Democrats:  “We know how to raise your children better than you do”

i don’t see how codified ratings stops parents from parenting.  if i have a mature 11 year old who i, as a parent, believe can handle GTA, i have the right, as a parent, to purchase the video game on his behalf. 

i have always said that a certain amount of censorship of *minors* doesn’t bother me.  for example, little 11 year old can’t (in theory) get into R movies without a parent, but if i think my little 11 year old is mature enough for certain content, then as a parent, that’s my choice… it’s not, however, the little 11 year old’s choice.

i see this as giving parents MORE of an opportunity to parent.

if you decide what i, as an adult, can buy, then we have a different issue altogether.

i don’t see how codified ratings stops parents from parenting.  if i have a mature 11 year old who i, as a parent, believe can handle GTA, i have the right, as a parent, to purchase the video game on his behalf.

EXACTLY It is NOT the place of the government to determine what is appropriate for children, it is up to the parents of that child.

Which is why Jim sayeth, “It doesn’t take a village.  It never did.  It takes one dedicated parent.”

Um jo-jo,

The video gaming industry voluntarily placed a ratings systems on their games.  You’ve heard of the ESRB, if you have been around video games at all in the past 10 years.

And then its like jimk said, these are the people that think a teenage girl doesn’t need parental consent to get knocked up and then have the unborn fetus killed, but if she wants to fire an imaginary gun at zombie demons, WHOA!!  You can’t do that without mommy and daddy saying its ok.

Jody, we all know this isn’t about 11 year olds.  This is about teens.  15, 16, 17 year old kids that OH MY GOD WILL SHOOT UP THE SCHOOL FUELD BY ROCK MUSIC AND VIDEO GAMES.

WHat they’re doing is removing a level of responsibility from the parents and criminalizing the sale of a game.  It’s a two-fold attack on parenting: First, they set up the dynamic by where a parent can simply shrug their shoulders and say “I know you want it, but the giovernment says you can’t handle it, so...sorry.  Maybe when you’re 18.” This will happen without thought to the actual maturity level of the child.  What about parents who WANT to let theri kids decide for themselves at age 15, 16, 17?  They no longer have that right.  They have to chaperone the purchase of a goddamned video game even if they don’t agree with the practice and truct their own kid.  That offends me on a basic level. 

It also places a store in the role of parent.  Why is it Wal-Mart’s job to police any child’s behavior?  Why is it up to the clerk to become the “local parent” and decide if the kid is old enough or needs to be ID’d, to say no, etc.?  It’s not.  That is the job of a parent to decide.  These idiots want to take that decision away from parents.

They want to criminalize it.  To actually pass a national law making it illegal for a retailer to sell an M game to a 17 year old.

Think back to when you were 17.  Drinking and smoking were involved, no?  I was *OVER* my first hard drug addiction by 17.  I was paying my own rent.  I looked 24.  Should it have been ILLEGAL for the arcades to let me play “Altered Beast” all day?

This is just more nanny state bullshit.  Rate the games.  Leave it at that.  They are not booze or cigarrettes for fuck’s sake.

Think back to when you were 17.  Drinking and smoking were involved, no?

Well, smoking, but not drinking. I never bothered to pick up that particular habit.

Still haven’t. Never tasted an alcoholic beverage in my life. Been a bartender and a designated driver, and lost many friends (and a brother) to drunk driving but never so much as sipped a beer.

And I quit smoking cigarettes about five years ago.

I hope that doesn’t ruin your image of me… ;-)

Jim,

some stores do have some ID requirements to purchase some video games.  It hasn’t happened to me, but you do hear of it, and then you get a stupid 20/20 or something about how one store isn’t checking for the ID’s of people buying games.

Of course this is store policy instead of government nannystating.

some stores do have some ID requirements to purchase some video games.

So now we have put video games on the same pile as porn and liquor? *rolleyes*

drum: why shouldn’t some video games be categorized the same as porn?  playboy is classier and more tasteful than some video games i’ve seen.  why treat different forms of media differently? 

(liquor, however, i consider a different category all together, not falling under the protection of the first amendment.  liquor is regulated for more reasons than pure moralistic concerns, unlike porn)

i do feel it necessary to clarify that i am ONLY referring to regulation of sales of certain mature content to MINORS.  as far as the non-minors go, i am *extremely* anti-censorship and say PORN AND VIOLENCE FOR ALL!  :)

here’s a good article that articulates some reasons why this is a bad idea

i think the article misses the point, actually.  for example, this sentence:

Substantively, a ban on violent video games is also a bad idea.

i agree with that 100%.  but no one (at least in this discussion) is talking about BANNING anything.  they’re talking about making it a parent’s choice as to whether a minor can own a particular game.  i don’t think that’s the same as banning books (or video games for that matter).

i don’t know of books that are age restricted (i’m sure there are), but there are certainly other publications that are age restricted. 

banning a game is censorship.  age restriction is a restriction.  IMHO, that’s a HUGE difference… under a restriction, once again, a parent can choose to allow his/her minor child to play whatever game the parent things his/her child is emotionally ready for.  a ban, on the other hand, absolutely takes that right away.  thus, an 11 year old can own, for example, GTA, if mom buys it, but cannot buy it himself.  that’s not a ban.

it was my understanding that we’re talking about a ratings system, restricting the age of a minor who can purchase a product, not an outright ban.

