I just saw this and I think you're too kind. It's not only a boring recap, it's a boring recap that seeks to in some way justify the unjustifiable. Oooo, I spent a night in jail because of a stupid law or stupid cops, so now I am going to destroy the cars of my neighbors who had nothing to do with it! Lookee me, I am irrationally lashing out at society!
It's not "begging the question" it's answering the point later.
I don't believe you did.
It's still sticky, though, as making a citizen's arrest doesn't afford you the protection from lawsuits that the cops have.
Yep. As it should be.
I did. You decided to snip and ignore them. See "Flat earth" and "blacks are 3/5 of a person" for examples of the "People" being wrong.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say the people can't be wrong. I said the burden of proof is on you to show it. In those cases you mentioned, we (almost) all agree that "the people" used to be wrong. If you now wanted to say the people are wrong and blacks should be treated as 3/5 a person, then the burden of proof would rest with you to show it, and convince people.
Your dodge about democracy/republic doesn't make any difference. The world would not suddenly become flat if the majority voted that it be so
And neither is it wrong for government to do what you call "parenting" just because you say it is.
I don't IGNORE that fact. I *point out* that fact as the MAJOR FLAW in the law.
No. You keep talking about how the law helps parents who don't discipline their child, which is a straw man, ignoring the actual point of the law, which has nothing at all to do with what you're talking about. The law has nothing to do with the discipline of the child, but the actions of the retailers, so attacking it on the basis of an aid to discipline is simply wrong.
Wait a second. Above, the kid was buying the game and doing the wrong thing, but here, the retailer is coaxing him to do it? Which is it?
See, just like this. I never stated or implied this was about a child doing a wrong thing, but an adult doing a wrong thing. That's what you continue to not get.
Is the kid a mindless robot that follows any command it's given
Of course not. But neither is he a fully responsible adult who is capable of making his own decisions.
or does it have a mind of its own, despite an underdeveloped sense of causality and consequences?
Yes, which the retailer takes advantage of.
The government should provide education in the terms of Math, reading, and science.
You said before you were against public education, which is obviously "parenting." Now you are for it?
Acceptable behavior, consequences, and right and wrong are entirely the baliwick of the parent.
I never implied otherwise, in any way whatsoever.
The kid who sneaks off to buy something he knows he's not supposed to have, be it GTA, a bag of weed, or a box of condoms, is NOT A VICTIM.
Of course he is. He is incapable of making responsible choices on his own. If he were so capable, he would be an adult, not a child. And someone who takes advantage of the fact that he is so incapable for his own personal gain is a predator, by definition.
Errr... "I am the parent, I am therefore right?"
About my child, yes. Of course.
No, that's really not how it works.
Yes, it is.
For starters, you are the parent for YOUR kids, no one else's.
I never proposed any otherwise.
Thus an all-encompassing law isn't appropriate.
The law in question does not in any way tell anyone how to be a parent for anyone else, including their own or someone else's child. That you think so shows you really don't understand it at all. Indeed, all it does -- in total -- is state that ONLY the parent gets to make such decisions; that is, it specifically ASSERTS that I am the parent for my kids, and other parents are the parents for their kids, and no one else but the parents for their own kids may make parenting decisions for those kids.
That is: it says a retailer may not be the parent for my kid by choosing to sell him adult material.
You have, at every opportunity, downplayed your responsibility f
That's begging the question. I am saying selling adult materials to minors without parental consent should also be a crime, you're saying it should not. Simply saying one is a crime and the other is not is no argument.
In the case of "grabbing your gun and finding the guy," that it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement would be written in whatever local laws prohibit vigilantism.
No such laws exist. Thankfully. If you thought I meant I would execute him, then yes, there are laws against that; but I meant no such thing. My intention would be to apprehend.
In the interest of full disclosure, that is something I don't disagree with you on, but the law does.
No, it does not.
I would absolutely NOT leave out education.
You think the government should not provide any education to its citizens? Huh.
I've known many people, including many libertarians, and I know scores of homeschooling parents and children. I've never met one person who was against government providing education.
"People," including you, can be wrong.
Not in a democracy, no.
Of course, thankfully, we don't live in a democracy, but a republic. Still, this is an issue on which little is said in our Constitutions, and therefore the people get to make the decision, and their decision is necessarily right, unless you can argue against it from Constitutional principles or somesuch.
You could mean you simply disagree with it, which I'll grant, but still, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that history a nd law and tradition in these matters should be disregarded for some other alternative. Good luck with that.
However, one thing that I absolutely, unwaveringly, completely place in the realm of "parental responsibility" is discipline, and that is the nature of this entire issue.
No, it's not. The nature of this issue is that children are children and will do wrong things and that adults should not be allowed to take advantage of that, especially against the wishes of the parents.
Again you ignore thge *fact* that the *focus and intent* of the law is not about the children, but about the retailers.
Being the victim of an attempted murder does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child. Being sexually abused does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child. Being kidnapped does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child.
A retailer taking advantage of an impressionable child by selling him adult material does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child.
Why is sex with a child rape, by definition? Because the child is a child, who cannot be counted on to make the decision to have consensual sex.
This is not about the children. It's about those who prey on the children.
