End of so called "violent" games :-(
moinsoft
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Muskie
under 17. Quite a difference!
-Muskie
Bryan Lambert
> No, it's the end of the advertising and marketing of violent games to kids
>under 17. Quite a difference!
Here's a question:
Is a full-page ad in, say, EGM "advertising and marketing ov violen
games to kids under 17"?
Seems to me most game marketing is done in print mags. Most print mags
target themselves at the entire game audience. If all game mags are
considered venues for kids under 17, and therefore off-limits for
advertising M-games in, won't that provide a huge chilling effect on
decisions to try to make and sell games rated "M"?
Bryan "Stories about studies rarely define terms." Lambert
MAIL: bryn...@minn.net WEB: homegame.org/canvas/
Visit homegame.org NOW. Keeper: Modern Space Ghost FAQ
----------------------------------------------------
'Politically Incorrect' is the Politically Correct way
of saying 'Asshole'.
Lopaka
Kids have always wanted what they couldn't have, and the current "M"
rating on a game box is as irresistible to the average games-playing
10-year old as cheese is to a hungry mouse.
Game Publishers know this and market their software accordingly.
Regardless, it's still up to those negligent parents to make the
(politically unpopular with their progeny) decision to accept -full-
responsibility for what their own kids are doing with their free time,
at home and elsewhere, instead of trying to make everybody else be fully
accountable for how their kids are growing up and will eventually turn
out.
Enough is enough.
Bob
pha...@my-deja.com
mich...@mindspring.com (Muskie) wrote:
>
>No, it's the end of the advertising and marketing of violent games
>to kids under 17. Quite a difference!
I wonder... Are violent games really being marketed to kids, or are
they just being marketed to immature adults? Hmmm. ;)
Sean Howard
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_920000/920594.stm
More people die from using Firestone tires than video games.
@@
Sean Howard
Muskie
>More people die from using Firestone tires than video games.
>
>@@
>Sean Howard
Make that firestone tires On FORD Explorer's.
-Muskie
Charles Doane
Not those clowns again. The FTC doesn't know jack about videogames,
yet they seem to be the ones that the gov't looks for regulating them.
This is tantamount to having a plumber inspect electrical wiring.
The logical outcome is likely to be disaster.
So, marketing to children is bad now? How about all of the other
things that are advertised that kids aren't supposed to use?
You know, things like cars?
These hypocrites want to show condoms to kids, including how to
use them, but they freak out if the kids see a few red pixels
on a video monitor? What the heck is wrong with this picture?
I'll tell you exactly what it is. This tactic has been successful
in censoring "Joe Camel", and the censorship proponents have smelled
blood. They see that "marketing to kids" is now a license to
restrict and censor products, and so they'll use that same tactic
again and again.
Not only will the censorship proponents use the tactic, but they'll
expand the definition. The death of "Joe Camel" came about because
the definition of "marketing to kids" now includes cute animation
characters, even though Mr. Camel wasn't ever in a children's program.
Unfortunately for gamers, videogames fall under the same broad brush
as cute animation characters do. They're *all* for children in the
opinions of the uninformed, and so any videogame marketing can
(and likely will) be targeted as "marketing to kids".
Videogame magazines? They'll be among the first to be restricted.
Websites for videogames? You betcha, those draw children like candy.
Duing "South Park"? Oh, yeah, that's animated, so it's for kiddies.
The bad thing about allowing censorship based on a vague term like
"marketing to children" is that it can be expanded almost indefinitely.
The *stupidest* line in that whole report goes:
*******************************************************************
"Pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent movies, music
and electronic games to children undermines the credibility of the
industries' ratings and labels," the FTC report says.
*******************************************************************
Whoever wrote that has lost sight of what the ratings systems *are*,
and who they are for. The ratings systems are not for children.
Children aren't the ones who are being advised by these ratings.
Children don't raise themselves, and the advice (*ADVICE*!!) is for
the *parent*. If you wanted to undermine the ratings, then you'd
have to target the parent, and not the child.
If parents can't watch their children, then politicians in D.C.
certainly can't. I'd hate to see the young adult that Washington
D.C. politicians would turn out. He'd be so sensitive to violence
that he'd break down crying over someone calling him a name, but at
least he'd be able to use a condom really well.
--
Novus ordo seclorum (Latin)- "A new cycle of the ages"
Motto on the reverse of the Great Seal of the
United States of America.
Scott X
> certainly can't. I'd hate to see the young adult that Washington
> D.C. politicians would turn out. He'd be so sensitive to violence
> that he'd break down crying over someone calling him a name, but at
> least he'd be able to use a condom really well.
>
Bwahahahahahahah! I knew you and I saw some things in a similar light.
This is funny but true, we've got blind people, intellectually speaking,
trying to administer not only the government, but our families. People who
want to change who the founding fathers of our country were, into universal,
yes men. Feh, if they could, they'd probably try to say that George
Washington was a women, or gay, just to get more money for the campaign.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The *stupidest* line in that whole report goes:
>
> *******************************************************************
> "Pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent movies, music
> and electronic games to children undermines the credibility of the
> industries' ratings and labels," the FTC report says.
> *******************************************************************
>
> Whoever wrote that has lost sight of what the ratings systems *are*,
> and who they are for. The ratings systems are not for children.
> Children aren't the ones who are being advised by these ratings.
> Children don't raise themselves, and the advice (*ADVICE*!!) is for
> the *parent*. If you wanted to undermine the ratings, then you'd
> have to target the parent, and not the child.
The point is that rating something as inappropriate for minors, then
running ads that target those minors is contradictory. And yes, R
rated movies, cigarettes, etc, are/were marketed to people too young to
legally watch/use them. Better to enforce these ratings and keep such
things out of the hands of kids so that they DON'T start censoring
things to make them child-friendly.
-ZFP
azel
>things out of the hands of kids so that they DON'T start censoring
>things to make them child-friendly.
>
>-ZFP
True. That's what they should do. But as for them censoring things it isn't
gonna happen, As much as some poepl hate violent games, Movies.
They can't sensor it, Since "Freedom of speech"
They need to stop bitching and start enforcing the laws and ratings they have,
So little punks can't get the stuff, And all the other people that CAN get the
stuff can enjoy it and be left alone
----------------------------------------------------
"Ore ga kowaii no ka?" - Iori Yagami
Immortality? http://www.alexchiu.com/clickthru.cgi?id=shuramix
Sean Howard
: The point is that rating something as inappropriate for minors, then
: running ads that target those minors is contradictory. And yes, R
: rated movies, cigarettes, etc, are/were marketed to people too young to
: legally watch/use them. Better to enforce these ratings and keep such
: things out of the hands of kids so that they DON'T start censoring
: things to make them child-friendly.
Tell the people who censored Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut that a
voluntary ratings system doesn't promote censoring. Probably the only
person who really believes that is Jack Valenti, president of the
MPAA (movie rating board), who has in the past proven himself to be
completely inept. Just wait until we go back to the days of all videogame
characters drinking milk and cider instead of beer because, though the
characters in the game are adults, the kids playing the game might not be
21 yet.
I CAN make a R-rated movie that targets kids. That's the thing. I can make
Scream or Scary Movie using the actors from Party of Five and Dawson's
Creek and market that stuff directly to the 15 year olds that would want
to see it. They just can't see it without the consent of a guardian. Teens
are already doing everything that the R-rating says they should wait until
18 for. Lose you virginity at 16, but wait until 18 to see Showgirls.
Who judges what is appropriate for minors? The parents of each child? No,
some coporation that generalizes the intelligence and maturity of each
kid based on some average or, worse yet, some puritan belief system. Who
are they trying to protect? The children? No, themselves. They think that
if another Columbine happens (and it will), they can protect their own
damn selves by saying, "Not our fault. We told them they shouldn't play
DOOM". But it is their fault, and labeling and censoring our video games
for their peace of mind is just plain wrong.
One thing you might not have considered is that we need these types of
movies to be seen by teenagers. Teens go through a lot of things that are
very difficult to them, and they do look to places for help. But they can't
ask their parents, and their friends have exceedingly wrong information.
Teens want to see movies about sex because that is exactly what they are
interested in that point in their life, just like they biologically should
be. I can't help but think that my long lasting 8 year relationship with
my high school sweetheart has the movie industry at least somewhat to thank.
You say that mature movies are wrongly being targeted to teenagers? No.
They ratings system for movies is a broken broken device, and now they
want to do a similar thing with video games? They can do better. The long
and short of it is that the ratings system for movies and games are guidelines.
Guidelines can be followed or ignored. Laws put you in jail if you do this.
When Al Gore has actually played Soul Reaver, maybe I'll listen to what he
has to say. But until then, he is just a fool with a microphone doing foolish
things that will effect my life.
Why is the US morally and ethically behind every other first world country in
the world? Because pride tells us that our morals are right and just, when
we really don't have any at all.
@@
Sean Howard
Charles Doane
Hold on just one cotton-pickin' minute...
These ratings are *not* saying what is inappropriate for minors. They are
*advisory* to parents to let the parents make that decision. The PARENTS
decide, and no one else should do that job, much less assume that job.
Do you remember what the "R" rating says? "No one under 17 admitted
without Parent or Guardian", right? http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/
The equal of the "R" rating in videogames is the ESRB "M" rating.
It's *advisory*. If a parent or guardian feels that the child is mature
enough to handle the content, and is present at the point of contact,
then there's no problem. These ratings do *not* say that no child, under
any circumstances, is to view the contents of this movie (or game, for
that matter).
There are *already* two ratings that *do* say what's completely
inappropriate for minors. On the MPAA side, that's "X" rated, or more
recently, "NC-17". On the ESRB side, that's the "Ao", or "Adults Only"
rating. http://www.esrb.com/rating.html
Kids are not getting in to see "X" rated movies, and no "Ao" game is
in existence on any currently viable commercial console.
The kids have been saved, and the censors have gotten what they wanted.
Now they want just a little bit more, and that's just a little too much.
These creeps, if allowed to succeed, will push all movies rated "R" into
the same category as "X" movies, and all videogames rated "M" into the
same no-mans-land as the "Ao" games. If they get it, they won't be happy.
They'll start going after the "PG-13" movies and the "T" videogames.
If the censors power-grab is successful, I hope you really like Disney
films and Tetris games, because that's all that'll be left.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
how...@mailer.fsu.edu (Sean Howard) wrote:
>
> Tell the people who censored Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut that a
> voluntary ratings system doesn't promote censoring.
Tall them what? Tell them that artistic integrity should come before
marketability? That's not the fault of the ratings, that's the fault
of spineless, greedy bastards that think making a buck is more
important than letting people see something as it was meant to be seen.
> One thing you might not have considered is that we need these types of
> movies to be seen by teenagers. Teens go through a lot of things that
> are very difficult to them, and they do look to places for help. But
> they can't ask their parents, and their friends have exceedingly
> wrong information.
Better NOT to let them see such movies, and FORCE them to turn to a
more reliable source.
> Teens want to see movies about sex because that is exactly what they
> are interested in that point in their life, just like they
> biologically should be. I can't help but think that my long lasting 8
> year relationship with my high school sweetheart has the movie
> industry at least somewhat to thank.
Um, if you WANT Hollywood raising our kids and you give them ANY credit
for your successful relationship, then frankly, I'm frightened... I
don't object to kids under 18 having sex, but if they're doing it
because the movies they turned to for "guidance" implied they should,
then all the more reason to crack down on Hollywood.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Hold on just one cotton-pickin' minute...
>
> These ratings are *not* saying what is inappropriate for minors.
