"Show me a PC with a built in 20" widescreen display, dual core CPU, half decent video controller and all the other niceties that come with owning a Mac."
Why does anyone like having a built-in display? 20" of widescreen is nice but I'd much prefer it to be a separate entity. Where's the benefit? If the monitor is separate, I can go out and buy a 30" monitor in a year and swap out the 20" one.
"check back over the conversation and look at the insults on BOTH sides"
Look back at the conversation and look at who was reduced to the baseness of cursing.
"Like I said you are a kid, how did I know that - because I am a parent of adult children."
And just to make it crystal clear - you're wrong about this.
"Being a parent is not something you can sit down and intellectualise, you have to experience it....listening to you pontificate about how others should bring up their children is kinda like listening to a virgin give instructions on how to staisfy a woman."
You contend that I am not a parent. I'll grant you that point even though it is incorrect. From there, you make the logical jump to say that anyone who is a parent would agree completely with your point of view. Not only isn't this a compelling argument, it's quite pathetic that you believe it to be worth saying. Let's take an unrelated example - there are veterans who fought in the Vietnam war. Some took this experience and decided to become peace activists, others stayed in the military and planned subsequent military actions. You see, my point is that people have different opinions, even if they have gone through the same experiences. I have raised children. You may have raised children. I didn't turn into a coward that wanted society to protect my children from everything. You did.
Your argument has boiled down to you saying you are correct because you believe you are and that anyone who dares to disagree with you must not have children. This is utterly stupid.
"You are a kid, you will sing a different song when you are a parent."
You know nothing about me or what I am. In fact, you were the one that was reduced to pedestrian curses, not me. That's rather telling and, most likely, you're lying. It doesn't matter either way. I don't argue based on my status - I argue using logic and reason and I, mistakenly, assumed I would get the same. Instead of doing that, you've decided that I should respect your opinion based on your claim that you have children. I don't and I don't see why I should. I've been able to argue my point without referencing how many children I have. Why couldn't you do the same? (The answer: I am smarter than you.) Have a good one!
"No, it is an industry body in the same genre as the *IAA, it's funding and point of view are directly attributable to the common interests of it's members (as evidenced by it's strong opposition to anything except "self-regulation"). Members pay fines because they want to remain members, other than that, they have no power to enforce ANY rules. I have no need to know anymore, it's rules do not affect me and are not backed up by genuine regulations."
Then why would the ESRB have caused such a fuss over the Hot Coffee incident? Seems to me that if what you say is true, they would have just let it slide - wouldn't want to hurt one of their masters, right?
The rest of your name-calling is what I expected from someone like you - a person that wants the state and everyone in society to raise your brood for you. Rather than teaching them to know right from wrong and to know what they are allowed and are not allowed to do, you want everyone else to protect them from themselves. How very sad. Your children will grow up to be entirely unremarkable, just like you. And while I judge you based on your words, you decide what I have and haven't done with my life based on pure speculation. Not the sign of an intelligent person. Here's to hoping your swine don't reproduce. Have a nice day!
Then why, my over-excited friend, did you bring up the sale of cigarettes where the government is controlling commerce?
And let's go back to your original post: "If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in."
You implied there was a reason that the government should step in. My point is that I don't expect the rest of society to watch out for my kids. I don't "bank" on the fact that the movie theatres won't let my kids into R-rated movies. I bank on the fact that I've raised them to be responsible and to follow certain rules.
I've also seen no studies showing a comparison of how well the MPAA ratings are enforced as compared to the ESRB. You seem to believe that theatres are like bloodhounds and video game retailers could not care less. I would guess that the reality is that the same rate of enforcement is seen.
"I supposed you'd also be ok if the Movie Theater let your kid into the R or NC17 film after you thought you were dropping them off there for a PG, or if the convinenece store at the mall sold them cigarettes while they were there with friends?"
Those are different examples and not really relevant to a much higher priced item that is brought into the home where the parent lives. The example of cigarettes is one where I support government control of its sale. Cigarettes represent a documented health risk and their sale is prohibited based on health reasons, not on moral grounds. On the other hand, an R-rated or NC17 (when was the last time a theatre even showed one of those, they sell no tickets) movie is an especially telling example. It is telling because you bring it up in a conversation about whether the government should step in and protect children from video games. You cite this, I suppose, as an example where it is appropriate for children to be denied access. But, and here's where I've got you, the government has no involvement in rating movies and there is no legal trouble for an employee at a theatre who sells a ticket to a minor. So, you see, you are comfortable with how movies are handled. There is a private ratings system that is enforced by the movie theatres without any government involvement. Tell me - why does that same system not work for video games? Why do you suddenly want to run crying and screaming to the government for protection from video games while you haven't done the same thing for movies? Answer that one pal.
