stealth toilet
Moderator
Zidart said:
There's a lot going on in what you're saying, so I'm gonna pick at things here and there. For example, you seem to insist on implicating the ages of 16 and 17, to perhaps point out how arbitrary it is to decide someone is mature enough to play M rated games when they turn 18. I agree, in fact I've stated as much in the discussion already. We can argue about how young is too young and how old is too old, or we can realize that people have done this for a good couple generations (at least), and 18 seems to be reasonable to most people. Perhaps in time 16 will become the minimum age. Whatever. It is arbitrary, and perhaps education levels would be a better indicator, or maybe you'd have to write an essay on global politics before you played MGS4, or something. There are ways to improve the current system, to be sure, but room for improvement doesn't mean we should scrap the idea altogether. If we get to the point where all we're disagreeing on is how young is too young, I will be satisfied. Moving on...
Not entirely. For example, violence is wrong (in some cases it's debatable, obviously, but generally speaking I think most people would agree that the less violence there is in the world, the better). Exposure to violence is not healthy, in most cases it is traumatic and damaging, even (perhaps especially) if violence is abstracted and portrayed as a goal, or as fun, or as entertainment, or as something desirable, or as a means to an end, etc. And collectively, in almost every society, we have all agreed that violence is wrong, it should not be encouraged, it should only ever occur in extreme situations (surivival), it should be avoided whenever possible, etc. etc. It is not up to an individual to decide this is not the case, and there is no room for "individual freedom" to go against the group.
I've never played Persona, so I can't speak to that, but as for MGS4 and Resident Evil, I think to let someone play those games at face value, out of context, by someone unfamiliar with video games and/or the situations and actions taking place in the game, regardless of age, is wrong. It is wrong to subject someone to depictions of violence, or allow someone to subject themselves to depictions of violence, without some sort of context or guidance. There is more going on in Resident Evil than "a scare," and without some kind of foundation of understanding to interpret what's going on in the game, it could really change the way a person thinks, feels, and so forth. A quick example, what if someone is not familiar with the concept of a zombie, or cannibalism, or even the simple recognition of fiction, that what's happening in the game doesn't and shouldn't happen in real life? To make (or even allow) someone play RE under those circumstances is wrong, it is harming them, it is doing violence.
With Columbine you're talking about extremes, and extremes usually throw reason and logic out the window. You simply can't do anything to prevent people who totally go off the charts from totally going off the charts. But if there is a chance Columbine could have been avoided with some stricter legislation on the sale of M rated games, I'm sure most people would support the legislation. So there is an element of why take the risk to what I'm saying, but again that's not really why I would want this legislation to pass. In the second case you presented, the one where the "child is already screwed up," what I'm proposing is that this kind of legislation might keep that child from getting "screwed up." My whole point, initially, was that there are a lot of parents out there who are not going to make good choices for their kids, so if there is an easily identifiable bad choice a parent can make (exposing their kids to violence), why wouldn't we keep them from making the wrong choice? Just because some parents made that bad choice and it didn't come back to haunt them is also not persuasive evidence to the contrary. The point is that such a choice is not contributing to a minor's we-rounded health and well being, so saying that in some cases there haven't been any negative repercussions is not the same thing as saying it is actually a positive experience. Make the case for violence in video games as something positive and you may be on to something.
------------------------------------
In summation:
Yes, but there could be less of them, and this bill would be a very small step towards that, so why oppose it? Because someone's freedom to expose minors to violence might potentially be marginally infringed on by other bills that could possibly follow this one?
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Ahh, my bad. I thought it already was illegal. I think it might be in Canada, or maybe even just in my province, which might be why I was all "wth is the big deal?"
I still think it should be a law, even if isn't. And if you're afraid that your government is going to use it as a platform to, I dunno, do nefarious things to the games industry, then make better choices when you vote, or become an anarchist, or get into politics yourself, because at that point your problem is with the government, not the legislation.
) 