> They are *advisory* to parents to let the parents make that
> decision.
Fine, they are ADVISING parents that something is inappropriate for
minors. I stand by my point.
> Now they want just a little bit more, and that's just a little too
> much.
No, it is not. What they want is to prevent kids from leaving their
parents out of the equation and purchsing/viewing these M/R rated
games/movies on their own. Not marketing such things to kids is a part
of that. A kid gets all hyped about some R-rated movie they saw an ad
for, their parents tell them they can't go see it, and what do you
think is goung to happen? I'd say it's almost a forgone conclusion
that that kid is going to end up seeing that movie.
> They'll start going after the "PG-13" movies and the "T" videogames.
> If the censors power-grab is successful, I hope you really like Disney
> films and Tetris games, because that's all that'll be left.
This is simply paranoia. If I were you, I'd be more worried about what
happens if these rating AREN'T enforced. Then, they'll simply claim
that since no one can regulate access to these things, they'd better
sanitize them to protect the children. THAT is censorship, not the
ratings system they want to see enforced.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <8plnkd$s2h$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
> how...@mailer.fsu.edu (Sean Howard) wrote:
> >
> > Tell the people who censored Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut that a
> > voluntary ratings system doesn't promote censoring.
>
> Tall them what? Tell them that artistic integrity should come before
> marketability? That's not the fault of the ratings, that's the fault
> of spineless, greedy bastards that think making a buck is more
> important than letting people see something as it was meant to be seen.
Making a buck *is* more important. It's absolutely vital, and it's the
only reason that anything is published at all. It takes beaucoup bucks
in order to distribute and market anything to the mass audiences, and
the fact of the matter is, most people don't have that sort of cash.
That's why the game publishers, movie studios, and book publishers exist.
They want to make money, of course they do, and there's nothing greedy
about that. It's called making a living.
Let's say you want to publish a videogame. Royalties are going to be
about $7 per unit, plus about $3 pressing and packaging. Call it $10
per unit, in publishing costs. That's cash in advance, so if you wanted
to publish a videogame and you thought it would sell 1 Million copies,
it takes $10 Million *cash in advance* to even attempt to do that.
No guarantees, either, the publisher can easily lose his shirt.
Greedy? Nope, not at all. Spineless? It take balls of steel to risk
$10 Million on something as capricious as whether a videogame will sell.
Artistic integrity means exactly *nothing* if no one gets to see the work,
and the traditional ways to distribute such works requires huge amounts of
money, cash outlays *up front* in order to even make the work available
and salable.
> > One thing you might not have considered is that we need these types of
> > movies to be seen by teenagers. Teens go through a lot of things that
> > are very difficult to them, and they do look to places for help. But
> > they can't ask their parents, and their friends have exceedingly
> > wrong information.
>
> Better NOT to let them see such movies, and FORCE them to turn to a
> more reliable source.
No, that's actually much worse, because there is no way to tell which
source will be turned to. It may very well be the funny old man down
the street who all the kids call "Uncle" and who lets them do anything
they want to.
Children are to be guided, not forced. Any attempt at force often causes
rebellion, and exactly the opposite of the desired behavior.
> > Teens want to see movies about sex because that is exactly what they
> > are interested in that point in their life, just like they
> > biologically should be. I can't help but think that my long lasting 8
> > year relationship with my high school sweetheart has the movie
> > industry at least somewhat to thank.
>
> Um, if you WANT Hollywood raising our kids and you give them ANY credit
> for your successful relationship, then frankly, I'm frightened... I
> don't object to kids under 18 having sex, but if they're doing it
> because the movies they turned to for "guidance" implied they should,
> then all the more reason to crack down on Hollywood.
Children will be exposed to just about everything while they grow up.
There's no way to stop it. So, the most harmless way is on the video
screen. If a character on a video screen "dies", then that's a valuable
life lesson opportunity to discuss death and what it means, without
someone actually kicking the bucket.
There is no way to learn about "right and wrong" if "wrong" is kept
hidden from view and it's not seen or even discussed.
Our jail system is flawed like this. We take the "bad" people and lock
them away, never to be seen at all. Well, that takes the deterrent
effect right the heck out of locking people up. Most people don't even
see jails unless they get arrested and thrown into one. The "unknown"
is not going to have much of a deterrent effect.
There's a really simple reason why kids play with fire. They're curious.
It's natural, and it's healthy to be curious. Curiosity is what has
gotten mankind this far. However, kids still burn down houses playing
with fire, because no one tells them of the danger, or shows them what
fire is. The "control" solution is child-proof lighters.
A ten-year-old can figure one of those out in a minute flat, and then
the house burns down. Why?
"Control" is not the solution. It never has been and it never will be.
The solution is simple; guidance, namely "parenting". It's a tough job,
but it has to be done and it's the only effective and proven method for
raising children into responsible, productive adults.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39BE74FB...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hold on just one cotton-pickin' minute...
> >
> > These ratings are *not* saying what is inappropriate for minors.
> > They are *advisory* to parents to let the parents make that
> > decision.
>
> Fine, they are ADVISING parents that something is inappropriate for
> minors. I stand by my point.
The advice is that some content *may* be inappropriate for *some* minors.
Not all children come out of a cookie-cutter, you know. They're kinda
like people, that way.
Here's a good example. In the State of Arizona (and I suspect most
States are like this), a minor can get a learner's permit at the age
of 15, and a Driver's license at the age of 16. That's a license to
control about 2 tons of steel on public roadways, which can be (and
often is) a life-or-death decision if an error is made in judgement.
However, a juvenile may ONLY get a license if a Parent or Guardian
signs a consent form, attesting to their belief that the child in
their charge isn't going to take a car and kill somebody by reckless
or irresponsible behavior behind the wheel.
In other words, the State believes in Parental judgement for their
child's safety.
> > Now they want just a little bit more, and that's just a little too
> > much.
>
> No, it is not. What they want is to prevent kids from leaving their
> parents out of the equation and purchsing/viewing these M/R rated
> games/movies on their own. Not marketing such things to kids is a part
> of that. A kid gets all hyped about some R-rated movie they saw an ad
> for, their parents tell them they can't go see it, and what do you
> think is goung to happen? I'd say it's almost a forgone conclusion
> that that kid is going to end up seeing that movie.
The parents are never left out of the equation. That's what raising a
child is all about. The guidance taught to children stays with them
even when the parent is not present. It *has* to, because one day the
child will be an adult. If the parent says "no" and the child goes
against the orders of the parent, that's a civil matter, not a gov't one.
It's time to punish the child.
I don't see why this is a foreign concept. If my parents told me not to
do something, and I did it, the result was invariable and swift punishment.
PARENTS, not gov't, are best equipped to control children.
Besides, "M/R" rated is what you're worried about? Not "Ao/X" rated?
Then you truly have nothing to worry about.
> > They'll start going after the "PG-13" movies and the "T" videogames.
> > If the censors power-grab is successful, I hope you really like Disney
> > films and Tetris games, because that's all that'll be left.
>
> This is simply paranoia. If I were you, I'd be more worried about what
> happens if these rating AREN'T enforced. Then, they'll simply claim
> that since no one can regulate access to these things, they'd better
> sanitize them to protect the children. THAT is censorship, not the
> ratings system they want to see enforced.
It's not paranoia. It's already happened. Name me one "Ao" rated game
on the Dreamcast, PSX, N64, Saturn, SNES, or Genesis. You can't. None
were ever published. Now the push is on to make "M" equal to "Ao".
THAT is censorship.
Zeke
>>Better to enforce these ratings and keep such
>>things out of the hands of kids so that they DON'T start censoring
>>things to make them child-friendly.
>>
>>-ZFP
>
>True. That's what they should do. But as for them censoring things it isn't
>gonna happen, As much as some poepl hate violent games, Movies.
>
>They can't sensor it, Since "Freedom of speech"
>
>They need to stop bitching and start enforcing the laws and ratings they have,
>So little punks can't get the stuff, And all the other people that CAN get the
>stuff can enjoy it and be left alone
Actually there is no Law that says kids can't buy MA-17 rated games.
It's up to the stores discretion. There is also no law that says that
kids under 17 can't watch an R rated movie. It's up to the theaters
discretion. That's why ratings generally don't work.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
If you REALLY feel that way you CANNOT complain about the voluntary
censorship caused by ratings. The best way to make a buck is to make
something that will apeal to the masses, and that means cutting anything
that might be found offensive or objectionable.
> No, that's actually much worse, because there is no way to tell which
> source will be turned to.
Better ANYTHING than the majority of Hollywood releases...
> Children will be exposed to just about everything while they grow up.
> There's no way to stop it.
No, but that exposure and it's context can and should be monitored and
controlled. Their exposure to sex should not consist of T&A in movies
and their exposure to death and killing should not consist of mindless
shoot-em-ups like Doom.
> There is no way to learn about "right and wrong" if "wrong" is kept
> hidden from view and it's not seen or even discussed.
Funny you should say this, since games like Doom do not present
wanton violence as something "wrong", nor do many Hollywood movies
present crude debauchery as "wrong"...
> The solution is simple; guidance, namely "parenting".
Sure, but when the entertainment industry does everything it can to
circumvent the parents guidance, it's a problem. A parent can decide
they don't want their child to see R rated movies, but if those movies
are advertiesd during all their kid's favorite shows, there's a
problem...
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The advice is that some content *may* be inappropriate for *some*
> minors.
Whatever. The fact is that it's up to the parents, not the minor to
decide. When the industry markets these products TO those minors, they
act against the very spirit of their own ratings system.
> The parents are never left out of the equation. That's what raising a
> child is all about. The guidance taught to children stays with them
> even when the parent is not present.
In an ideal world, sure. In the real world, no. Kid's have free will,
after all, and have a tendancy to form their own ideas about what is and
is not right for them.
> If my parents told me not to do something, and I did it, the result
> was invariable and swift punishment. PARENTS, not gov't, are best
> equipped to control children.
The fact that such movies are marketed to minors just makes the parent's
life needlessly difficult. If the government places the decision in the
hands of the parent, they have a duty not to undermine the parents
decsion. If the parent tells a child they cannot buy a M rated game or
watch an R rated movie, the parent must be able to trust the theatres
and stores not to sell the game to the child or let them into the movie
anyway.
> Besides, "M/R" rated is what you're worried about? Not "Ao/X" rated?
> Then you truly have nothing to worry about.
That's up to the parent, not up to you.
> It's not paranoia. It's already happened.
It isn't.
> Now the push is on to make "M" equal to "Ao". THAT is censorship.
No, the push is to actually enforce that M rating. Besides, look up
censorship. Not selling something to minors is not censorship.
Sean Howard
It isn't against the law to be desensitized to violence.
It isn't against the law to be 'violent' (as in sports).
It isn't against the law to see violence.
It isn't against the law to want to see an R-rated movie.
And unfortunately, it isn't against the law for people from different
backgrounds, religions, and moral opinions to tell me how I should raise
my own child.
I wan't a bumper stick that says, "I play DOOM and haven't killed anyone".
The video game industry is going through a growth spurt. Thanks to those
dumb fucks form Columbine, all the parents are starting to get worried
about everybody else's kids. So the pressure is on. What will probably
happen is a rating system that is on par, though not by any means better,
with the movie industry....and that's what I'm complaining about.
The MPAA is extremely corrupt and one-sided. They have final decision,
except for the fact that the MPAA is funded by the large studios and tend
to be nicer to them than independent flicks (who also have less money
to make the required cuts). Why is "fuck you" a PG-13, but "fucked her"
an R? Who makes up these rules? Where is that line which says where the
corruption of children starts? There isn't one. It's a ruse, a joke.