"No you missed the part that said "In Australia"... "
You said that in a paragraph quite separate from your aside about alcohol. There was no reason to expect that that statement was still in effect.
"As I understand it, that behaviour is optional the shop owner does not have an OBLIGATION to operate that way. What the bill is saying is that it should no longer be optional. It is simply the government mandating what is already practised by most of the shop keepers. "
That's a complete oversimplification of the whole thing.
"anyway I can see you just don't like the idea of a legally independent authority because it must be set up by "the government". I guess that means you PERSONALLY are satisfied with corporations who sell the stuff also setting the standard for what is/isn't suitable for kids. You also don't mind having no say at all in how those standards are set and it's not a problem that you have no comeback when they are ignored. You are entitled to your trust in corporations but a vast number of parents (including me) would say it is misplaced."
I'm sorry that you had to resort to shifting the argument like this. It's disappointing that you couldn't argue your point without the type of nonsense you display. The ESRB is an indepedent body that is not controlled by any video game developer. As evidenced by the ratings change after the 'Hot Coffee' debacle, the ESRB is not afraid to stand up to a publisher. Apparently you don't know anything about the ESRB. But that seems to be the status quo for you. Can you cite one example where the ESRB has made a rating that you personally disagree with? And do you know how to contact the ESRB about a dispute you had with a rating of a game? I would guess not since it appears you don't know anything about that organization. The simple fact is that parents should be responsible for what their children play. The government and the store owner do not have an obligation to raise the child, in my opinion. (You want Big Brother to raise yours for you, apparently.) Providing information about the content of games is great. Raising children who can make the right decision about what games they are allowed to buy without having the state guide them is even better.
Your response stinks of lacking personal responsibility. I find you to be quite weak-willed.
"If the ESRB ratings arn't enforced then it undermines whatever parental decisions are being made because it gives the child the option of buying the game without the parent's consent."
This is where you and I disagree. I think that a parent who provides housing for a child should have enough control and have instilled rules into a child's head so that they won't buy games that they know they are not supposed to. Your demand that all vendors adhere to the ESRB 100% of the time is both unreasonable and encourages a parent-child relationship where a child doesn't learn to make decisions on his own. Instead you want all of society to guide the child down the right path. In my system, where the parent tells the child what he or she is allowed to buy and makes sure this rule is followed the child is given responsibility for his or her actions. I think it's clear that my way is much better.
Stop expecting everyone in society to watch out for your kids. Start teaching them that they need to use their brains.
"If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in."
Even if the ratings aren't enforced and retailers sell AO, M, or T games to children, I am not convinced the government has any place in legislating. You see, at the end of the day, the games are rated. Parents have the tools needed to determine what is appropriate content for their child. In expecting 100% of the stores to not sell to minors, you are furthering the expectation that many parents have that society is going to watch our for their kids. This expectation is part of the reason that so many parents do a rather poor job of raising their kids. The idea that their kids will be taken by the safeguards the government has put in place makes some parents believe they can just let their duties slide.
Don't rely on the store to not sell games to your kids. Don't expect others to take care of raising and protecting your kids. Do it yourself.
"Nothing is being banned, and nobody is telling you what you can and cannot buy for you, or for your child."
Nothing is currently banned and no one is currently telling me what I can and cannot buy. That is different from what could take shape if there is government involvement in the whole system. Dream with me for a moment:
1. Selling alcohol to minors is illegal.
2. Supplying alcohol to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.
1. Selling violent games to minors is illegal.
2. Supplying violent games to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.
Government involvement in this arena is wrong and a bad step. Think about the people who are fighting for government involvement. They believe violent games destroy children and make them killing-machines. Why wouldn't they want a parent who facilitates the creation of that so-called that killing machine to be punished for that? Wouldn't that be a ban on what you can buy for your child?
Don't side with these people. They'll keep pushing and pushing. Private organizations like the ESRB do a fine job of rating content. There's no need for government involvement.
"The whole point is should the shop owner be able to veto a parents "reasonable control" over their kids purchases. "
That's not the issue at all. Store owners currently deny children the ability to purchase certain games. The real issue is whether the government should be the one determining what is and isn't okay for children to have. The ESRB functions fine without government involvement.
"Do the kids only watch broadcast TV and don't have pocket money to buy/rent a game/porno from an iresponsible shop owner? Why is brodcast different? In Australia and many other places consistent ratings are set by an independent authority, brodacast ratings change throughout the day, before/after school ect. All broadcast shows (including stuff like "naked news", ect) carry advisories."
