Michael Atkinson
Sleepy
Michael Atkinsons part in it.
'the decision must be unanimous' - so its clearly not his decision alone but
he is part of the decision making group. He has clear views about why its
wrong to allow such games in and he's not prepared to break his principles.
Don't like it - change the system - dont crucify a man for sticking to his
ideals.
"He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young
people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our
society, from being able to access material."
Here in the UK we have 18 rated games and I've played online with children
in games such as Left 4 Dead 2, Modern Warfare 2 and Borderlands - the law
is completely ignored so he's right that allowing such games into the
country would lead directly to children getting their hands on them. If we
were more stringent about enforcing the law here then there *may* be a case
for arguing that he's being unreasonable.
Schrodinger
"Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:udgTm.43807$7w6....@newsfe27.ams2...
I am happy to let my eldest daughter play L4D and L4D2, but not GTA. She is
12 and it isn't the law in the UK, it's guidance.
I would ignore it in any case as it's up to me to decide what is best for my
children, not some arsehole who has nothing better to do than stand for
election.
As you might imagine, I am very computer literate, but more importantly we
have a good relationship with our children and central to that is trust. I
trust my children, but the Australian wanker would not trust me.
Guess what else? I took the eldest to see a 15 film the other day and that
*is* the law.
Since then, she hasn't begun taking drugs, having sex with passers by,
drinking alcohol, knifing people or stealing. You know what, perhaps taking
her to see Zombieland meant a lot to her and perhaps I know what's better
for my child than a board of censors. Or you.
Morgan
> A more balanced news story about the Australian ban on violent games and
> Michael Atkinsons part in it.
>
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/attorney-general-to-veto-r-rating-for-games/story-e6frfro0-1111115654451
>
>
> 'the decision must be unanimous' - so its clearly not his decision alone
> but he is part of the decision making group.
Er, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "unanimous."
it's a frankly insane concept in politics as it basically means everyone
must agree on a decision before it can be passed. In a jury it's fair
enough. In a group of democratically elected politicians a majority
ruling would be *far* more sensible and democratic. So basically it
*can* be " his decision alone"
Tim O
"Its For The Children". When you start hearing that kind of shit to
control books, games or music, you know you're on the road to ruin. It
ebbs and flows in the US, right now it seems to be pretty low key.
All the hype about Modern Warfare 2 pretty much landed with a plop and
disappeard in mainstream media here. A good thing in my opinion,
because I think they were going for the Postal, GTA notoriety.
The US has a couple versions of this same asshole. Jack Thompson is
probably the most well known, but Joe Lieberman is probably the most
powerful.
The absolute stupidity of all this is that a kid could mis-spell
something in a browser and wind up seeing something way worse than
they're ever going to see in a game. My wife wanted to order something
from Dicks Sporting Goods (major US chain for the Austrailian guys
following these discussions). She typed in dicks.com, and the result
was a huge picture of a guy in a Santa Claus suit jacking off. LOL.
Alfie [UK]
>I am happy to let my eldest daughter play L4D and L4D2, but not GTA. She is
>12 and it isn't the law in the UK, it's guidance.
Actually, currently the BBFC rates all 18+ and some 15 rated games
which does mean that it is is illegal for anyone to SELL games marked
with a BBFC sticker to someone below that age.
As long as your daughter is not buying the games herself though it is
not currently illegal for you to provide the game to her.
If the recommendations accepted from the Digital Britain Report ever
make it into law then ELSPA/PEGI ratings will also be legally
enforceable, but there was also some worrying rhetoric about taking
away the parents right to decide by extending age ratings from
prohibition of sale to prohibition of provision (meaning buying the
game for someone underaged then becomes a legal offence).
>
>I would ignore it in any case as it's up to me to decide what is best for my
>children, not some arsehole who has nothing better to do than stand for
>election.
I agree with the parents right to chose, but I also want to see age
ratings enforced at point of sale and education of parents that the
BBFC age ratings on games mean the same thing as on DVDs.
--
Alfie [UK]
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/>
The only intuitive user interface is the nipple.
Wile E. Coyote
> "He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young
> people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our
> society, from being able to access material."
<begin rant>
This is BS and I am sick of the young dweebs treating us older people
who have been using computers before most of them were even born
treating us like we are computer noobs when asking about a computer for
sale at the computer stores etc. The fact is they know how to use MSN,
Facebook, youtube, torrent sites, steal MP3s etc. but they know very
little about computers and how they work. They know even less about
computer security and are the reason lots of family computers get virii
and malware.
<end of rant>
Whether a kid can play a violent game or not is the decision of the
parent and not some dork in government.
Sleepy
"Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:RHgTm.43741$Dl4....@newsfe08.ams2...
