On Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:55 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>
> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.05.28.20.08.07.331493@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:01:45 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.05.28.19.40.57.302921@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 15:36:11 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2008.05.28.18.20.40.999027@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:16:49 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:pan.2008.05.28.15.55.59.583311@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:18:45 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2008.05.27.16.47.05.785697@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:43:11 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just wonder what kind of person has a problem with video
game
>>>>>>>>>>> ratings.
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe 12 year olds?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Video game ratings are dumb. They just make the kids want them
>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>>> Same with album warnings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not ALL they do.
>>>>>>>>> They also inform parents as to the nature of the content.
>>>>>>>>> Why do you oppose letting parents know what their kids are up
to?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I oppose requiring someone to label their product so that parents
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> have to do their job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, again, I think it has the opposite of its intended effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's ridiculous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think it's ridiculous to suggest that putting a label on a
video
>>>>>> game
>>>>>> suggesting that it's graphically violent or ***ually inappropriate
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> make teenagers want it more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That's* ridiculous.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's when the parenting comes in. Who gives a **** what they
>>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said it was ridiculous for me to say "I think it has the opposite
of
>>>> its intended effect". How is that ridiculous?
>>>
>>> No, this part:
>>>
>>> I oppose requiring someone to label their product so that parents
don't
>>> have
>>> to do their job.
>>>
>>> I think if someone is going to distribute a product aimed at children,
it
>>> should be made clear which age group it is intended for. It has been
>>> done
>>> with toys for decades, I don't see what your opposition to video games
>>> is.
>>> Labeling them only helps a parent do their job better.
>>
>>
>> Great. Then let the market dictate that they should put labels on
their
>> product, not regulation. If what you say is true, and more parents
would
>> be more likely to purchase games with content labels, then more games
will
>> have content labels. Ta da!
>
> Except that more adult labels would limit games to adults, resulting in
less
> sales. Da ta.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the game isn't labeled, how are parents supposed to keep up with
all
>>>>> the
>>>>> games that are coming out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You really think the parents of a sixteen-year-old are going to be
able
>>>> to
>>>> keep enough surveillance on him that he can't get a video game
without
>>>> them knowing about it?
>>>
>>> That makes no difference. If the labels are enforced, then the stores
>>> that
>>> sell games to underage kids will be culpable.
>>
>> Holy ****, I thought you were just talking about labeling with
suggested
>> ages and possibly listing objectinable content. You actually want laws
>> criminalizing the distribution of video games to teenagers?!
>
> To the extent that there are laws against allowing 'teenagers' into R
rated
> movies and allowing them to buy ****. Yes.
There's no law against allowing teenagers into 'R' movies. It's
voluntary. And teens can't buy **** - with graphic depictions of
genitalia - and a video game that included such content would be subject
to the same law.
>>> With the suggested ages on products?
>>
>>
>> You're not talking about a "suggested age". But you're talking about a
>> "government-mandated-and-enforced age". When I thought you were
talking
>> about the former, I thought it would be ineffectual. About the latter,
>> yes, I am strongly opposed.
>
> Of course there might be a reason for that. And the reason would be..?
Because I think it's grossly stupid to try to make Federal agents out of
teenage clerks at Wal-Mart, or to make them risk fines or imprisonment
for doing their job, or for the government to require identification to
puchase a game.
|
