LET'S ARGUE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by DougClayton4231

I highly doubt that law enforcement would get involved anyway. Budget cuts and lethargy have besieged our police for the past two years. How many of them are willing to go arrest some sales clerk at Best Buy or Gamestop.

By themselves? None. However, if some concerned parent calls and says some clerk broke the law by selling a game to her kid...

I do think its odd that we, as Americans feel that porno is more harmful than interactive ultra-violence though. I'm comparing both of the mediums on premise, not actual content though.

Okay: the premise of pornography is to present the viewer with sexually arousing imagery so as to stimulate sexual activity, either masturbatory or with partner(s).

The premise of video games is to give the player a worthwhile source of interactive entertainment. No jacking.

In short, just because artists in Japan like to depict the ladies of Soul Calibur in compromising situations does not mean games and porno are comparable.

Look at it objectively and tell me that you can't understand the argument of people who have never even played a game. I actually do get where they are coming from, even if they have gone about it in the wrong way over the years.

I have no trouble understanding their arguments, and where they're coming from. The problem is, like you said, they've never played a game. They don't know what they are talking about because any research they do is superficial at best. That's why the people who talk out of their asses on the issue are mocked so relentlessly, like that author who went on Fox News to complain about sex in Mass Effect, then laughingly admitted to never having played the game or even seen the footage she was upset about. By the way, she recanted only after her books were voted down to nothing on Amazon by people using that same logic of "I don't need to know about something to have an opinion on it".

If the law were to go into effect, very little would change. A couple kids might be slightly inconvenienced, but the rest will just get their parents to buy them the games the same way they already are. And again, the parents will not make the connection because it's always someone else's fault. When that happens, they'll dream up some new, more restrictive piece of legislation that will also fail to achieve its intended result, and the cycle will continue.

[DougClayton4231]

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

The premise of video games is to give the player a worthwhile source of interactive entertainment. No jacking.

I'm sure that there has been plenty of jacking to games lol. People will jack to anything. I once had a coworker get fired for jacking off in the middle of a men's restroom.

I do really hope that at least if a law like that one gets passed, it will shift the blame completely to the parents and the child, not the game company. If a child gets hold of MK and decides to try Kung Lao's finisher on one of his classmates, technically it would be felony child endangerment and possibly neglect for giving the kid the damn game.

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by DougClayton4231

I do really hope that at least if a law like that one gets passed, it will shift the blame completely to the parents and the child, not the game company. If a child gets hold of MK and decides to try Kung Lao's finisher on one of his classmates, technically it would be felony child endangerment and possibly neglect for giving the kid the damn game.

The thing is, if the law doesn't penalize retailers AND provide consequences for parents who buy those games for their kids, it will ultimately fail and be a huge waste of taxpayer money. As it stands now, that's how all these laws are written, and so they are doomed before they have even begun. Also, if a child does try Kung Lao's finishing move, two things will happen: he'll get detention for bopping a classmate with a hat, and everyone will laugh at him for pretending to be Oddjob.

The question to ask here is why is this legislation necessary? Proponents would tell you it's because violent games are bad for our children, but there has yet to be any definitive evidence showing that such games cause violent behavior. Because of that, it's really not practical to enact this kind of ineffective legislation "just to be safe".


Also, I'm moving these posts to the arguing thread.