Your argument ends up being entirely circular, as it was when you began above: you think this does not amount to abuse, and should not be a crime, so therefore it is less severe. But that is YOUR opinion, and I am the parent, and I say you're wrong, and because I am the parent, I am therefore right.
You equated the cops hunting down the guy who tried to run your kid down with the cops busting the pimply-faced kid at the local GameStop selling him an objectional game. If that isn't what you meant, maybe you should proofread better.
I didn't do it, so maybe you should read better? Again, what I did was point out that your logic, your absolute statements, does not differentiate between those things.
Attempting to run someone down with a car is, and should be, a crime no matter the AGE of the victim.
Whether the activity is dependent on the age of the victim is entirely beside the point. What if an adult has sex with a very underage child? Should the government be involved? According to the logic you've presented, no, they should not. But obviously, they should.
So what's the differentiating factor that makes selling adult material to kids not OK for the government to be involved in, but makes having sex with kids OK for the government to be involved in? What makes one "parenting" and the other not?
Further, why would you even say going after someone who tried to harm your child is not parenting? In my book, it certainly is. I'll grab my gun and find the guy if I can, as this is part of my job as a parent. Where is it written that this is the sole responsibility of law enforcement professionals? Not in any law that governs my country, state, county, or municipality (well, I live in no municipality, but still).
Indeed, this is one of the most important parts of being a parent.
I think *ANY* government "parenting" is improper. It doesn't get simpler than that.
The problem is that your definition of "parenting" has thus far been vague, subjective, and ill-defined: you state an absolute rule, without having an objective criteria by which to define it. You leave out of "parenting" things I would obviously include (going after criminals who attempt to harm my child, education), and include things which I and most people historically and presently would consider the government's responsibility, regardless of how you label it. So what's the definition?
You do realize that my post remains visible completely visible, right?
Hell, I'm counting on it. That's how people can read and see my analysis is correct.
You EXPLICITLY WANT your parenting to be public business.
Only if you define "parenting" in a patently ridiculous way (which you do).
Holy shit. Selling a kid a video game is the same as attempted murder?!
No, why would you think so? I certainly didn't say it. Try reading again, maybe?
What I did was show how your logic ("government helping parents" == "unwarranted and unwelcome government intrusion") is obviously flawed.
It's your logic -- not mine -- that inevitably leads to the example I offered. You're the one who has failed to distinguish between proper and improper government "parenting," despite repeated requests by me that you do so. You simply continued to make blanket statements about your money being used to do things parents should do, and neglected to show where the line is that makes one thing worthy of your money, and another thing not.
The government protecting rights would be a law allowing civil action.
Right. So you think Thomas Jefferson was full of shit. He did not have tort law in mind when he wrote about how the government's primary duty is to protect the rights of people, he was speaking specifically of government action. So too Martin Luther King Jr., and everyone else behind our Civil Rights Acts, which you apparently want to repeal.
Your parenting abilities are going to cost me money, and as such, I reserve the right to criticize them.
I never said you couldn't criticize. But so too can I criticize your feeble attempts at criticism.
So now you are once again denying your own words. First it was not about parental rights, then it was, then it was not again, and now it is again.
Ow, whiplash!
I count 4 failures on your part
And I count one more time you are explicitly hypocritical by claiming on the one hand my parenting is none of your business, and then proceeding to criticize my parenting.
To put it more clearly, ONLY incompetant parents are whining about "parental rights."
And only incompetent people draw from their own limited experiences and make universal statements about what "only" certain people do.
Further, only incompetent people misspell "incompetent." (Yes, spelling flames are lame, but when you're attacking someone else's intelligence while displaying your own lack of same, well, it's just asking for it.)
You're allowing the government to parent for you, and they're using my money for it.
So when I ask the police to catch the person who tried to run my child over with a car, that is the government parenting for me?
If that's not, then this is not.
And if so, then "parenting for me" has no useful meaning. You've done nothing at all to distinguish between this, and other violations. Your arguments amount to nothing less than total anarchy: everything is asking the government to do something, and that is being a "crybaby" and we shouldn't do it, so the government therefore should do nothing at all. And if the government should do nothing, then there's no point in having one.
So anarchy it is, according to you.
If I see it "properly" your way, it means I've lost all sense of self-respect and have turned into a nanny-statist crybaby like yourself.
Yes, it is "nanny-statist crybaby" to demand that government protect rights! Damn that Thomas Jefferson! He was such a total whiner!
This is a given. Criminal trials are paid for at taxpayer expense.
Um, you're missing the point. I was focusing on the second part of the sentence, where you deny what you said you affirm: that the point of the law is parental rights. Instead you said the point is lack of ability to supervise.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. There's no denial there.
Ok, so you're not a liar, you're just stupid. Because no, "parental rights" and "parental incompetence" are not remotely the same thing.
How do I have it backwards?
Because it is not making it everyone else's business. Indeed, it is stating that it is no one else's business, and therefore you cannot get involved by making the decision to sell it to my child.
You want me to not criticize your parenting, then stop claiming the "right" to use my money to do it.
I'm not. You're still seeing this incorrectly. I am not asking for your money to do parenting for me; I am demanding the government disallow others from parenting for me.
Until you can see it properly in this way, you have nothing intelligent to say about the issue.
That's because they made THIS law instead. The one where *I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.
