taht the gnoernvmet slhuod get ioelvvnd in cpemtour gmaes, and tehy souhld sictk to pltiaciol gaems.
Legislation is not going to fix the problem. What ever happened to parental responsibility? You can make all the laws you want, but if the parents are not responsible adults then the laws will mean and do nothing. You cannot legislate responsibility!
Love sees no species.
I was actually (somewhat) supporting these – I've reached the point where I'd be willing to take up religion just so the Grand Theft Auto guys can burn in hell – but by now they're just getting obnoxious. What happened to actually getting stuff done?
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Plain and simple. The FAE is definitely not helping here, but I think a great deal of it is that people just *like* to see the government doing ANYTHING that seems morally right.
Hopefully, of course, the whole thing will blow over. Our grandparents (or for you older slashdotters, maybe even your parents) claimed that Rock & Roll was downright satanic. Heck, way back in the day, books like Chopin's THE AWAKENING or Hawthorne's THE SCARLET LETTER were seen as extremely overtly sexual and inappropriate.
This content bashing has been going on for a LONG time.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
What do these damn politicians think they can do? They can't stop game developers from making 'explicit' games. They can make a law making it a crime to sell M games to underage kids, but who's going to inforce it? Who's going to care? They can't stop us from playing games, because that'd just be against the first ammendment.
I'm tired of all these politicians that think they can rule the internet and games.
Is the parents. Television has long been an electronic babysitter, and video games brought interactivity to the mix. Parents saw it as a blessing.
Then they went out and bought games for their kids. They had no idea what the games were, nor did they bother to look at the packages, etc. They just saw the green case and did a double-take at the mocha colored images on the package but then thought that little Johnny was worth it. But they missed the rating that's ALREADY on the box. In the case of GTA: San Andreas it clearly states that it's rated M for Mature 17+.
Under some of these proposed laws, if I happened to be playing the game and a friend of ours brought their 14 year old over, I'd be in the hoosegaw for $5000.
Our legislators need an education, Hillary Clinton included. But congress has long turned a deaf ear on science or logic.
In this day and age, new technology that brings about actually [b] important[/b] issues such unlike gay marriage and abortion, we do not need congress to make new legislaton [b] every year[/b]. Congress is overly useless, pointless, and []b no longer needed[/b]. I don't mean, the other two branches can have their way, I mean we [b] don't need anymore effing laws[/b]!! Like someone said, people seem to value [b] morals [/b] over [b] rights [/b] now. People are to stupid, and uneducated to care about our [b] rights [/b]. The only people who are politicians, or want to be active in politics, are those who want power, and to use the government to their own advantage. Currently, the MPAA and RIAA, have seemingly unstoppable power, in the government. Why is it that the movie industry, and the music industry have this power, have no legislation against them, [b] and [/b] can induce the government to put pressure on other countries, or deny another country a service, if our government doesn't do what [b] the MPAA, RIAA, and movie industry [/b] want? Simple: they are paying the representatives money to make the reprsentatives do what they want. It's all so simple and obvious, the gaming industry is new, and doesn't have it's hold in congress like the other two industries. Congressmen and representatives get payed money to run for office, by these industries, the game industry simply doesn't anymore. I predict what I know happened to the other indsutries will happen to the video games indsustry soon enough: the market will be flooded with unsavory crappy games, monopolized by these agencies, and nothing but absolute [b] crap [/b] will make it into the market. I no longer watch TV, it has absolutely nothing of worth to me, and the content on it is offensive, and insulting to me. Between being insulted by advertisements, threatened by advertisements, watching crappy reality TV, cool sci fi shows, with the cheapest possible set and actors, who couldn't act if their life was on the line, I do not want to watch this BS. Right now, video games are quite expensive to make, and not a definite guarnatee of profit, but it's getting there. As the older generations die off, and take their unworthy views with them, the generation that grew up with video games comes into power, but then what? Well, I can tell you, then video games are cheaper to make, less difficult to make, so the market is flooded with [b] crap [/b] like the movie and music industries, only what the rich people executives makes the scene, anything else gets absolutely no attention. The people controlling this herding of the world are the rich elite, families who control the world. Snobby rich asholes who grew up rich, seek to take advantage of what we all love, and make money off of it. People's think moral > rights now, because rights aren't very well, fun, anymore. You've got computer games, music, all this stuff, who the hell gives a fuck about [b] rights[ /b]? Am I right people? I think so. I hate this consumerism that our world has. People value their lives more than they value themselves or other people, that is the reason for our current drug problems, and the constant battle over [b] property [/b]. The rich have felt this way for centuries, but now, no, now they value something else, I don't know what, but they techonology has finally allowed us [/b] poor common folk [b] to enjoy what they have for oh so long. You're job should need [b] you [/b] not the other way around.
