Kmart To Card Buyers Of Violent Games 281
AbbyNormal writes: "Cnn.com is reporting that Kmart(R) is now going to start carding kiddies who buy violent games (based on the ESRB rating)." Reverend Raven adds a link which paints Walmart's name on the wall of shame as well. All the more reason to buy games from local stores or on the Web, at least from places which don't bend to pressure from overzealous state attorneys general. On the other hand, industry 'guidelines' which mainstream retailers follow as if they were law seem better than actual laws doing the same, sort of like 7-11 being free not to carry pornographic magazines.
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
Every weapon sold has the possibility of being used.
Every video game sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
You're not being consistent in your comparison. If you rephrase the first statement to more closely match the second...
Every weapon sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
You wind up with a similar statement, not a contrasting one. Therefore, there is not a much more powerful argument for your position. If the proof is in the millions of gamers who don't turn violent, then the proof is also in the millions of shooters who do not turn violent. The violence statistics are the same no matter which postition you take.
Maybe it would be interesting to find out how many people grow up playing violent games who acquired weapons just before 'going postal' vs. how many people who grew up with guns started gaming just prior to same.
Re:Sucks (Score:2)
The children of the people who buy firearms there.
When I was sixteen (and as stupid , if not more, as most teenagers), I would have simply stolen it if they would not sell it to me.
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:1)
The problem that I have is that we all take for granted the MPAA guidelines for movies? Why? Do you realize how important these so-called 'guidelines' are to the sucess of a movie? R movies have a strike against them from the beginning--if your movie gets an NC-17 'rating' then it is doomed to commercial failure. Who gives the MPAA the right to do this? Certainly not the consumer, although this sort of apathy certainly has let them survive this long. The point is that we as consumers do not get to choose the ratings system--there is no competition and the retailers (movie theaters, kmart, etc.) blindly follow the guideline cartel. That is power I don't think anyone should have--government or 'independant' organizations alike.
Nobody should have control of your buying decisions--weather it be movies, games, porn or guns. Bottom line.
-k
So do the OPP now (Score:2)
Incidentally, it's great for doubling those numbers they show off during "safety blitzes" (read quota filling periods).
This is a good thing... (Score:1)
Anyway, as you said, Any determined 16-yr-old is going to be able to get his hands on DOOM 2000, regardless of its content rating or controlled distribution at a couple of major retail outlets. So KMart is not really restricting a minor from getting something (s)he really wants.
Re:Sucks (Score:2)
And why the Hell isn't it the citizen's job to take care of his kids, instead of letting K-mart, Wal-Mart, the MPAA and other clueless corporate pieces of shit be responsible for them? Tell your kid what you think is inappropriate for him to play, watch, read, whatever. If he disobeys you, throw away the copy of Diablo 2 he bought against your wishes. Just don't tell my kid he can't read, watch, and play whatever he wants--which is what you do if you make stores card people for video games, because parents shouldn't have to take their teenagers up to the counter like toddlers to buy them video games, music, books and films.
Clue: there is no causal link between video game violence and meatspace violence. And there never will be, because as any frustrated teenager will tell you video games are a tool for catharsis--they let you relieve the tension of dealing with obnoxious bullies, teachers who shouldn't have been allowed to graduate college much less teach high school, girls who ignore them or worse, make out in the halls all day in front of you, administrators who bully students who dress, look, or think differently than the tyranny of the majority, and clueless parents who are from a different generation and just don't understand that times have changed.
Here's another clue: stores don't do things like this out of a feeling of beneficence, they do it because they perceive that people like you want them to. They do it because clueless and ignorant parents want them to, since they choose to blame teenage violence on video games and films instead of on bad parenting and a failing school system. It makes parents feel better when they have a scapegoat to blame instead of facing the truth that it's not video games or movies that are to blame, it's parental irresponsibility and the squalor of a school system in which they're "dumbing down" standardized tests because students can't pass them as well as they could 20 years ago. It's the fault of a repressive society which wants teenagers to bottle up their natural sexuality instead of being free to express it and experiment with it in healthy ways. It's the fault of a social machine which pushes away anyone in high school who tries to be different, unique, instead of "just another brick in the wall." It's the fault of an oppressive government which lets the FBI release "profiling software" to schools to try to pick out the potentially dangerous, but probably acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy to make people dangerous by alienating them and singling them out further. All these are the problem, not sex and make-believe violence in cathartic video games and films and music.
So, what;s the solution? Something like this only tightens the noose further, makes teenagers feel even more alienated and underesteemed. Teenagers aren't five year olds, they need to be treated like people who are in the process of becoming adults, people who need to make their own decisions, with some guidance, and make their own mistakes and learn from them. Why is it that we can give teenagers all the responsibilities of adulthood--we can even try them as adults and send them to adult prison when they commit crimes--but none of the rights? America puts more children in prison than any other country in the world, and we have a larger percentage of our population in prison than any country except Russia. Sadly enough, you have a greater chance of going to jail in America, a "free" country, than you do in Iraq, China, Iran, Libya, or North Korea; it's not because we're more violent, it's because we have a no-tolerance system with no room for mistakes, in which a 17 year old kid can go to prison for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, in which getting caught with a few ounces of marijuana for personal use can get you a long prison sentence as a dealer, in which we incarcerate as punishment instead of rehabilitate as treatment. A lack of rights is the fundamental problem that causes teenagers to snap. Taking away more can only make things worse. The kids who go on school shootings and what not are the ones who feel alienated, treated unfairly, not treated like adults by their parents, bullied at school by administrators for being different, feeling the pressures to conform to adult rules of behaviour but not having any of the rights that go along with it. Of course they snap; they aren't being treated like people, they're being treated like objects.
The solution is for us to loosen the reigns a bit, not tighten them. For all the complaining about school shootings being on the rise, violence in schools is actually at a ten year low--it's just that there have been more high-profile shootings, where kids snap and bring guns to school. If we're going to hold teenagers to the responsibilities of adults, and make them subject to prison when they transgress whereas in ages past we just would have sent them to juvenile detention and released them at 18 after counseling, then we have to give them some rights to go along with the responsibilities. We don't do that, and that's why our kids are having problems. We don't treat them like people anymore. Start treating them like adults-in-training instead of like toddlers or property.
"We don't need no education,
We don't need no thought control.
Dark sarcasm in the classroom--
Teacher, leave them kids alone.
Hey, teacher! Leave them kids alone!
All in all,
It's just another brick in the wall...
All in all,
You're just another brick in the wall...
I don't need your arms around me,
I don't need your drugs to calm me.
I Have seen the writing on the wall...
I don't think I need anything at all;
No don't think I need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall...
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall..."
--Pink Floyd
financial inspiration for better games (Score:1)
Better still, if enough outlets follow the lead (or legislation ensues) that it becomes difficult to sell violent games to the target market (15 years old, or so), perhaps game makers will actually (gasp) have to go back to making games that are stimulating and interesting, instead of always falling back on a bunch of boring big guns and big explosions. The current crop of shooter games are no different than the lowest-common-denominator action crap that Hollywood spits out - in lieu of real writing or acting, they find a marketable star (in this case a marketable game line) and fill in for plot with flashy violent special effects. One reason there are a *few* half-decent movies without too much violence is the MPAA and equivalent rating schemes, so hopefully this will have a similar effect and encourage game companies to look in other, more interesting directions.
Re:Aspects of *Mart to get more upset over (Score:1)
Amen to that brother! You nailed the perverse side of big corps without descending into I-hate-them-coz-they're-rich-and-they-only-care-ab out-money pseudosocialistic rant. Worthy of going into /usr/games/fortune. [Got a spare asbestos suit?]
This whole thing cracks me up... (Score:1)
I can see it now - just like alcohol, they'll up the legal age for buying Quake to 21 years old.
Now that would be the ultimate irony. You can die for your country at age 18, but you couldn't play violent video games! (Just like you can now die for your country at age 18, but you are not considered responsible enough to buy beer!)
Re:Civil Rights (Score:1)
I'm a bit past 25, but when I was a teenager, I recall the same sort of whining by those my own age. The response is still the same: suck it up.
After all, it's no big deal. Get your parents to buy the game. Oh, they won't approve? Then WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO BUY THE GAME ANYWAY? Seems to me that you have more pressing issues to be worried about.