It's a simple fact that the basis of this law is about one thing only: to protect the rights of parents. That you deny this only shows you have nothing intelligent to say about this issue.
It's also true that you have continued to neglect to differentiate this law from others that protect children, and thereby align yourself with those would get rid of all such laws, which puts you solidly against well over 90 percent of public opinion.
And that you continue to criticize how I choose to parent only proves you are entirely hypocritical, since your argument requires me to accept that my parenting is my business alone, and not yours.
So you're clueless about the law, you're against overwhelming public opinion, and to top it all off, you're a hypocrite.
I just told you that you have the choice and that it is your responsibility regulate what the child watches. What is the problem?
No, you did not. Please don't lie to me, especially when the record is absolutely clear. It's just insulting.
What you said is that if I don't want them doing one thing, I should not let them do another: that if I don't want them playing games, to not let them have a TV.
If he/she is so out of control in that he/she is playing or watching things you don't approve of then why aren't you taking the TV away from them?
Why is it any business of yours? Again, you're not the parent here. It's none of your damned business.
You're a total idiot. On the one hand you tell me I should make all the choices and decisions and everyone else should stay out of it, and on the other, you are telling me what I should not do and second-guessing me. It's incredible that you can't see how completely hypocritical and two-faced you are.
I'm not asking people to beat their own kid or anything. Just take a bit more personal responsibility because government legislation won't solve bad parenting.
This has nothing to do with bad parenting. Only idiots think so (hence, you). This has only to do with one thing: someone else usurping my authority to parent as I see fit. That's all. That's it, entirely. Bringing anything else into this shows a complete lack of understanding of everything that's going on here.
Bingo. A far better solution than the one they are offering.
Um, except that it is perfectly legal and there is therefore no grounds for a lawsuit. So, um, no.
Yes.
No, you don't.
When these laws prove just as incapable of keeping violent video games out of the hands of minors as they are keeping porn, booze, cigarettes, and drugs away from them, the "think of the children" crowd pushes for outright bans.
But those movements are never successful, so who cares what they push for?
Failing that (as they will), the next step brings more of the Jack Thompson's out of the woodwork, and streams of lawsuites against the developers are launched.
You have it backward: that these retailers legally sell these materials to children INCREASES the frequency of such lawsuits. Many have written that the industry should welcome such noninvasive laws as these, in order to indemnify themselves from the Thompsons of the world.
Given enough time and propaganda, they might even start to succeed, the developers may find that constant payouts are cutting into their profits, and decide its safest to just keep churning out sports games and falling block puzzles, with nary an FPS in sight.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. GTA has been under fire for years, and GTA:SA was still the hottes video game in history.
Sure, it's unlikely, but entirely possible, and I'm not going to support it just because you don't want to do your job as a parent.
Again, you refuse to see the truth here. Or are incapable of it. Either way, you are quite obviously and clearly wrong in your characterization, as the intent and effect of the law is solely to forbid others from taking my job as parent, from usurping my authority and making a decision about what my child should have access to.
Sane and reasonable and logical people, and parents, understand this. Kids who have little experience and understanding, like yourself, don't.
It was directly implied by your opposition to legislation the sole purpose of which is to say he does not.
I said that KEEPING him from doing it without your consent is YOUR job, not the government's.
So I may arrest him if he violates my parental rights? Or sue him?
the simple fact is anyone who thinks that laws based on this kind of thought process will only keep "objectional" material out of the hands of minors, and not interfere with consenting adults getting their hands on it is naive.
Um... name one way -- just one -- in which this would interfere with an adult's access to such materials. I can think of one and only one myself: an adult who looks young who has no identification proving his age. But that's such a tiny amount of people, and such people are extremely unlikely to have a gaming machine anyway, that I don't think it is significant. Have you got any other way?
Also, realize you are also arguing against laws that forbid the sale of *anything* to a minor, including alcohol, tobacco, porn, and guns, which interfere with consenting adults exactly as much.
No, that's what the government is doing with all these laws.
I know many people think so, but they -- like you -- are wrong. If this were true, then every law that makes it illegal to provide something to a minor is "treating parents as less than parents." Society doesn't agree with you, and thinks you're a looney.
I don't think you're a looney, I just think you're ignorant. But society really does think you're a looney, because you think that some guy I've never met has the right to make the decision to sell adult material to my child, without my consent. And it's hard to come up with an idea that is loonier than that.
No, you're completely off-base and off-topic. I am not talking about the politics surrounding the Starr Report, I am talking about COPA, and the fact that the EFF made the deceptive and false argument that COPA would make the Starr Report illegal to post online.
Then why make a law? Why are they wasting legistlature time with this?
Because retailers recklessly violate the wishes of the parents, often.
If a parent can't keep their kid from having a PS2, Xbox, or computer and then even fail to prevent the child from obtaining a $50 or more purchase then why the hell are they giving them money!!!
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Just because I give my child money and send them off into the world, hopefully to do the right thing, doesn't mean that anyone should be able to sell to them porn, or a gun, or alcohol.
If the kid is earning enough money on his own with a job then perhaps you should be parenting them, because obviously if he has money it isn't that hard to pay an 18 old friend in highschool to go out and buy these games for him...
More nonsense. Just because laws can be circumvented does not mean we don't have them. Again, by the same logic, laws against selling *anything* to a minor -- porn, guns, alcohol -- are useless. But they're clearly not.