Or you could just crumple up your ballot and throw it in the trash. (Which, incidentally, most Libertarians wouldn't want the government to pick up.) Sorry, but Libs have just as many problems as either of the two mainstream parties.
focus on 'informing parents and protecting children' from the alleged dangers of those types of games.
It would be better to protect children from a knowledge-phobic society first.
I don't suggest that these games be banned at all, but take a look at the Clinton bill. All it does is ban the sale of M-rated games to kids. Parents can still buy these games for them (so there goes all the "I'll parent the way I want to" arguments) and it even uses the industry's voluntary rating system. It's arguably more lenient than the system for movies (parents must be in the theatre for an R-rated movie but don't have to play an M-rated game with their kid). Tim Buckley, the author of the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic, suggested this solution himself, and he's one of the most outspoken defenders of games.
I just don't see how this backlash on the boards is helping our cause. The studies proposed can only help, provided that they're done correctly, and the Clinton bill, though associated with some strong rhetoric, takes the reasonable middle ground. Shouldn't we, the gamers, be rushing to take that middle ground too?
Recently, watching the Da Vinci Code movie, I marveled at how we have movies that allow PG-13 to contain "disturbing violent images" but only mild sex. There's a lot of sex not in that movie that's in the book. But the violence that was only passing in the book is really graphic in the movie. My conclusion was that the government cares only about limiting sex and not violence.
This would be a great point, if your example were based on fact. Neither the book nor the movie are sexual or terribly violent. There is violence in the book, but I feel the movie was pretty faithful to the book in terms of describing the violence that occured. In fact, the now infamous vitruvian man scene, and the scene right before where he was killed, happens in the movie almost exactly how it happened in the book.
Also, there was a scene describing a sexual ritual to which one of the characters witnessed in their youth, and it was a pretty brief flash in the movie, but you have to understand that you can tell a story of imagery a lot quicker in a 2 second movie clip than you can in 2 pages of a book. Other than that, there were no sexual situations in the book.
Please pick another example. I agree with your point, but your example you pulled out of your ass.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Who cares? Except for the kids, who don't yet have souls and aren't yet human beings according to the law, these laws don't affect anyone who wants to play their games in peace...
It's been a long time.
My children need protecting from the US Government, which has a long, dark, black, and bloody history of taxation, wars, violence, theft, corruption, and human rights violation.
Someone table some legislation to abolish the government and police state we now live in. I would feel much safer and I would feel my children were far more protected.
Video games... you can turn those off. Its time we do the same to the government. Pull the plug. Why not. More government funded bullets, bombs, and so on have killed more people than anything else in the world.
~~~~
I have a brilliant idea. Its so amazingly brilliant, its a big duh.
Get rid of all soldiers, and you get rid of all wars. Its a simple as that.
Nobody join any army. Ever. Period. Everybody who is currently in the military, just quit, and get real ****ing jobs. Of every country on earth.
You do that, finally, humanity can stop ****ing around wasting resources down a toilet and get out there seriously into deep space. I'm tired of my taxes at the gas pump going to fund people who either sit on their ass all day, or shoot at other people.
I can protect myself. In fact, when it comes down to it, YOU are the only one that is going to protect yourself. Not your government. Your government will run right over you in a heartbeat without a second thought. No, we don't need your protection. State power needs to be disbanded because its a pox on humanity.
Incredible. So sneeringly condescending, yet so naïve...
So many of us would love to vote them out. We would gladly cast votes for candidates who don't propose legislation based entirely on the bleatings of focus groups, and who doesn't put popularity above common sense.
The problem is, you're preaching to the choir, bruthah. (If by "preaching" you mean "being alienating and insulting.") We're not the problem. The problem is that there is no shortage of candidates who do just that--they've literally made a science out of fooling as many people as possible into thinking that they represent their best interests while doing little but muddy the waters and sully their station. And there's no shortage of induhviduals who eat up the FUD with a spoon in each hand because they think they're voting for their man.