The comment about rites-of-passage is a good one, but the rite-of-passage isn't at 21, it's at 18. If you're old enough to be drafted (presumably in times of war where it's not unlikely that you'll die) then you're old enough to be considered an adult. For some, that's old, for others, it's young, so until we get an actual rite, we're stuck with an arbitrary age.
I sucked it up and dealt with it. Sure enough, I didn't stay a teen forever. Odd how that works.
Does the Web let kids buy stuff? (Score:1)
Re:I love our goverment (Score:1)
----------
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
Well, anywhere north of the 56th parallel or so, the chances are about 85% they're a subsistence hunter and about 15% they're a trophy hunter on a guided tour.
Between the 49th and 56th parallel, it's probably around 20% subsistence hunter, 50% sport hunter, 20% trophy hunter, 9% target shooter, and 1% SWAT team.
(Numbers pulled out of my butt, but they are honest best estimates and I would be very surprised if they were wrong in any substantive fashion.)
Other than thinking trophy hunters are dickheads and you shouldn't kill anything unless you're going to eat it or it's about to hurt somebody, I don't have any problem with any of this.
Open response (Score:1)
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
Listen, I don't belive in gun control, and I don't belive in censorship, but saying that selling violent video games is more harmful than selling weapons is just plain ludicrous.
If you take one person, who is realatively non-violent and sell him a violent video game, what is he going to do with it? Bludgeon someone to death with the box? The jewel case? However if you sell him a handgun he now has more potential destructive force, whether he uses it or not is irrelevant.
We're talking about potential forces here, someone with a box and a CD in a jewel case has a lower potential destructive force than someone with a weapon. Picking apart the words of one argument does not negate all arguments.
-- iCEBaLM
PSsssssst. (Score:5)
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
And there is a much more powerful argument to the contrary.
Every weapon sold has the possibility of being used.
Every video game sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
Millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of people play violent video games every day, yet crime is dropping. I myself have played violent video games ever since I was, 10... 11? I've never killed anybody, I've never wanted to kill anybody, and I'm 22 now.
VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT, the proof is in the umpteen millions of people who play these games and have never turned violent. This video game stigma strikes of the AD&D stigma of the 80s, if you played them you'd go insane, it was a work of the devil, etc. Give me a break.
-- iCEBaLM
Save us from ourselves (Score:2)
God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:3)
I'm a little thankful that corporations are being a little more conscience of the effects on society of what they sell. If only advertisers would follow suit.
That being said, I am letting her mess around with Deer Hunter.
Something to be careful of... (Score:2)
One thing that worries me is comparing this to the movie industry.
An R rating in the movie industry isn't good for the film, but it certainly isn't a fatal blow. An X rating is, however.
What is the difference? Both ratings indicate that the movie should not be seen by children. But since the restricions on R movie admittance are so lax, it doesn't REALLY mean no minors.
But an X rating does. And virtually no mainstream movies are made with X ratings because it would kill their sales. Especially since no suburban cineplex will screen an X rated film. There ARE legitimate films that were cut (or never made) to avoid an X rating. And there are adults who wouldn't mind seeing the uncut version. But any film with an X rating is construed as pornography.
So, the bottom line is that I don't want the M rating to become the equivalent of an X rating. That is, something that hurts the games sales so much that games are modified by the developer to avoid the rating.
If they start to really enforce the M rating and many games change their content to drop just below the M threshold, we may lose the others since it might not be profitable to produce them.
Sucks (Score:3)
Personally, I don't see who really buys games at K-Mart, they're likely to be more expensive, I know their CDs are and have no selection. Though this does set a dangerous precedent that I'd hate to see other larger stores follow. I wonder if this will contribute to downloading the games off warez rooms on IRC since the kid can't buy it for real in the store.
Re: (Score:2)
Boycott not a good idea (Score:2)
The truth is, fairly recently, Montgomery Ward and Sears buckled to the pressure from Joe Lieberman and the others and stopped carrying M rated games all together. [freedomforum.org] Walmart and K-Mart cannot afford to ignore the orders of the man who will be the next vice president of the United States. America hasn't been a free country or had an effective Bill of Rights for quite a long time now, claiming First Amendment protection is a good way to get beaten by police or shot. No one is going to go to the wall over a few video games (well, except me maybe, but considering I don't care for modern polygonal games, maybe not.)
I will admit that American's cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment rights they used to have bothers me. If you know the whole story behind this, it is similar to the infamous Smith & Wesson gun control deal [cnn.com], in which Smith & Wesson agreed to do things that the government couldn't get legislatively. Lieberman and Brownback wanted (and still want) the same type of deal. They want M rated games off the shelves of every major retailer in the country, so they will be impossible to purchase. This is because they have been completely unable to accomplish this through either legislative or judicial [freedomforum.org] means. By not doing this, Wal Mart and K-Mart are in fact standing up to the senators who signed the letter (I have no illusions, they don't want to lose sales, its not because they want to defend Free Expression. However, I still consider it somewhat admirable, even though I expect that they will ultimately buckle to this pressure.) and the senators are not happy about this. Neither American law nor American judicial precedent are on their side in this matter, but this new tactic may work for the latest attempted power grab by the government. I don't really think this is about video games, really, it is about testing the limits of governments power to intimidate people into surrendering their rights. Just as it didn't start with video games, it won't stop with video games, I can assure you of that. It's also not about carding, it's about banning, the wholesale elimination of any video game meant for people age 17 or over from the American market. Yes, it's true that the letter said:
but the emphasis was clearly on pulling the games from the shelves and keeping them out of anyone's hands, no matter how old the customer.The situation is not quite as bad as the 1950's comic book witch hunt, which for many years restricted the content of comic books to stuff which would be considered safe by even the most fretful and overprotective mother.
I do consider it serious though. I think people who are not currently in the thrall of one form of fascism or another will see that the First Amendment, across the board, is at one of its lowest points in the history of the Republic. Not because of this, this is merely one symptom of a larger problem. Ironically, as our popular "reality" TV shows (such as "Survivor") become increasingly about real sadism directed at real people, stuff which is purely fictional is more harshly criticized than it has been since the 50's. People are so eager to give up their First Amendment rights these days.
It took two wars to get us out of the nightmare we created for ourselves in the 50's, I hope it won't take anything to that drastic to get us out of our current national flirtation with authoritarianism.
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:2)
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:2)
Statement linking media violence to violence in kids draws criticism [freedomforum.org]
I'm glad you brought that up, it is a sickening example of organizations using junk science to curry favor with the current political mess we have in Washington. It's sort of like the way people were sent to insane asylums in the Soviet Union if they published books which were critical of the communist system...
Re:Now... (Score:2)
Same sort of thing happened here: there was a $10000 drawing in my community, held ONE WEEK before my 18th. And no, they wouldn't let me participate. Point is, drawing distinct age lines such as the one KMart is drawing is dangerous at best for a number of reasons, one of the most prominent ones being that different people mature at very different rates.
=================================
IDs for kids (Score:2)
California issues a state ID that looks a whole lot like a driveres license, but isn't one. There is no age limit that I know of to get one. I never got one, because kids under 16 didn't need ID much back in the 70s and early 80s. My wife did have one, because she didn't get a driver's license until she was 25.
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
You would, eh? Why do I always see this argument? Is this supposed to be some kind of game, where you can kill the most people from farthest away? Yeah, a rifle was made to do that job. But people do gather together every day at the office, the stores, etc. A skilled maniac with a hammer can kill faster than your typical first person shooter with a rifle. With a rifle, you have to carefully aim for each shot, otherwise those high powered rounds just rapidly punch holes off target. Might as well bludgen the victims with the barrel. Violent video games should teach you this fact.
Pretty pathetic, but then it is their bottom line (Score:2)
I've never been able to reconcile this assumption with reality. A person's basic personality is set by the time they reach elementary school. Also, people are not tape recorders. The things we know and understand about the world stem from our own conclusions based on observation. Our conclusions may change as we go through life, but at no time are we changed by some outside force, especially a video game or a movie or a song. If someone bases their view of the world off a violent video game, it is because they are mentally ill. Don't blame the game because a crazy person chose to play it. They'd be crazy whether they played it or not.
