Gamers of the World, Unite

[Occhidiangela]

Every so often, I am glad I have Penny-Arcade in my favorites. Sturgeon's Law considered, the 10% factor comes through now and again. Tycho's critique of how one group tries to energize "the gamer vote" scored a bullseye.

This move looks like an attempt to energize The Slacker Vote, MTV's "Vote or Die" campaign having been unseccessful. (I am guessing the shortage of "booty shaking ho's" at polling places contributed to that iniative's underwhelming response. Packaging is critical to sending an effective message. Know your audience. :rolleyes: )

Insofar as censorship goes, I am sympathetic to the VGVN's point that the government has better things to do with their time than micromanage the Entertainment industry. Massive letter writing campaigns may or may not help, but they can't hurt.

Send your views to your Reps and Senators. Let your voice be heard.

"Vote once, and look for the silver lining; vote twice, and look out for the police."
-= W.C. Fields =-

Occhi

[Alram]

Gosh. If such a bill banning young players from adult games went through would that mean we wouldn't have to deal with young immature gamers in WoW? That could split the gamers vote right there. :lol:

[Guest]

I agree with one thought "They should get alder. It just takes time."

Kids dont have unlimited rights for a reason. They are still being built.

Im not saying games are good or bad for kids. But this issue IS "good vs bad for kids". Its NOT "kids rights."

[Jester]

Kids dont have unlimited rights for a reason. They are still being built.
[right][snapback]104981[/snapback][/right]

Yes. But "not unlimited" is not the same as "none." If there is no strong, ethically defensible reason for denying kids access to something, then they shouldn't be denied. "No unlimited rights" is not a license for unlimited moralistic interference.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Yes. But "not unlimited" is not the same as "none." If there is no strong, ethically defensible reason for denying kids access to something, then they shouldn't be denied. "No unlimited rights" is not a license for unlimited moralistic interference.

-Jester
[right][snapback]104987[/snapback][/right]

What you term unlimited moralistic interference fall into the category of parental responsiblity, which should be morally founded to be of any use. The concept of crawl, walk, trot, run, sprint -- in terms of developing judgment -- has to be tailored to each child, arbitrary age guidelines need not be inflexible. So, one child may be able to handle more advanced material than another.

It is a parent's responsibility to make judgments, to say "Yes" and to say "No." One cannot remain oblivious. The ideal aim is that by the late teens, one has taught one's children well enough that their own judgment will suffice when they leave the nest.

MSRB is an aid to judgment making, but video games are sold for profit: there is incentive to cheat at the margins, just as the Hollywood rating system has done.

The core issue being addressed here is the need, or not, for governmental legislation. One position is that the industry can't be trusted to police itself -- not a completely bogus position given the profit motive, and that Government can police it better. I disagree with the latter premise.

Government has better things to do with its time. The judgment and discretion forces parents to make decisions, and to sometimes say "No." Once out of the nest, it is caveat emptor in any case.

We still don't have an XBOX in our house. Kids 16 and 13. Why? Not worth fighting with my wife over. She says No, and I support her decision.

We didn't need a government to do that. To make a decision. :whistling:

Occhi

EDIT: finished the sentence fragment that previously ended with "need."

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is a parent's responsibility to make judgments, to say "Yes" and to say "No."  [right][snapback]104997[/snapback][/right]

But, therein lies the rub. Apathy, ignorance, indifference, or just plain lack of parents leaves many children unguided. The fault is not always with these parents; in a single parent or two working parent household, free time is at a premium.

The fundamental question isn't "who should do the censoring" but rather does it need to be done at all. If it can be shown that children exposed to material which is too advanced for their age become a threat to society, then society has a right to legislate to protect itself. But anyone that makes that claim is ignoring the realities of human history. Throughout history, children have been exposed to sex and violence, especially at times of war. In prehistory, I strongly suspect that modesty was not an issue and the violence was out in the open. We, especially the resilient young, are adapted to these things and it is only by the platitudes of politically and religiously correct that we find fault in them.

By all means, parents should protect their children while leaving them room to grow. But if the parents don't, then it is the government's responsibility to show that that protection is necessary for the good of society before interfering.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

By all means, parents should protect their children while leaving them room to grow.  But if the parents don't, then it is the government's responsibility to show that that protection is necessary for the good of society before interfering.

--Pete
[right][snapback]105008[/snapback][/right]

They tend to assert without proof, by citing "a study." :rolleyes: True for most parties, and all Parties, in our system.

Occhi

[Alram]

Kids are bombarded with all sorts of inappropriate material. I see nothing wrong with the parents getting some help. My son is grown now, but when he was young, combatting the media influences was no fun. We literally stopped watching TV for years. Every movie and concert had to be screened. Large corporations who seek to make money by corrupting the moral standards of our children open themselves up for censorship, and I have no problem with that.