I *could* debate with you the rights and wrongs of letting your child view
such content but I doubt you would listen to my arguments - let me just ask
you - do you have the time to view all films/games etc before or with your
daughter? Most parents don't and surely that is one benefit of having a
classification system.
One things you have taught your children is that if you think its okay to
ignore the rules, then you go right ahead and do it.
Sleepy
news:rd6sh55vm9apokmrf...@4ax.com...
Actually I agree too that its the responsibility of the parent first and
foremost to decide such things unfortunately there's plenty of evidence that
a LOT of parents do not fulfill that responsibility and therefore we do need
laws as a failsafe to protect society.
Arccos
Certainly we need laws, but in this case, there hasn't been any concrete
evidence that violence in video games or movies causes criminal behavior in
children or adults. I think that needs to be established before we begin
considering what level of criminal behavior justifies a ban on any
art/speech/product.
I don't have a problem with requiring parents to purchase violent or sexual
video games, since it should be up to the parent. But banning anything
should only be done after it's been clearly established that the negative
effects from the banned object outway the benefit of freedoms by having it
allowed.
-Arccos
Morgan
> I would ignore it in any case as it's up to me to decide what is best for my
> children,
Well said.
Jonah Falcon
BAN COMIC BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jonah Falcon
If motion pictures present stories that will affect lives for the better,
they can become the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind
A Code to Govern the Making of Talking, Synchronized and Silent Motion
Pictures. Formulated and formally adopted by The Association of Motion
Picture Producers, Inc. and The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of
America, Inc. in March 1930.
Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have
been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion
pictures a universal form of entertainment.
They recognize their responsibility to the public because of this trust and
because entertainment and art are important influences in the life of a
nation.
Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without
any explicit purpose of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion
picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible
for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for
much correct thinking.
During the rapid transition from silent to talking pictures they have
realized the necessity and the opportunity of subscribing to a Code to
govern the production of talking pictures and of re-acknowledging this
responsibility.
On their part, they ask from the public and from public leaders a
sympathetic understanding of their purposes and problems and a spirit of
cooperation that will allow them the freedom and opportunity necessary to
bring the motion picture to a still higher level of wholesome entertainment
for all the people.
General Principles
1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those
who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the
side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and
entertainment, shall be presented.
3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be
created for its violation.
Particular Applications
I. Crimes Against the Law
These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the
crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for
imitation.
1. Murder
a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not
inspire imitation.
b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.
c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.
2. Methods of Crime should not be explicitly presented.
a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines,
buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.
b. Arson must subject to the same safeguards.
c. The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials.
d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.
3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.
4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for
proper characterization, will not be shown.
II. Sex
The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld.
Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted
or common thing.
1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly
treated, or justified, or presented attractively.
2. Scenes of Passion
a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.
b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures
and gestures, are not to be shown.
c. In general passion should so be treated that these scenes do not
stimulate the lower and baser element.
3. Seduction or Rape
a. They should never be more than suggested, and only when essential for
the plot, and even then never shown by explicit method.
b. They are never the proper subject for comedy.
4. Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.
5. White slavery shall not be treated.
6. Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is
forbidden.
7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not subjects for motion pictures.
8. Scenes of actual child birth, in fact or in silhouette, are never to be
presented.
9. Children's sex organs are never to be exposed.
III. Vulgarity
The treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil,
subjects should always be subject to the dictates of good taste and a regard
for the sensibilities of the audience.
IV. Obscenity
Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion (even
when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is forbidden.
V. Profanity
Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ -
unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other profane
or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.
VI. Costume
1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in
silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other
characters in the picture.
2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential
to the plot.
3. Indecent or undue exposure is forbidden.
4. Dancing or costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent
movements in the dance are forbidden.
VII. Dances
1. Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passions are
forbidden.
2. Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.
VIII. Religion
1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should
not be used as comic characters or as villains.
3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully
handled.
IX. Locations
The treatment of bedrooms must be governed by good taste and delicacy.
X. National Feelings
1. The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other
nations shall be represented fairly.
XI. Titles
Salacious, indecent, or obscene titles shall not be used.
XII. Repellent Subjects
The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of good
taste:
1. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime.
2. Third degree methods.
3. Brutality and possible gruesomeness.
4. Branding of people or animals.
5. Apparent cruelty to children or animals.
6. The sale of women, or a woman selling her virtue.
7. Surgical operations.
Reasons Supporting the Preamble of the Code
I. Theatrical motion pictures, that is, pictures intended for the theatre as
distinct from pictures intended for churches, schools, lecture halls,
educational movements, social reform movements, etc., are primarily to be
regarded as ENTERTAINMENT.
Mankind has always recognized the importance of entertainment and its value
in rebuilding the bodies and souls of human beings.