All of this seems perfectly obvious to most people when discussing those over 18. But the moment "children" become the topic logic goes out the window and is replaced by hysteria and just plain stupidity.
Basically what I'm really trying to say is that the world needs to learn that video games and movies aren't responsible when a kid goes bad. If they were we'd have a nation full of bad kids. Instead we have what we've always had, a nation of more or less normal average kids with a few bad seeds thrown into the mix. Don't let those bad seeds determine policy concerning the other 98% who aren't nutcases.
If you're a good person, a good parent, and you live a life that sets a good example for your children and you're there for them and involved in their life, then they're going to turn out fine. No number of video games or movies or "obscene" lyrics in songs is going to make one bit of difference. However if you're not a good parent, if you are abusive towards your children and a terror in their lives, or you neglect them and aren't there when they need help or guidance, then they're probably going to up as broken individuals with emotional scars, which may or may not manifest as antisocial behavior. Now if you've got a fruitcake for a kid then all bets are off.
Its time that people woke up and realized that conscious thought and moral consideration don't begin at 18. They begin the first time an infant looks around himself and tries to understand what he sees. I used to think that everyone did know this and only pretended otherwise as an excuse to discriminate against the young. For a long time that seemed to be the only possible reason. But now I think that maybe people really do believe that young people are imbiciles, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy or right and wrong. Does that make sense to anyone here? It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
I'm 28 years old, so I'm not some kid who is "too young to understand." I don't have children of my own, but when I do I'm not going to make the mistake of underestimating them and treating them as possessions or pets with the power of speech. Exactly how I'll treat them and exactly what I'll do as a parent I can't say. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can say that they'll have my respect and my treatment of them will be based upon their actions, not their birthday.
As for K-mart, its their bottom line. If they don't want to sell video games this is a very good way to do it.
>
Lee Reynolds
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:4)
It kind of shows that you don't have children of your own. I believe in privacy, both of myself and of "my" children. It works both ways--I don't go rummaging around in their stuff, and they don't go rummaging around in mine. I lead a very busy schedule (work 60+ hours/week), and so does my fiancee. We welcome all tools that will allow us to enforce our rules that we set, such as this K-Mart bit.
Seriously, there is no way that anyone can reasonably maintain a 24/7 surveillance on their children. Like it or not, this is what will be required to filter most of the social rubbish that will be imprinted on our children. Instead, let the society and the corporations help you in building the tools to monitor the products' influences on our children. This is precisely what K-Mart is doing; as the other posters have suggested, if I wanted my children to grow up playing violent video games, I will personally buy them myself. This new-age "society has no place in rearing my children" rubbish really sickens me; for thousands of years, small communities imprinted their values on the children. This indoctrination still happens daily at schools. I guess that your children will be homeschooled as well?
If you don't like it, fine. Boycott K-Mart and Wal-Mart. That is your right as a consumer. However, when you have your own children, and they're at the age where they want to play video games, even violent ones, and are playing them in your living room, at least have the decency to listen to us when we say, "We told you so.".
--
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:2)
That's not why.
When I worked as a lifeguard (yes, I had a very nice tan once), we had a rule that nobody under the age of 16 was allowed in the hot tub. Why? Was 16 some kind of magic age where you could climb in and not get boiled to death? No, not really. It was completely arbitrary, but it was a good rule anyway. First, young children generally shouldn't be in 100+ degree water. Second, if the rule didn't exist, there would be overcrowding and fighting over whose turn it was. Someone just happened to draw the line at the magical age of 16.
There is no switch. I'm just as sensitive now as I was when I was 14, but probably less impressionable. (Impressionability drops over time.) I don't watch R-rated movies (none - that's really true), and I only get ESRB 17 games if I can turn off the guts (/com_blood 0, for example). Why? Well, why should I let that into my mind, when that brain of mine records everything I've ever seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt, and thought and tends to bring up the worst things at the worst times? Can you imagine what it's like to hold your baby daughter while she's crying her brains out, and the only thing you can think of is something violent because that's all you've exposed to your mind for the last two hours? I don't like being in that position, ever.
My point is that there is a time when a person should no longer be under parental control for certain things, and the Powers That Be have made an arbitrary decision - 17. At that time, because it's the law, I'll let my daughter choose for herself those certain things. Hopefully, she'll choose like I have, and keep her mind from being cluttered with unnecessary garbage. Until then, I appreciate whatever help I can get.
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
In case you've been napping, this conversation was about whether video games are more dangerous to the general population than firearms. I don't think that it's much of a stretch to suggest that firearms are inherently more dangers than, say, hammers. In USMC basic training, you're taught to field-strip and reassemble a rifle in the dark. "Advanced Hammer Combat Tactics" isn't anywhere in the curriculum, to my knowledge.
Phew. Good thing there aren't more "skilled maniacs" running around. If there were, why, I suppose we might see a huge spurt in the crime rate as banks, convenience stores, and supermarkets are held up at hammer-point. Drive by hammerings might become common. And thank god those damn Columbine killers, with their TECDC9s, combat shotguns, and homemade explosives, didn't get their hands on any ball-peen hammers. The carnage could have been... even more carnagey.
Whoops. You're right. I'll have to file that away with the other lessons I learned from violent video games, including "dismembered alien arms are great for taking out enemies around corners," (Half-Life) and "a fully loaded marine can just about outrun a LAW projectile."(DOOM)
Comics Code Authority (Score:2)
What happened was that the government was cracking down on comics as a cause of juvenile deliquency, and as a gesture of "Look, government! We're policing ourselves! Go away!", they enforced ratings -- if you worked for one of the big boys (the *only* boys, with one exception I'll get to in a moment), your comics had to be 'clean'. Except that it was all a dastardly ploy to get rid of EC Comics by ostracizing them. No one sold EC comics, and they folded.
Are there parallels here? I think so. Any rating system enforced like ours is causes a separation of for-kids and not-for-kids. Cinema split into Hollywood and 'One Day Wonder' porn flicks. Will we see specialty shops where the basest desires of violence and carnality are expressed in video-game form, on an under-the-counter business which everyone buys from but no one admits?
Or am I on a wild tangent here?
-grendel drago
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:2)
K-mart has my support (Score:2)
The rating system is there for a reason, and reasonable people can support it. My 12 year old sister is currently begging me to get Diablo 2. But our parents, I know, just wouldn't want this for her. A control like this can stop the kids who want to go against their parents, and help kids who can convince their parents WHY they are responsible enough to enjoy the latest gore-filled game.
As a parent myself now, I feel that "parental control" is a good thing in and of itself. Yes, it can be overdone, but gosh when it's underdone the results can be disasterous!
-Ben
Roleplaying (Score:2)
Yes, I'm being facetious, but my girlfriend's younger brother is just getting interested in role playing and I hope not to get a letter from his teacher one day saying that I have to stop my perversion of his poor little innocent mind with my violent and obscene "role playing".
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:2)
It is your job to watch out for your child, not a retailer's. If you raise her well, with a relatively moral upbringing, then by the time she is interested in "inappropriate stuff", she'll be able to handle it or simply choose not to purchase it.
I know many kids, some good, some bad. Some had excellent homes, some did not. There is some corrolation, but not much there.
In other words, I know kids that were raised by the best, most well meaning and moral parents who turned out bad. I know kids who were raised by parents that didn't care what the kid did, yet the kid turned out well. (I mean the parent wouldn't have cared if the kid went on a murder spree) No in general kids raised in a bad enviroment turn out worse then those raised in a good enviroment, but there are far too many exceptions for me to belive your arguement that well raised kids will make the right choices, some will.
At the (arbitary) age of 18 socity has generally decided that you should no be able to make your own decisions. (except alcahol) Since there is no known test that we can apply to everyone to find out if they are mature enough to make good choices that is the best we can do. Other socities/countries have placed the limits elsewhere, but they still have a comming of age at some time or anouther.
Re:Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore... (Score:2)
Of course. But Lieberman speaks from a more educated position on the computer industry than does the Republican party.
After all, Al Gore invented the internet.
Both parties make me sick, though the Democrats are clearly the lesser of the two evils.
Remember, the Republicans want to make the country into a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state, move to Iran. I hear real estate in Tehran is cheap.