[Guest]

I see it the opposite.

Anything that is shown to be healthy for kids should be kids right(with in the bounds feasability and affordability.)

Anything that is for which the pros and cons are honestly debatable should be at the parents peragative first and the states perogative second, the childs last.

[Jester]

I see it the opposite.

Anything that is shown to be healthy for kids should be kids right(with in the bounds feasability and affordability.)

Anything that is for which the pros and cons are honestly debatable should be at the parents peragative first and the states perogative second, the childs last.
[right][snapback]105052[/snapback][/right]

You can always raise doubts about any given set of evidence or arguments. If "honestly debatable" is the threshold, then nothing, not even ordinary eating and drinking, not even hearing people speak, not even survival itself is beyond that threshold. All of that is, potentially, "bad for the child," at least according to someone's standards.

The world is not a rubber room. Nerf does not manufacture reality. Such a standard as you propose would remove all rights from children. We must let children see the world as it is, and protect them from it only as much as is necessary.

For the state to ban something, there should be a very high standard of evidence. I would hope parents would be the same, but then, it seems that most parents don't remember what it was like to be a child, and instead substitute Victorian literary tropes.

I can't stop parents from being irrational, but I'll argue until my voice is hoarse to prevent such things from getting state sponsorship.

-Jester

[Alram]

1. As a point of curiosity I wonder how many that object to limitations on what children are permitted to purchase are parents.

2. If the state does not allow children to purchase certain games, their parents can still buy them for their children if they wish. The way I see it the state is not usurping parental authority, but actually making it easier for parents to discriminate and exercise their authority.

[--Pete]

Hi,

1. As a point of curiosity I wonder how many that object to limitations on what children are permitted to purchase are parents.
[right][snapback]105080[/snapback][/right]

I am a parent. My objection is not to parental control, but to state interference. The '70s joke "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" hasn't lost any poignancy to some of us.

2. If the state does not allow children to purchase certain games, their parents can still buy them for their children if they wish. The way I see it the state is not usurping parental authority, but actually making it easier for parents to discriminate and exercise their authority.

Requiring ratings helps the parents. Going past that is indeed usurping the parental rights. And, again, the state has no right in what was a once free country to take action in a matter that does not threaten society.

--Pete

[Guest]

You can always raise doubts about any given set of evidence or arguments. If "honestly debatable" is the threshold, then nothing, not even ordinary eating and drinking, not even hearing people speak, not even survival itself is beyond that threshold. All of that is, potentially, "bad for the child," at least according to someone's standards.

The world is not a rubber room. Nerf does not manufacture reality. Such a standard as you propose would remove all rights from children. We must let children see the world as it is, and protect them from it only as much as is necessary.

For the state to ban something, there should be a very high standard of evidence. I would hope parents would be the same, but then, it seems that most parents don't remember what it was like to be a child, and instead substitute Victorian literary tropes.

I can't stop parents from being irrational, but I'll argue until my voice is hoarse to prevent such things from getting state sponsorship.

-Jester
[right][snapback]105068[/snapback][/right]

Not fair.

Thats a completely different argument and one I wont bother debating(and a vastly more general arguemt too).
Basically all arguments are predicated on shared axioms existing. You can logically throw out the general concept of society having any norms a all, but that belief was implicit in this subject from the start, when we accepted the the laws in some form are valid.

On the other hand is is reasonable in our context to debate particular axioms.


Anyway that was high school level tactic you tried - shame.

[Occhidiangela]

For the state to ban something, there should be a very high standard of evidence. I would hope parents would be the same, but then, it seems that most parents don't remember what it was like to be a child, and instead substitute Victorian literary tropes.

I can't stop parents from being irrational, but I'll argue until my voice is hoarse to prevent such things from getting state sponsorship.

-Jester
[right][snapback]105068[/snapback][/right]

Jester

Where you sit determines what you see. ;)

What seems to be to you is different from what is seen to be by a parent. Call me when you have kids. We'll talk, we'll laugh, we'll groan. We'll have a few pints of Guinness. It's a hell of a ride. Victorian is an overstatement, to say the least.

You appear in the follow on comment to set a zero defects standard for the generic parent, which is impractical, and which you'll understand when in those boots. Your subjective assessment of what is rational or irrational on this topic suffers from, so far, having seen one side of that coin. Not all parents, and not all kids, are interchangeable parts.

Shout your position from the rooftops all you like, and without shame. Some of what you are shouting about keeping the State out of this will find a rogue's voice added, hopefully in two part harmony. Just appreciate that you don't operate from a position of objective expertise, but from one of empirical bias. Not all youngn's are made alike.