Personally, I think the situation needs to get significantly worse. Slave-labor-camp worse. RIAA-rent-a-cops-shooting-to-kill worse. Eminent-domain-gone-wild worse. American-Idol-gets-preempted-three-straight-weeks- by-the-President-saying-everything-is-improving worse. Only when they start to notice that something is amiss, when they, or their children, or their relatives is finally inconvenienced to death, will they be ready for a long-overdue sea change.
Now, how can we make it worse?
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Libertarians are vile, vile people.
why don't you think about all the twisted ways people behave.
Should there be no intervention between a child and abuseive parents?
You may raise your kids, but you don't raise the other thousand they go to school with.
All they want is a way to let parents know what some games have in them. This is good so people have an opportunity to make INFORMED decsions when allowing there kid to do something. This is a GOOD thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Then congress can get down to implimenting the largest LAN party in the DC area during filibusters.
Live on CSPAN:
John Gilshore: Colorado (D):"To The senator from Maine - YOU'RE SO PWNED! Noob BIATCH - Boom! Headhshot!"
George Crawshank: Maine (R):"I move to censure the camping rocket whore from Colorado"
I spent all the money I made selling crack on an education to make video games !
Now WTF am I supposed to do ?!
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
As far as I know the video games that include violence and sex are rated for not so young people. People that could find the same stuff on tv without any problem anyways.
This witch hunt against video games is as stupid as it can get. I for one do not think that violence in video games causes violence in the real world (else I would be a serial killer) I actually think that it is the opposite, violence in the real world is the cause of violence in video games
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
That looks to be insightful.
I think every Senator, Governer, Representive, etc. should be faxed a copy of Voices From The Hellmouth. Should be an interesting read.
Eat the fucking children.
I have some spices and a large grill ready! We don't want their juicy and tender little souls corrupted by video games. Tut tut, pass the tarter sauce. And don't skimp on the baby back ribs.
In Michigan they allready had a law that restrics the sale to minors but the courts said it is against the right of free speech. About time a judge knows what the bill of rights are. Games have rateings anyways that parents can use if they want to when they see what their child is playing.
What could it be that's causing little Johhny to behave poorly? Could it be the crippling lack of funding for our public schools? Or is it the video games?
Forget other issues... regualting video games will solve all of our problems!
Come on.... why don't they focus on more imporant isssues?
Just my feelings...
It never did. If you're voting for a party, you're a moron. Vote for people, not parties. There are good ones and awful ones in all of them.
Ah, the smell of bullshit in the evening. This is what Republicans would like you to think, especially in an election year where their utter incompetence/corruption/malfeasance is an issue. You're aware they control both houses of Congress as well as the executive branch, right?
(a) Zonk is wrong. Lieberman is a Republican, in all but name, and progressive Democrats are trying hard to get him out of the party in the August Dem CT primary by replacing him with a true Democrat (google "Ned Lamont"). The count is 2 Republican bills, 4 Democratic, one Democrat-in-name-only-lunatic-censorship-boy.
(b) Zonk doesn't seem to know how Congress works. A bill must pass both houses of Congress to become law, so we're actually looking at four attempts at lawmaking, three Democratic and one Republican. Let's look at the bills:
1. One set of bills, including Clinton's bill, bar sale or rental of "mature" video games to minors. Aside from Clinton's obvious pandering to the rednecks (progressives aren't happy with her either, she won't be the nominee in '08, trust me) what's the problem here? The alternative in this supposedly 'Christian' theocracy-mined political climate is to ban M-rated games entirely.
2. One set of bills, including Lieberman's bill orders Fed study on effects of "electronic media" on kids. Ooh, a study! Scary stuff! Again, we're going to remove Lieberman this August. Progressives hate him; he's not a real Democrat; First Amendment fans hate him; gamers hate him; music fans hate him. Oil companies and the religious theocrats love him.
3. One House bill, which has no Senate equivalent, is broad in scope, and it was introduced by some backwards Dem in the House: "Requires study of computer game rating system and recommendations for new laws". This would suck.
4. The Republican bills instruct the FTC to investigate GTA, which strikes me as crazy-ass buearacratic meddling, but whatever.
Logic no longer plays a role. Geeks understand logic. Let us see:
Penis in Mouth = Bad.
Gun in Mouth = Good.
Israel has bomb = Good.
Iran has bomb = Bad.
Dictator in North Korea = Who Cares!
Dictator in Iraq = Kill 2,400+ Americans and 10 Iraqis (racially adjusted figures) so a draft dodger can dress in a uniform and hold the stick on a plane on autopilot, while a nation waves flags and cheers, we're #1! we're #1.
But absolute power corrupts absolutely.
