"KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.29.18.13.05.562832@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:33:52 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>
>>
>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.05.29.16.41.16.576524@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I know you think that. I don't understand why.
>
>
> Because it's a ****ing *game*.
Even more of a reason. Games are directed toward children for the most
part.
Using the same argument, it's just a movie, it's just a magazine...
|