And you show your ignorance of the situation there. Instead of insulting the US and wondering what sort of drugs we are on, you might want to get your facts straight first. The Superbowl aired without any type of warning that there would be nudity. The nudity that occurred was completely out of place and unexpected and it went out over public airwaves. If I sit down with my child to watch a sporting event, I don't expect that nudity will come up. It's so insulting that you think you know what you're talking about and cite these great ratings advisory boards when talking about how people made a big deal over the Superbowl incident - there are ratings in place on American television and those ratings did not reflect the content.
BTW: A minor can also be served alcohol with a meal and the gaurdians permission.
Check your facts again.
"If you expect parents to be "responsible" with brining up their kids to meet the requirements for a "well-adjusted" adult then these types of enforced "advisories" should be supported so as to cut a large number of parents some slack and make the whole thing rational."
Nothing in that grammatical mess makes an argument for why the government needs to be involved. Private advisory agencies exist for all media sold in the U.S. The ESRB, the MPAA, the RIAA all rate content. Parents are informed now without any laws on the books that amount to the government denying someone freedom of speech. Obviously freedom of speech isn't important to you and you don't mind letting the government tell you what to do but not all of us are so weak-willed.
"No it's not, but what does that have to do with the argument, it's illegal to serve a minor alcohol, is that being a parent? No, it means the government is making reasonable regulations on commerce that makes life a bit simpler for parents."
There's a difference between alcohol and violent video games. There are documented health risks that come with children drinking alcohol. There is no such link between violent video games and children. I am sure that many well-adjusted teenagers can see that GTA is quite comical and enjoy the game. On the other hand, alcohol is a quite different subject.
A much better example is the regulation of movies - there is no government involvement and yet theatres still ask for identification for teenagers trying to get into R-rated movies.
As for your insult of the United States - again, there is a difference between an image being broadcast onto the airwaves and someone that is being sold in a store. The fact that you don't understand that is quite telling about your ability to reason.
"But mostly legislators, psychologists and parents advocate restricting the sales of ultra-violent games to minors. This is not a ban. This is parental control."
The government is not a parent. The game store is not a parent. This is NOT parental control. This is government as 'father knows best' for everyone. The ESRB is enough to inform parents of the content of a game just as the MPAA rates films - there is no need for government involvement.
"But they generally don't consider "robbing a bank" as part of their defense preparedness,"
So what? You're trying to shift the argument. Having a net "prepared" to capture a burglar and being "prepared" to rob a bank in order to save one's family may both be using the word "prepared" but the meaning is quite different. I'm surprised you can't see that without my help.
As the other poster more eloquently pointed out - your initial post is invalid because you're replying to a statement on hyponosis with an example of coercion. To put it simply - your logic is wrong to begin with and it's not showing signs of improvement in your subsequent postings.
"Rob the bank or I'll kill your family for example"
Then the preparedness question is whether someone is prepared to rob a bank in order to ensure that their family is not killed not simply whether they are prepared to rob a bank.
"It seems to me that it's easy to get someone to do something to do something they haven't "prepared" to do."
Most people with families are prepared to defend them so, no, that's not an example of getting someone to do something they're not prepared to do.
"Well the backup excuse could be done away with if the HD was able to cache game content so you didn't need the disc in the drive to play it."
No it doesn't. Fair use says you have the right to make a copy of the disc. Providing some convoluted scheme to allow the user to play the game directly from their hard drive does not trump basic fair use.
Um, um, um...Could you please point me in the direction of the country with a culture that says a job does not involve trading time spent working for money?
Your reply did not answer this question. As much as you want to say I have "weaseled out", the fact remains that I have shown that your reply did not answer the question. My limited imagination is imagining that you're not very smart.
You specifically talked about jobs that do "not involve trading time spent working for money". Subsistence farmers do not have "jobs", and they do not work to earn money
Um, um, let's see then - I asked for jobs that don't involve trading time for money. You cited something that you have said is not a job and does not involve money. That's not relevant at all. I'll break it down for you.
I said, name a job that doesn't involve trading time for money. You said, this is an example of something that isn't a job that doesn't involve trading time for money.
That's akin to me saying, Name an apple that isn't round and you saying, A banana isn't round.
Um, time spent working -> legal tender -> goods and services
time spent farming -> goods
I fail to see a significant difference. In fact, your snide remark (Um? um? - get over yourself) only supports my point that the US is not unique in how work is viewed. Work involves an exchange of time for things you want or need (cutting out the middleman, cash). Subsistence farmers are perfect examples of this in that they exchange time for something they need. Now, take your "um" and shove it.
"It's only a cost if you think of your time as a monetized commodity. Which we in the US have been trained to due by thinking of hourly wages and billable time."