First thing the geeks would do is ban Oracle, Microsoft and nVidia (for their lame attempt at a CG monopoly and screwing up their FX card) and ATI (for not supporting linux). No 3D cards. Imagine telling 16 million loser teenagers they have to play WoW as a text adventure. We'd have a revolution. "I regret I gave but one toon to give for my country."
Either way, we're screwed.
This is a joke. They think it is a way to beat up on a straw man, and look tough. It is also a red herring for the war, which IS SPONSORING MANY CAMPAIGNS.
You should all go join the ACM and support a credible movement for digital freedoms. Also, you [Americans] should all go join a local DFA group so you can pick one of the as**oles closest to you and chip in to get him un-elected. If you sit back and whine, you will force the video game companies to start paying for legislators' political campaigns (to get congress off their backs for starters), and then they will jack up the price of video games to pay for it, and they will ask the congressmen for more draconian DMCA crap so they can squeeze you for those dollars. You are the one, Neo. What are you going to do about it?
Checklist:--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
This is why 75% of my vote is conservative.
With the right to bear arms, I can, individually or as a part of a group (known as all the gun owners in america), defend every other right on the list.
I know it sounds crazy but if the police started spraying innocent protestors with tear gas, as long as they had the right to bear arms, they could fire back and defend their right to peaceable assemble. Granted they would probably be killed or imprisoned for years, it still ethically qualifies as self-defense.
Sure I'll bite they'll call violent imagery "inappropriate for minors." Well guess what the deceleration of independence called for the violent overthrow of the British government. If that proclamation were being written now it would be disparaged as "inappropriate for minors,"
and as the sort of thing bad people read. Yes my freedom IS more important than your desire to excessively shelter your yuppie spawn from the real world. Yuppie spawn that BTW if they are more than 10 years old I'm quite certain could cuss a prude like you under the table. Please do your job as a parent yourself and don't to try to pawn that important work off on the state who will only do it badly AND limit the freedom of adults in the process. For example IF draconian video game laws were to pass Wal-Mart and other chains might stop carrying them altogether which tramples on my rights as a middle aged adult. Screw that!
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
... time to wind up the more extreme elements of the Congress' support base.
Don't worry, on November 8 it will be as if nothing ever happened -- because nothing will happen.
Lobbyists from EA, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc will see to that.
Think I am cynical? Look at the kind of sleaze that occupies Washington and say that with a straight face.
the only reason they hold these hearing is to please overactive parents who are too lazy to raise their children or just want to have a say in how other people raise their children. its the ESRB's duty to rate the games, its the parents position to be involved in their kids lives. Some people know that more government involvement is not the answer while other cant get enough or just use it to inflict their beliefs on others. Elected officials are forced to act in such a way in order to please that group while others have an agenda. Unless a person has a serious mental problem its 99% of the time the parents fault for the actions of the children either by being too overbearing or setting a bad example. Its fine if people want to live their lives according to their religious beliefs but totally ridiculous if they try to make the rest of the world bend to their will because they believe their way is the best.
The fact you seem unaware of there being more then 2 parties suggests a fault in your information gathering tools or methods. I'd suggest investing in new tools and/or methods to gather information with.
get used to that slogan, because you're going to be hearing a lot of it in 2008. Personally I agree with you, but ever since the 19th century a vast majority of people have not. We don't live isolated lives anymore. Maladjusted little shit kids grow up and commit crimes. More crime means more police. More police means less personal liberty for everyone. So the argument goes, we need to control and standardize parenting to ensure criminals are not nurtured.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The State is Mother, The State is Father.
Oh, and don't forget to pick up the new armbands on the way out!
Oh look, it's an election year again. Yes, it's only a mideterm election but it's still time for those up for re-election(again) to bring up the "sensitive"/"controversial" issues again. It doesn't matter if it passes or not or if the rest of the country agrees with it(or not) just that the 1%(senate) or less than 1/4 of 1%(house) of the country that put/keeps them in office agrees with how they voted. It's not about keeping the kids safe, only keeping their seat in congress safe for another 2 or 6 years.
No, I didn't even bother to look at the article.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Meaningless war in Iraq? Nah.
Global warming? Feh.
Skyrocketing petroleum costs threatening to derail our economy? Big deal.
Government spying on citizens for no apparent reason? So what.
What we really need to focus on are the digital blood and boobies.
Disgusting.
And Hillary's right in the thick of it. Bush is stupid but she's calculatingly stupid.