Blue Light Special (Score:2)
Being older this really doesn't affect me since I have to show my ID other places (cigarettes, beer, credit card sometimes, checks, the airport, speeding tickets, clubs, Sylvian Prometric testing)... so I think I'm just going to punch a hole in my ID, and attach a belt zip chord thingy along with my building access card.
Ya know, in Ohio, we now have a magnetic strip on the badboy, and I've never seen it swiped... ever.
----
Re:So? (Score:2)
No, I don't think you understood what I was trying to say.
I mean, given enough determination and money anyone can get just about anything in this country. I think attempting to draw a parallel between violent video games and illegal drugs and weapons is stretching it a bit.
I think handing $40 to a 17-tr old and having them get you a copy of Quake from K-mart is a totally different thing than scoring an AK-47.
Having a violent video game in your posession doesn't have the same potential for harm as taking a hallucinogenic or wielding an automatic weapon. What is your point?
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
Then you get your ass down to the K-Mart and buy the game for them. Problem solved. But I'll bet $20 that this is a moot question and you don't have any kids, Alleria.
In fact, I'll make a blanket statement right here -- I suspect that 95+% of people posting that this is evil censorship don't have kids. In other words, this isn't your problem (unless you're under 17). And don't give me some "slippery slope" argument. As long as K-Mart is carding people who buy violent games, that means that they'll still carry the games, which is a better result than lots of stores have chosen.
I have a zero year old daughter, and I don't see any problem with having stores card kids who try to buy mature products -- alcohol, tobacco, firearms, DVDs, video games, whatever. If I want my kid to have that stuff, I'll buy it for them.
KMart is not the only company doing this (Score:2)
But is this such a bad thing?
Here's the problem... (Score:2)
The problem is that lazy parents will use this as a crutch. Rather than actually carry out their responsibilities as parents by taking (or, if need be, making) time with their kids and getting involved, will simply go along with the post-Columbine hysteria and say kids can't play any of those games. It's an insult to the intelligence of a lot of kids, but it's simply a sad fact that many parents shirk their responsibilities today.
So in the end, I can't support the carding. I don't remember when the last time was that I shopped at K-Mart or Wal-Mart, but I won't be anytime soon, I know that.
----------
Re:Now... (Score:5)
Whether such law even applies to sales from a private company (as in, non-government -- I know K-Mart is publicly held), I'm not sure. I would think a store can say "We don't want to sell gummy bears to Blondes because they're too air-headed already" if they want, but maybe that's illegal...
Bad PR is what keeps such activity from occuring, by and large.
Xentax
So? (Score:3)
Aren't there plenty of other places to buy video games? I guess if you live in a smaller town that only had a Wal-Mart, that could be a problem.
This seems to come right on the heels of the Democrat's schpeil at the convention about parents having the right to have control over what sex/violence their children are exposed to in their own home. PR for K-mart and Wal-mart to say 'see, we support family values too. Come shop with us'. So what?
Any determined 16-yr-old is going to be able to get his hands on DOOM 2000, regardless of its content rating or controlled distribution at a couple of major retail outlets.
Flame away.
blood lust (Score:2)
Why don't the politicians see this? How about the news media? I don't frickin know..
seems to me.. these sort of things suppress ones lust for blood (a natural thing).. not encourage it.
Its like masturbation..
You are really horny
(Although, if you where doing both at the same time.. I then I would start to worry....
Re:Wait just a second... (Score:2)
Because children do not have full legal rights. Period. Whether you consider that good or bad, it's the law. Stores can set arbitrary limits on what they will sell to children.
I've seen hardware stores that don't let kids buy spray paint. The Lechter's chain of kitchen stores won't let kids buy nitrous oxide cannisters (I think they're used in automatic whipped cream makers or something). This is not a new issue.
Re:Wait just a second... (Score:2)
I'll raise my kids the way my parents raised me.
By the way, I'll never take any comment you make, on any issue seriously.
It's fascists like you that are ruining this country.
Bah, and I was one of the ones defending Walmart and K-Mart, scumbag...
Re:Sucks (Score:2)
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341 [slashdot.org]
I don't care if I get modded to redundant as long as every one of your redundant comments gets modded down too!
No real problem (Score:2)
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341 [slashdot.org]
I realize I've had to be redundant myself to do it!
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341 [slashdot.org]
That's like saying I never lived in the Soviet Union, so how dare I criticize it. What a disgusting parasite you are!
Moderators, note the redundant comments, if ever there were a need for the redundant tag, it's this guy!
Re:Weaponry (Score:3)
A nonviolent person with a rifle in his hand is not going to hurt you.
A violent individual will make it his goal to hurt you with all available weapons... or even with none. That's something I saw firsthand in the joint.
It is mindset, not weaponry, which makes someone a danger to society. If it were to be proven that violent video games increase the likelihood of acquiring a violent mindset (which I rather doubt, however) it would be perfectly reasonable to ban them... while keeping the .22 rifles available.
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:2)
And is it really so different than the hoops we adults have to jump through to get certain things?
Try getting into the bar the day you turn legal. There's every chance you'll be carded -- even through you're an adult! (Hell, I was carded until I was in my mid-twenties -- I'm nevah gonna look my age!)
Try getting something as innocuous as telephone service. If you haven't been a customer before, chances are they're going to want a background check and a sizeable deposit. And you haven't even proved yourself untrustworthy -- you're considered guilty until proven innocent!
What's most amusing, though, are the knuckleheads who are crying out about how KMart is repressing the freedom of the individual. What about the freedom of the company to set its own policies?
Their fallback argument is always that it's not the government's job to raise our children.
By that same token, then, it's not the government's job to school our children -- what is schooling if not inculcating our cultural norms and values in our children... in other words, raising them?
In summary: get over it already. KMart isn't keeping parents from allowing your children to play with violent video games. Go in there with your kid, buy whatever violent and pornographic materials you care to, and hand it over to your nosepickers. It is, after all, a free country... for better or worse.
--
Re:Sucks (Score:2)
I'd rather video games weren't a political football but with Lieberman for VP they're going to be, and carding is better than de facto censorship.
Re:Blue Light Special (Score:3)
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:2)
All that said, you are perfectly correct in asserting that they have every right to do so. They do. And I have every right to take my business elsewhere for K-mart's stupidity, Wal-mart's censorship, and Amazon's idiotic patenting. You may also note that, I, in fact, do.
All that said, Kmart is encouraging parents to take less responsibility for their kids. I can't wait to see the day when some redneck parent who's usually far too busy watching redneck TV and getting drunk off of cheap beer sues EB or Baggages because some other fuckhead kid shot their precious little Johnny, with the argument that they didn't card like Kmart did, thereby helping to create a killer.
What utter bullshit this will lead to. Parents are responsible for raising their own kids. This is not the government's responsibility. It is not the corporation's responsibility. It is not the neighbor's responsiblity, nor that of the little bugger's algebra teacher. The responsibility of raising a kid belongs to the parent.
Okay, you might well say, but what about those parents too busy to take care of their kids? And I say:
1) If you've instilled your kids with the right values, you shouldn't have to worry. They'll grow up right -- knowing not only that something is off-limits, but also why. Instead of "Soldier of Fortune is off-limits because that fuckwit behind the counter won't sell me a copy," it'll be "Soldier of Fortune is probably something I should wait until I'm older to play -- it's not good for me right now." and 2) If you were too busy when you shit out the little bugger in the first place, then you're an idiot!!! Go give your kid up for adoption.
You have no right to diminish the convenience and choices of others because of your own laziness. What if I want my kids to be able to buy whatever video games they want? Under this policy, if my kid wants to buy it at Kmart because they're selling it cheap and he's poor (and all kids generally are), I'd have to go with him. I don't want to do that. You are making me. You're refusal to take care of your kids on an individual basis is causing ME inconveniences! Comprende?
As for movies: AFAIK there is a law saying that they must card. The ratings on videogames are an advisory at this point. Witness how EB doesn't card. Nor does, oh, say, Outpost. Until it becomes law, I'd like my advisories to stay advisories!
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
You've missed the point. They're taking choice away from parents. If parents really were responsible, they shouldn't need "assistance" of this sort from K-mart. Lemme ask you this:
What if I'm of the sort who believes that kids should be allowed to play whatever video games they want? And instead focus on controlling other areas, like making sure my kids finish their homework on-time, and correctly?