You can't really hide a console and games like you can hide a dirty magazine. If you don't want your kid playing these games then don't give them a friggin TV.
Um... who the hell do you think you are? If I want my child to have a TV to watch PBS and play educational games I've approved, who the hell are you to tell me, the parent, that I shouldn't?
You're making no logical sense.
You're just proving that this really is about the industry usurping and ignoring parental rights.
They signed a bill banning obscene material on the Internet... I think 1997. It was declared unconsitutional (first amendment) and repealed soon after.
There were a few attempts. However, it was how the law was constructed, not the actual goal of restricting the supplying of adult materials to children, that was at issue. So you can't reasonably imply that because those laws failed, that therefore government cannot restrict people from providing adult material to children.
And I am still pissed at the EFF over that. They told a ton of outright lies about the CDA and COPA (such as saying the Starr Report would be illegal under COPA, despite the fact that it was quite clearly exempted under the "serious political interest" clause of the bill).
The part you're neglecting is that it is the natural (or God-given, for you theists) right of parents to decide if their children should be able to have these games. And the law is merely recognizing that fact, and if it did not do so, it would be rescinding the rights of parents, which it -- as you say -- has no authority to do.
making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights. Perhaps you should read that amemdment again. No one's free speech is being squelched.
The real point here is not that this content can be kept from children by government edict. Indeed, the laws in question don't do that. Instead, they do what has always been a protected right by the government: they protect the right of parents to make that decision. The government cannot say "children can't have GTA," and it does not say that. The laws say, in effect, "it is the right of parents, and parents alone, to determine whether the child should have GTA."
There's no question but that states have the right to make such laws. The question is only in how they are tailored, making sure they do not, in fact, infringe on anyone else's rights more than is minimally necessary to effect this state interest in protecting the rights of parents from groups like IEMA that want to allow retailers to make those decisions instead of the parents.
That aside I fully agree with putting more control in the hands of content creators. It just doesn't seem right that the middle-man -- the publisher -- has almost all the control (in games, music, etc.). The creators are far more important than the distributors, and should be respected as such.
If by "should" you mean the publisher should be forced or obligated to give up control... no. Not at all. It is entirely their decision, and any control the game designer has is because it has been granted to him by the publisher, who may revoke it at will (subject to whatever contract is between them). Whoever pays the bills makes the decisions, period.
It may be better as a business decision or practical matter to give more control to the game designer, but generally speaking, the publisher is under no obligation of any sort to do so. And he should not be under any such obligation.
Ask the publishers who pay the developers' bills. The Bill of Rights linked here is directed at them. It is the publishers who don't want to risk paying for new and innovative ideas. As investors, they'd rather risk their money on a 'sure thing' than throw millions of dollars at an unproven idea. THAT'S why you see rerashes, sequels, and movie tie-ins. It's not because of a creative crisis in the industry.
That's largely true, but... so what? It's their money. If they want to invest it in a rehash or sequel, then that is entirely their right. If they want to not give any creative rights to their developers, they have no obligation to do so.
It's funny how most engineers seem to lean to the right when it comes to corporations and free market.
Being sensible is funny? OK.
I think this comes from a complete lack of ability to empathize with or understand situations that are removed from their own.
No, it comes from a deep and broad understanding of how the economy works, and does not work.
Currently you find significant resistance to words like "Union" because it clashes with their free-market faith, but as the market shifts and starts crushing engineers, you'll see them clamoring for restrictions on business and union-style solutions.
Speak for yourself. I certainly won't. The current labor laws are plenty for me. I fully realize that us computer programmers have been paid far more than we are worth, on average, over the last decade. I won't whine about how "unfair" it is when that comes to an end (and it surely will). I'm just a cog in the machine like everyone else.
This is already starting to become evident--in these days of Indian labor and off-site contracts I'm starting to hear less from the free-marketeers and more from people seeing the problems that always come when you get close to a true free-market
Mumble mumble Marx mumble Means of Production mumble mumble.
They say it's based on the bill of rights for comic creators - how much have Marvel and DC bend for that? What did Todd, Keith and the the rest of them at Marvel do? They left. They formed Image. That's the only way the game developers are going to get what is in that bill of rights.
Exactly.
How many book authors have total control? Script writers? Reporters? Whoever foots the bill calls the shots, and you have no rights to anything unless it is spelled out in the contract, and you know what? You need them more than they need you (unless you are one of the lucky few with capital enough to go out on your own).
Dude. You have no rights to anything. It's what you WANT, not what you have a RIGHT to. And feel free to negotiate those terms when you sign your contract. Else, shut up and code, you little monkey.
Slashdot Mirror
I just saw this and I think you're too kind. It's not only a boring recap, it's a boring recap that seeks to in some way justify the unjustifiable. Oooo, I spent a night in jail because of a stupid law or stupid cops, so now I am going to destroy the cars of my neighbors who had nothing to do with it! Lookee me, I am irrationally lashing out at society!
It's not "begging the question" it's answering the point later.
I don't believe you did.
It's still sticky, though, as making a citizen's arrest doesn't afford you the protection from lawsuits that the cops have.
Yep. As it should be.