Why is it ok to see R-rated movies on your 17th birthday when only a day
ago you couldn't? My girlfriend's parents wouldn't let her see an R-rated
movie until she was 17. Why? Because they thought it was a LAW (and still do).
It isn't a law, and it very much isn't distinguished enough as to that fact.
I'm glad there are people that are out there that think the ratings system
for movies does even the minimal, but it doesn't. Kids see R-rated movies
all they want, and it doesn't mean they go around killing other kids. I would
say that anybody over the age of 15 should be able to handle all but the
most hardcore stuff with little problems. Why punish my mature 15 year-old
when it was your dumb ass 15 year-old who shot up a school?
I swear, I'm leaving this country. Go somewhere where presidential hopefuls
DON'T list the bible as their favorite book.
@@
Sean Howard
Scott X
> I'm glad there are people that are out there that think the ratings system
> for movies does even the minimal, but it doesn't. Kids see R-rated movies
> all they want, and it doesn't mean they go around killing other kids. I
would
> say that anybody over the age of 15 should be able to handle all but the
> most hardcore stuff with little problems. Why punish my mature 15 year-old
> when it was your dumb ass 15 year-old who shot up a school?
>
> I swear, I'm leaving this country. Go somewhere where presidential
hopefuls
> DON'T list the bible as their favorite book.
It's wacked, I'll have to admit. I agree with your post completely, I
just had one question. What's wrong with the bible? If it's religion that
scares you, I'm with you, but it's far worse in the rest of the world, and
far more unquestionable societaly.
I and my wife-to-be plan on roaming the world at our earliest
convenience. We are both Christians, but will explain our faith in Jesus
only with people that are willing to talk about it. We want to travel to
help shake the "programming" as I call it, that the American culture has
placed on both of us. We want to be our own people. If you have much to
say on this subject, lets do it over e-mail, so as not to go off topic.
she...@sega.net
chie...@animejump.com
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> And that's the problem. The targets of their ads can't buy their
> product without the consent of their parents.
I fail to see how Doom was marketed to minors any more than it was
marketed to college kids.
> The placement of the ads proves otherwise.
What placement? Are Resident Evil 3 commercials being run during the
Disney Afternoon?
> No they don't. I went behind my parents backs plenty of times and did
> things they STILL don't know about, and never will.
That's a problem for you and your parents, not the government and the
entertainment industry.
> No one is claiming that the government should punish children for
> wrongdoing, just that the government should make it any easier for a
> child to disobey their parents.
The problem is, Gore is threatening the entertainment industry for,
IMO, no good reason.
I had a chance to speak to Yasuyuki Ueda, creator of Serial Experiments
Lain, a few weeks ago. Nice fellow. The story of Lain briefly touched
on a character who murdered a girl and her young daughter while having
intense hallucinations that reminded him of a video game he enjoyed
playing. I asked Ueda what he meant about that, if he thought that
violent games really had an influence on kids enough to make them
kill. He said:
"It happens. And while it's sad for the victims of this kind of
violence, it's a tiny percentage of people who actually do copycat
murders based on games or media influence. If you think about it, cars
are the things that kill the most people. The other thing is that these
people who copy video game violence or kill because of media
influence.... they'd end up being killers anyway, in my opinion. The
video games are just an excuse. Again, it's sad when this happens, but
it would almost be better if we could look at this kind of violence
more broadly instead of trying to pin the blame on video games, because
there's usually a problem with the person."
I agree. The problem is with the person, not the software.
(Full text of the interview is here: http://www.animejump.com/cgi-
bin/go.cgi?go=features/lainguys/lainguys1 )
> You've totally missed the point. If parents are to be responsible for
> raising their children, they have to be able to trust the government
> and the entertainment industry to back them up. If a parent won't
> accompany a child to an R-rated movie, or buy them an M-rated game,
> they have to trust that the theatre will not let the child in to the
> movie on their own, and that the store will not sell them the game.
If a parent forbids a kid to see an R-rated movie or play an M-rated
game, and the kid tries to anyway, the problem is with the kid. I
pulled a few shenanigans when I was a youngster, but I never went
directly against my parents' wishes like that.
> No one is trying to crack down on cable, dvd's, etc. Those ARE in the
> home and largely under the parent's controls.
Gore threatened the entire entertainment industry. That includes cable
television and the home video market.
> Of course it is. The advisory is FOR THE PARENTS. The decision is
> supposed to be made BY THE PARENTS. If you let kid's buy these games
> and see these movies you take the decision out of the hands of the
> parent.
No, because the parents are still responsible for the kid.
You remember the last time the Government tried to stick its fingers
into Hollywood, in the 50s? The HUAC? J. Parnell Thomas and the
Hollywood Ten? That was an ugly, ugly time. I don't want something
like that happening again.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
chie...@animejump.com wrote:
<snip>
> You remember the last time the Government tried to stick its fingers
> into Hollywood, in the 50s? The HUAC? J. Parnell Thomas and the
> Hollywood Ten? That was an ugly, ugly time. I don't want something
> like that happening again.
I think we agree on this matter, actually. Heck, I even think Doane
would agree if he stopped and thought about it for a second. Yes, it's
the individuals that are to blame, not the games or movies that may
influence them, and yes, it's parents that should be responsible for
raising their kids, not the government. However, if the makers of R-
rated games and M-rated movies target minors with advertising, and if
theatres and stores let kids get these games without their parents
knowledge or consent, then the parent's job is made needlessly
difficult. I was under the impression that this was Gore's position,
that the entertainment industry needed to take their own ratings system
more seriously, but if he IS advocating actual censorship of movies,
games, etc, that's something I can't agree with.
Sean Howard
: > I swear, I'm leaving this country. Go somewhere where presidential
: hopefuls
: > DON'T list the bible as their favorite book.
: It's wacked, I'll have to admit. I agree with your post completely, I
: just had one question. What's wrong with the bible? If it's religion that
: scares you, I'm with you, but it's far worse in the rest of the world, and
: far more unquestionable societaly.
I don't think this is totally off subject, and I don't know how long I'll
have an email address (I really am leaving the country :), so I'll respond
in this thread and try to keep it on topic.
The US is morally and ethically behind almost every other first world
country. We have people who support guns saying that video games are too
violent. We have senators who sleep with their secretaries trying to
get porn removed from retailers. We have people who think that evolution is
a "theory", when in fact it is just as proven, or more so, to be as
sound science as math, physics, and chemistry. The only reason they say that
is because it goes against the written word in a fiction book written
over 2000 years ago when people were still pooping in holes in the ground.
One creationist I've met thinks that physics is a fraud because balloons
float, and doesn't think that there were any religions before Judaism. He
is also, by the way, homeschooling his 4-year-old daughter. On a seperate
note, go to the site http://www.capalert.com and tell me that this man isn't
sick.
These things all have something in common with the violence issue, and that
is the bible and the inability to believe that people are capable of
making the right choice without consulting a higher power.
I don't agree with the Bible at all, and I don't want it influencing what
I can and can't do. It obviously influences Gore enough that it is his
"favorite book", and that bothers me, especially when he gets all high
and mighty about video game violence.
@@
Sean Howard
Scott X
> I don't think this is totally off subject, and I don't know how long I'll
> have an email address (I really am leaving the country :), so I'll respond
> in this thread and try to keep it on topic.
This is very off topic to Sega related talk, I'm sorry. I really do
want to further this conversation, but if I did, I think you would find that
your opinion is much more popular than mine. Just search Deja.com for a
thread about swear words in Crazy Taxi back in January for proof.
The Bible is one of the most hated books of all time, and the name of
Jesus, spoken in a positive light, starts more arguments than most trolls
do. People who claim to believe in what the Bible says twist, distort, and
misread what it says all the time in this country, for various reasons.
Again, I'd love to respond to what's below, but we should either move this
to an appropriate newsgroup or conduct it over e-mail.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39BF4DFF...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's a non sequitur. Popularity and mass appeal does not mean
> > "cutting anything that might be found offensive or objectionable".
>
> I'm afraid it often does.
Then you are afraid wrong. The WWF is a simulated bloodsport, and it
is *easily* found objectionable, yet it enjoys both popularity and mass
appeal. Videogames such as Resident Evil, Doom, and a plethora of
others also have things which "might be found offensive or
objectionable", and yet these are among the most popular of all
videogames.
> > That's an opinion, and a fatalistic, flawed one at that. There are
> > several very good films to come from Hollywood. "Schindler's List",
> > "Saving Private Ryan", "Apollo 13", and "Forrest Gump" are all very
> > good movies with stories of overcoming adversity and characterizing
> > the strength of the human spirit.
> > Hollywood does a very good job of giving people a mirror with which
> > to look at themselves in particular and humanity in general.
>
> You missed the point. The poster suggested that kids would go to r-
> rated movies to learn about sex, rather than turning to their parents,
> friends, etc. They aren't going to go to any of the excellent movies
> you mention if they're interested in seeing sex. The sort of movies
> they WOULD go to are not the sort I'd like them to learn anything from.
Children do not, in general, regard their parents as hot tamales in the
bedroom, and it's a NATURAL assumption to make that parents don't know
*jack* about sex because the parents are the ones keeping the info away
and hidden from the children. The veil of secrecy is profound, and all
the children see is that the parents and government want to do is to
maintain that veil. That's why third parties are so attractive, it's
because they don't keep these things secret.
> > No, liberals would rather have the T&A in the classroom as they show
> > how to use a condom in more detail than any Ron Jeremy film does.
>
> Sex education is NOT T&A.
Yes, it absolutely is. It's taught in the absence of any moral bounds,
just as pornography is. It's wrong for the exact same reason that porn
is.
> > There is no death and killing in shoot-em-ups like Doom.
>
> Anyone who's played Doom(or any other violent game) can see how absurd
> that statement of yours is.
Anyone who plays Doom and thinks that they've really killed something is
quite likely to agree with you. Fortunately, there aren't that many
people incapable of seperating fantasy and reality.
There is no death and killing in Doom. It's all fantasy, pretend, and
not real. It's ridiculous to assert that it is real.
Do you ever have dreams when you sleep? Have you ever had a nightmare?
They seem so real, so vivid, and yet they are not real. There are very
common dreams that almost every child (and adult, for that matter) have,
such as falling from a cliff (or plane), or carnal liasions with various
acquaintances or celebrities (commonly called "wet dreams").
Such images happen to every person (child or not) who dares to sleep,
and everyone does sleep. We are *okay* with this, because the human
mind can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and between
dreams and the real world, because that's the way the human mind is made.
> > Doom does present violence in a wholesome fashion.
>
> And that's the problem. The violence in Doom has no lasting
> consequences, there is no guilt or remorse, nothing. That's not the
> context a child should see violence in. Better for them to see it in a
> more moral context, and witness the suffering and pain it brings.
That's the context a child *will* see violence in. It's part of growing
up, and it happens in dreams anyway. The nerd kid will dream about
beating the crap out of the playground bully, and the playground bully
will have nightmares about someone kicking his ass off of a cliff.
At least in entertainment, it can be shared and discussed. A child goes
into dreams and nightmares all alone, and yet survives, even thrives, due
to the experience.
> > The entertainment industry isn't circumventing any parent's guidance.
>
> Of course it is. I repeat: "A parent can decide they don't want their
> child to see R rated movies, but if those movies are advertiesd during
> all their kid's favorite shows, there's a problem..."