But it has always recognized that entertainment can be a character either
HELPFUL or HARMFUL to the human race, and in consequence has clearly
distinguished between:
a. Entertainment which tends to improve the race, or at least to re-create
and rebuild human beings exhausted with the realities of life; and
b. Entertainment which tends to degrade human beings, or to lower their
standards of life and living.
Hence the MORAL IMPORTANCE of entertainment is something which has been
universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men and women
and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during
leisure hours; and ultimately touches the whole of their lives. A man may be
judged by his standard of entertainment as easily as by the standard of his
work.
So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation.
Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a
race.
Note, for example, the healthy reactions to healthful sports, like baseball,
golf; the unhealthy reactions to sports like cockfighting, bullfighting,
bear baiting, etc.
Note, too, the effect on ancient nations of gladiatorial combats, the
obscene plays of Roman times, etc.
II. Motion pictures are very important as ART.
Though a new art, possibly a combination art, it has the same object as the
other arts, the presentation of human thought, emotion, and experience, in
terms of an appeal to the soul through the senses.
Here, as in entertainment,
Art enters intimately into the lives of human beings.
Art can be morally good, lifting men to higher levels. This has been done
through good music, great painting, authentic fiction, poetry, drama.
Art can be morally evil it its effects. This is the case clearly enough with
unclean art, indecent books, suggestive drama. The effect on the lives of
men and women are obvious.
Note: It has often been argued that art itself is unmoral, neither good nor
bad. This is true of the THING which is music, painting, poetry, etc. But
the THING is the PRODUCT of some person's mind, and the intention of that
mind was either good or bad morally when it produced the thing. Besides, the
thing has its EFFECT upon those who come into contact with it. In both these
ways, that is, as a product of a mind and as the cause of definite effects,
it has a deep moral significance and unmistakable moral quality.
Hence: The motion pictures, which are the most popular of modern arts for
the masses, have their moral quality from the intention of the minds which
produce them and from their effects on the moral lives and reactions of
their audiences. This gives them a most important morality.
1. They reproduce the morality of the men who use the pictures as a medium
for the expression of their ideas and ideals.
2. They affect the moral standards of those who, through the screen, take in
these ideas and ideals.
In the case of motion pictures, the effect may be particularly emphasized
because no art has so quick and so widespread an appeal to the masses. It
has become in an incredibly short period the art of the multitudes.
III. The motion picture, because of its importance as entertainment and
because of the trust placed in it by the peoples of the world, has special
MORAL OBLIGATIONS:
A. Most arts appeal to the mature. This art appeals at once to every class,
mature, immature, developed, undeveloped, law abiding, criminal. Music has
its grades for different classes; so has literature and drama. This art of
the motion picture, combining as it does the two fundamental appeals of
looking at a picture and listening to a story, at once reaches every class
of society.
B. By reason of the mobility of film and the ease of picture distribution,
and because the possibility of duplicating positives in large quantities,
this art reaches places unpenetrated by other forms of art.
C. Because of these two facts, it is difficult to produce films intended for
only certain classes of people. The exhibitors' theatres are built for the
masses, for the cultivated and the rude, the mature and the immature, the
self-respecting and the criminal. Films, unlike books and music, can with
difficulty be confined to certain selected groups.
D. The latitude given to film material cannot, in consequence, be as wide as
the latitude given to book material. In addition:
a. A book describes; a film vividly presents. One presents on a cold page;
the other by apparently living people.
b. A book reaches the mind through words merely; a film reaches the eyes
and ears through the reproduction of actual events.
c. The reaction of a reader to a book depends largely on the keenness of
the reader's imagination; the reaction to a film depends on the vividness of
presentation.
Hence many things which might be described or suggested in a book could not
possibly be presented in a film.
E. This is also true when comparing the film with the newspaper.
a. Newspapers present by description, films by actual presentation.
b. Newspapers are after the fact and present things as having taken place;
the film gives the events in the process of enactment and with apparent
reality of life.
F. Everything possible in a play is not possible in a film:
a. Because of the larger audience of the film, and its consequential mixed
character. Psychologically, the larger the audience, the lower the moral
mass resistance to suggestion.
b. Because through light, enlargement of character, presentation, scenic
emphasis, etc., the screen story is brought closer to the audience than the
play.
c. The enthusiasm for and interest in the film actors and actresses,
developed beyond anything of the sort in history, makes the audience largely
sympathetic toward the characters they portray and the stories in which they
figure. Hence the audience is more ready to confuse actor and actress and
the characters they portray, and it is most receptive of the emotions and
ideals presented by the favorite stars.
G. Small communities, remote from sophistication and from the hardening
process which often takes place in the ethical and moral standards of larger
cities, are easily and readily reached by any sort of film.
H. The grandeur of mass settings, large action, spectacular features, etc.,
affects and arouses more intensely the emotional side of the audience.
In general, the mobility, popularity, accessibility, emotional appeal,
vividness, straightforward presentation of fact in the film make for more
intimate contact with a larger audience and for greater emotional appeal.