I did. You decided to snip and ignore them. See "Flat earth" and "blacks are 3/5 of a person" for examples of the "People" being wrong.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say the people can't be wrong. I said the burden of proof is on you to show it. In those cases you mentioned, we (almost) all agree that "the people" used to be wrong. If you now wanted to say the people are wrong and blacks should be treated as 3/5 a person, then the burden of proof would rest with you to show it, and convince people.
Your dodge about democracy/republic doesn't make any difference. The world would not suddenly become flat if the majority voted that it be so
And neither is it wrong for government to do what you call "parenting" just because you say it is.
I don't IGNORE that fact. I *point out* that fact as the MAJOR FLAW in the law.
No. You keep talking about how the law helps parents who don't discipline their child, which is a straw man, ignoring the actual point of the law, which has nothing at all to do with what you're talking about. The law has nothing to do with the discipline of the child, but the actions of the retailers, so attacking it on the basis of an aid to discipline is simply wrong.
Wait a second. Above, the kid was buying the game and doing the wrong thing, but here, the retailer is coaxing him to do it? Which is it?
See, just like this. I never stated or implied this was about a child doing a wrong thing, but an adult doing a wrong thing. That's what you continue to not get.
Is the kid a mindless robot that follows any command it's given
Of course not. But neither is he a fully responsible adult who is capable of making his own decisions.
or does it have a mind of its own, despite an underdeveloped sense of causality and consequences?
Yes, which the retailer takes advantage of.
The government should provide education in the terms of Math, reading, and science.
You said before you were against public education, which is obviously "parenting." Now you are for it?
Acceptable behavior, consequences, and right and wrong are entirely the baliwick of the parent.
I never implied otherwise, in any way whatsoever.
The kid who sneaks off to buy something he knows he's not supposed to have, be it GTA, a bag of weed, or a box of condoms, is NOT A VICTIM.
Of course he is. He is incapable of making responsible choices on his own. If he were so capable, he would be an adult, not a child. And someone who takes advantage of the fact that he is so incapable for his own personal gain is a predator, by definition.
Errr... "I am the parent, I am therefore right?"
About my child, yes. Of course.
No, that's really not how it works.
Yes, it is.
For starters, you are the parent for YOUR kids, no one else's.
I never proposed any otherwise.
Thus an all-encompassing law isn't appropriate.
The law in question does not in any way tell anyone how to be a parent for anyone else, including their own or someone else's child. That you think so shows you really don't understand it at all. Indeed, all it does -- in total -- is state that ONLY the parent gets to make such decisions; that is, it specifically ASSERTS that I am the parent for my kids, and other parents are the parents for their kids, and no one else but the parents for their own kids may make parenting decisions for those kids.
That is: it says a retailer may not be the parent for my kid by choosing to sell him adult material.
You have, at every opportunity, downplayed your responsibility f
Again, rape is a crime, and rightly so
That's begging the question. I am saying selling adult materials to minors without parental consent should also be a crime, you're saying it should not. Simply saying one is a crime and the other is not is no argument.
In the case of "grabbing your gun and finding the guy," that it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement would be written in whatever local laws prohibit vigilantism.
No such laws exist. Thankfully. If you thought I meant I would execute him, then yes, there are laws against that; but I meant no such thing. My intention would be to apprehend.
In the interest of full disclosure, that is something I don't disagree with you on, but the law does.
No, it does not.
I would absolutely NOT leave out education.
You think the government should not provide any education to its citizens? Huh.
I've known many people, including many libertarians, and I know scores of homeschooling parents and children. I've never met one person who was against government providing education.
"People," including you, can be wrong.
Not in a democracy, no.
Of course, thankfully, we don't live in a democracy, but a republic. Still, this is an issue on which little is said in our Constitutions, and therefore the people get to make the decision, and their decision is necessarily right, unless you can argue against it from Constitutional principles or somesuch.
You could mean you simply disagree with it, which I'll grant, but still, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that history a nd law and tradition in these matters should be disregarded for some other alternative. Good luck with that.
However, one thing that I absolutely, unwaveringly, completely place in the realm of "parental responsibility" is discipline, and that is the nature of this entire issue.
No, it's not. The nature of this issue is that children are children and will do wrong things and that adults should not be allowed to take advantage of that, especially against the wishes of the parents.
Again you ignore thge *fact* that the *focus and intent* of the law is not about the children, but about the retailers.
Being the victim of an attempted murder does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child.
Being sexually abused does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child.
Being kidnapped does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child.
A retailer taking advantage of an impressionable child by selling him adult material does not imply a lack of discipline on the part of the child.
Why is sex with a child rape, by definition? Because the child is a child, who cannot be counted on to make the decision to have consensual sex.
This is not about the children. It's about those who prey on the children.
Your argument ends up being entirely circular, as it was when you began above: you think this does not amount to abuse, and should not be a crime, so therefore it is less severe. But that is YOUR opinion, and I am the parent, and I say you're wrong, and because I am the parent, I am therefore right.
You equated the cops hunting down the guy who tried to run your kid down with the cops busting the pimply-faced kid at the local GameStop selling him an objectional game. If that isn't what you meant, maybe you should proofread better.
I didn't do it, so maybe you should read better? Again, what I did was point out that your logic, your absolute statements, does not differentiate between those things.
Attempting to run someone down with a car is, and should be, a crime no matter the AGE of the victim.
