Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Video Games 35

Journal by pudge

I had a letter published in the Seattle P-I today.

Douglas Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, makes some good points about video games in his Oct. 30 letter. But his conclusion -- that industry, retailers and government have no responsibility in protecting children -- is not supported by his otherwise reasonable letter.

I have no problem with "mature" video games. I enjoyed "Max Payne," "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" and "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." But I'd never let my kids play them.

Parents today are expected to let their kids make their own decisions on the one hand, and are told they can't expect any help from society on the other. Nonsense. I expect stores to refuse to sell products with mature content to my children, and I favor legislation to that effect.

The game industry likes to crow about how no one should take the place of parents, but that is precisely what they do when they sell mature content to a minor without parental consent.

NOTE: If you are in the small minority of Americans who think that stores should be allowed to sell porn to minors, then obviously you won't possibly agree with me on this issue, so you may as well not bother. The notion that we can restrict adult content sales to minors is based on the notion that we can restrict porn to minors, and if you won't agree with that, then there's no point in discussing the issue further.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Games More

Video Games

Comments Filter:
  • Parents are expected to not lord over their children past a certain age so they can begin to gain experience. They are also still expected to provide guidance and what they consider reasonable protection from harm. That's not exactly the same thing as just cutting them loose to run free all willy nilly.

    Your kids are your responsibility. If you don't feel confident in your child's ability to make sound buying decisions, it's your responsibility to keep your eye on what they're doing. If you can't keep a reas
    • Parents are expected to not lord over their children past a certain age so they can begin to gain experience. They are also still expected to provide guidance and what they consider reasonable protection from harm. That's not exactly the same thing as just cutting them loose to run free all willy nilly.

      Execpted by whom?

      You're actually *proving* my point, not arguing against it: you are telling parents how they should parent. You are disregarding their wishes for what YOU think should be the right thing for

      • Right, so we should allow children to buy porn, guns, beer, etc.

        Not my kids of course, I don't want them to have porn, guns, beer, or GTA. That is why I monitor their purchases. That is why I do not allow them to purchase those things.

        As far other children are concerned, they don't need my permission to do anything. Unless they are your kids they don't need your permission, and they certainly don't need the permission of the United States Congress.

        To say we should allow it is deceptive. We shoul

        • As far other children are concerned, they don't need my permission to do anything.

          If you are selling it to them, you are giving them your permission to have those items. And yes, as you are the provider, they do need your permission (or the permission of someone else who would provide it).

          Unless they are your kids they don't need your permission, and they certainly don't need the permission of the United States Congress.

          I would never say this has anything to do whatsoever with the U.S. Congress. This is p

          • It's about what *stores* are allowed to do. Do they have the right to make the decision to provide certain items to children, against the wishes of the parents?

            Okay, you convinced me. I will sign your petition and vote for the upcoming referendum to prevent storekeepers from selling candy to minors without parental consent.

            I know that I do not want my kids to get ahold of twinkies and Mars bars and the so many other sugary snacks that are provably detrimental to their health, and I know many other d

            • Okay, you convinced me. I will sign your petition and vote for the upcoming referendum to prevent storekeepers from selling candy to minors without parental consent.

              Yeah, um, except that GTA: San Andreas is a lot closer to porn than it is to a candy bar, for the overwhelming majority of parents, and for the community at large.

              We have laws on the books about obscenity and minors, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. We have no such laws about candy bars.

              And you still have not answered the questio

              • GTA: San Andreas is very different from porn to parents and the community at large. If you disagree, I suggest you display GTA: San Andreas at your local mall, and then do the same for Debbie Does Dallas. You might be suprised to see the very different reactions of parents and the community at large.

                Of course adult films and 'mature' video games are still very different from candy bars. Candy bars have been scientifically proven to have a detrimental effect on children. There is no scientific evidence

                • GTA: San Andreas is very different from porn to parents and the community at large.

                  It is different, but in the same general class of content, to most parents.

                  If you disagree, I suggest you display GTA: San Andreas at your local mall, and then do the same for Debbie Does Dallas. You might be suprised to see the very different reactions of parents and the community at large.

                  Then I suppose you've never taken your character into the strip club and gotten a lap dance in GTA: San Andreas (or GTA: Vice City, for t

                  • That's what it's all about, "the freedom to raise our children without fear". Fear that they might see a woo-hah, or a ding-a-ling. Fear that they might believe evolution and lose faith in the Bible. Fear that they might get drunk, get high, have sex, have an abortion, eat pork on Friday, or pierce their belly button.