If my kids wanted to buy Quake III at K-mart, I'd have to go with them. Despite my philosophy. You can assert that the converse is also true: if there were no carding, the other group of parents who believed in control over their kids would have to go with them to Kmart.
But that's the point!!! They believe in control, they'd better actually be there, and in control! Why do they need the clerk to be a surrogate parent???
This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:5)
Call it censorship if you'd like. Say it's Big Corporate America trying to say what's right for Our Children. (Don't worry, JonKatz will say the same thing soon enough.) Threaten to boycott K-Mart if you're really that active about it. This is just a realization of the ratings system, much like a young kid can't go into an R-rated movie -- assuming that the person behind the counter knows to card.
This will be an annoyance, but it's something that parents have asked for. The world doesn't revolve around whiny Your-Rights-Online activists.
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:2)
How is K-Mart requiring carding "demanding that the rest of the [society] pick up the slack"? I see it as a tool for enforcing my values and standards. How is a private company choosing who they sell product X to censorship? How is it "parenting"? Do you have any children of your own?
That's not what I said, and you know it. But since you bring up the Gay community, I will respond to that. Like it or not, they are a part of the society. It is up to us parents to teach tolerance and acceptance to those not like ourselves. This narrow-minded "you are wrong because you're different" thought pattern just teaches children to close off their minds. This is exactly what led to the hate-movement of the 1960's, and the hate riots in Germany during the 1990's.
My spouse and I are ultimately responsible for our children. We know this, and strive for excellence in everything we do with our children, teaching them our values. If I wanted my children to play "Soldier of Fortune", then I would be happy to buy it at K-Mart (or wherever), with my identification. K-Mart's carding is a tool, not censorship.
Go ahead and boycott K-Mart and Wal-Mart. I think they will do fine without your business.
--
It won't be long (Score:2)
Soon I will have to buy my software from the mafia.
Required Humor Link (Score:2)
Because all of life's problems can be solved through better Web Comics.
Excuse me pal, but *you* obviously don't get it... (Score:2)
> you want it that way, go to KMart yourself and buy it for him or her.
You are missing the mark by a mile or two. How am I to teach my kids to be free and use that freedom responsibly, if they're living in a very un-free country which requires them to "present their papers" to buy a CD, video game, or film? That's what this is about. Making a parent go up to the counter and buy a video game for a 16 year old, as if he were a child of 5 instead of a young adult, sends a message to that teenager: you're a child; we may say you're a young adult, but that's just lip service since you have no more rights than a 5 year old; if you hurt someone we can try you as an adult, and put you in adult prison, and you have all the responsibilities of an adult--but you have *NO* adult rights, even though the responsibilities are yours; you have no rights; you are property, unable to make any decisions for yourself, your parents must make all decisions for you; your parents matter, you do not. You may not think it sends that message, but it does: ask teenagers about it, since they have a perspective different from yours.
Now, it would be impossible--*IMPOSSIBLE*--for me to treat my teenager as a young adult if I have to go to the counter with him to buy him a CD or video game. All of a sudden, he's being treated *exactly* like he's five years old, and all my work is ruined. Way to instill self-confidence and self-sufficiency in someone, oh wise society.
That's not even bringing up the issue of rights and fairness. If someone is expected to behave as an adult, he should be given the rights and privileges attendant upon those responsibilities. To do any less is a gross unfairness. I find it revolting and disgusting that we can and do try and sentence young teens as adults, and yet we don't give them any adult rights whatsoever. A fifteen-year-old, legally, has no more rights than a five-year-old, and yet has far more legal and social responsibilities. there is something quite wrong with that.
> (Of course,
> you have other things to do than that, and couldn't be bothered to take any
> responsibility for your views by taking some action.)
On the contrary, I am clearly much more able and willing to be involved in raising my children than you are. After all, I have thought out the implications of treating them like children when they are no longer mere children, but young adults; and you seem content to treat teenagers like second-graders with no regard for their maturing process and self-esteem. And, I take as much action as I can to make sure my kids will grow to be adults in a world which is friendly to them--I write and have published in actual print media articles about the troubles facing teens these days, most of which come from parents and other adults who are well-meaning but misguided.
Let's look at the immediate issue, though; if stores card everyone for video games and CDs with mature content, and therefore either parents or older kids have to buy such materials for their teenage kids, what are the effects?
1) I and other parents who actually desire to treat our teenagers as young adults, in an effort to nurture responsibility and self-worth, will be unable to avoid treating our teens like they're five years old whenever they want a video game or CD. Of course, this sends our kids the same message we try so hard not to give them, and it can't be avoided.
2) *Your* teens, whom you wish to treat like immature little kids instead of nurturing their growing minds and self-consciousness, will still get the games and music you don't want them to by having older kids get them or by playing them at friends' houses. Your kids won't like you because you're an overbearing bastard who tries to give them all the responsibilities of adulthood but NONE of the rights and privileges.
Nothing truly constructive, in other words. Now, compare that to what heppens without such restrictions:
1) Progressives like me have one less thing to worry about in raising our teens.
2) Teenagers may still be put upon and held back by clueless parents, overbearing administrators, and some fellow classmates, but at least the video game store/CD store/arcade is one less place that they're treated like five-year-olds whose opinions and self-esteem are worthless.
3) People like you will have to actually *parent* instead of letting retailers do it for you, but you can still have control over what your kids bring into your house. If you find a contraband copy of Diablo 2, throw it away and chastise your teen.
4) As with the other list above, your kids can still see all the video game violence and arcade sexuality they want--by going over to the houses of friends with more progressive parents. Like, well, my house.
So, we can clearly see that censorship-at-the-store helps no one, and hurts parents who actually trust and nurture their children.
> You can disagree with KMart
> and WalMart all you want, but saying that they should share your views is
I don't say they should share my views; I say they shouldn't share *yours*. Retailers should be parenting-neutral; it isn't their job to make decisions for anyone's kids, mine or yours. *Yours* is the only opinion that would have corporations making parenting decisions for us, not mine.
> unfounded arrogance on your part,
Well, I already disputed this above, but on a side note: yes, I'm arrogant, but my arrogance is well-founded. Unlike you, I've actually read most of the best, most recent literature on adolescent development. Unlike you, I care more about raising teenagers to be healthy and completely developed adults, rather than in misguidedly exposing them only to things which I personally approve of 100% and attempting to shield them from the world.
> that's shared by most of your clueless slashdot colleagues.
I disagree with a lot of people on
> If graphical depictions of violence are considered good psychological
> replacements for actually dealing with you problems, or even are treated as
> a generic escape route, then I think that there's a problem, and it's not
> KMart's.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it; but it's an unfounded opinion and you shouldn't try to force it upon everyone else. Every single human being is an escapist--why else do we dream? Without dreams, we cannot function. If you allow a person to sleep as long as he wants, but wake him briefly whenever REM sleep indicates he's ready to dream, you'll have a very agitated and unhelthy person in short order. This has been proven by clinical studies. For whatever reason, we need to dream. We need that escape. Video games perhaps serve a similar function--we exercise our reflexes in ways we can't in day-to-day life, but which were common in our primordial days; we exorcise our violent impulses, which otherwise would stay bottled up inside us until they flare up IRL; we can be powerful, important characters in video and roleplaying games, to make up for the lack of power and importance which plague so many teenage lives.
Using games as a cathrsis doesn't mean that you're not solving your problems IRL; but often there are problems in real life which we cannot solve. For example, when society gets medieval with teenagers and starts treating them like little children, as in the present example of restricting the purchase of simple games, there's little a teenager can do about it. He can complain all he wants, but sadly enough, adults won't listen to him because too many of them are as thoughtless as you are.
>
> their kids to see, and appreciate a policy that agrees with them.
Yes, but the majority are often wrong. That's why the founders of our country and its Constitution used phrases like "the tyranny of the majority" and "the rights of the minority." Just because a majority of parents--and I don't think it's anywhere near a majority, but for the sake of the argument--have an opinion does not mean that they have the right to violate the rights of other parents and the rights of teens. Sadly enough, though, in legal terms teenagers have few rights--not much more than young children do, and that's not right. Just because the majority desires something doesn't make it right; in fact, the majority is typically wrong. That's why there are so many safeguards in the Constitution against tyranny of the ignorant masses, like the Electoral College. Who should be making decisions, smart people (the minority) or average people (the majority)? And, before you answer, realize that the "average" person can't locate South America on a globe, or learn to use Windows without calling tech support *a lot*.