Whether the activity is dependent on the age of the victim is entirely beside the point. What if an adult has sex with a very underage child? Should the government be involved? According to the logic you've presented, no, they should not. But obviously, they should.
So what's the differentiating factor that makes selling adult material to kids not OK for the government to be involved in, but makes having sex with kids OK for the government to be involved in? What makes one "parenting" and the other not?
Further, why would you even say going after someone who tried to harm your child is not parenting? In my book, it certainly is. I'll grab my gun and find the guy if I can, as this is part of my job as a parent. Where is it written that this is the sole responsibility of law enforcement professionals? Not in any law that governs my country, state, county, or municipality (well, I live in no municipality, but still).
Indeed, this is one of the most important parts of being a parent.
I think *ANY* government "parenting" is improper. It doesn't get simpler than that.
The problem is that your definition of "parenting" has thus far been vague, subjective, and ill-defined: you state an absolute rule, without having an objective criteria by which to define it. You leave out of "parenting" things I would obviously include (going after criminals who attempt to harm my child, education), and include things which I and most people historically and presently would consider the government's responsibility, regardless of how you label it. So what's the definition?
You do realize that my post remains visible completely visible, right?
Hell, I'm counting on it. That's how people can read and see my analysis is correct.
You EXPLICITLY WANT your parenting to be public business.
Only if you define "parenting" in a patently ridiculous way (which you do).
Holy shit. Selling a kid a video game is the same as attempted murder?!
No, why would you think so? I certainly didn't say it. Try reading again, maybe?
What I did was show how your logic ("government helping parents" == "unwarranted and unwelcome government intrusion") is obviously flawed.
It's your logic -- not mine -- that inevitably leads to the example I offered. You're the one who has failed to distinguish between proper and improper government "parenting," despite repeated requests by me that you do so. You simply continued to make blanket statements about your money being used to do things parents should do, and neglected to show where the line is that makes one thing worthy of your money, and another thing not.
The government protecting rights would be a law allowing civil action.
Right. So you think Thomas Jefferson was full of shit. He did not have tort law in mind when he wrote about how the government's primary duty is to protect the rights of people, he was speaking specifically of government action. So too Martin Luther King Jr., and everyone else behind our Civil Rights Acts, which you apparently want to repeal.
Your parenting abilities are going to cost me money, and as such, I reserve the right to criticize them.
I never said you couldn't criticize. But so too can I criticize your feeble attempts at criticism.
This ... law protects your parental rights
So now you are once again denying your own words. First it was not about parental rights, then it was, then it was not again, and now it is again.
Ow, whiplash!
I count 4 failures on your part
And I count one more time you are explicitly hypocritical by claiming on the one hand my parenting is none of your business, and then proceeding to criticize my parenting.
To put it more clearly, ONLY incompetant parents are whining about "parental rights."
And only incompetent people draw from their own limited experiences and make universal statements about what "only" certain people do.
Further, only incompetent people misspell "incompetent." (Yes, spelling flames are lame, but when you're attacking someone else's intelligence while displaying your own lack of same, well, it's just asking for it.)
You're allowing the government to parent for you, and they're using my money for it.
So when I ask the police to catch the person who tried to run my child over with a car, that is the government parenting for me?
If that's not, then this is not.
And if so, then "parenting for me" has no useful meaning. You've done nothing at all to distinguish between this, and other violations. Your arguments amount to nothing less than total anarchy: everything is asking the government to do something, and that is being a "crybaby" and we shouldn't do it, so the government therefore should do nothing at all. And if the government should do nothing, then there's no point in having one.
So anarchy it is, according to you.
If I see it "properly" your way, it means I've lost all sense of self-respect and have turned into a nanny-statist crybaby like yourself.
Yes, it is "nanny-statist crybaby" to demand that government protect rights! Damn that Thomas Jefferson! He was such a total whiner!
Yawn.
This is a given. Criminal trials are paid for at taxpayer expense.
Um, you're missing the point. I was focusing on the second part of the sentence, where you deny what you said you affirm: that the point of the law is parental rights. Instead you said the point is lack of ability to supervise.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. There's no denial there.
Ok, so you're not a liar, you're just stupid. Because no, "parental rights" and "parental incompetence" are not remotely the same thing.
How do I have it backwards?
Because it is not making it everyone else's business. Indeed, it is stating that it is no one else's business, and therefore you cannot get involved by making the decision to sell it to my child.
You want me to not criticize your parenting, then stop claiming the "right" to use my money to do it.
I'm not. You're still seeing this incorrectly. I am not asking for your money to do parenting for me; I am demanding the government disallow others from parenting for me.
Until you can see it properly in this way, you have nothing intelligent to say about the issue.
I don't deny this.
You're lying. You denied it several times. Here:
*I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.
Except it is not about supervision of the child, but protection of parental rights. And more directly you denied it here:
The intent of this law is to mask your incompetence and let the government do your job for you.
Again, no, it is about protecting parental rights.
So, you're a liar.
Having them disagree with me is the highest praise I could ask to receive.
Goody for you.
By embracing this law that makes everyone pay for your failings, you MAKE it everyone else's business.
Nope. You have it entirely backward.
That is the largest point of my criticism, whether you chose to ignore the point or not.
No, I recognize that is the largest point of your criticism, and it is on that basis that I pointed out the fact that you do not understand the issue.