This guy is way out there
Video games are virtual terrorist training camps! We should invade at once!
-Rich
what about motherfucking television? my dad didn't let me watch terminator because it was violent. thank good gravy cocksucking christ i can watch desperate housewives or softcore on skinemax late night, and what about that? it's already on tv, don't point fingers at video game companies.
While only a small fraction of violent criminals are even familiar with video games, nearly all of them have been exposed to the Bible, a book containing and glorifying torture, genocide, incest, and many other despicable acts. Furthermore, many murderers have explicitly stated that they were motivated by the Bible.
(I'm only semi-kidding; I think the Bible cannot be banned, and most criminals would be criminal with or without it. But the Bible really is a horrific document and it really has been used to justify more killing that any other single document. And while the Bible contains some parts that promote moral behavior, large parts of it can only be described as abhorrent and reprehensible.)
It's a nice idea, I'll give you that. The kind of nice idea you probably picked up from your freshman sociology prof, but, heh, whatever. Unless you're just trolling. Either way...
There's a very simple & justifiable reason for a nation to have an army - other nations might not be run by pacifists. If you do get rid of your army, but they don't, then you're even worse off - not only are you in a police state, but the police aren't even local...
Okay, so we'll just have an army for defense. It won't ever leave our own borders, for any reason. That should work, right? Well, okay...
But as much as the idea is appealing, I think the events of the 1930's should have demonstrated the inherent problem with isolationism - if somebody whose honest goal is "conquer the world" gets control of a decent country, you're going to be at war with them eventually. And as with most things, sooner is better than later...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Hear me out before you mod me troll.
Yes, I know parents should be parents, but that argument stops working as soon as the children are trusted to be out of the house alone. I'm not American, but as a Brit, I presume it's way below age 18. In America, 15 year old Timmy can go out and buy GTA legally (if he can find a store that will sell it to him). Is that the parents' faults? Should they be watching his every move? I'm still a minor (17), and it would sure as hell be an invasion of privacy to me.
The video rating system in the UK is strange, but reflects my opinions exactly. Only games that meet a certain threshold of content have to be rated (i.e. GTA's violence level), and are rated by the same company who rate movies. Some people get those below the threshold rated voluntarily, but generally only do it because "PG" is more familiar to parents than "7+", and still has no regulation. The rest have to be rated by PEGI, which has similar power to the ESRB; many retailers regulate them but they don't have to
So like in America, little 8 year old can still buy Halo (again, assuming the retailer will let him), but shouldn't because his parents should be parenting. But here, a 15 year old can't buy GTA, unless the retailer wants to put themself in a bit of legal trouble.
As for video games being regulated while movies aren't, I agree, THAT is unfair. But movies are regulated here too, so my stance is they should both be.
meet the BFG9000
*DrugCheese rants*
Wait... that's a virtual simulation of fantasy politics. You got it wrong. Here's what it should be:
In a virtual simulation of real world politics, you enter the federal capital of the USA as Jack Thompson to give blowjobs to senators until they vote for your bill
What they talking about, sexually explicit... tell em to come here to Japan, then we can talk explicit.
American troops are deployed in the middle of a huge civil war, gas prices are heading upward for ever and ever, global warming is starting to get going, the federal debt is growing by $2000 per year for every man, woman and child and what is congress doing?
They are worried that video games are the work of the devil and they are corrupting the nations youth.
Way-to-go! Clap-clap-clap.
The main difference between now and the 1930's is that the US won the war that resulted and has made sure it came out on top.
Nowadays all the best, most technologically advance weapons come from the US. OK, so russia did give us the AK-47, but that alone will not let you successfully invade another country. If the west wanted to remove the threat of another country the easiest method is what we did to Iraq in th 1980's - You impose sanctions and stop them getting any weapons that threaten anyone other than themselves.
Of course the big problem with this approach in Iraq was that it also stopped the west getting as much oil as they need to drive SUV's everyday. So rather than stop buying inefficient vehicles they came up with a plan to convince the public that the armed forces were needed to "stabilise" the world. I defy anyone to show me how the US and UK (I am british) have helped stabilise Iraq.
I fondly remember the days when the US and UK were looking at cutting their military budget, but now those days are gone and all we can do is hope that the US Govt comes to its senses and realises that their powers should end where their borders do. The British lost our empire in the second world war (mostly) and I for one think that was one of the best outcomes. (I am also glad I was not brought up speaking German)
(Please ignore my sig on this post as this is a serious comment from a serious pacifist - not just a troll for a change)
I dont read
Remember the saying "The devil makes work for idle hands"?