I learned to tell my kids NO at an early age. I am less worried about what is out there than a lot of the Chicken Littles I have met. I also know my kids are exposed to some games we don't have, when at a friend's house. I don't wring my hands over that, I work through it. I sure as hell don't think the State can solve that for me. CPS needs to go, in its entirety.

I lower the boom when necessary. My kids get away with some things. So did I, as a young rapscallion.

My house is not a democracy. Castello di Occhi is an enlightened despotism, ruled by a benevolent King and Queen. The kids, both now teenagers, get an input but they don't get a vote. (Their input sometimes gets the nod, sometimes gets the axe.) The royal dog doesn't care so long as he is fed and scratched for at least his daily due. :D When he starts demanding GAT/SA, things could get dicey. :rolleyes:

Occhi

[Jester]

Basically all arguments are predicated on shared axioms existing. You can logically throw out the general concept of society having any norms a all, but that belief was implicit in this subject from the start, when we accepted the the laws in some form are valid.

Care to illuminate what those shared assumptions are? I don't think you and I share many assumptions about what is good or bad for children. What "norms" are you assuming society shares here, exactly? I'm saying that different people hold different norms, and if only shared norms count as rights for kids, then there is basically nothing left.

On the other hand is is reasonable in our context to debate particular axioms.
Anyway that was high school level tactic you tried - shame.

Christ.

-Jester

[Jester]

Ah, the old argument.

I'm not talking about what people do. I'm also not talking about what people can be reasonably expected to do. Mistakes are made, as are compromises. I'm talking about what they *should* do, ideally.

It'll be awhile before I have any kids, so I wouldn't hold your breath or anything. Maybe what I believe will change. I'm doubting the substance of my beliefs will change much, but I've been wrong often enough.

-Jester

[Guest]

Care to illuminate what those shared assumptions are? I don't think you and I share many assumptions about what is good or bad for children. What "norms" are you assuming society shares here, exactly? I'm saying that different people hold different norms, and if only shared norms count as rights for kids, then there is basically nothing left.
Christ.

-Jester
[right][snapback]105209[/snapback][/right]

Theres nothing to illuminate. I made no assumptions. I was speaking on on the general thought of rstrictions.

If you had actually read by response to Pete and thought about the context you probably wouldnt be trying to devolve the discourse into freshman philosphy #$%&. Im not at all saying you would agree with me, but the grounds you disagreed on were childish(or I really should say it was childish to bring them to this conversation.).

[Guest]

Ah, the old argument.

I'm also not talking about what people can be reasonably expected to do.

-Jester
[right][snapback]105210[/snapback][/right]

And here you prove youre a wind bag. Using reasoning like that is completly unacceptable for someone who made this statwmwnt 1 post before. "If "honestly debatable" is the threshold, then nothing, not even ordinary eating and drinking, not even hearing people speak, not even survival itself is beyond that threshold."



Im done talking on this I suppose unless someone runs in your defense, you just made a clown of yourself.

[Jester]

And here you prove youre a wind bag. Using reasoning like that is completly unacceptable for someone who made this statwmwnt 1 post before. "If "honestly debatable" is the threshold, then nothing, not even ordinary eating and drinking, not even hearing people speak, not even survival itself is beyond that threshold."
Im done talking on this I suppose unless someone runs in your defense, you just made a clown of yourself.
[right][snapback]105225[/snapback][/right]

"Honestly debatable" is *your* threshold. Your words, not mine. I just took the ball and ran with it. This has nothing to do with my "statwmwnt" to Occhi.

With Occhi, I am talking about ideals. What children should and should not be prevented from seeing, either by their parents or by the state. I am not talking about any particular parent, or any specific situation. This is simply the general rule, that the threshold is to demonstrate harm before banning something. Maybe someone has a reason for bending or breaking such a rule, as will invariably happen when rules meet reality. But that does not excuse us from trying to make good rules. This is my argument with Occhi. This is always my argument with Occhi. Pragmatism does not necessarily equate to a total breakdown of ideals.

With you, I am simply trying to point out that, if we go by the guidelines *you* presented, and have yet to elaborate on, then children would have essentially zero rights, and the parent would rule in all cases. Existing (and easily observable) conflicts over what is or is not "shown to be healthy" would put nearly every issue into the "honestly debatable" category. By your argument, that would put the parents in charge, unless it could be shown that it was "healthy" beyond "honest debate."

When I ask about your assumptions, I am asking what you mean by "shared axioms," and what that has to do with our debate. I presumed you meant "those things which are beyond "honest debate,"" but now I'm not at all sure what you meant.

-Jester

[Quark]

And here you prove youre a wind bag.
[right][snapback]105225[/snapback][/right]

Nope, this isn't a typical Ghostiger statement at all. Nothing to see here.