Good point.  He shifted the language...it’s more inflammatory the way he phrases it.

Good catch.

they’re talking about making it a parent’s choice as to whether a minor can own a particular game.

No, they are taking away the choice from those minors, who should be getting parental approval, not governmental.

you have a lot of faith in minors getting parental approval ;)

Even if I were, that failure is by the parents, and it’s their problem to fix, NOT the government’s.

well drum, here’s where you and i disagree then.

believe me, anything i did that i shouldn’t have (and by comparison, i was a very good kid) had nothing to do with my parents and their involvement in my life.  ask jim… my parents have always been quite involved in everything i do!  i cannot fathom how they could have been better parents.  it’s just not realistic to think that kids will do no wrong if the parents become involved.

it’s just not realistic to think that kids will do no wrong if the parents become involved.

I’ve never said that, jo. What I said was that it is none of the government’s business unless that misbehavior harms another person or public property. If it is just the kids wanted to do something of which the parents disapprove (such as reading porn or listening to metal goth music or whatever it is the parents might object to - for me, it was listening to “that godawful noise”, aka Aerosmith), it is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS.

IOW, if a child misbehaves and no one outside the family unit is harmed by it, the government - which, by definition, is created to moderate relationships between neighbors - has no jurisdiction.

drum: i still disagree with you, but i’m curious… along those lines, if you had your choice, would you get rid of “R” rated movies ("no one under 17 without parent"), or age restrictions on porn?  i’m just wondering if you feel the same way across the board, or if not, what makes a video game different?

if you had your choice, would you get rid of “R” rated movies ("no one under 17 without parent"), or age restrictions on porn?

Again, you’re asking someone else to make those decisions for the parents, either way, and/or trusting the mind of a bureaucrat to be the determining factor of what we can or cannot let our own children do. If I, as a parent, wanted to let my 15-year-old son watch Saving Private Ryan, I should be allowed to do so, and that decision should not be overridden by some faceless nobody hundreds or thousands of miles away.

If I were to ban something from any child, I would be doing nothing more advanced than saying, “I want you to pretend to listen to me, and then find a way to see this behind my back”. I’m no fool, but it is not up to the government to raise my child. If they disobey, it is my responsibility to discipline that child, NOT the government’s.

In short, any government-imposed restrictions on children is a violation of both the children’s rights as free citizens, and the parent’s rights to monitor and regulate the behavior of their children.

IOW, it isn’t the government’s job to dictate behavior, especially when no one else is harmed by that behavior. If the child wants to watch adult movies, that’s none of the government’s business. If the child wants to play Doom4, it’s none of the government’s business. If the child wants to go hunting or fishing, it’s none of the government’s business.

I’m an equal opportunity Gand…

In short, any government-imposed restrictions on children is a violation of both the children’s rights as free citizens, and the parent’s rights to monitor and regulate the behavior of their children.

i just wanted to know if you were advocating a different treatment for video games as compared to other media.

i still completely disagree with your opinion, but at least you’re not a hypocrite, which i can respect.

Don’t get me wrong, young one, I’m not advocating either porn or violence for young children - I’m most certainly NOT.

What I’m saying is that those kinds of decisions are not within the government’s scope of authority, but rather that of the parents. If you can distinguish that line, then you will understand a lot of my political philosophy.

Don’t get me wrong, young one, I’m not advocating either porn or violence for young children - I’m most certainly NOT.

that’s quite interesting. i say i respect your opinion, and you condescend.

perhaps you misread what i wrote?  i cannot fathom what it was i said that lead you to believe i thought you were advocating porn and/or violence for young children. 

* * * *

nope, reread what i wrote another three times and still can’t comprehend the basis for your response.

i say i respect your opinion, and you condescend.

Not at all, and I apologize if you think I have done so (even inadvertantly) and beg most humbly for your forgiveness.

I just wanted to make clear the difference between feeling that government has no right sticking their nose into an issue and endorsing that particular issue.

Again, I apologize most sincerely. No disrespect was intended.

Forgive me?

like i could possibly say no to a begging man…