It often seems to me that the reason politicians come up with these madcap ideas is that they have nothing better to do.
It's depressing.
The problem with this, though, is that in throwing that decision up the ladder, freedom to make that decision or similar decisions in the future is lost. People in this country are yelling about losing their freedom (DMCA, PATRIOT, etc.) yet they have been asking to lose their freedom for decades by saying "you be responsible for this!"
The fundamental concept here, and it has been proven by history, is this: in order to have freedom, you must have personal responsibility. If you don't want to have responsibility for actions, then you give up your ability to make decisions for yourself. If you want any "leadership entity" (government, bosses at work, religious organization, whatever) telling you what to buy, what you should like and what you shouldn't, what you should fear and what you should embrace - you have lost your freedom.
Incidentally, in this particular issue, the root issue is *not* what is portrated in entertainment media, but the social situation of the individuals who are exposed to that entertainment media.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Sometimes this country is weird to understand.
9 6&pid=813
On one hand the laws let people get driving license at 16, which is a huge responsibility, but forbide them to drink alcohol until 21. Somehow young americans are adult enough to drive a large truck (which could potentially kill people), but too much of a child to learn how drink decently in a bar.
The sight of a boob sickens the good thinking of this society, whereas the US is the international headquarters of pornography. A boob flash caused a very nice and mild foreign movie called Amelie to get an "R" rating, but the Da Vinci code with its graphic pictures is PG 13... (Audrey Tautou plays in both).
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=107
How do you want young people to ever become adult, if you take out all the responsibilities for them? Stop dreaming, a society of pious and virgin devouts will NEVER exist. They will always be temptations in this world, but I prefer to be an adult teaching my kids how to grow up in a free world were such things exist rather than in an oppressive one that demonize them hypocritically.
Sex, boobs, violence, but also war in Iraq are realities. I don't want the government think that I'm too stupid to raise my kids correctly, and that my kids are too stupid to cope with that. And moreover, I guess money could be used better than paying those morons to review (=censor) movies, games or whatever the hell they are doing.
"...seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children..."
An ideal way to totally shatter all of those proposals:
Develop a highly successful and highly violent game, and release it online for free.
I'd love to see the response to that. What are they going to do, make it illegal for websites to host games that would receive a rating of "Mature" in the USA?
It would fucking rule if there was a huge school shooting where the culprit(s) played only America's Army at home, had posters of it everywhere, wore America's Army merchandise-clothing, listened to the music from the game, etc. etc.
Then again I don't know why I say that, because then the media would just automatically revert to the next scapegoat which would be that the culprit(s) had serious mental issues etc. and it had nothing to do with the fact that he/she/they played America's Army all day.
That would actually be a huge intellectual leap though, so maybe we really would get the satisfaction of all the people with the "place-blame-and-sweep-the-issue-under-the-rug" complex going insane and exploding spontaneously...
There is such a thing as game trailers that can be found all over the internet. If your child knows the game title all you have to do is use a search engine to find the game's title and trailer to the game so you can see a preview, you may have to search around to see more than one trailer but this way you are protecting your KIDS.
Better yet, vote Libertarian. Libertarians are against government intervention into personal lives. The R&D crew on the hill both want to dictate how people live their lives. Get rid of them both.
~X~
~X~
See subject.
The most ironic in this is that, back in the 19 century, for a married couple to be "conservative" meant to take their kids to watch first hand criminals being hanged. The reason? Because it was thought that the duty of parents was to teach their children what the world is, not what they wanted the world to be.
Don't take me wrong. I'm myself a very, very conservative guy. But I can't see this BS as a conservative ideal. Actual conservatives are for market solutions to market problems, nor big government intervention into private affairs. This is so damn true that actual conservatives are even for home-schooling, despising government schooling! How is it then that so many self-proclaimed "conservatives" come around wishing that government take into its hands their duties as parents? Nonsense? Non-sequitur? No such luck! These self-proclaimed "conservatives" are simply big government idolaters. In terms of methods, they work, act and think exactly as liberals. The only difference between both is that they have different ideas on what society "should be". To accept the world as it is? To not try changing it according to their own will? Ha! Never heard about that!
Disgusting.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Seriously...I see people with kids out in public and I think "I bet that tubby schlub and his orca-wife vote for politicians who would remove my rights to protect their children". I find myself shunning them.
I can't help it. I think I need therapy or something. Why am I willing to take the time to protect my own children and they won't?