                    I'm sorry, but the world is a dangerous place, and your children are probably not yet capable of handling it. But you keep them safe. You pad the corners of the wall, install plastic cov

                    • That's what it's all about, "the freedom to raise our children without fear".

                      This is not remotely about fear. It's about nothing more, and nothing less, than my rights as a parent.

                      You can pretend it is about fear, but that will only keep you in ignorance. I know it is tempting to try to frame an opponent you disagree with as being fearful, but it's not accurate, and therefore doesn't get you anywhere.

                      Worse, by pretending this is about fear, what you're really doing is telling me how I should be a parent,

                    • I never suggested you don't have the right to decide what your children can see or hear. My contention is that you don't have the right to decide what other people can buy and sell and whom they can sell it too. There is no contradiction there.

                      If you gave your child fifty dollars and set them loose in Electronics Boutique, you are the one that decided they were mature enough to handle that environment. Don't blame EB if that turns out to be a mistake.

                    • I never suggested you don't have the right to decide what your children can see or hear.

                      Yes, you did. You stated unequivocally that others should be able to make those decisions instead of me.

                      My contention is that you don't have the right to decide what other people can buy and sell and whom they can sell it too.

                      Exactly. You are stating that others have the right to decide for my children what they can see or hear.

                      There is no contradiction there.

                      There is no LACK of contradiction. There are, in fact, prec
          • He'd be in the same minority as the French guy quoted on the O'Reilly factor a couple of nights ago who claimed that adults having sex with minors isn't harmful to them.
      • You are disregarding their wishes for what YOU think should be the right thing for them and their children. That is precisely what you are doing.

        No, I'm not. You made a comment about expectations and I responded to it, nothing more. They're MY expectations, and I believe them to be relatively close to the mainstream expectations of most Americans. I'm not demanding that a law be passed to make this the norm, I'm merely expressing my opinion and you can take it or leave it. I don't think it's my responsibili
        • No, I'm not.

          Yes, you are.

          You made a comment about expectations and I responded to it, nothing more.

          Yes, and your response expressed the view that parental opinions should be disregarded.

          I don't think it's my responsibility to force you to parent the way I think you should.

          No, but you do think the law should allow others to usurp my parental authority.

          Contrast this with your calling for new laws that would require Wal-Mart clerks to make value-based decisions for your children.

          I did no such thing. Look agai
          • That's because you're an idiot. Sorry, but it's true: anyone who thinks any of my parenting ideas are "horrific" hasn't the brains to intelligently comment on any of these topics, and you should probably just go away.

            Excellent comeback. I'll be sure to duly note that your personal opinions on parenting are the be-all end-all of parenting and that my opinions on the matter are merely the insane babbling of an idiot. In fact, please write a book, because now that you've so enlightened me, I want to use a step
            • Excellent comeback.

              *shrug* If you want me to apologize for stooping to your level, I can, but I don't think that would be complimentary to you, either.

              Yes, and to this point the majority opinion of Americans has, apparently, been that selling "M" rated games to children is fine because it's the parent's responsibility to pay attention to what their children are doing.

              You're wrong. The overwhelming majority opinion of Americans is that such sales should be restricted. That's why laws to that effect are ver
      • As far as video games go, there is a certain self-limiting factor in the fact that they cost a ton of cash. They're virtually impossible to afford or possess without parental involvement, and if one is purchased on the sly an attentive parent can still pick up the fact that it's in the house by strolling by their kid once in a blue moon. $50 mistakes won't be repeated often.

        Once again, this is about a bunch of cranks, lawyers, and legislators working up their self-importance at the expense of business a

        • As far as video games go, there is a certain self-limiting factor in the fact that they cost a ton of cash. They're virtually impossible to afford or possess without parental involvement

          You don't know many kids today, do you?

          and if one is purchased on the sly an attentive parent can still pick up the fact that it's in the house by strolling by their kid once in a blue moon.

          Same thing with porn.

          Once again, this is about a bunch of cranks, lawyers, and legislators working up their self-importance at the expen
          • Better than what we have now, which is a contempt of parental authority and community standards.

            I think such contempt is better defined by a campaign to make government an arbiter of what your kids can and can't consume and putting restrictions on community businesses of a whole new range of content. And you can't compare M games to porn because AO was made for that, but this will provide a convenient way for the self-appointed arbiters of community standards to reclass content deemed appropriate for 16y

            • I think such contempt is better defined by a campaign to make government an arbiter of what your kids can and can't consume

              So it should be legal to sell porn to kids?

