"KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.29.18.38.20.348019@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:34:59 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>
>>
>> "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...
>
> Yeah, and the (rated R) movies, which you seem to see as a good model,
are
> restricted voluntarily. There's no law against selling an R-rated movie
> ticket to a minor.
>
> And as for **** mags and X-rated movies? If that same content is in a
> game, then it would be subject to the same laws as those things - laws
> which are already in place. But mainstream retailers wouldn't sell
games
> like that in the first place.
Ya know, for all your effort, you have yet to produce a reason why games
shouldn't have ratings. You have argued that it can't be enforced and
that
it would want kids to buy them more etc., but not ONE reason why game
ratings are actually bad.
I'm thinking there's a reason for that...
|