Blar.
In this specific instance (U.S. vs. Iraq 2), I agree it was a flawed idea from the beginning. In the more general case, any time a big, powerful state starts a war with a smaller state, it's almost certainly unjustified, with (a very few) exceptions. But the original posters' "having an army = bad" is a bit idealistic.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I think the congress should put out it's own game. It could be a 3d takeoff on Civilization. You start out with a whole country that is running well but a terrible noise is coming out of your speakers. That noise is millions of complaints made by people in your game's country. You shut the voices up by writing laws and getting them passed. The kicker is that when you propose a law the game switches to a different set of noises,louder and more obnoxious, these are the voices of opponents to your law(lobbyists,congressmen,citizens, etc.) and they are almost enough to drive you from the game. You have to either rewrite your law to quiet those voices or make additions to your law and promises of support for other laws that may be proposed until it gets popular enough to face a vote. I won't go into the mind-numbing amount of work still ahead with getting through conference committee to iron out differences between the house and senate version of the bill or facing a possible veto or even judicial challenges that could pop up out of nowhere(not to mention frivolous lawsuits),let's assume you get past all of that and you get the law you wanted written into the books. Now the game switches back and wait for the peace and quiet to tell you "ya done good kid" only to find the noise in your speakers louder and more obnoxious because the country moved on to another gripe or your law is the new gripe. You do have weapons at your disposal to aid you in your quest for peace. You have personality which is displayed as a bar graph, influence which is displayed as a stack of money,and power which is displayed on your character as increasing or decreasing size. Losing or gaining any or all of these weapons determines how hard it is to get your law passed. The real excitement in this game however is the fact that once you start playing you can't stop, it won't shut down and the noise doesn't stop or decrease in volume unless you pass the right laws. Also,don't think you'll get away with just unplugging if you get tired. The game is programmed to wipe out every file on your computer except what is needed to play the game and it will be there when you restart. The only way to get out is to lose the next election but heaven help you if you play badly enough to cause that.
Rates of violent have been dropping quite steadily as video games (and other media) have become more realistically violent--and dropping most sharply in precisely the segment of the population who are the most ardent consumers of such entertainments.
So without doing a single study, we already know one thing: Any pro-violence effect of videogames would have to be small relative to other social/demographic factors impacting the indidence of violent crime.
Eternal Forces: Left Behind, The Video Game.
Can I get a HALLELUYAH? [/snark]
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Of course, I have also consumed vast amounts of pornography, and been exposed to (thank you internet) some pretty disgusting porn. I've yet to go out and rape someone. So that's another claim (porn makes people commit rape) that is ridiculous on its face.
Pornography reduces sex crimes.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Now that the blurb actually points out it's the democrats the posts are suddenly "the problem is both parties!"
Uh. It *is* both parties. Five of the bills were D-sponsored, two R-sponsored. More are sponsored by D, but that's the way life goes.
And that's just manipulation again.
Voting for a third party is, in a system with the voting structure set up the way it is in the United States, throwing your vote away.
Finally, I don't think that there is a single party that represents all my views very well.
I don't like the Republican's social views (or their current tendency to blow massive amounts of money on military expeditures).
The Democrats are the closest, though there are things like this that are annoying. If Joe Lieberman (Mr. Videogame Censorship) had become VP, I would have been pretty unhappy.
The Libertarians have some nice ideas, but they're really, really short on actual practical implementation, which in the end is what matters. You want to slash government spending? Fine. Which departments are you going to lose? The FDA? I *like* being able to go down to the grocery store and buy anything without worrying about it harming me. The National Park Service? I *like* our national parks, and I think that if anything, we probably spend too little on environmentalism.
Take a look at their platform. They want to eliminate consentual crimes. I think that a lot of what we call "victimless crimes" *have* costs -- they're just hidden, rather than obvious. I'm not a fan of heroin legalization, because I think that there's significant impact to non-users, and because once you use the thing, you may not have the ability to back out and learn from your mistake.
They want all-volunteer juries. I disagree. This is a good way to get collections of activists on juries. The point of juries is to ensure that the judicial branch is not deviating wildly from common views, not to try to make law through the jury. The last thing I want is a minimally-educated and informed group of people who lack the ability to ask questions regarding a case to be trying to legislate things.
They oppose involuntary institutionalization. Sounds good, and there was a time when the situation in asylums was pretty dark. However, when someone's in an asylum, it's because they're posing an issue to others.