There is no problem at all. Parenting is guidance, and there's no set
guarantee that every parental guideline must be adhered to by the letter.
It's ridiculous to try.
I will illustrate the absurdity by being absurd myself, and perhaps then
you will see the point (doubtful, but I have to try).
********
I am a Rabbi, I am trying to raise two children to be Orthodox Jewish and
they like cartoons. I am troubled because my children are tempted by the
Clown "Ronald McDonald" and also encouraged to join the "Burger King Kid's
Club", although these places do not follow the Jewish faith and almost no
"Kosher" edibles are to be found there. I hereby demand that all ads for
non-Kosher foodstuffs be removed from children's programming, because it
undermines my attempts to instill my religion and values in my children.
Ronald McDonald is offensive to me and my family.
********
Is that ABSURD enough? If not, let me try another one.
********
I am a Muslim, and my daughter, she likes cartoons. I am trying to teach
her that women have no power, but she has seen "the Powerpuff Girls" which
is in violation of Muslim teaching. Muslim women are to stay behind men
and keep eyes lowered, not rush ahead with eyes half of the size of their
bodies. This is most offensive. I hereby demand that all cartoons with
female characters cover their face in traditional Muslim custom.
********
There, that should be absurd enough. Can you see the slippery slope here?
Government was *never* meant to dictate the content of speech, and this is
exactly why. If the Gov't tries to please anyone, it has to try to please
everyone. The status quo is much better, and that is this: The Gov't
can't touch this issue.
> > Secondly, I have not seen any of these advertisements on during the
> > morning cartoons, the typical fare is toys and breakfast cereals,
> > not "The Matrix".
>
> You're thinking of very young children. I'm talking about the sort of
> teens that watch prime-time tv, but still aren't old enough to go see r-
> rated movies without a parent.
You're thinking of a group that practically does not exist. There aren't
a *huge* number of people between 17 and 18, after all. It's not exactly
what you'd call a demographic.
It's ridiculous that there's even a difference in order that the child
aged 17 has an entire movie rating just for that age. It's hilarious,
and it shows just how clueless the rating system *is*. That's why it's
advisory, and not the law.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <8pocnn$2ad$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> chie...@animejump.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You remember the last time the Government tried to stick its fingers
> > into Hollywood, in the 50s? The HUAC? J. Parnell Thomas and the
> > Hollywood Ten? That was an ugly, ugly time. I don't want something
> > like that happening again.
>
> I think we agree on this matter, actually. Heck, I even think Doane
> would agree if he stopped and thought about it for a second.
Yes, ZFP, I have though about it for a second. My typing isn't that
fast, and part of the reason that I'm so against the Gov't getting into
the entertainment biz is because of the story about how the MPAA came
about. In that time, it was a threat from Federal regulators, but more
pressing was that individual States also censored content with their own
regulatory boards. It would be incredibly expensive to market a film
on a State-by-State basis, so much so that few films might actually be
made to comply with the requirement of the bureaucrats in 48+ States.
Thus, the MPAA as born, and it was accepted because the alternative was
really very few movies being made at all.
> Yes, it's
> the individuals that are to blame, not the games or movies that may
> influence them, and yes, it's parents that should be responsible for
> raising their kids, not the government. However, if the makers of R-
> rated games and M-rated movies target minors with advertising, and if
> theatres and stores let kids get these games without their parents
> knowledge or consent, then the parent's job is made needlessly
> difficult.
The parent's job is difficult. There is no doubt about that, but if
you'd think about where the influence comes from, it's not the media.
It's parents, it's peers, and it's siblings, today now as always.
The true job of a parent is to prepare their charge to interface with
the world which surrounds them. That goal is not achievable by making
the world unavailable to their experience.
> I was under the impression that this was Gore's position,
> that the entertainment industry needed to take their own ratings system
> more seriously, but if he IS advocating actual censorship of movies,
> games, etc, that's something I can't agree with.
He flatly threatened the entertainment industry. The deadline is six
months to comply with a vague recommendation, and the penalty for not
complying is government sanctions. Gore has spoken. He will levy
fines and restrictions upon those who do not heed his words, and it
does not matter whether or not they are *actually* violating a law.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39BE9775...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Making a buck *is* more important.
>
> If you REALLY feel that way you CANNOT complain about the voluntary
> censorship caused by ratings. The best way to make a buck is to make
> something that will apeal to the masses, and that means cutting anything
> that might be found offensive or objectionable.
That's a non sequitur. Popularity and mass appeal does not mean "cutting
anything that might be found offensive or objectionable". In fact, it
often means the exact opposite in certain audiences. For example, a
professional wrestling audience expects material that others may deem
"offensive", so much so that they'd demand a refund if they didn't get
the show that they've paid to see.
The best way to make a buck is to find what the marketplace wants, and
then sell it to them. That's the way to run a business.
> > No, that's actually much worse, because there is no way to tell which
> > source will be turned to.
>
> Better ANYTHING than the majority of Hollywood releases...
That's an opinion, and a fatalistic, flawed one at that. There are
several very good films to come from Hollywood. "Schindler's List",
"Saving Private Ryan", "Apollo 13", and "Forrest Gump" are all very
good movies with stories of overcoming adversity and characterizing
the strength of the human spirit.
Hollywood does a very good job of giving people a mirror with which
to look at themselves in particular and humanity in general.
> > Children will be exposed to just about everything while they grow up.
> > There's no way to stop it.
>
> No, but that exposure and it's context can and should be monitored and
> controlled. Their exposure to sex should not consist of T&A in movies
> and their exposure to death and killing should not consist of mindless
> shoot-em-ups like Doom.
No, liberals would rather have the T&A in the classroom as they show
how to use a condom in more detail than any Ron Jeremy film does.
"Monitored and controlled", I think you'd fit right in with George
Orwell's "Big Brother".
There is no death and killing in shoot-em-ups like Doom. It's all
make-beleive, it's all just numbers in a computer and graphics on a
screen. Kids today are just as capable of realizing that as the
kids of yesteryear realized the Lone Ranger never really pulled
a gun and shot at people.
> > There is no way to learn about "right and wrong" if "wrong" is kept
> > hidden from view and it's not seen or even discussed.
>
> Funny you should say this, since games like Doom do not present
> wanton violence as something "wrong", nor do many Hollywood movies
> present crude debauchery as "wrong"...
Doom does present violence in a wholesome fashion. It's not presented
as real, any more than kids playing cops and robbers pretending to
shoot each other is real. It's PLAY, and it's been happening for
years upon years. It's totally normal. Kids grew up watching
"Batman", and they'd put on capes to fight crime just like the
Caped Crusader. Guess what? They turned out OKAY.
Besides, HOLLYWOOD isn't the source of debauchery these days, it's
the Oval Office. I don't think even Hollywood ever had an incident
like the one with a cigar and the "Monica humidor".
> > The solution is simple; guidance, namely "parenting".
>
> Sure, but when the entertainment industry does everything it can to
> circumvent the parents guidance, it's a problem. A parent can decide
> they don't want their child to see R rated movies, but if those movies
> are advertiesd during all their kid's favorite shows, there's a
> problem...
The entertainment industry isn't circumventing any parent's guidance.
That's a totally false charge and without any substance whatsoever.
It's false on two levels. First of all, 'children's programming' is
often made with adults in mind as well, and adults do watch it, just
as, believe it or not, adults do play video games.
Secondly, I have not seen any of these advertisements on during the
morning cartoons, the typical fare is toys and breakfast cereals,
not "The Matrix".
--
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39BE9D58...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The advice is that some content *may* be inappropriate for *some*
> > minors.
>
> Whatever. The fact is that it's up to the parents, not the minor to
> decide. When the industry markets these products TO those minors, they
> act against the very spirit of their own ratings system.
The industry is marketing a product. That's how they sell their products.
These products are not being marketed to minors, and it's *ridiculous* to
pull advertising when kids are going to be going to the theaters where
these movies are typically shown in a multiplex, and the kids are also
going to go to the toy stores and game stores where the games are sold.
The minors are going to know that these games exist regardless of any
muzzling of advertising in the media.
> > The parents are never left out of the equation. That's what raising a
> > child is all about. The guidance taught to children stays with them
> > even when the parent is not present.
>
> In an ideal world, sure. In the real world, no. Kid's have free will,
> after all, and have a tendancy to form their own ideas about what is and
> is not right for them.
The job of parenting is to guide the ideas of kids, so that kids don't
make the wrong choices. Sure, kids have free will, and they also face
the consequences when they do wrong, but those consequences come from
the hands of the PARENT, not the fiat of the GOVERNMENT.
> > If my parents told me not to do something, and I did it, the result
> > was invariable and swift punishment. PARENTS, not gov't, are best
> > equipped to control children.
>
> The fact that such movies are marketed to minors just makes the parent's
> life needlessly difficult. If the government places the decision in the
> hands of the parent, they have a duty not to undermine the parents
> decsion. If the parent tells a child they cannot buy a M rated game or
> watch an R rated movie, the parent must be able to trust the theatres
> and stores not to sell the game to the child or let them into the movie
> anyway.
The GOVERNMENT places the decision in the hands of the parent? You're
CRAZY if you think that's who gives parents authority over children.
Parents had authority over their children a *long* time before this
government was even in existence.
The parent has to trust the child to do as instructed, and punish the
child when the instructions are not followed.
The problem is not in the theaters and the stores, it's in the home.
The theater isn't where most "R" rated movies are seen by children,
after all. Try DVD, VCR, and Cable TV instead. The children aren't
watching COMMERCIALS for the "R" rated movies, they're watching the
MOVIE ITSELF, right at home. Videogames are the exact same way,
they're often played at the homes of playmates whose parents may not
be as strict.
> > Besides, "M/R" rated is what you're worried about? Not "Ao/X" rated?
> > Then you truly have nothing to worry about.
>
> That's up to the parent, not up to you.
And it's CERTAINLY not up to the government.
> > It's not paranoia. It's already happened.
>
> It isn't.
>
> > Now the push is on to make "M" equal to "Ao". THAT is censorship.
>
> No, the push is to actually enforce that M rating. Besides, look up
> censorship. Not selling something to minors is not censorship.
The rating is *advisory*, it's not enforceable. It was never meant
to be enforced. What are you going to do, arrest every parent who
has a copy of "Resident Evil" in a house where a child might see it?
Such an effort may actually backfire, because if "M" is made equal in
scope to "Ao", then there's no longer any reason to make a game stop
at the "M" rating just to get it treated like porno.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> That's a non sequitur. Popularity and mass appeal does not mean
> "cutting anything that might be found offensive or objectionable".
I'm afraid it often does.
> That's an opinion, and a fatalistic, flawed one at that. There are
> several very good films to come from Hollywood. "Schindler's List",
> "Saving Private Ryan", "Apollo 13", and "Forrest Gump" are all very
> good movies with stories of overcoming adversity and characterizing
> the strength of the human spirit.
> Hollywood does a very good job of giving people a mirror with which
> to look at themselves in particular and humanity in general.
You missed the point. The poster suggested that kids would go to r-
rated movies to learn about sex, rather than turning to their parents,
friends, etc. They aren't going to go to any of the excellent movies
you mention if they're interested in seeing sex. The sort of movies
they WOULD go to are not the sort I'd like them to learn anything from.
> No, liberals would rather have the T&A in the classroom as they show
> how to use a condom in more detail than any Ron Jeremy film does.
Sex education is NOT T&A.
> There is no death and killing in shoot-em-ups like Doom.
Anyone who's played Doom(or any other violent game) can see how absurd
that statement of yours is.