> The rest of your paragraph is a fine argument that
> unrestricted access is ideal, but it misses the point. KMart is taking reasonable
> actions to fit in to the society that it caters to.
If indeed unrestricted access is ideal, you should support it. "Society," though I hate to use such a blanket term here, should be changed through education if it's wrong, and ignored if it won't listen. After all, what makes the U.S. fairly unique is not the rule of the majority, but the respect we maintain for the rights of the minority. So, if unrestricted access is, as you say, ideal, then that's the way it should be.
>
> has mental problems anyway
Where have you been lately, my friend? Most teenagers have mental problems--or at least what society chooses to call mental problems. A very significant portion of the teenage population are permanently medicated--why, you can't walk into a classroom these days without finding someone who'd at least on Ritalin, if not anti-depressants. Personally, I chalk most of these "mental problems" up to being merely symptoms of adolescence and the emotional intensities that are always a part of it. Many doctors agree that Ritalin is definitely over-prescribed. I've also known teenagers on Zoloft and Wellbutrin. Most of them should not be. But, most teenagers have clinically diagnosable "mental problems" like depression. But largely they're just part of growing up. It's sad that we medicate our teenagers to remove the symptoms of adolescence, but we do.
> Everyone has limits on what they're allowed to do.
Yes, but in the U.S. we have far too many. That would be why the only country with a larger percentage of its population in prison is Russia. That's very telling and hideous. "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"--Tacitus, *The Annals*
> Teenagers have a few more; they always have in our society.
True, and many of the "extra" limitations are necessary. But new ones are not. Unfortunately, every year we oppress teenagers more. Legally enforced curfews--in my city, a teenager can't legally spend the night in a friend's house, even if they stay indoors all night, without written parental consent. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ABOUT?!? In Michigan(?) a 16 year old boy was found guilty of statutory rape and subject to the sex offender registry for having consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. That's *wrong*, and would never have happened even during the height of the Reagan morality police. Kids are now being profiled in schools by FBI software. We have tried 11 year old kids as adults and given them life in prison for murders which they quite frankly could not have understood--no rehabilitation, they're just thrown away. Our young people are at risk--from their elders. This video game business may be a relatively minor thing, but it's one more thing which should be stopped, one more thing which goes over the line. A small evil is still an evil.
> Learning to live with that is part of growing up.
No, for all the kids I knew growing up and know now as an adult, learning to get around those rules is part of growing up. After all, when I was a kid, movie theaters didn't even card for R-rated movies--the ratings were a "suggestion" and not enforced. And now, I can't buy a damned cigar without being carded even though I look about 34 with my beard and all. We are becoming a pathetic country in which no one is free anymore. I remember back in the 80s we used to say that what separated us from the Soviets was that a Russian had to show his papers everywhere he goes, and an American could go wherever he wanted to and no one would question him about it. Now, we have to show our papers as much as anyone in the Soviet Union ever had to. And we treat our teenagers like they aren't even people. in 20 years, America has gone from being the soul and savior of the world, to being a mocked and ridiculed and hated caricature. Our children are failing because we've failed to protect them by guaranteeing basic rights.
> BTW: Great song, great Lyrics, and great point, but completely irrelevant
If you think so. But I think it's the whole point. It's why Columbine and Jonesboro happened. Violent video games didn't do it; boxing our teenagers in, treating them like veal, did.
Re:Restrictions on games good (Score:2)
It's doubtful that just playing some games or watching some movies will cause someone to wig out, I can't help but wonder what the total effect from years of playing realistically violent games is.
Also, how does it influence the totality of our culture? I believe in a feedback-type system. We play violent games. We watch violent movies. We have violent TV shows. We talk about violence, think about violence. After a while, this degree of violence is passe, and no longer shocking to the masses. So the envelope is "pushed", and the violence in movie & TV increases. Video games follow suit, as the gamers now want more violence; increase in computer power allows the violence to be more realistic. Repeat cycle.
Where do we end up? Where does a child starting here, now, end up in 20 years with a steady diet of murders, deaths, and slayings?
Most of us separate it from reality fairly easily. But can everyone? Can a small child? Or even a young teenager?
As for censorship - there is none. Companies can still make violent games. Adults can still buy games. Kids can play games if their parents buy it for them. Kids just can't buy them directly. This is restrictive, the way movie ratings are, but it certainly isn't censorship.
I like violent games here and there. I'm also 29, understand the impact of real physical suffering, and I don't confuse pretend for real. I don't believe that's the case for the typical 10 yr. old. Parents are responsible for their children, but they can't monitor their behavior 24/7. So why not make parenting a little easier by having mandatory carding on high-violence games, just as we do with beer, movies, and magazines?
-----
D. Fischer
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
And you keep missing the point again and again.
It must be because your argument is illogical...
What if I believe in freedom to play whatever games they want? What if I believe in teaching my child that I (gasp) trust them? That they should be doing what I want them to do without my supervision?
Well, perhaps you could go into the store, grab whatever titles they're interested in, and buy them without questioning the content. During the car ride home, you could tell them that you disagree with the need for the restriction, but as it exists there's nothing you can do about it. Kids are amazingly understanding.
Why, K-mart is now infringing on my principles, and I can point back at the 'we-want-control' parents and ask "why are you too lazy to take your kids to Kmart, if you really believe in supervision?
This doesn't make sense. No parent, no matter how smothering, is going to watch over their child 24/7. Some kids, amazingly enough, disobey their parents, even when their parents are acting in the child's best interests. Kid is at school, kid goes to store at lunch and buys game, parents can't do anything to stop them.
Have you never been responsible for a child (or, for that matter, a puppy) in your life?
--
I got carded once... (Score:2)
Wait just a second... (Score:2)
So how the heck can they legally enforce this? While I am not a parent, I can understand that maybe all of these violent games are not the best for little Junior, but shouldn't that be my decision, not K-mart's?
I really find this to be an infringement on the ability of the public to freely purchase legal products. What's next, refusing to allow minors to buy aspirin because of the "no-drugs" policy at many schools?
Kierthos
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
Yes, it certainly takes choice away from parents.
Scenario A - No ID. Parent says, "I don't want you playing that game, so I won't buy it for you." Kid goes down to the store, buys it, goes home, and plays it.
Scenario B - IDed. Parent says, "I don't want you playing that game, so I won't buy it for you." Kid goes down to the store, tries to buy it, fails. Sure, if they look hard enough they may find some person who will buy it for them, thus circumventing the parents' ability to parent. The parents can only do so much, but at least they tried. Hopefully, though, the kid has been raised well enough that he/she will not even try to go down to the store.
If you're the sort who believes your kids can play whatever games they like, the least you can do is go buy it for them. I mean, really - if you're too lazy to get off your ass and go to the store to FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, you mustn't feel all that strongly after all.
It's kinda like one comment on a story about online voting. The person says that he cares a lot about politics, but that it's too hard to leave the house for ten minutes to go vote. We should be able to vote on the computer. Please.
--
Re:So? (Score:2)
I'm wondering, considering this is an election year, this is going to take till one of the presidential candidates starts supporting these stronger methods(will vote for the other person instead)? Sort of like 1992 when Ice-T got in trouble with "Cop Killer" and people were like "Oh my God! People who listen to that stuff are going to go out and started shooting every cop that they see! We must do something!"
In the end, it was all the same...kids STILL got the music.
Re:Now... (Score:2)
Is this really going to stop kids from getting games behind their parent's backs that the p's wouldn't otherwise let the kid's have? No. Is it going to stop kids whose p's don't care what their kids buy. Don't think so. What does this do? Makes the Rosie O'Donnel-watching K-mart shopping soccer mom set feel good that big companies are going to do their parenting for them. Will it work? Did anything they tried to do to protect you from yourself make any difference when you were groing up? Me neither.
Re:Blue Light Special (Score:2)
In Texas, we have a magnetic strip too. I had mine swiped once when buying a hunting/fishing license. (I assume to keep people from buying more than one license).