Hence the larger moral responsibilities of the motion pictures.
Reasons Underlying the General Principles
I. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of
those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown
to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.
This is done:
1. When evil is made to appear attractive and alluring, and good is made to
appear unattractive.
2. When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime,
wrongdoing, evil, sin. The same is true of a film that would thrown sympathy
against goodness, honor, innocence, purity or honesty.
Note: Sympathy with a person who sins is not the same as sympathy with the
sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the
murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime: we
may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of
evil is often essential for art or fiction or drama. This in itself is not
wrong provided:
a. That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later in the film the
evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so
attractive that the audience's emotions are drawn to desire or approve so
strongly that later the condemnation is forgotten and only the apparent joy
of sin is remembered.
b. That throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is
right.
II. Correct standards of life shall, as far as possible, be presented.
A wide knowledge of life and of living is made possible through the film.
When right standards are consistently presented, the motion picture
exercises the most powerful influences. It builds character, develops right
ideals, inculcates correct principles, and all this in attractive story
form.
If motion pictures consistently hold up for admiration high types of
characters and present stories that will affect lives for the better, they
can become the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind.
III. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be
created for its violation.
By natural law is understood the law which is written in the hearts of all
mankind, the greater underlying principles of right and justice dictated by
conscience.
By human law is understood the law written by civilized nations.
1. The presentation of crimes against the law is often necessary for the
carrying out of the plot. But the presentation must not throw sympathy with
the crime as against the law nor with the criminal as against those who
punish him.
2. The courts of the land should not be presented as unjust. This does not
mean that a single court may not be presented as unjust, much less that a
single court official must not be presented this way. But the court system
of the country must not suffer as a result of this presentation.
Reasons Underlying the Particular Applications
I. Sin and evil enter into the story of human beings and hence in themselves
are valid dramatic material.
II. In the use of this material, it must be distinguished between sin which
repels by it very nature, and sins which often attract.
a. In the first class come murder, most theft, many legal crimes, lying,
hypocrisy, cruelty, etc.
b. In the second class come sex sins, sins and crimes of apparent heroism,
such as banditry, daring thefts, leadership in evil, organized crime,
revenge, etc.
The first class needs less care in treatment, as sins and crimes of this
class are naturally unattractive. The audience instinctively condemns all
such and is repelled.
Hence the important objective must be to avoid the hardening of the
audience, especially of those who are young and impressionable, to the
thought and fact of crime. People can become accustomed even to murder,
cruelty, brutality, and repellent crimes, if these are too frequently
repeated.
The second class needs great care in handling, as the response of human
nature to their appeal is obvious. This is treated more fully below.
III. A careful distinction can be made between films intended for general
distribution, and films intended for use in theatres restricted to a limited
audience. Themes and plots quite appropriate for the latter would be
altogether out of place and dangerous in the former.
Note: The practice of using a general theatre and limiting its patronage to
"Adults Only" is not completely satisfactory and is only partially
effective.
However, maturer minds may easily understand and accept without harm subject
matter in plots which do younger people positive harm.
Hence: If there should be created a special type of theatre, catering
exclusively to an adult audience, for plays of this character (plays with
problem themes, difficult discussions and maturer treatment) it would seem
to afford an outlet, which does not now exist, for pictures unsuitable for
general distribution but permissible for exhibitions to a restricted
audience.
I. Crimes Against the Law
The treatment of crimes against the law must not:
1. Teach methods of crime.
2. Inspire potential criminals with a desire for imitation.
3. Make criminals seem heroic and justified.
Revenge in modern times shall not be justified. In lands and ages of less
developed civilization and moral principles, revenge may sometimes be
presented. This would be the case especially in places where no law exists
to cover the crime because of which revenge is committed.
Because of its evil consequences, the drug traffic should not be presented
in any form. The existence of the trade should not be brought to the
attention of audiences.
The use of liquor should never be excessively presented. In scenes from
American life, the necessities of plot and proper characterization alone
justify its use. And in this case, it should be shown with moderation.
II. Sex
Out of a regard for the sanctity of marriage and the home, the triangle,
that is, the love of a third party for one already married, needs careful
handling. The treatment should not throw sympathy against marriage as an
institution.
Scenes of passion must be treated with an honest acknowledgement of human
nature and its normal reactions. Many scenes cannot be presented without
arousing dangerous emotions on the part of the immature, the young or the
criminal classes.
Even within the limits of pure love, certain facts have been universally
regarded by lawmakers as outside the limits of safe presentation.
In the case of impure love, the love which society has always regarded as
wrong and which has been banned by divine law, the following are important:
1. Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.
2. It must not be the subject of comedy or farce, or treated as material for
laughter.