> Doom does present violence in a wholesome fashion.
And that's the problem. The violence in Doom has no lasting
consequences, there is no guilt or remorse, nothing. That's not the
context a child should see violence in. Better for them to see it in a
more moral context, and witness the suffering and pain it brings.
> The entertainment industry isn't circumventing any parent's guidance.
Of course it is. I repeat: "A parent can decide they don't want their
child to see R rated movies, but if those movies are advertiesd during
all their kid's favorite shows, there's a problem..."
> Secondly, I have not seen any of these advertisements on during the
> morning cartoons, the typical fare is toys and breakfast cereals,
> not "The Matrix".
You're thinking of very young children. I'm talking about the sort of
teens that watch prime-time tv, but still aren't old enough to go see r-
rated movies without a parent.
-ZFP
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The industry is marketing a product. That's how they sell their
> products.
And that's the problem. The targets of their ads can't buy their
product without the consent of their parents.
> These products are not being marketed to minors,
The placement of the ads proves otherwise.
> and it's *ridiculous* to pull advertising when kids are going to be
> going to the theaters where these movies are typically shown in a
> multiplex, and the kids are also going to go to the toy stores and
> game stores where the games are sold. The minors are going to know
> that these games exist regardless of any muzzling of advertising in
> the media.
Not likely, actually. Without being force-fed a steady stream of hype
and flashy ads, the average kid won't have any interest in the
product. I know I wouldn't just grab a game I saw on the shelf or walk
into a movie that just happened to be showing if I knew nothing about
it.
> The job of parenting is to guide the ideas of kids, so that kids don't
> make the wrong choices.
Funny thing is that everyone has their own ideas of right and wrong.
> Sure, kids have free will, and they also face the consequences when
> they do wrong,
No they don't. I went behind my parents backs plenty of times and did
things they STILL don't know about, and never will.
> but those consequences come from the hands of the PARENT, not the
> fiat of the GOVERNMENT.
No one is claiming that the government should punish children for
wrongdoing, just that the government should make it any easier for a
child to disobey their parents.
> The GOVERNMENT places the decision in the hands of the parent? You're
> CRAZY if you think that's who gives parents authority over children.
> Parents had authority over their children a *long* time before this
> government was even in existence.
You've totally missed the point. If parents are to be responsible for
raising their children, they have to be able to trust the government
and the entertainment industry to back them up. If a parent won't
accompany a child to an R-rated movie, or buy them an M-rated game,
they have to trust that the theatre will not let the child in to the
movie on their own, and that the store will not sell them the game. Of
course, it would help if the child hadn't been bombarded with ads for
the movie/game in the first place...
> The problem is not in the theaters and the stores, it's in the home.
> The theater isn't where most "R" rated movies are seen by children,
> after all. Try DVD, VCR, and Cable TV instead.
Those are under the parent's control, and are not at issue here.
> The children aren't watching COMMERCIALS for the "R" rated movies,
> they're watching the MOVIE ITSELF, right at home. Videogames are the
> exact same way, they're often played at the homes of playmates whose
> parents may not be as strict.
No one is trying to crack down on cable, dvd's, etc. Those ARE in the
home and largely under the parent's controls.
> The rating is *advisory*, it's not enforceable.
Of course it is. The advisory is FOR THE PARENTS. The decision is
supposed to be made BY THE PARENTS. If you let kid's buy these games
and see these movies you take the decision out of the hands of the
parent.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, ZFP, I have though about it for a second. My typing isn't that
> fast, and part of the reason that I'm so against the Gov't getting
> into the entertainment biz is because of the story about how the MPAA
> came about. In that time, it was a threat from Federal regulators,
> but more pressing was that individual States also censored content
> with their own regulatory boards. It would be incredibly expensive to
> market a film on a State-by-State basis, so much so that few films
> might actually be made to comply with the requirement of the
> bureaucrats in 48+ States. Thus, the MPAA as born, and it was accepted
> because the alternative was really very few movies being made at all.
Um, this really doesn't justify your objection to Gore's demands that
the industry enforce a ratings system it came up with. As long as they
police themselves(which is the responsible thing to do) the government
won't have any involvement in the industry at all.
> The parent's job is difficult. There is no doubt about that, but if
> you'd think about where the influence comes from, it's not the media.
> It's parents, it's peers, and it's siblings, today now as always.
> The true job of a parent is to prepare their charge to interface with
> the world which surrounds them. That goal is not achievable by making
> the world unavailable to their experience.
So you're saying the decision of what a child should and should not see
is NOT the decision of the parent? You're putting these decisions in
the hands of the child, and that's totally nuts.
> He flatly threatened the entertainment industry. The deadline is six
> months to comply with a vague recommendation, and the penalty for not
> complying is government sanctions. Gore has spoken. He will levy
> fines and restrictions upon those who do not heed his words, and it
> does not matter whether or not they are *actually* violating a law.
If they can't even abide by a ratings system they themselves came up
with, perhaps sanctions are appropriate...
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Then you are afraid wrong. The WWF is a simulated bloodsport, and it
> is *easily* found objectionable, yet it enjoys both popularity and
> mass appeal.
And as you are apparently unaware, they were forced to tone things down
for their primetime show on UPN. Sure, now that they're on a major
network, they reach a broader audiance, but the cost of that is more
restrictions on content, which proves my point.
> Children do not, in general, regard their parents as hot tamales in
> the bedroom, and it's a NATURAL assumption to make that parents don't
> know *jack* about sex because the parents are the ones keeping the
> info away and hidden from the children. The veil of secrecy is
> profound, and all the children see is that the parents and government
> want to do is to maintain that veil. That's why third parties are so
> attractive, it's because they don't keep these things secret.
Yet movies are so totally unreliable a source about something so
important, that that alone is reason enough to crack down on theatres
and make sure they enforce movie ratings.
> Yes, it absolutely is. It's taught in the absence of any moral
> bounds, just as pornography is. It's wrong for the exact same reason
> that porn is.
That's simply insane. It is taught in a clinical manner. There is
nothing titilating or erotic about it. It is not T&A, nor porn.
> Anyone who plays Doom and thinks that they've really killed something
> is quite likely to agree with you. Fortunately, there aren't that
> many people incapable of seperating fantasy and reality.
> There is no death and killing in Doom. It's all fantasy, pretend, and
> not real. It's ridiculous to assert that it is real.
I asserted no such thing. Doom is filled with violence and death,
whether it's real or fantasy is immaterial. It is totally seperate from
any sort of moral context. That is not how a child should be introduced
to such concepts.
> That's the context a child *will* see violence in.
No, not at all. They could play RPG's or adventure games. Most games
with a storyline establish a moral context for the violence that takes
place. Some cartoons, and ESPECIALLY anime, typically shows the down
side of violence as well, rather than glorifying it like Doom.
<snip absurd examples that prove nothing>
> You're thinking of a group that practically does not exist. There
> aren't a *huge* number of people between 17 and 18, after all.
If you think only people 17 and up watch prime-time TV, you're nuts.
The fact is that kids not old enough to see R-rated movies on their own
watch shows during which R-rated movies are advertised(for example).
Let's say they decide they want to see one of those because of all the
hype. Their parents say no. They go to the theatre anyway, and the
theater just let's tham go right in because they don't bother to
enforce the ratings. The industry has failed. The parent made a
decision. The industry undermined it first by exposing the child to the
hype and making them want to see the movie, and then by letting them see
it without their parent accompanying them. The decision has been taken
away from the parent, and given to the child. This is what you want?
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39C06F47...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Then you are afraid wrong. The WWF is a simulated bloodsport, and it
> > is *easily* found objectionable, yet it enjoys both popularity and
> > mass appeal.
>
> And as you are apparently unaware, they were forced to tone things down
> for their primetime show on UPN. Sure, now that they're on a major
> network, they reach a broader audiance, but the cost of that is more
> restrictions on content, which proves my point.
It's not toned down at all, nor does it need to be. After all, the game
"Ultimate Fighting Championship" is only rated "T", as is WWF Warzone.
These fighters are not typically "M" rated, in fact very few of them
are so rated (Mortal Kombat, for example).
"T" rated material is not in need of "toning down" at all.
> > Children do not, in general, regard their parents as hot tamales in
> > the bedroom, and it's a NATURAL assumption to make that parents don't
> > know *jack* about sex because the parents are the ones keeping the
> > info away and hidden from the children. The veil of secrecy is
> > profound, and all the children see is that the parents and government
> > want to do is to maintain that veil. That's why third parties are so
> > attractive, it's because they don't keep these things secret.
>
> Yet movies are so totally unreliable a source about something so
> important, that that alone is reason enough to crack down on theatres
> and make sure they enforce movie ratings.
There is no good reason at all to "crack down" on theaters, because the
theaters aren't where the children are seeing the "R" rated movies.
Cable TV and videos, that's where kids watch the "R" (and worse)
entertainment. What of the children who see all of the pay-per-view
on their pirated cable box?
Even if there *were* a problem (and I don't believe that there is),
"cracking down" on theaters is a transparent, futile effort which
can do absolutely no good whatsoever. The problem is not in the
theaters, it's in the home, and it's between the child and the
parent, not between the Government and the entertainment industry.
> > Yes, it absolutely is. It's taught in the absence of any moral
> > bounds, just as pornography is. It's wrong for the exact same reason
> > that porn is.
>
> That's simply insane. It is taught in a clinical manner. There is
> nothing titilating or erotic about it. It is not T&A, nor porn.
Yes, it is T&A, and it is porn. The children are shown models and
pictures that would get anyone on the street thrown in jail for
child molestation and contributing to the deliquency of a minor
for showing kids the exact same models and pictures (and rightly so).
> > Anyone who plays Doom and thinks that they've really killed something
> > is quite likely to agree with you. Fortunately, there aren't that
> > many people incapable of seperating fantasy and reality.
> > There is no death and killing in Doom. It's all fantasy, pretend, and
> > not real. It's ridiculous to assert that it is real.
>
> I asserted no such thing. Doom is filled with violence and death,
> whether it's real or fantasy is immaterial. It is totally seperate from
> any sort of moral context. That is not how a child should be introduced
> to such concepts.
Whether it's real or fantasy is very material. It's one of the first
lessons that a child must learn, distinguishing imagination from reality.
It's a game, and there is absolutely no requirements for a game to have
any sort of a moral context. Yahtzee has no moral context, it's a dice
game. Tetris has no moral context. Videogames need no moral context
because they are imaginary, and for entertainment only.
> > That's the context a child *will* see violence in.
>
> No, not at all. They could play RPG's or adventure games. Most games
> with a storyline establish a moral context for the violence that takes
> place. Some cartoons, and ESPECIALLY anime, typically shows the down
> side of violence as well, rather than glorifying it like Doom.
Doom shows the down side of violence very well, as rooms fill up with
bodies. There does not need to be a moral context in a game, because
a game does not seek to educate. The goal is to entertain, not to
educate, which is one reason I find it ridiculous that the ESRB is
chock-full of educators. What does Resident Evil have to do with an
education? You're not going to be getting college credits for survival
horror (or surviving cheesy dialogue either).
> <snip absurd examples that prove nothing>
>
> > You're thinking of a group that practically does not exist. There
> > aren't a *huge* number of people between 17 and 18, after all.
>
> If you think only people 17 and up watch prime-time TV, you're nuts.
So what? Does the show have to be "dumbed down" and censored for the
kids? If they do, then it's the job of the parents, not the gov't.
> The fact is that kids not old enough to see R-rated movies on their own
> watch shows during which R-rated movies are advertised(for example).