Could you please point me in the direction of the country with a culture that says a job does not involve trading time spent working for money?
"Where is the sanity and the rational discussion with people like you (on either side)?"
Great point. This tomstdenis character should stop and think about how those who disagree with his point of view are going to respond to him when he's so hateful and insulting in the statement of his views. Ultimately, a discussion or debate should be about convincing the other side of your correctness or letting the other side understand the reasoning behind your opinion. tomstdenis accomplishes none of this and, instead, insults people.
The political climate in the U.S. is frightening sometimes. I see so many people who identify themselves with a particular party and that's that - there's no room for discussion or the possibility that they might vote or support someone who hasn't identified themselves as a member of the party they support. People seem to treat it like they're rooting for their favorite sports team.
Why do you believe that? Statistically, you can show what level of education the average Marine has and I can even see the argument that fighting in a war leads to putting less of a value on human life, I suppose, but how have you determined that "the average marine" has no morals?
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument has boiled down to you saying you are correct because you believe you are and that anyone who dares to disagree with you must not have children. This is utterly stupid.
The rest of your name-calling is what I expected from someone like you - a person that wants the state and everyone in society to raise your brood for you. Rather than teaching them to know right from wrong and to know what they are allowed and are not allowed to do, you want everyone else to protect them from themselves. How very sad. Your children will grow up to be entirely unremarkable, just like you. And while I judge you based on your words, you decide what I have and haven't done with my life based on pure speculation. Not the sign of an intelligent person. Here's to hoping your swine don't reproduce. Have a nice day!
And let's go back to your original post: "If the Video Game industry would actually do something about vendors who sold to minor there would be no reason for the Government to step in."
You implied there was a reason that the government should step in. My point is that I don't expect the rest of society to watch out for my kids. I don't "bank" on the fact that the movie theatres won't let my kids into R-rated movies. I bank on the fact that I've raised them to be responsible and to follow certain rules.
I've also seen no studies showing a comparison of how well the MPAA ratings are enforced as compared to the ESRB. You seem to believe that theatres are like bloodhounds and video game retailers could not care less. I would guess that the reality is that the same rate of enforcement is seen.
Your response stinks of lacking personal responsibility. I find you to be quite weak-willed.
Stop expecting everyone in society to watch out for your kids. Start teaching them that they need to use their brains.
That doesn't really have anything to do with my main point though.
Don't rely on the store to not sell games to your kids. Don't expect others to take care of raising and protecting your kids. Do it yourself.
1. Selling alcohol to minors is illegal.
2. Supplying alcohol to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.
1. Selling violent games to minors is illegal.
2. Supplying violent games to a minor is illegal, even if you're the parent.
Government involvement in this arena is wrong and a bad step. Think about the people who are fighting for government involvement. They believe violent games destroy children and make them killing-machines. Why wouldn't they want a parent who facilitates the creation of that so-called that killing machine to be punished for that? Wouldn't that be a ban on what you can buy for your child?
Don't side with these people. They'll keep pushing and pushing. Private organizations like the ESRB do a fine job of rating content. There's no need for government involvement.
A much better example is the regulation of movies - there is no government involvement and yet theatres still ask for identification for teenagers trying to get into R-rated movies.
As for your insult of the United States - again, there is a difference between an image being broadcast onto the airwaves and someone that is being sold in a store. The fact that you don't understand that is quite telling about your ability to reason.
As the other poster more eloquently pointed out - your initial post is invalid because you're replying to a statement on hyponosis with an example of coercion. To put it simply - your logic is wrong to begin with and it's not showing signs of improvement in your subsequent postings.
Revolution to play Genesis and Turbografx games
Zelda on the DS
Your reply did not answer this question. As much as you want to say I have "weaseled out", the fact remains that I have shown that your reply did not answer the question. My limited imagination is imagining that you're not very smart.
I said, name a job that doesn't involve trading time for money.
You said, this is an example of something that isn't a job that doesn't involve trading time for money.
That's akin to me saying, Name an apple that isn't round and you saying, A banana isn't round.
Um, um, um...
time spent farming -> goods
I fail to see a significant difference. In fact, your snide remark (Um? um? - get over yourself) only supports my point that the US is not unique in how work is viewed. Work involves an exchange of time for things you want or need (cutting out the middleman, cash). Subsistence farmers are perfect examples of this in that they exchange time for something they need. Now, take your "um" and shove it.
The political climate in the U.S. is frightening sometimes. I see so many people who identify themselves with a particular party and that's that - there's no room for discussion or the possibility that they might vote or support someone who hasn't identified themselves as a member of the party they support. People seem to treat it like they're rooting for their favorite sports team.