3. It must not be presented in such a way to arouse passion or morbid
curiosity on the part of the audience.
4. It must not be made to seem right and permissible.
5. It general, it must not be detailed in method and manner.
III. Vulgarity; IV. Obscenity; V. Profanity; hardly need further explanation
than is contained in the Code.
VI. Costume
General Principles:
1. The effect of nudity or semi-nudity upon the normal man or woman, and
much more upon the young and upon immature persons, has been honestly
recognized by all lawmakers and moralists.
2. Hence the fact that the nude or semi-nude body may be beautiful does not
make its use in the films moral. For, in addition to its beauty, the effect
of the nude or semi-nude body on the normal individual must be taken into
consideration.
3. Nudity or semi-nudity used simply to put a "punch" into a picture comes
under the head of immoral actions. It is immoral in its effect on the
average audience.
4. Nudity can never be permitted as being necessary for the plot.
Semi-nudity must not result in undue or indecent exposures.
5. Transparent or translucent materials and silhouette are frequently more
suggestive than actual exposure.
VII. Dances
Dancing in general is recognized as an art and as a beautiful form of
expressing human emotions.
But dances which suggest or represent sexual actions, whether performed solo
or with two or more; dances intended to excite the emotional reaction of an
audience; dances with movement of the breasts, excessive body movements
while the feet are stationary, violate decency and are wrong.
VIII. Religion
The reason why ministers of religion may not be comic characters or villains
is simply because the attitude taken toward them may easily become the
attitude taken toward religion in general. Religion is lowered in the minds
of the audience because of the lowering of the audience's respect for a
minister.
IX. Locations
Certain places are so closely and thoroughly associated with sexual life or
with sexual sin that their use must be carefully limited.
X. National Feelings
The just rights, history, and feelings of any nation are entitled to most
careful consideration and respectful treatment.
XI. Titles
As the title of a picture is the brand on that particular type of goods, it
must conform to the ethical practices of all such honest business.
XII. Repellent Subjects
Such subjects are occasionally necessary for the plot. Their treatment must
never offend good taste nor injure the sensibilities of an audience.
Wile E. Coyote
> Actually I agree too that its the responsibility of the parent first and
> foremost to decide such things unfortunately there's plenty of evidence
> that a LOT of parents do not fulfill that responsibility and therefore
> we do need laws as a failsafe to protect society.
We need protecting from cartoons on a computer screen? Give me a break
and don't ever run for office.
Tim O
Its not possible. Stupid people are going to do stupid things and
raise stupid kids. When Terminator Salvation came out, I saw a couple
in the theater with two kids. One kid was no more than two, the other
was six at most. This was a movie that did things on a primal level,
humans being rounded up and killed by robots, that a kid could totally
comprehend yet still not be smart enough to realize as ficiton.
I actually told the couple to "Enjoy the nightmares" when the movie
was over.
The notion that we need to protect the young or stupid from themselves
is absurd.
Wile E. Coyote
> Where's my copy of "Seduction of the Innocent"?
>
> BAN COMIC BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ban Ken dolls because they induce homosexuality in innocent boys!!!
Schrodinger
"Tim O" <timo56...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s77th5hmvp89dnqn6...@4ax.com...
The thing is, if a parent is feckless enough not to care or know what their
child is up to, buying a video game with a higher age rating is the *least*
of the child's problems.
Our (and many) government(s) would rather legislate against things like this
in response to a moral panic than tackle real issues, however.
My wife works with young people. In the local town (this is an affluent
rural area), 12 and 13 year olds regularly get so drunk in the local park
that they can't walk properly. They smoke cannabis and have sex with each
other. Some of the 12 - 15 year old girls deliberately get drunk because
they will be having sex stood up and it is uncomfortable for them. God only
knows what goes on in deprived areas.
At no point are the parents taken to task by our morally superior government
and I am certain the same scenes are seen in Australia and USA.
The services that work with these young people and help educate them are
constantly under threat of cutbacks when they are already trimmed to the
bare minimum, whereas ethnic diversity projects and studies into the harm
done by video games get all the funding they need.
I would fix the big stuff before going after the little stuff, but your
average morally superior knob wipe doesn't see the kids in the park at 10pm
Friday night - they are too busy watching Miss Marple or the latest X Factor
to know or care.
Schrodinger
"Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:sHrTm.51525$oB1....@newsfe07.ams2...
That is called lazy parenting. In fact, it *isn't* parenting by definition
and those "parents" will therefore ignore the classification system in any
case.
Thank you for not debating with me about how to bring my children up, by the
way, although I am sure you know best - just like Mr Atkinson.
> One things you have taught your children is that if you think its okay to
> ignore the rules, then you go right ahead and do it.
I have also taught both of my children to challenge those that think they
know better then them. I have taught them to ask for proof that others know
better before following their guidance. Would it be better to follow all
those in "authority" and challenge nothing?