I still don't know what the hell the "American Indians should have their property rights restored" chunk of their platform means, but I can easily see myself not agreeing with it.
I strongly disagree with their views on monopolies. This is the single strongest reason why I would oppose the LP controlling the government. They favor an unregulated, free market. They do not acknowledge the existence of natural monopolies -- they think that given a completely unregulated free market, everything will work out for the best. That's simply not the case. The Econ 101 idealized free market -- agents fully informed, all resources and businesses fluid, agents rational and thus not subject to marketing pressures -- does not exist in real life.
Looking at California, I'm not sure that deregulation of utilities that are natural monopolies -- which the LPs support -- is a good thing.
Their take on pollution is not workable in the real world. It's not possible to evaluate how much damage and who pollution is affecting. You just build a taller smokestack or a more hidden pipe. Even our rough estimates are expensive to produce.
I'm not certain that halting subsidized public education is a good thing. I think that the benefits of having at least some education throughout the populace is pretty significant.
I think that their take on political secession is complete and utter nonsense, and totally unworkable in the real world. According to the LP, *I* can secede with my house and the surrounding property. That would be interesting from a tax perspective. They'd probably
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I guess that means the government has taken care of terrorism, immigration, and the economy. Now we can focus on the important stuff, like making sure children never see anything violent or sexual and ensure homosexuals never have equal rights, not to mention prevent anyone from burning the american flag. Let me just say im proud of the government for taking care of this stuff so fast, i didnt even see it happen.
I guess this is "Interstate Commerce" again, right?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
People -- this is nothing but a good idea! Its not censorship.. And its not stupid.. Some video games *do* de-sensitize people to violence. *Some* people really are influenced negatively by video games, and quite frankly as a parent, I can completely understand the need for a ratings system and some access control. Some games really are disturbing -- have you heard of 'left behind'? I wouldnt want my child exposed to that garbage! By having a ratings system which allows parents to guage a video games content, it helps them make a sound decision on whether or not they want their children exposed to it.
Parents dont have the time these days to reseach, evaluate, and determine if the latest title their child asks for is appropriate for them or not. And they shouldnt have to worry about their 12 year old kid going down to the store and picking up a game where the object is to kill people of a different race or religious orientation to get a better score!!
Its bad enouugh that that there are people in the world which find this sort of thing entertaining. As a fair society, the very least we can do is allow those parents who actually care enough about their kids, the ability and the tools to ensure they they are exposed to material appropriate to their age and maturity level.
-- NeTMoNGeR
...make it look like the writer dislikes democrats? does to me.
--(JohN)-- "KiloWatt"/"FawkesArmy"
I'm glad that they are able to work on an issue like this because it must mean that they've solved more important issues like global warming, high energy costs, extreme poverty and hunger, the war in Iraq, sky rocketing health care costs, a failing school system and the impending melt down of Medicare.
To work on a trivial issue like gaming content while really important issues go unsolved would be really fucking stupid.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I know your joke had a grain of truth ;) I'm not the OP but I'm a Mac Gamer(TM). There are a few of us left who have refused to cave in to buying a windows machine, yet enjoy playing games. At this point it probably becomes a religious defiance, but anyway ;) I play Call of Duty 2 (yes... just came out), Zero Hour, WoW, Quake 4, and the Desert Combat Final mod for BF1942. I've bemoaned the lack of games like FarCry and HL2 but the games that do exist on macs already take up enough of my time. I suppose when I switch to an intel-powered mac later this year sometime that dual-booting for games will come in handy.
Blame the Dems. They're the ones that want into your bedroom to stop you from having anal sex. Or, who want to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. Or, who want science taken out of schools in favor of myths and fairy stories. Oh... wait...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
If you are raising them to accept violence as socially acceptable then it becomes my problem.
SInce we don't know what you are doing, and I can't go and put your children straight, the best thing to do is to provide you with the tools (classifications, penalties against people that that decide they are better educators than you without your approval, warnings in packaging, etc) to allow you to make informed decisions.
If you go, buy Kill,kill,kill v. 134 for your children in spite of warnings and classifications, nobody is going to bat an eyelid.
But you (no, me) don't want such contents reaching your children hands without interested adult supervision.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Schools do transmit values. We have Christian schools, Muslim schools, agnostic schools and even home schooling. For bunny's sakes, to say schools should not transmit values is completely idiotic.
Heck, any form of human organization does transmit values.
The simple fact that schools exist is by itself alone propagating values.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So he was right after all.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.