"tar~bal" <base@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7sydnb8M7YcNHNjVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.06.03.15.15.58.666456@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:21:18 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>> (somewhat clipped for readability)
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Early in the discussion I clearly stated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Look, I'm not for new laws by any means. In fact, I couldn't care
>>>>> less
>>>>> if
>>>>> it is enforced or not. I think that the ratings are good guides for
>>>>> parents
>>>>> to evaluate what games their kids get. If my son comes home with a
>>>>> game
>>>>> that is rated way above his age, I can make the decision to make him
>>>>> trade
>>>>> it in or take it from him (and play it after he goes to sleep). But
>>>>> there
>>>>> isn't a rational argument against ratings.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My contention, for clarification sake, is that merely
>>>>>>> having ratings is of no consequence. Once the ratings are in
place,
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> no problem with certain stores declining sales as a matter of
>>>>>>> policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You made the argument that it takes the place of the parent doing
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> job,
>>>>>>> and I see it as a tool to allow the parent to do his job, similar
to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> suggested ages that have been on all toys for decades. If your
only
>>>>>>> objection to this is that it would create demand for the games or
>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>> a clerk at Walmart to be put in jail, I say that there is no real
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> to object to the rating system per se.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I object to the growth of government, particuarly coercive
>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You see adding to the responsibility and liability of a retailer as
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> problem, because you're benefiting from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I see putting the onus on the game manufacturer as being
the
>>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either you're for a law requiring it, or you're not. Above you say
>>>> "Look,
>>>> I'm not for new laws by any means", but in the last line you claim
the
>>>> onus should be on manufacturers, which implies a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Are you advocating government regulation requiring these labels?
>>>
>>> Sure, why not?
>>
>>
>> First, because you're being disingenuous. You said above that "you're
>> not
>> for new laws" but that's exactly what you want.
>>
>> Second, because it's clearly a free speech issue that should - and
>
> How can it be a free speech issue to put labels on video games? Good
god,
> this has gotten regoddamdiculous.
>
>
>> *would*, much more efficiently and effectively - be handled by
retailers
>> and parents. Remember "Cop Killer" by Ice-T? Remember how retailers
>> refused to sell it? Retailers now refuse to sell games like GTA and
>> Bully. There's a board in place already - which works very much like
the
>> movie ratings system that you praised - to rate video games.
>> Manufacturers happily submit their products to it for ratings.
>>
>> Thirdly, because no matter what behavioral nuances you claim to have
>> seen,
>> ****ing *video games* do not present any danger, let alone one
immediate
>> enough to call for the FBI to police them.
>
> Strawman. This is the silly bull**** you try to pull to perpetuate an
> argument that you are making that has no footing. The behavioral
> 'nuances' are what led me to the decision that labels are a good thing,
> not that they are any danger or that the FBI should be involved.
>
>> You're one of these guys, LR, who favors using the rules to limit
>> everything *except* the things you have a personal interest in.
>
> That's not true. Basically I have seen laws made to ALLOW things that I
> don't favor. There's a big difference there.
>
>> An extreme example of this would be me knowing that a law requiring all
>> citizens to send ol' KK a check for $50 would be wrong, but wanting
>> really
>> badly for it to pass.
>>
>> It's not government's job to police your kids' computer games on my
dime.
>> Maybe it's not that onerous, or that expensive, but multiply that for
the
>> ten thousand organized groups of assholes who want *their* inexpensive,
>> mild law passed, and you get a huge, morbidly expensive, bureaucracy.
>> Government today is *too* big and *too* expensive, and needs to be
scaled
>> back, not assigned babysitter duty for parents who won't bother to look
>> at
>> the games their kids buy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Then retailers, such as Game Stop and Walmart can institute their
>>>>> own policies. Do you have an objection with that?
>>>>
>>>> An objection to voluntary content labeling? I wouldn't argue against
>>>> its
>>>> implementation, but I still don't think it would be effective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To dismiss any objection as "no(t) a real reason" because of that
>>>>>> shows
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> real lack of perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we both may be suffering from that affliction here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn't dismiss anything you said as "not a real reason".
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you have a hidden agenda, I simply don't think you
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> reason to object to this. The reasons you cite don't amount to
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> of substance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To *you*, they don't. I see the extension of the leviathan arm of
law
>>>>>> enforcement into ****ing *video games* as horrific, unnecessary,
and
>>>>>> unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I suppose you visualize storm troopers busting into stores and
>>>>> people's
>>>>> homes and taking them silently into the night, too...
>>>>
>>>> No. I visualize idiot teenagers getting a criminal record for
>>>> selling a video game. I visualize retailers having to go to the
>>>> expense
>>>> of training, additional liability insurance, and more lawyers.
>>>>
>>>> Most of all, I see another stupid target of regulation as an
invitation
>>>> for a hundred other groups demanding labels on Cheetos, sharp
pencils,
>>>> politically incorrect action figures, etc., etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also continue to ignore that I've pointed out that movie
ratings
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> voluntary, and you say they work. Why is that not good enough for
>>>>>> video
>>>>>> games?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I made it pretty clear what my opinion of that was.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't. You implied that you thought movie ratings worked.
>>>> They're voluntary. So, do you therefore think voluntary measures can
>>>> be
>>>> sufficient (yes or no)?
>>>
>>> Yes. As long as all companies are doing it. Are they? I don't know.
>>> So
>>> make them do it, what's the big deal?
>>
>>
>> What's the big deal? Government ordering modification or labeling or
>> regulation of someone's creative effort is a big ****ing deal.
>
> And here we go again and again. Face it, you don't think there should
be
> labels because you don't think there should be labels, plain and simple.
>
> So we're clear, I think there should be labels on the ****ing games.
> Whether or not it's a law is immaterial. When I pose the question to
you
> if YOU think they should be there, you change the subject and try to
make
> it about a law or some other bull**** that is in no way germane to the
> discussion of labels.
>
I haven't seen any ****ing games.
Or is that your ignorsnce showing?
But, The Government is for the COMMON defense, not how to run our lives.
|