That's because they made THIS law instead. The one where *I* have to pay for the enforcement of a law based on YOUR lack of ability to supervise your child.
It's a simple fact that the basis of this law is about one thing only: to protect the rights of parents. That you deny this only shows you have nothing intelligent to say about this issue.
It's also true that you have continued to neglect to differentiate this law from others that protect children, and thereby align yourself with those would get rid of all such laws, which puts you solidly against well over 90 percent of public opinion.
And that you continue to criticize how I choose to parent only proves you are entirely hypocritical, since your argument requires me to accept that my parenting is my business alone, and not yours.
So you're clueless about the law, you're against overwhelming public opinion, and to top it all off, you're a hypocrite.
Hooray for you.
I just told you that you have the choice and that it is your responsibility regulate what the child watches. What is the problem?
No, you did not. Please don't lie to me, especially when the record is absolutely clear. It's just insulting.
What you said is that if I don't want them doing one thing, I should not let them do another: that if I don't want them playing games, to not let them have a TV.
If he/she is so out of control in that he/she is playing or watching things you don't approve of then why aren't you taking the TV away from them?
Why is it any business of yours? Again, you're not the parent here. It's none of your damned business.
You're a total idiot. On the one hand you tell me I should make all the choices and decisions and everyone else should stay out of it, and on the other, you are telling me what I should not do and second-guessing me. It's incredible that you can't see how completely hypocritical and two-faced you are.
I'm not asking people to beat their own kid or anything. Just take a bit more personal responsibility because government legislation won't solve bad parenting.
This has nothing to do with bad parenting. Only idiots think so (hence, you). This has only to do with one thing: someone else usurping my authority to parent as I see fit. That's all. That's it, entirely. Bringing anything else into this shows a complete lack of understanding of everything that's going on here.
Bingo. A far better solution than the one they are offering.
Um, except that it is perfectly legal and there is therefore no grounds for a lawsuit. So, um, no.
Yes.
No, you don't.
When these laws prove just as incapable of keeping violent video games out of the hands of minors as they are keeping porn, booze, cigarettes, and drugs away from them, the "think of the children" crowd pushes for outright bans.
But those movements are never successful, so who cares what they push for?
Failing that (as they will), the next step brings more of the Jack Thompson's out of the woodwork, and streams of lawsuites against the developers are launched.
You have it backward: that these retailers legally sell these materials to children INCREASES the frequency of such lawsuits. Many have written that the industry should welcome such noninvasive laws as these, in order to indemnify themselves from the Thompsons of the world.
Given enough time and propaganda, they might even start to succeed, the developers may find that constant payouts are cutting into their profits, and decide its safest to just keep churning out sports games and falling block puzzles, with nary an FPS in sight.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. GTA has been under fire for years, and GTA:SA was still the hottes video game in history.
Sure, it's unlikely, but entirely possible, and I'm not going to support it just because you don't want to do your job as a parent.
Again, you refuse to see the truth here. Or are incapable of it. Either way, you are quite obviously and clearly wrong in your characterization, as the intent and effect of the law is solely to forbid others from taking my job as parent, from usurping my authority and making a decision about what my child should have access to.
Sane and reasonable and logical people, and parents, understand this. Kids who have little experience and understanding, like yourself, don't.
Where did I say he had that right?
... name one way -- just one -- in which this would interfere with an adult's access to such materials. I can think of one and only one myself: an adult who looks young who has no identification proving his age. But that's such a tiny amount of people, and such people are extremely unlikely to have a gaming machine anyway, that I don't think it is significant. Have you got any other way?
It was directly implied by your opposition to legislation the sole purpose of which is to say he does not.
I said that KEEPING him from doing it without your consent is YOUR job, not the government's.
So I may arrest him if he violates my parental rights? Or sue him?
the simple fact is anyone who thinks that laws based on this kind of thought process will only keep "objectional" material out of the hands of minors, and not interfere with consenting adults getting their hands on it is naive.
Um
Also, realize you are also arguing against laws that forbid the sale of *anything* to a minor, including alcohol, tobacco, porn, and guns, which interfere with consenting adults exactly as much.
No, that's what the government is doing with all these laws.
I know many people think so, but they -- like you -- are wrong. If this were true, then every law that makes it illegal to provide something to a minor is "treating parents as less than parents." Society doesn't agree with you, and thinks you're a looney.
I don't think you're a looney, I just think you're ignorant. But society really does think you're a looney, because you think that some guy I've never met has the right to make the decision to sell adult material to my child, without my consent. And it's hard to come up with an idea that is loonier than that.
No, you're completely off-base and off-topic. I am not talking about the politics surrounding the Starr Report, I am talking about COPA, and the fact that the EFF made the deceptive and false argument that COPA would make the Starr Report illegal to post online.
Then why make a law? Why are they wasting legistlature time with this?
... who the hell do you think you are? If I want my child to have a TV to watch PBS and play educational games I've approved, who the hell are you to tell me, the parent, that I shouldn't?
Because retailers recklessly violate the wishes of the parents, often.
If a parent can't keep their kid from having a PS2, Xbox, or computer and then even fail to prevent the child from obtaining a $50 or more purchase then why the hell are they giving them money!!!