Oh, and I have also taught them to be polite and not call people
over-bearingly patronising know it all pricks.
Schrodinger
"Wile E. Coyote" <coy...@ACME.invalid> wrote in message
news:2CqTm.3174$ha3....@newsfe19.iad...
> Sleepy wrote:
>
>> "He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young
>> people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our
>> society, from being able to access material."
>
> <begin rant>
> This is BS and I am sick of the young dweebs treating us older people who
> have been using computers before most of them were even born treating us
> like we are computer noobs when asking about a computer for sale at the
> computer stores etc. The fact is they know how to use MSN, Facebook,
> youtube, torrent sites, steal MP3s etc. but they know very little about
> computers and how they work. They know even less about computer security
> and are the reason lots of family computers get virii and malware.
> <end of rant>
Spot on. The problem is the average non computer enthusiast knows so
little, they assume if a kid can use an Xbox they are tech literate!
Jonah Falcon
"Wile E. Coyote" <coy...@ACME.invalid> wrote in message
Ken has no penis. He's not going to induce anything in anyone. lol
Jonah Falcon
Now you folks might've noticed, I don't feel about that Gulf War the way we
were instructed to feel about it by the United States government. My mind
doesn't work that way. You see, I've got this real moron thing I do, it's
called 'Thinking' And I guess I'm not a very good American, because I like
to form my own opinions; I don't just roll over when I'm told. Most
Americans roll over on command. Not me, There are certain rules I observe.
My first rule: Never believe anyone in authority says. None of them.
Government, Police, clergy, the corporate criminals. None of them. And
neither do I believe anything I'm told by the media, who, in the case of the
Gulf War, functioned as little more than unpaid employees of the Defense
Department, and who, most of the time, operate as unofficial public
relations agency for the government and industry.
I don't believe in any of them. And I have to tell you, folks, I don't
really believe very much in my country either. I don't get all choked up
about yellow ribbons and American flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave
them to the symbol-minded.
Wile E. Coyote
>
> I would fix the big stuff before going after the little stuff, but your
> average morally superior knob wipe doesn't see the kids in the park at
> 10pm Friday night - they are too busy watching Miss Marple or the latest
> X Factor to know or care.
>
>
>
And just what are you doing watching drunk chavs have sex on a late
Friday night? ;)
Schrodinger
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9vydnYhFV-47XoPW...@earthlink.com...
George Carlin FTW
Nostromo
-0500, Anno Domini:
Down under TS was rated MA15+ I believe. If I was the ticket box person I'd
be *strongly* advising the parent against taking those kids in to see that
movie, if allowed it at all. Clearly this was almost 99.99% certainly not
done to any serious degree.
If I was you I would have reported the cinema to head office management &
beyond that to whatever rating board governs the industry.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
I think a lot of us would like to know the answer to that question! <EG>
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Domini:
>That is called lazy parenting. In fact, it *isn't* parenting by definition
>and those "parents" will therefore ignore the classification system in any
>case.
>
>Thank you for not debating with me about how to bring my children up, by the
>way, although I am sure you know best - just like Mr Atkinson.
Just to play DA here, you do know that those kids of yours are not property
i.e. they are independent, living human beings & you don't own them
exclusively by any sense of the word? You have a moral, social & legal
responsibility to raise them to the best of your ability, period.
It's interesting therefore, that in one paragraph you judge those 'other'
people & can claim lazy/bad parenting, while in the next paragraph you don't
want the government or anyone else telling YOU how to raise your kids.
Can anyone smell a double standard here folks? <EG>
Seriously, overt bad parenting (like some of the types described) is usually
as obvious as the proverbial dog balls, that the mind *boggles* that we
haven't legislated _something_ in some way about it (a lot sooner than the
actual 'child abuse' kicks in). It's the more subtle, insidious bad
parenting that probably does the most long term damage anyway, but making
parents accountable for these human beings of who's lives we are merely
*stewards* for a time, should almost be a no brainer.
We need a license to drive, get married or own a gun, but anyone can
procreate & raise any kind of human beings they like. WTF ppl?
>> One things you have taught your children is that if you think its okay to
>> ignore the rules, then you go right ahead and do it.
>
>I have also taught both of my children to challenge those that think they
>know better then them. I have taught them to ask for proof that others know
>better before following their guidance. Would it be better to follow all
>those in "authority" and challenge nothing?
>
>Oh, and I have also taught them to be polite and not call people
>over-bearingly patronising know it all pricks.
LOL.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Or child services, failing that. <EG>
--
Nostromo
Sleepy
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9vydnYhFV-47XoPW...@earthlink.com...
> My first rule: Never believe anyone in authority says. None of them.
> Government, Police, clergy, the corporate criminals. None of them.