              And you can't compare M games to porn

              I can, and I do. It's the other way around: you cannot tell me I can't. Again, you are trying to tell me how to parent. You're the one being the nanny here, interfering with my parental choices.

              And it is an inconvenience for retail outlets to train their employees, for employees to card, for legit custome
              • C'mon, you can do better.

                Alright. I wasn't going to go one more, but I promise to make this my final comment on this topic here.

                First, I want to make it clear that my argument is specific to video games. Hookers, porn, cigarettes, alcohol and firearms aren't on the table -- I'm attacking the policy of restricting video game sales singly (in other words, I'm promoting the status quo) and would be quite impressed if after nearly two decades of tedium failing to put restrictions on video game sales tomor

                • None of your arguments are relevant to anything I've been talking about, in any way whatsoever.

                  You keep missing the point that what you say doesn't matter, because *I* am the parent, and if *I* say you can't sell something to my child, then that's all that matters. End of story.
                  • The thing is that when written into law IT IS NOT YOU telling the store that they can't sell the game to YOUR child, It is the Government demanding that the store will not sell that game to ANY child, REGARDLESS of the wishes of the child's parents. YOU do not control what MY child does or does not purchase, but you would support a law taking away MY right to allow MY child to purchase content that I do not deem offensive.

                    Wouldn't a better solution be a combination of technology and regulation? Basically,
                    • The thing is that when written into law IT IS NOT YOU telling the store that they can't sell the game to YOUR child, It is the Government demanding that the store will not sell that game to ANY child, REGARDLESS of the wishes of the child's parents. YOU do not control what MY child does or does not purchase, but you would support a law taking away MY right to allow MY child to purchase content that I do not deem offensive.

                      Yes, in a sense: I don't really think this is an issue of parental rights, frankly, b

          • I don't want them selling it to my kids.

            You might be better off trying controling your kid's behavior, rather than trying to control everyone else's.

            • You might be better off trying controling your kid's behavior, rather than trying to control everyone else's.

              Right. We should allow adults to sell porn to kids. And alcohol. And guns.

              You just don't get that your argument necessarily leads to this. Why do you have such a hard time with that?
  • almost long enough for the discussion to be archived. Tada. See my stance [slashdot.org] on it from the last time YRO got my hackles raised on the issue.

    But yea, I support age-restriction legislation. I just can't see any real downsides to it. And the only people who really, really decry it are absolute free-speech purists that also have no problems with child pornography or pornography sales to minors. I may have problems with things like obscenity law, and public library censorship, but I'm just not *that* far out
    • In arguing about this in YRO.. I was told, at one point or another, that children should be allowed access to everything adults can. From cigarettes to alcohol to ultra-hardcore porn.

      When I was fifteen I would have wholeheartedly agreed with this sentiment. Are you sure you didn't run across somebody similarly aged?

      • It's the internet. It's hard to tell. I'd like to *think* that's the age group that's so adamantly opposed to legislation of this nature, but it's impossible to know. I mean, I do know a few free-speech adults that go that far.
    • Yeah, I saw it. You win!

      And the only people who really, really decry it are absolute free-speech purists that also have no problems with child pornography or pornography sales to minors.

      Right, like the above Libby Liberal.

      In arguing about this in YRO.. I was told, at one point or another, that children should be allowed access to everything adults can. From cigarettes to alcohol to ultra-hardcore porn.

      Yep. They tell us we should not have other people do our parenting, and then chastise us for how we pare
      • They tell us we should not have other people do our parenting, and then chastise us for how we parent, and even take over our parenting by making decisions for us, against our will. Crazy people.

        That's a different group, with representation on both sides of the political aisle in their own ways. The issue at the heart of the "think of the children" argument should always be one of empowerment. So there should definately be exemptions in any such laws for the purchase of restricted material by the parent f
        • So there should definately be exemptions in any such laws for the purchase of restricted material by the parent for the child, but the law(if there is one) should leave this decision up to the parent.

          That's a given. No one has ever proposed a law -- that had any chance of passing -- that I've seen that disallowed parents from providing these materials to their children. That's the point: the laws are targetted at forbidding other people from usurping the parental role. That's what this whole thing is ab
      • Right, like the above Libby Liberal.

        A Leopard can not change it's spots, and neither can the_mad_poster, despite what account he's currently using.

Slashdot Top Deals

<< WAIT >>

Close