The fact is that kids not old enough to drive on their own watch shows
during which vehicles are advertised with people driving them.
> Let's say they decide they want to see one of those because of all the
> hype. Their parents say no. They go to the theatre anyway, and the
> theater just let's tham go right in because they don't bother to
> enforce the ratings.
Let's say they decide they want to drive a car because of all the hype
and glory of driving seen on the commercial. Their parents say no.
They go and drive a car anyway, because the keys are right by the door
on a hook.
> The industry has failed. The parent made a decision.
The parent has failed. The child did not respect the parent's decision.
> The industry undermined it first by exposing the child to the
> hype and making them want to see the movie, and then by letting them see
> it without their parent accompanying them. The decision has been taken
> away from the parent, and given to the child. This is what you want?
The industry is just trying to sell cars. If children see cars and
want to drive them against the will of their parents, then what's
the solution? Childproof cars? There's a point at which the parent
has responsibility. It's at birth.
No one else is responsible for that child.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39C0750E...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, ZFP, I have though about it for a second. My typing isn't that
> > fast, and part of the reason that I'm so against the Gov't getting
> > into the entertainment biz is because of the story about how the MPAA
> > came about. In that time, it was a threat from Federal regulators,
> > but more pressing was that individual States also censored content
> > with their own regulatory boards. It would be incredibly expensive to
> > market a film on a State-by-State basis, so much so that few films
> > might actually be made to comply with the requirement of the
> > bureaucrats in 48+ States. Thus, the MPAA as born, and it was accepted
> > because the alternative was really very few movies being made at all.
>
> Um, this really doesn't justify your objection to Gore's demands that
> the industry enforce a ratings system it came up with. As long as they
> police themselves(which is the responsible thing to do) the government
> won't have any involvement in the industry at all.
The ratings system is not *supposed* to be enforced because it's a
guideline. It's like those yellow signs on curves advising the speed
at which a curve should be negotiated. Those are not the *law*, and
neither are the ratings. Something which is not the *law* cannot be
enforced.
The industry is not a police force, they are not trained to be police
nor should they act like police. The guidelines are enough. They are
there to be tools for the parents, not hammers to bash the industry
with. After all, if you're going to sanction an industry for selling
games to minors, then the next logical step is to sanction parents
for letting minors have access to "M" rated games as well.
If this follows the exact same model as pornography, then any parent
which allows a child to even see an "M" rated game can lose custody
of the child. Neighbors who see a copy of "Resident Evil" on a table
in a friend's house will call Child Protective Services, and the child
will be whisked away into State custody. That's Orwellian.
> > The parent's job is difficult. There is no doubt about that, but if
> > you'd think about where the influence comes from, it's not the media.
> > It's parents, it's peers, and it's siblings, today now as always.
> > The true job of a parent is to prepare their charge to interface with
> > the world which surrounds them. That goal is not achievable by making
> > the world unavailable to their experience.
>
> So you're saying the decision of what a child should and should not see
> is NOT the decision of the parent? You're putting these decisions in
> the hands of the child, and that's totally nuts.
The decision of what a child should and should not see is ONLY in the
hands of the parent. If the child is watching television, it's because
the parent allows it. If the child sees something on television, it is
the result of the parent's decision that the child saw it.
The responsibility rests completely with the parent.
> > He flatly threatened the entertainment industry. The deadline is six
> > months to comply with a vague recommendation, and the penalty for not
> > complying is government sanctions. Gore has spoken. He will levy
> > fines and restrictions upon those who do not heed his words, and it
> > does not matter whether or not they are *actually* violating a law.
>
> If they can't even abide by a ratings system they themselves came up
> with, perhaps sanctions are appropriate...
Sanctions are not appropriate when no *law* is being broken. This is
not supposed to be a country which punishes the innocent.
Since I have a great mind, I have come up with the ultimate solution,
one which Al Gore cannot possibly oppose, for in reality, much of this
idea is *his*. Since Al Gore was strategically involved in the great
new "V-chip" technology, all the industry needs to do is to tell
Al-Gore-uh the Hun that they will V-chipify all of their ads to reflect
the rating of the product being sold. Since Al Gore actually uses the
V-chip as one of his "achievements" (worthless though it is), then he
will have to accept that as being a worthy idea (or risk calling his
own stupid idea *stupid*).
It's brilliant, as it deflates the puffed-up chest of the would-be
dictator-in-chief, the entertainment industry can throw the actual
responsibility right back into the laps of the parents who should
be responsible anyway, and nothing really has to change because almost
no one is going to set the stupid V-chip down for the kiddies anyway.
Sean Howard
: > That's simply insane. It is taught in a clinical manner. There is
: > nothing titilating or erotic about it. It is not T&A, nor porn.
: Yes, it is T&A, and it is porn. The children are shown models and
: pictures that would get anyone on the street thrown in jail for
: child molestation and contributing to the deliquency of a minor
: for showing kids the exact same models and pictures (and rightly so).
Why sex ed without pictures is like a Sesame Street without the songs.
You just wouldn't learn it quite as well.
trust me. As someone who had to experience the embarassment of having
to feel the cancerous testicle model during life management class, there
was NOTHING titilating or erotic about it. I don't think there was
an eye open during the video where the guy examined himself in the shower.
"Dad, I've got a lump on my testicle". Ick. But I now know the procedure
for checking myself.
The image is forever ingrained in my brain. I have learned. Lunch tasted
just a little bit sweeter that day.
@@
Sean Howard
Charles Doane
Sean Howard wrote:
>
> Charles Doane (gdo...@primenet.com) wrote:
>
> : > That's simply insane. It is taught in a clinical manner. There is
> : > nothing titilating or erotic about it. It is not T&A, nor porn.
>
> : Yes, it is T&A, and it is porn. The children are shown models and
> : pictures that would get anyone on the street thrown in jail for
> : child molestation and contributing to the deliquency of a minor
> : for showing kids the exact same models and pictures (and rightly so).
>
> Why sex ed without pictures is like a Sesame Street without the songs.
> You just wouldn't learn it quite as well.
It shouldn't be taught by schools at all. That's part of raising a child,
not a part of reading, writing or arithmatic (which is *all* a school
should teach).
> trust me. As someone who had to experience the embarassment of having
> to feel the cancerous testicle model during life management class, there
> was NOTHING titilating or erotic about it. I don't think there was
> an eye open during the video where the guy examined himself in the shower.
> "Dad, I've got a lump on my testicle". Ick. But I now know the procedure
> for checking myself.
>
> The image is forever ingrained in my brain. I have learned. Lunch tasted
> just a little bit sweeter that day.
I hope they taught you how to wash your hands before eating lunch, but then,
that's the job of parents too.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
I'm not going to dig up the news reports for you. Yes, the WWF's
primetime show attracted complaints from parental groups. Yes, that
show was toned down. The price of greater exposure and mainstream
appeal is more intense scrutiny. Cartoon Network's handling of anime
vs. Fox Kid's handling of anime is another example.
> Even if there *were* a problem (and I don't believe that there is),
> "cracking down" on theaters is a transparent, futile effort which
> can do absolutely no good whatsoever. The problem is not in the
> theaters, it's in the home, and it's between the child and the
> parent, not between the Government and the entertainment industry.
No, the problem is that once the parent in the home makes a decision,
the child can simply walk over to the local theatre and see the movie
regardless. Because the entertainment industry does not enforce it's
own ratings system, the parent's decisions carry no weight and the
advisory nature of the ratings becomes pointless.
> Yes, it is T&A, and it is porn.
"It(sex ed) is taught in a clinical manner. There is nothing
titilating or erotic about it. It is not T&A, nor porn."
If you got off on sex ed classes, you were more desperate than I
could've imagined.
> Whether it's real or fantasy is very material.
It is not. It is violence shown outside of any moral context. A child
should learn that violence brings suffering and pain and should be
avoided, not that racking up kills is something to revel in or a source
of pride.
> Doom shows the down side of violence very well, as rooms fill up with
> bodies.
The more bodies, the higher your score and the greater the sense of
accomplishment. That's not a down side.
> So what? Does the show have to be "dumbed down" and censored for the
> kids? If they do, then it's the job of the parents, not the gov't.
You're trying very hard to change the subject, but you're not going to
get away with it. The issue is not the show, which is suitable for
it's target age group, the issue is the ads that advertise movies that
are NOT suitable for the target age group.
> The parent has failed. The child did not respect the parent's
> decision.
The parent has not failed. The goal of parenting is not to create an
obediant drone. Children disobey. It's only natural, since they ARE
individuals with free will. Once a parent decides that a child cannot
watch an R-rated movie, or buy an M-rated game, they have to be able to
trust that the child cannot watch the game or buy the movie on their
own. If they cannot count on that, then the industry has failed.
The point of ratings is to advise the parent so they can make a
decision. If that decision carries no weight, then the ratings serve
no purpose.
neo_zo...@hotmail.com
Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> The ratings system is not *supposed* to be enforced because it's a
> guideline.
It is supposed to aid the parents in making a desicion. If that
decision carries no weight, the ratings serve no purpose.
And no, the ratings are not supposed to be mere advisories.
"Restricted, children under 17 not admitted without an accompanying
parent or adult guardian" is NOT just a guideline.
> After all, if you're going to sanction an industry for selling
> games to minors, then the next logical step is to sanction parents
> for letting minors have access to "M" rated games as well.
Read the definitions you twit. AO/X are adults only. M/R are for kids
WITH THE CONSENT/ACCOMPANIMENT OF THE PARENT OR ADULT. THAT is what
needs to be enforced. Otherwise you take the decision out of the hands
of the parents and give the child sole discretion. That is wrong.
> The decision of what a child should and should not see is ONLY in the
> hands of the parent. If the child is watching television, it's
> because the parent allows it. If the child sees something on
> television, it is the result of the parent's decision that the child
> saw it.
And if the child is able to buy an M rated game against the will of the
parent, it is NOT the result of the parent's decision or because the
parent allows it, it is because the industry failed to follow it's own
guidelines. If the child sees an ad for a R rated movie during a PG
rated show, it is NOT the parent's fault, but the fault of the industry
that targets audiances that cannot see their movies without parental
consent. You don't see trailers for the Matix before a Disney movie,
do you? TV should be no different.
<snip poor idea that doesn't address movies or games>
Sean Howard
: > You just wouldn't learn it quite as well.
: It shouldn't be taught by schools at all. That's part of raising a child,
: not a part of reading, writing or arithmatic (which is *all* a school
: should teach).
No art classes for you. Sorry, Computer 101 has been canceled
due to the fact that it isn't a basic introductory skill. History? Sorry,
doomed to repeat it. You'll just have to run on your own time because
Phys Ed doesn't exist any more. Science? What science? I'm sorry, but
not Earth/Space, Biology, Chemistry, Physics for you. Not in the program.
Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Spanish, Latin, German, Electronics,
etc? Sorry bub.
It is a schools responsibility to have the kid leave school an educated
person. Sexual Education is just as important to a kids education as
damn near everything else.
I have a cousing who dropped out a high school pregnant, and now has 3 kids
by the time she is 21 (and probably has another bun in the oven). On my
side of the fence, I, who paid attention during sex ed, have none (and not
for lack of trying). The worst part is, my cousin used condoms as birth
control...I guess she was never taught how to properly put them on.
I want sex ed in school. I think it important.
: I hope they taught you how to wash your hands before eating lunch, but then,
: that's the job of parents too.