Which kinda proves my point - or the point I wanted to make before this got
into a pissing contest about who has the right to decide what their kids
view.
You clearly seem to mistrust politicans (as many people understandably do)
and that prejudices your thinking. You read the story (on a game site for
Petes' sake) but didnt investigate it further to get all the facts before
calling Mr Atkinson a prick.
Now I don't know the Australian governmental system that well (and I doubt
any of us who have posted here do) but it seems to me that Atkinson is part
of decision making body that have to vote on this issue. The 'system' says
the vote HAS to be unanimous and his conscience says no. He's sticking to
his principles despite it being unpopular with some people and I recognize
that it takes courage to do so - thus I respect him.
I happen to believe that his concerns about giving games a 18 rating and
allowing them into the country will mean they get into the hands of
children - is a valid one. As I've said - I played online plenty and seen
there are children playing 18 rated games.
I don't believe simply playing a violent game turns one into a killer like
that kid in Germany who gunned down his schoolmates (how quickly we forget
such things) but I DO believe its often part of the process.
The effect that a playing a violent game can have on an impressionable mind
worries me far more than the possibility of having one or two games altered
or banned.
If games are adjusted to tone down the violence - what exactly do you think
you're missing out on? And if there's even a slightest chance it'll help
reduce the chances of another school shooting - isn't it worth it?
Morgan
> I happen to believe that his concerns about giving games a 18 rating and
> allowing them into the country will mean they get into the hands of
> children - is a valid one. As I've said - I played online plenty and
> seen there are children playing 18 rated games.
>
> I don't believe simply playing a violent game turns one into a killer
> like that kid in Germany who gunned down his schoolmates (how quickly we
> forget such things) but I DO believe its often part of the process.
Based on what evidence?
Do you posses any level education in psychology or psychiatry?
Do you work closely with a sufficient number of children to draw any
conclusions as to the major influences on their behaviour?
Schrodinger
"Wile E. Coyote" <coy...@ACME.invalid> wrote in message
news:BJzTm.58954$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
Well, that sort of thing just wasn't like me at all, and then I played a
violent game and things started to change...
Schrodinger
"Nostromo" <nos...@forme.org> wrote in message
news:4pmuh594a00q6k86c...@4ax.com...
> Thus spake "Schrodinger" <n...@way.com>, Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:20:51 -0000,
> Anno
> Domini:
>
>>That is called lazy parenting. In fact, it *isn't* parenting by
>>definition
>>and those "parents" will therefore ignore the classification system in any
>>case.
>>
>>Thank you for not debating with me about how to bring my children up, by
>>the
>>way, although I am sure you know best - just like Mr Atkinson.
>
> Just to play DA here, you do know that those kids of yours are not
> property
> i.e. they are independent, living human beings & you don't own them
> exclusively by any sense of the word? You have a moral, social & legal
> responsibility to raise them to the best of your ability, period.
> It's interesting therefore, that in one paragraph you judge those 'other'
> people & can claim lazy/bad parenting, while in the next paragraph you
> don't
> want the government or anyone else telling YOU how to raise your kids.
> Can anyone smell a double standard here folks? <EG>
>
True, sleepy and perhaps the majority of the Australian population, would
judge my parenting decisions to be bad ones, but they are thought through,
considered and measured. My children don't have carte blanche to do what
they will and they have very definite boundaries.
The parents of the young people having sex in the park and getting drunk
every Friday (and Wednesday and Saturday usually) don't take any
responsibility for their children. Now, they may argue that, in the long
run, that is a good thing.
The only problem I can see from an objective stand point is the risk of
pregnancy and venereal disease (oh, and liver disease and any one of
countless consequences from risky behaviours). Those are very direct
physical (and mental) risks. It is the same as leaving a child on a busy
roadside when they are too young to understand the risks of crossing.
Is my decision to allow my daughter to watch a zombie movie in the same
vein?
I think it demonstrably is not, as the only harm that could come from this
is emotional harm and this is a risk we consider constantly and weigh
against benefit with each film and game she does and does not play. It is
taken in light of our unrivalled knowledge of our child's emotional and
mental make up.
The point it, I have drawn a line. You may argue where that line might be,
but the parents of the other young people have drawn no line and hence put
their children directly into harms way.
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
<big snip>
>I happen to believe that his concerns about giving games a 18 rating and
>allowing them into the country will mean they get into the hands of
>children - is a valid one. As I've said - I played online plenty and seen
>there are children playing 18 rated games.
>
>I don't believe simply playing a violent game turns one into a killer like
>that kid in Germany who gunned down his schoolmates (how quickly we forget
>such things) but I DO believe its often part of the process.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about where kids get their hands on guns,
than on any possible effect a game might have on them.
It's not like shootings only started happening after video games became
popular.
"GTA (or other game) made me do it" is just the "I don't like Mondays"
of the 2000s.