When I first got the magnetic-strip ID, I put it in an ATM machine to see what would happen. It spit it out, and printed a recipt with my social security number on it. Scarey.
wishus
Vote for freedom! [harrybrowne2000.org]
---
You have to show your ID? (Score:2)
Hmm. You must just give off that vibe or something.
Nobody should worry. (Score:2)
The shops are showing "responsibility"
The pressure groups are happy
The shops have less hassle
Kids can still buy games (albeit in a roundabout way)
As a side effect, kids learn to work around inconvenient rules
Everyones a winner!
Why is this wrong? (Score:5)
Wal-mart asks for ID when I buy an R rated DVD (I'm 27 mind you) and I have no problem with that.
People seem to want to give CHILDREN all sorts of freedoms but the simple fact is, if you're not 18
If I were a parent, I'd much rather drop my 15 year old kids off at a theater that ENFORCES the ratings knowing that if by chance my kids do want to buy tickets to an R rated movie after I leave, they won't be able to. The same goes for stores that enforce game ratings. As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them
Suggesting a boycott or "wall of shame" in these cases is just ridiculous and makes it seem like this story was written by a 14 year old who's mad he can't get Soldier of Fortune without his mom knowing.
If you want to be an irresponsible parent, fine
Restrictions on games good (Score:4)
1) Funding and promotion for the entire media industry (entertainment, news, Slashdot, etc.) is largely predicated on the belief that people's behaviors can be influenced by the media; hence, commercials, ads, celebrity endorsements.
2) Nearly everyone in the media who earns money from the sale of violent, salacious, or obscene material holds that their work does not affect people's behavior. Interestingly, that work is usually funded & promoted in part by commercials.
=> The media is hypocritical.
Of course we are influenced by what we mentally "consume". Our entire culture is based upon information transfer. We read newspapers, books, magazines to gain info and thus have our behavior influenced and modified. We send our kids to school to hear teachers teach, so they gain knowledge & wisdom, and have their behavior change with that. Most of this is self-caused, and often purposeful. But not all. Young kids watch "Power Rangers" and then karate-kick friends and family in emulation. Teens watch hit comedies, and then talk about them, and introduce new slang into their language ("Not that there's anything wrong with that", "D'oh!", etc.)
To hold that the content of movies, books, music, games, etc. has no effect on anyone is naive, to say the least.
It seems a useful question to ask is whether we should have any restrictions on who can access what content, or none at all. (e.g. > 17 for "R" movies, "Playboy" can't be purchased by minors, need parents' permission to call the TV Psychics).
Perhaps first, we should ask not whether we are influenced by intellectual intake, but to what degree.
-----
D. Fischer
Re:Wait just a second... (Score:4)
It makes the parents aware that their kid is getting the game, and makes sure that parents know.
This is the purpose of ratings, so the industry can police itself. Otherwise the government might decide to, and there's no way in hell I'll let that happen.
Re:Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore... (Score:2)
Re:Gore hates gore? (Score:2)
All candidates, though, have to sound soft on things like family issues for fear of offending the Voting Public. (Who votes? Mostly family-oriented middle-aged and older people.) If Gore/Lieberman had opposed this, you would have seen Democratic advisors on every talk show in the country fielding questions like "Are you saying that it's all right for a 14-year-old boy to buy a game that features gory violence?" They wouldn't be able to answer that question without sounding like they're against the Ideals of the American Family.
Re:Incorrect, on several accounts (Score:2)
some of those were laws. the ratings were not. what I mean to say was that it's nice that some companies are taking the intiative without them becoming law
Re:Weaponry (Score:2)
A rifle is insignificant if that person can kill you with his hands and arbitrary nearby objects.
Thought police? (Score:2)
Now there's a fascinating argument. If I understand you correctly, that which can cause me to become violent, or at least, to "acquire a violent mindset," should be banned. Let me ask you a couple of questions, though: is it merely enough to try and attempt to keep people from acquiring such a mindset? If, after all, it's people and not the easy availability of weapons that are the problem, wouldn't it make sense to take a proactive stance to prevent people from becoming violent?
It is a long-held tenet of law in the US that you can't be held accountable for something you're thinking, only for things that you actually do. (Or don't do. Whatever.) To suggest that we start to legislate based on the thoughts or general mental state of the public is to push us a notch closer towards "acceptable beliefs" and "thought police."
You're also much more likely to see someone use a shiv fashioned out of a purloined spoon "in the joint" than you are to see someone hold up a convenience store with one. While I concede the possiblity that people who are incarcerated are more prone to violent behavior than the populace at large, I also ask that you consider that the reason people tend not to hold up stores with spoons is because guns make it a whole lot easier.
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
Even at some theaters where they put the ticket-checkers closer to the screenings, instead of just at the door, they'll usually wave you in the direction of the ticket's screening, and not notice when you head in the other direction. (I've done this, believe me).
All in all, any belief that by dropping a child off at a theater that enforces the age-18 limit for rated R movies will actually stop the child from seeing whatever he/she wants to see is laughable.
Re:Sucks (Score:3)
or did you just want to say the buzz-phrase "dangerous precedent"?
this is a GREAT precedent. this is a company possibly taking a pro-active stance in upholding statistics and ratings that says "this may be inappropriate for younger audiences"
rather than be told that a company has to start policing and it's seen as a rights issue, if a company does it of it's own accord and takes a moral stance, then that's a great perogative. yes, you might not agree with it, but then it can be your perogative to go elsewhere.
think of it like an ISP saying "there's nothing wrong with prOn on the internet. I'm just not going to host it on my servers"
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:5)
I find it somewhat amusing that people try to use age limiting ratings as such firm barrier against corruption. They assume that you restrict your child to certain material for 17 years of their life, and then suddenly they're mature enough to deal with it on their own when they hit that magic birthday (be it 13, 18, etc..). I don't know about you, but I don't recall a "sensitivity and impressionability" switch being turned over when I hit a certain age.
You can't expect your child not to be exposed to certain things in life. It just isn't a reasonable expectation. Instead of applauding retailers and perpetuating the American trend of transferable responsibility, perhaps people should sit down with their children and talk to them instead. Educate them on what is out there and what some of their choices are.
To get back on topic: even if a child does buy a game recommended for (M)ature audiences, shouldn't the parent be aware when it is being played. I don't know too many kids that buy ultra-violent/sexy games and then play them in the basement so their parents won't discover their devious side. But maybe I just don't know enough kids.
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:2)
Example: If we let the government protect our children a little bit, then they will tend to protect our children more and more over time, and eventually all children will be raised as wards of the state, because parents will have all their rights usurped by the government. Therefore we can't let our children be protected by the government at all.
Your other ideas seem OK, but you haven't justified why there is the slightest reason to fear the mythical slippery slope. I know you were trying to be balanced in your presentation, but by giving credence to a preposterous viewpoint, your presentation is less effective.
Re:Blue Light Special (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
- There is ridiculous hoopla over child-committed violence (a child is much safer in school, church, home, on the playground than in a car driven by an adult).
- Someone needs to be left holding the bag or newspapers don't sell, lawyers don't get paid, politicians don't get elected, etc.
- Blaming parenting or parental methods can only be successfully done by children of same after therapy (I forgot to mention therapists above).
- The parenting problem this is supposed to band-aid: children using their disposable income unwisely. If a child of 16 can purchase these and other games, he can also:
- Help with car insurance (if old enough)
- Help with car payment (if old enough)
- Save for college
- etc...
- So rather than use disposable income to teach what monetary responsibility is, a hands-off neoclassical idea of 12-yr-olds being miniature adults capable of making a sound monetary decision about things that cost more than $10 (admission to a movie plus snacks--maybe), parents this is aimed at are happy to rely on MegaCorp to raise their child for them.
- I have exactly the same views about drinking ages. Can't drink it if you can't pay for it. Once a child can pay rent, pay car payment, insurance, college, food, etc.., then that child can do what s/he will with the rest of their money without approval.
These things may seem draconian. However, I believe a child's spending money should be proportional to the responsibility the child takes on with fiduciary decisions (ie, how much of his own life s/he is paying for). Otherwise, serious (and often reprehensible) ramifications will arise.Anyone who thinks a teenager should keep all the money they make is teaching the teenager a bad lesson: the wantful things in life are a higher priority than the needful things in life.