Actually, my parent never taught me that. They did teach me to wash my
hands after using the bathroom (I think maybe 2% of the male population
of Tallahassee does that, and only 4% actually hit the urinals), and they
did teach me a lot about philosophy and religion. I credit my parents
with making me the man I am today, though I would be lying if I didn't
say that _I_ (as in me, myself) control part of that, and that
the school system helped me emensely.
@@
Sean Howard
Perry Denton
> I want sex ed in school. I think it important.
I had basic sex ed taught within a couple weeks
or so. Basic anatomy and talk about birth control.
It didn't screw me up at all, although
I don't remember anyone really taking what
was said that seriously. I believe it was
held in health class in 7th grade or so.
Unfortunately, today's classes are much more
involved. They roleplay on what to say when
someone is seducing you. Many classes have
dildos to use to practice putting on condoms.
Many will allow presentations from high school
gay & lesbian clubs to describe what the
homosexual lifestyle is like and the positive
aspects of it, which many parents are rightfully
upset by the obvious recruiting tone of the
presentation.
Sex-ed is not clearcut, and the parents really
need to be informed on what and how it is being
taught to their children.
Perry
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39C19177...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's not toned down at all, nor does it need to be.
>
> I'm not going to dig up the news reports for you. Yes, the WWF's
> primetime show attracted complaints from parental groups. Yes, that
> show was toned down. The price of greater exposure and mainstream
> appeal is more intense scrutiny. Cartoon Network's handling of anime
> vs. Fox Kid's handling of anime is another example.
It's not "toned down" that I can see. Sure, it probably attracted
complaints, but then, so did the Teletubbies and Tinky Winky.
Everything is going to get some complaint from somebody. In all
fairness, either every complaint must result in censorship or else
no complaint can fairly result in censorship.
> > Even if there *were* a problem (and I don't believe that there is),
> > "cracking down" on theaters is a transparent, futile effort which
> > can do absolutely no good whatsoever. The problem is not in the
> > theaters, it's in the home, and it's between the child and the
> > parent, not between the Government and the entertainment industry.
>
> No, the problem is that once the parent in the home makes a decision,
> the child can simply walk over to the local theatre and see the movie
> regardless. Because the entertainment industry does not enforce it's
> own ratings system, the parent's decisions carry no weight and the
> advisory nature of the ratings becomes pointless.
So you advocate strangers enforcing the will of parents? These people
do not know what the parents want. For every parent that's satisfied
about their child being rejected, there will be another one angry about
having to be bothered with buying the tickets for the child.
The only people who can wield authority over children are parents, or
the people whom parents entrust that authority to. That does not
happen to include videogame salespeople, nor does it include strangers.
The child has no need to walk over to the local theater to watch an
"R" rated movie. There are such movies in living rooms across the
nation, and quite likely one sitting on a shelf in the child's home.
Thousands more are piped into homes every year via cable TV, Satellite,
and Pay-per-view, none of which can possibly verify the age of the
viewer. Prosecuting salespeople is not going to stop so much as one
child from viewing an "R" rated film.
Videogames are much the same way, in fact you should know that, ZFP,
as you admit to downloading pirated videogames. Do you think anyone
is there carding the kids? Even in the legit games, many of them have
legit trial versions available for download at the click of a mouse
button. Yup, "M" rated games too. There's also mail order, trading
games, borrowing games from friends, getting older friends to buy
the goods instead (which is how the Columbine shooters scored a Tec-9
that neither was old enough to buy, BTW), any number of work-arounds.
These measures do not work. They have not worked and they will never,
ever work. How can I say such a thing with confidence? Because it's
been tried. It has been illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under the
age of 21 in the United States for over 15 years (when it was raised
from 19). Yet, look at the statistics at:
http://www.madd.org/under21/youth_issues.shtml
For underaged drinking, it reports that about half of the 20 Million
High School and Junior High School students consume alcohol at least
once per month. I'd say that when half of the people who supposedly
*can't* buy alcohol can get it whenever they want, the solution lies
in a different avenue of attack.
The solution lies with the parents, and the children as well. Just
as the "21" drinking age has done nothing to stop teens from getting
what they want, neither will "cracking down" on theater operators or
videogame sales clerks.
To continue your little fictitious story, let's say that the child
has decided to defy his parents and go to see an "R" movie at a
theater. Upon getting to the 24-screen cineplex, our little rebel
asks to buy tickets for "Austin Powers 3: The Cliche' rides again",
rated "R". The sales clerk turns him down flat, saying "no sale".
It's not over, not even for a *stupid* kid.
The child glances over the cineplex menu, and sees "Pokemon the
cash-in license movie 4: Nintendo milks Moo-too", rated G.
A clever plan hatches... the child buys the G-rated movie ticket
and *sneaks in* to the Austin Powers flick.
After all, if our little rebel will defy his parents, he's sure
to defy anyone of lesser authority (for example, a sales clerk).
> > Yes, it is T&A, and it is porn.
>
> "It(sex ed) is taught in a clinical manner. There is nothing
> titilating or erotic about it. It is not T&A, nor porn."
>
> If you got off on sex ed classes, you were more desperate than I
> could've imagined.
I didn't get off on sex ed classes, I refused to attend them.
It required a signed permission slip to be taken home, signed by
the parents, and returned. I ripped the permission slip up on
the spot, and refused to take part in it. My parents wouldn't
have signed that crap, and I wouldn't have returned it if they
would have.
> > Whether it's real or fantasy is very material.
>
> It is not. It is violence shown outside of any moral context. A child
> should learn that violence brings suffering and pain and should be
> avoided, not that racking up kills is something to revel in or a source
> of pride.
It is not violence, it's entertainment, imaginary. Violence is physical.
Games are not. Even the ESRB qualifies it as "animated violence" every
time they use it in a rating, because they realize that it's not real
violence.
Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting
illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or
procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation :
OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
<the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression :
FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or
jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
(Thanks, Webster!)
To further illustrate the point, I'll put it in the format of a rhetorical
question: Who was the worse dictator, Josef Stalin or Darth Vader?
One was real, and performed real massacres. The other is imaginary, and
only performed imaginary massacres. Even though Lord Vader did worse than
Stalin did, (Vader did blow up an entire inhabited peaceful planet just as
a show of force, after all), he's not as bad as Stalin. Why not? Ain't
real, that's why not.
> > Doom shows the down side of violence very well, as rooms fill up with
> > bodies.
>
> The more bodies, the higher your score and the greater the sense of
> accomplishment. That's not a down side.
When one of the bodies is often your character, that's a down side.
> > So what? Does the show have to be "dumbed down" and censored for the
> > kids? If they do, then it's the job of the parents, not the gov't.
>
> You're trying very hard to change the subject, but you're not going to
> get away with it. The issue is not the show, which is suitable for
> it's target age group, the issue is the ads that advertise movies that
> are NOT suitable for the target age group.
Shows cannot be separated by target age groups any more than videogames
can. It's ridiculous to try to do so. Cartoons are not written just
for children any more than videogames are, so the idea of a "target age
group" is a false notion, and certainly not sturdy enough to base any
sort of a law on. To even try is a nightmare! What are you going to
do, have people judge the target age group for every show, and then
prosecute based upon their *opinion*? That is flatly ridiculous.
> > The parent has failed. The child did not respect the parent's
> > decision.
>
> The parent has not failed. The goal of parenting is not to create an
> obediant drone. Children disobey. It's only natural, since they ARE
> individuals with free will. Once a parent decides that a child cannot
> watch an R-rated movie, or buy an M-rated game, they have to be able to
> trust that the child cannot watch the game or buy the movie on their
> own. If they cannot count on that, then the industry has failed.
The industry cannot fail because it ain't the industry's job to raise
that child. It's impossible to fail at a task that isn't in the job
description.
Parents have to do their own dirty work. Expecting other people to do
it for them is destined to meet with failure. Parents have to be able
to trust their child to do what's right, and if the child doesn't, then
the one who needs to be punished for the child's transgression isn't any
store clerk; it's between the parent and the child.
You spoke of bad lessons to children earlier. Here's a very bad lesson:
Parents are not supposed to be responsible for the discipline of the
child. The child is to be kept in discipline by the efforts of total
strangers operating under the threat of fines and sanctions.
> The point of ratings is to advise the parent so they can make a
> decision. If that decision carries no weight, then the ratings serve
> no purpose.
The ratings are not what gives weight to a parent's decision. That's
not what they are for at all. They aren't there to be a parental cop-out
and an excuse for parents not to check into the content of a videogame.
There are only 3 ratings on console games in actual ESRB practice, they
are "E", "T", and "M". That's it, and that's all. There are others like
"Ec" and "Ao", but those are largely in disuse on game consoles.
This means that every single rated game is exactly one of three flavors,
and that's not the case at all. Games are a lot different than just the
three speeds, and the ESRB was never meant to relieve the parents of
their responsibility and then place it on the shoulders of mere store
clerks.
For example, let's take gambling. Gambling is illegal in most States
(including Arizona) with few exceptions because many people (and parents)
feel that it's immoral. What would you say if I told you I could name
an "E" game that includes gambling as a part of it on Dreamcast? I can.
That's a picture-perfect description of "Speed Devils".
You'd have to look a bit harder than just the big "E" on the package to
see that, however. That's why parents still have a job to do, and the
ratings are merely a tool, not a crutch.
Charles Doane
neo_zo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <39C1995B...@primenet.com>,
> Charles Doane <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The ratings system is not *supposed* to be enforced because it's a
> > guideline.
>
> It is supposed to aid the parents in making a desicion. If that
> decision carries no weight, the ratings serve no purpose.
The ratings do not exist to give "weight" to the parental decision.
The parent already has authority, and if they don't, the problem
there is not going to be solved by any game rating stamped on a box.
The parent cannot rely on others to discipline the child.
> And no, the ratings are not supposed to be mere advisories.
> "Restricted, children under 17 not admitted without an accompanying
> parent or adult guardian" is NOT just a guideline.
Of course it's a guideline. Why else do you suppose it's put on
videos and DVD's, where "admittance" is not exactly a factor?
All the ratings consist of is the *opinions* of a board of reviewers.
In the case of the ESRB, it's just 3 people chosen at random from an
available pool of reviewers based upon their knowledge of *children*,
but not of games. The reviewers are given videotapes of the game and
descriptions of it written by the the company submitting it for review.
They watch *videotapes* in order to make their ratings.
Then they say what age group they think it would be okay for.
Take a read on the wild side. http://www.ESRB.org/news.html
It would be farcical to use the opinions of 3 randomly selected reviewers
as the basis of any sort of laws or sanctions, but that's exactly what
you are (apparently unwittingly) advocating. These reviewers did not
even *play* the game, they've only watched a videotape!
The rating is only a guideline, and that's all it's capable of being
used for responsibly.
> > After all, if you're going to sanction an industry for selling
> > games to minors, then the next logical step is to sanction parents
> > for letting minors have access to "M" rated games as well.
>
> Read the definitions you twit. AO/X are adults only. M/R are for kids
> WITH THE CONSENT/ACCOMPANIMENT OF THE PARENT OR ADULT. THAT is what
> needs to be enforced. Otherwise you take the decision out of the hands
> of the parents and give the child sole discretion. That is wrong.
These are recommendations, and they are not meant to be enforced. In
fact, they aren't even enforceable. Most "X" movies aren't actually
MPAA rated, did you know that? It's absolutely true. "X" was never
trademarked by the MPAA and it could (can) be used by anyone on any
film at all. It's much the same as the fictitious "XX" and "XXX"
ratings, which are typically used on films NEVER RATED by the MPAA.