>The effect that a playing a violent game can have on an impressionable mind
>worries me far more than the possibility of having one or two games altered
>or banned.
>
>If games are adjusted to tone down the violence - what exactly do you think
>you're missing out on? And if there's even a slightest chance it'll help
>reduce the chances of another school shooting - isn't it worth it?
Toning down the violence in an AVP game is completely contrary to the
background it's set in - defined in the AVP, Alien and Predator films.
What's next, taking all the guns out of a WW2 Online game cause a minor
might be able to get in?
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Morgan
> "Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> <big snip>
>> I happen to believe that his concerns about giving games a 18 rating and
>> allowing them into the country will mean they get into the hands of
>> children - is a valid one. As I've said - I played online plenty and seen
>> there are children playing 18 rated games.
>>
>> I don't believe simply playing a violent game turns one into a killer like
>> that kid in Germany who gunned down his schoolmates (how quickly we forget
>> such things) but I DO believe its often part of the process.
>
> Frankly, I'm more concerned about where kids get their hands on guns,
> than on any possible effect a game might have on them.
It's amazing how the ban games/films/Mongooses people always
conveniently skip over the whole gun debate.
> It's not like shootings only started happening after video games became
> popular.
I'd heard that Jack the Ripper liked to play Man Hunt. :-)
Sheldon England
>
> It's amazing how the ban games/films/Mongooses people always
> conveniently skip over the whole gun debate.
Gerald has advised that you are bringing far too much attention to his
Supreme Ruler role and influence and suggests you desist if you know
what's good for you.
- Sheldon, Obedient Servant of Gerald the Mongoose
Morgan
Damn, he's noticed me. I must release the snakes. Damn that won't work.
Unknown
I agree that the problem isn't Atkinson, it's the aussie law that
invokes absolute censorship, rather than a much more efficient system
that simply rates entertainment and gives due warning. I mean "more
efficient" only if you aren't a developer of AvP, since from the
standpoint of AvP this is great advertising. I'm with everybody else
on this, I'm way more interested in AvP now that this guy "voted his
conscience". And I hope it lives up to the hype of giving us that old
time ultra-violence.
Unknown
wrote:
>"Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
><big snip>
>>I happen to believe that his concerns about giving games a 18 rating and
>>allowing them into the country will mean they get into the hands of
>>children - is a valid one. As I've said - I played online plenty and seen
>>there are children playing 18 rated games.
>>
>>I don't believe simply playing a violent game turns one into a killer like
>>that kid in Germany who gunned down his schoolmates (how quickly we forget
>>such things) but I DO believe its often part of the process.
>
>Frankly, I'm more concerned about where kids get their hands on guns,
>than on any possible effect a game might have on them.
>
Look at "why kids would want to get their hands on guns".
Well, why do their elders want to get their hands on guns? Show me
someone who's born to a rural family and I'll show you someone who's
likely to've been born into a "gun culture", of some sort. Owning a
rifle or two and learning responsible use from a young age, perhaps -
might be the first determining or imprinting experience. But that
isn't about the social environs of some gang infested inner city. It
seems to me that the way kids think about and perhaps use guns in a
city is likely to mirror the way the elders in their vicinity do, just
like it is for their country cousins. If the surrounding
*determining* adults have a somewhat deranged attitude toward guns,
toward weapons, then their children will absorb this.
And this hasn't got a thing to do with video games ......
sheee..
Nostromo
Domini:
That's a lot of fast-talkin & back-pedalin there Schro! ;-p
Seriously, I did say I was playing Devil's Advocate & we would probably
generally agree on most points about child raising. Except I would probably
be less forgiving of them if they fucked up <BFG>.
>> Seriously, overt bad parenting (like some of the types described) is
>> usually
>> as obvious as the proverbial dog balls, that the mind *boggles* that we
>> haven't legislated _something_ in some way about it (a lot sooner than the
>> actual 'child abuse' kicks in). It's the more subtle, insidious bad
>> parenting that probably does the most long term damage anyway, but making
>> parents accountable for these human beings of who's lives we are merely
>> *stewards* for a time, should almost be a no brainer.
>>
>> We need a license to drive, get married or own a gun, but anyone can
>> procreate & raise any kind of human beings they like. WTF ppl?
What, no comment? ;)
--
Nostromo
Vincenzo Beretta
> people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our
> society, from being able to access material."
Shouldn't this responsibility be left to their parents anyway? I really
cannot think of a simpler argument than this.
Jonah Falcon
I miss George Carlin :(
Shawk
>>>
>>> We need a license to drive, get married or own a gun, but anyone can
>>> procreate & raise any kind of human beings they like. WTF ppl?
>
> What, no comment? ;)
In the UK we don't have gun licenses or dog licenses. Just one for the
wife. We know which is the more dangerous and requiring of control... :)