Re:Wait just a second... (Score:2)
Pretty easy...they are going to card as the article states. You can still buy the game if you want (if you're of age), then give it to your son.
There is no law about "public to freely purchase legal products". That would be silly! Um. Let see. My comic shop does not allow me to buy pr0n! Kmart has made their own decision to card for the product any store in the US can do the same. PETCO could card for buying a fish at their store if they wanted...if you don't like it, simply go elswhere!
Civil Rights (Score:2)
It may be easy to forget many of you probably felt the same way, but when you become older you probably do forget, and begin looking at things in your own interest. You come up with explanations about why the current situation should be perpetuated, which you would never believe if you were the subject of that discrimination.
I am not going to say, "Oh, I don't care if teens can't buy a computer game or CD or go to a movie, because I'm 25 now. It doesn't affect me." I still think it's unfair and I'm still pissed off about it.
What to do about it, then?
What is the legal basis of majority vs minority status, and how does that relate to civil rights?
Interesting... looks like some other people care about these issues too. Google search: "teen rights"
here are a few appetizers:
http://pages.prodigy.com/teenrights/agediscr.htm [prodigy.com]
http://pages.prodigy.com/teenrights/ [prodigy.com]
Re:Blue Light Special (Score:2)
same with some international airlines.
Re:God forbid someone look out for my child (Score:2)
Re:PSsssssst. (Score:2)
Re:This is why ratings were CREATED, people. (Score:4)
However, I do think that we set a rather high and arbitrary age for what is considered to be an adult. The only reason 18 sticks out is that 99.9+% of the ppl have finished puberty, and therefore will be sane the rest of their lives winkwink. I'm in favor of what I call an adult card - you automatically get one when you turn 18, but prior to that point, if your parents and at least two other people outside relatives ( teachers, employers, coaches) believe that you are sufficiently responsible, you can get an adult card as early as 13. Having an adult card grants you those privalegies, such as being able to see R-rated files w/o parents, buying M rated games, and so forth. However, at that time, you are now considered an adult by a court of law -- you have adult privalegies, so you also have adult responsibility.
Certainly if implemented, 90% of the parents wouldn't do a thing about it and wait for 18 to roll around, but I know of teenagers that show remarkable intelligence and responsibilty that they are more mature then some adults, and deserve to be considered as one.
Re:Weaponry (Score:3)
I'd like to see someone kill me at a range of fifty yards using only his hands and "arbitrary nearby objects." You don't need guns to kill someone. They just make it a whole lot easier.
But, out of deference to your argument, I suppose we should make an effort to destroy all the remaining copies of "Donkey Kong," in the world, just in case some big yahoo walks past a stack of barrels and starts getting ideas.
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:2)
This is all well and good, and probably gave a warm fuzzy to a lot of parents out there. But you want to guess how many times I've been carded for subsequent movies at the same theater? Try none, as in Zero, Not Once. I don't really pay attention to movie ratings, but I'm guessing I've probably seen at least a half-dozen R rated movies in that theater since SouthPark. Where were the carders at The Patriot or Gladiator? Was Scary Movie really less offensive than South Park?
The squeaky wheel get's the grease; or in this case, the card. When SouthPark came out, it was during the height of controversy over the TV show. The movie was described by some to be the sickest, most perverted thing they'd ever seen, and parents and "concerned groups" nationwide raised a shitstorm. Theaters responded by cracking down with ID checks. Rarely before had theaters taken such measures to ensure the underaged stayed out, and it seems they haven't taken the same steps since, at least in my area.
Similarly, when ratings started appearing on video games, nobody really cared. Then games like Soldier of Fortune, Quake3, and others started appearing with blood, gore, and violence not seen before in games. Parents and others have started raising hell again, and this is the result.
There's nothing inheritely wrong with a voluntary rating systems on games. The real question, I think, is how it is enforced. Does a 15 year old get carded for any M rated game, whether it be Soldier of Fortune or Deer Hunter?
Re:Why is this wrong? (Score:3)
I couldn't agree more. By the same token, I'm in favor of technologies like the V-chip, maturity level lockout on DVDs, and the like.
This is an age in which parents feel increasingly helpless as they discover just how many pieces of technology take parenting out of their hands, and they feel like they are losing control. Technology has made it easier and easier for children to gain exposure to materials their parents may not want them to have (From the printing press on up, mind you) but has done very little to actually help the parents control what kind of information their children have access to.
Admittedly, there are times when methods of restriction do more harm than good. For example, when a proto-adult is denied information on HIV awareness because the site mentions the word homosexual. This is, to my mind, clearly not appropriate. Still, there are in fact those parents who would prefer that their children not receive information on sex education. While I think they are idiots, that does not give me the right to educate their children for them.
Likewise, the videogame industry does not have the right to educate anyone's children for them without their consent. Mind you, if parents didn't give their children so much allowance money, they wouldn't be able to afford games where creatures are eviscerated, but that's a seperate story. Maybe I'm just jealous because I only got five dollars a week allowance as a kid. Anyway, putting ratings on videogames doesn't help a parent much if they never know their child has purchased the game. Requiring ID to buy games is a reasonable step.
People have brought up the point that there is no law restricting children from purchasing these games. They are correct. What they are missing is that they will end up forcing parents to push through a law enforcing these standards. When that happens, you will not be able to make a videogame, even freeware or shareware, and then distribute it through open channels without having it rated by the ESRB. Is that really what we want to bring down upon ourselves?
Most theaters, of course, won't sell them a ticket for a movie they shouldn't be seeing, but they don't go into the theaters and check to make sure only children with permission to be there are there. However, the biggest theater in town here (Nine screens - We only have 50,000 people in this city) does in fact often check ticket stubs now. I think this is more to protect revenue flow than to keep kids from seeing the wrong movies, but it does achieve both purposes.
Personally, I wouldn't want my child running around with fifty bucks in cash until they were old enough to buy most of this stuff, anyway. Not that I have a child, because I'm 23 myself, and it's just a tad early - But don't tell me I'm not qualified to discuss the subject because I don't have my own rugrat. I was one once, and I know what children will do, given a chance. Do I think that violent videogames make children violent? Nope. Though I do know what it's like to play a game for a few hours and want to go out and hurt something real. I don't do it, because I've learned restraint, but restraint is something that children have been known to lack, and I acknowledge the possibility that one could lead to the other. To discredit that possibility out of hand is to remain willfully ignorant.
Which, among everything else, is your choice, which is what this is all about in the first place.
This is a good thing... really (Score:3)
It isn't like this will hurt game sales. How many people under 17 buy their own games anyway? Games are expensive, not too many teenagers (Much less young children.) have $50 to blow on games on a regular basis. This will just result in parents purchasing the games, just like they do with R-rated movies. How many dads do you know that would tell their teenage sons no if the kid wanted to play a violent game? Chances are that if a kid has parents stupid enough to shelter the kid from violent games, the kid is probably too stupid to figure the games out anyway.
It frees the game industry from people being able to claim that they didn't know what their kids were into. That will really do a lot more good than harm in the long run. Age limits were never able to stop porn, or R level content in movies, or cigarettes, or alcohol. They won't stop violent games. If anything, they will help.
Re:Sucks (Score:2)
Hate to break this to you, but your 12-year-old can't just walk into K-Mart and buy the real thing either. So this statement is meaningless.
That said, why are so many people whining about this? Do you really think that it's that important for a kid to be able to see animated gore etc. without his or her parents' permission? Do you think it is a good, unreplaceable outlet for energy and creativity, or maybe a political statement, or perhaps a unsurrpassable bonding experience for them and their friends?
Yeah, some people say that "If they censor Blood & Guts Extreme 2001, tomorrow they'll censor something of real value." First, why should KMart be dedicated to Free Speech? (That's the citizen's job, not theirs.) Someone elsewhere in the discussion was saying that 'violent games promote violence' is a "slippery slope" argument. Isn't the 'ever-widening blanket of censorship' a slippery slope argument as well? Until there's some proof either way (hint: the former has a lot more than the latter) you don't need to get yourself into a tizzy because, against all expectations, KMart tries to make a buck.