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Just because I give my child money and send them off into the world, hopefully to do the right thing, doesn't mean that anyone should be able to sell to them porn, or a gun, or alcohol.
If the kid is earning enough money on his own with a job then perhaps you should be parenting them, because obviously if he has money it isn't that hard to pay an 18 old friend in highschool to go out and buy these games for him...
More nonsense. Just because laws can be circumvented does not mean we don't have them. Again, by the same logic, laws against selling *anything* to a minor -- porn, guns, alcohol -- are useless. But they're clearly not.
You can't really hide a console and games like you can hide a dirty magazine. If you don't want your kid playing these games then don't give them a friggin TV.
Um
You're making no logical sense.
You're just proving that this really is about the industry usurping and ignoring parental rights.
Also, that you yourself are not a parent.
Can't mandate what? No one is mandating anything for parents. You're confused.
They signed a bill banning obscene material on the Internet... I think 1997. It was declared unconsitutional (first amendment) and repealed soon after.
There were a few attempts. However, it was how the law was constructed, not the actual goal of restricting the supplying of adult materials to children, that was at issue. So you can't reasonably imply that because those laws failed, that therefore government cannot restrict people from providing adult material to children.
And I am still pissed at the EFF over that. They told a ton of outright lies about the CDA and COPA (such as saying the Starr Report would be illegal under COPA, despite the fact that it was quite clearly exempted under the "serious political interest" clause of the bill).
What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for?
Any and every part the parent says they are not ready for.
The problem is, sir, is that you treat them as something less than a person.
No, the problem is that you are treating parents as less than parents.
The part you're neglecting is that it is the natural (or God-given, for you theists) right of parents to decide if their children should be able to have these games. And the law is merely recognizing that fact, and if it did not do so, it would be rescinding the rights of parents, which it -- as you say -- has no authority to do.
making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights. Perhaps you should read that amemdment again. No one's free speech is being squelched.
The real point here is not that this content can be kept from children by government edict. Indeed, the laws in question don't do that. Instead, they do what has always been a protected right by the government: they protect the right of parents to make that decision. The government cannot say "children can't have GTA," and it does not say that. The laws say, in effect, "it is the right of parents, and parents alone, to determine whether the child should have GTA."
There's no question but that states have the right to make such laws. The question is only in how they are tailored, making sure they do not, in fact, infringe on anyone else's rights more than is minimally necessary to effect this state interest in protecting the rights of parents from groups like IEMA that want to allow retailers to make those decisions instead of the parents.
That aside I fully agree with putting more control in the hands of content creators. It just doesn't seem right that the middle-man -- the publisher -- has almost all the control (in games, music, etc.). The creators are far more important than the distributors, and should be respected as such.
... no. Not at all. It is entirely their decision, and any control the game designer has is because it has been granted to him by the publisher, who may revoke it at will (subject to whatever contract is between them). Whoever pays the bills makes the decisions, period.
If by "should" you mean the publisher should be forced or obligated to give up control
It may be better as a business decision or practical matter to give more control to the game designer, but generally speaking, the publisher is under no obligation of any sort to do so. And he should not be under any such obligation.
If you don't like it, don't participate.
Ask the publishers who pay the developers' bills. The Bill of Rights linked here is directed at them. It is the publishers who don't want to risk paying for new and innovative ideas. As investors, they'd rather risk their money on a 'sure thing' than throw millions of dollars at an unproven idea. THAT'S why you see rerashes, sequels, and movie tie-ins. It's not because of a creative crisis in the industry.
... so what? It's their money. If they want to invest it in a rehash or sequel, then that is entirely their right. If they want to not give any creative rights to their developers, they have no obligation to do so.
That's largely true, but
It's funny how most engineers seem to lean to the right when it comes to corporations and free market.
Being sensible is funny? OK.
I think this comes from a complete lack of ability to empathize with or understand situations that are removed from their own.
No, it comes from a deep and broad understanding of how the economy works, and does not work.
Currently you find significant resistance to words like "Union" because it clashes with their free-market faith, but as the market shifts and starts crushing engineers, you'll see them clamoring for restrictions on business and union-style solutions.
Speak for yourself. I certainly won't. The current labor laws are plenty for me. I fully realize that us computer programmers have been paid far more than we are worth, on average, over the last decade. I won't whine about how "unfair" it is when that comes to an end (and it surely will). I'm just a cog in the machine like everyone else.
This is already starting to become evident--in these days of Indian labor and off-site contracts I'm starting to hear less from the free-marketeers and more from people seeing the problems that always come when you get close to a true free-market
Mumble mumble Marx mumble Means of Production mumble mumble.
keep your eyes open, you'll see more soon.
I've seen plenty.
They say it's based on the bill of rights for comic creators - how much have Marvel and DC bend for that? What did Todd, Keith and the the rest of them at Marvel do? They left. They formed Image.
That's the only way the game developers are going to get what is in that bill of rights.
Exactly.
How many book authors have total control? Script writers? Reporters? Whoever foots the bill calls the shots, and you have no rights to anything unless it is spelled out in the contract, and you know what? You need them more than they need you (unless you are one of the lucky few with capital enough to go out on your own).
Dude. You have no rights to anything. It's what you WANT, not what you have a RIGHT to. And feel free to negotiate those terms when you sign your contract. Else, shut up and code, you little monkey.