This is why the MPAA started using the "NC-17" rating, because the
"X" rating had become completely useless.
There is no grounds upon which to base enforcement. In the case of
"X", there was no "official" rating given, and in the case of "Ao",
it would be the opinion of only three randomly chosen reviewers.
Hardly a satisfactory basis for trying to "throw the book" at a violator.
> > The decision of what a child should and should not see is ONLY in the
> > hands of the parent. If the child is watching television, it's
> > because the parent allows it. If the child sees something on
> > television, it is the result of the parent's decision that the child
> > saw it.
>
> And if the child is able to buy an M rated game against the will of the
> parent, it is NOT the result of the parent's decision or because the
> parent allows it, it is because the industry failed to follow it's own
> guidelines.
Good grief. The guidelines are only *opinions*, and they are only to
help the parent in a tough job. They're just like the age ratings on
a board game.
The parents are not relieved of responsibility by a letter on a box.
That's not what it's for, and it won't be any good if it's abused in
that way.
> If the child sees an ad for a R rated movie during a PG
> rated show, it is NOT the parent's fault, but the fault of the industry
> that targets audiances that cannot see their movies without parental
> consent. You don't see trailers for the Matix before a Disney movie,
> do you? TV should be no different.
Actually, the trailers are all screened by the MPAA as being suitable
for all audiences before being shown. You see, there's a quandary here,
and you seem to be unable to grasp it. So, I'll just have to flatly
point it out. Disney movies are typically rated "G", this is true.
That means that children under 13 should be a-okay watching it.
However, it is *not* a-okay to leave a pre-teen child unattended for
hours in a place of business (like, oh, say a movie theater).
The criminal charge for an unattended 6th-grader is child neglect.
In aggravated circumstances (say, leaving him in a darkened room full
of strangers), that can be advanced to child endangerment (a felony).
In summary, there *will* be some people (quite a few, actually) who
will be old enough to watch movies with a rating more restrictive than
"G" in the audience, so the trailers *do* make sense there.
IRON56
"Charles Doane" <gdo...@primenet.com> wrote in message
>
> I didn't get off on sex ed classes, I refused to attend them.
> It required a signed permission slip to be taken home, signed by
> the parents, and returned. I ripped the permission slip up on
> the spot, and refused to take part in it. My parents wouldn't
> have signed that crap, and I wouldn't have returned it if they
> would have.
>
Classic Doane right there. What kind of kid doesn't want to learn about
sex? And WHY? I tell's ya, that Doane is an enigma (or enema, or both)
Sean Howard
: Sean Howard wrote:
: > I want sex ed in school. I think it important.
: Unfortunately, today's classes are much more
: involved. They roleplay on what to say when
: someone is seducing you. Many classes have
: dildos to use to practice putting on condoms.
Um...so?
: Many will allow presentations from high school
: gay & lesbian clubs to describe what the
: homosexual lifestyle is like and the positive
: aspects of it, which many parents are rightfully
: upset by the obvious recruiting tone of the
: presentation.
So? Sounds like a problem with the parents, not the curriculum.
There is nothing EVER wrong with knowledge. Kids have to learn about
sex...they won't get the jokes on tv otherwise!
: Sex-ed is not clearcut, and the parents really
: need to be informed on what and how it is being
: taught to their children.
That is the purpose of the permission slips.
@@
Sean Howard
Charles Doane
Sean Howard wrote:
>
> Charles Doane (gdo...@primenet.com) wrote:
> : Sean Howard wrote:
> : > Charles Doane (gdo...@primenet.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > Why sex ed without pictures is like a Sesame Street without the songs.
> : > You just wouldn't learn it quite as well.
>
> : It shouldn't be taught by schools at all. That's part of raising a child,
> : not a part of reading, writing or arithmatic (which is *all* a school
> : should teach).
>
> No art classes for you. Sorry, Computer 101 has been canceled
> due to the fact that it isn't a basic introductory skill. History? Sorry,
> doomed to repeat it. You'll just have to run on your own time because
> Phys Ed doesn't exist any more. Science? What science? I'm sorry, but
> not Earth/Space, Biology, Chemistry, Physics for you. Not in the program.
> Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Spanish, Latin, German, Electronics,
> etc? Sorry bub.
Art cannot be taught. I've seen the government's ideas of art, which is
pictures smeared with feces and crosses hanging in jars of urine. I don't
believe that the government is at all qualified to teach art.
History is often rewritten by the government, and they rarely teach the
truth. History is often used to further political agendas, and the history
taught in public schools is often so inaccurate as to be untruthful.
Phys Ed is *really* a waste of resources. Kids do run on their own time.
My favorite activity (like many children's) was bicycle riding. That
was not part of "phys ed", however, so I did it on my own time and didn't
waste taxpayer dollars on folly.
Trying to teach science to a child who doesn't understand math is futile,
and so is trying to teach philosophy and foreign languages to a child
who can't read.
One of the things I'd noticed while I was in the Navy was the sheer number
of people with High School educations who could *not* read simple directions.
Unless and until schools can handle *basic* educational needs, there is no
sense in supporting the fancy higher-learning junk.
It's *so* bad that videogames (i.e. NFL2K1) have tutorial modes because the
kiddies can't read the manuals. The controller configuration screen has a
*picture* of the controller on it because kids can't read the difference
between "A" and "B" and "X" and "Y". It's *so* bad that Sega even made the
buttons different colors in the hopes that the illiterates turned out by
modern schools might at least be able to figure out the difference between
the Red, Blue, Yellow and Green buttons.
> It is a schools responsibility to have the kid leave school an educated
> person. Sexual Education is just as important to a kids education as
> damn near everything else.
Well, they *aren't* doing it. Kids are leaving schools as *idiots*.
Colleges need to have remedial courses in basic subjects because the High
Schools are so busy teaching *stupid* civics and diversity crapola that
the Colleges are getting illiterate, uneducated boobs.
The job market isn't leaving just because the labor is cheaper overseas.
It's because the labor is cheaper and better educated overseas.
> I have a cousing who dropped out a high school pregnant, and now has 3 kids
> by the time she is 21 (and probably has another bun in the oven). On my
> side of the fence, I, who paid attention during sex ed, have none (and not
> for lack of trying). The worst part is, my cousin used condoms as birth
> control...I guess she was never taught how to properly put them on.
That's pretty good proof that Sex Ed doesn't work. I'm certain that
childbirth more than taught your cousin where babies come from, yet that
lesson was obviously lost on her as she repeated the error twice more.
No amount of education will help someone that stupid.
> I want sex ed in school. I think it important.
I want it in the hands of parents. I think it's more important that it
be taught by someone who cares about the child, and not some heartless
NEA Union Thug teacher with political agendas who won't see the child or
be there for the child after the 9 month school year is over and done.
> : I hope they taught you how to wash your hands before eating lunch, but then,
> : that's the job of parents too.
>
> Actually, my parent never taught me that. They did teach me to wash my
> hands after using the bathroom (I think maybe 2% of the male population
> of Tallahassee does that, and only 4% actually hit the urinals), and they
> did teach me a lot about philosophy and religion. I credit my parents
> with making me the man I am today, though I would be lying if I didn't
> say that _I_ (as in me, myself) control part of that, and that
> the school system helped me emensely.
I hated the school system with a passion while I was in it. It disgusted
me, the sheer incompetence and waste of valuable time and resources that
went on. I learned more about science from the PBS series "NOVA" than I
ever did in any actual science class. I learned more about logic and
Boolean Algebra by messing around with my home computer than was even
*available* at school. I am who I am in *spite* of what the school
system tried to make of me. I am not one of the blithering idiots in
need of remedial courses, because I took it upon *myself* to learn.
The reason I can read is because I liked books and read a lot of them.
The reason I'm competent at arithmatic is because I had to learn it to
make sense of my youthful Electronics hobby (and current career path).
The reason I can write is because I like books and I try to write as
well as my favorite authors would.
Kickaha
>
> Art cannot be taught.
Actually, it's better said that an _interest_ in art
cannot be taught. The person without interest has no
desire to create "art" and never will for that reason,
while the person with an interest for art can more
fully develop their own unique vision, style, and
technique through interaction and suggestions from
instructors and fellow students.
Many of the world's greatest artists studied art in Paris
or any number of distinguished art schools around the
world afterall. If everything one ever needed to know to
create art was inside of a person the moment they were
born, art schools would have gone out of business long
ago.
> I've seen the government's ideas of art, which is
> pictures smeared with feces and crosses hanging in
> jars of urine.
First off, how is this government's idea of art? Second,
how can you take this one extreme example, and apply it
to everyone who has ever studied art in a public school.
An intelligent person like yourself Charles, should know
that the exception is not the rule.
Charles Doane
Kickaha wrote:
>
> Charles Doane wrote:
> >
> > Art cannot be taught.
>
> Actually, it's better said that an _interest_ in art
> cannot be taught. The person without interest has no
> desire to create "art" and never will for that reason,
> while the person with an interest for art can more
> fully develop their own unique vision, style, and
> technique through interaction and suggestions from
> instructors and fellow students.
Well said, and I can agree with that point. However, as
you point out, it requires an interest for art, and not
everyone has such an interest. This is *why* I say that
it should not be a part of a general education forum, any
more than videogames should be a part of such a forum.
I've liked arcade games since the first time I was able to
play Pinball, and it's an interest of mine (to say the
least). However, if someone is not interested in
videogames (or art) then trying to force them upon an
unwilling participant will be an exercise in futility.
It's like the old anonymous quote:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time
and annoys the pig".
Such interests ought to be pursued seperately, and not as
part of a general curriculum. For example, I've always
liked electronics, but not everyone does. The best classes
in electronics have always been the ones where every student
is truly interested in the subject matter, rather than just
passing time to get course credit.
> Many of the world's greatest artists studied art in Paris
> or any number of distinguished art schools around the
> world afterall. If everything one ever needed to know to
> create art was inside of a person the moment they were
> born, art schools would have gone out of business long
> ago.
I'm not talking about art schools going out of business. I
like the idea of art schools, and Martial Art training
dojos, and trade schools in general. However, specialized
training is best handled by specialized schools.
You must remember, school is compulsory, the students are
attending in order to comply with the law of the land.
That is not the best of learning environments. The basics
ought to be compulsory, but the rest should be totally
voluntary, and it's often not. Between all of the learning
I've done in several different colleges, trade schools, and
the military, I have about 40 credit hours above what I'd
need to have a college graduate diploma. The only reason I
don't have one is because I'm lacking a few credits in what
they call "humanities". I don't *want* to take those
courses because I have absolutely no interest in such things.
> > I've seen the government's ideas of art, which is
> > pictures smeared with feces and crosses hanging in
> > jars of urine.
>
> First off, how is this government's idea of art?
That would be because the government funded the work (erm..)
and provided a venue to display it in. It's certainly support,
as someone like Robert Mapplethorpe couldn't possibly survive
in a free marketplace for taking pictures of jars of piss.
> Second, how can you take this one extreme example, and apply it
> to everyone who has ever studied art in a public school.
Art cannot be studied, and should not be studied, in a public
school. Art is a matter of opinion, and the government should
not be in the business of teaching opinions.
> An intelligent person like yourself Charles, should know
> that the exception is not the rule.
Oh, I *wish* it were the exception, but it's not. I have
a good local example. One of the newer highways near me is
called the "Squaw Peak Parkway" (the controversy over the name
"Squaw" is still ongoing), and the law said that 5% of the cost
must be spent on "art". So, what'd we get for the millions of
dollars toward art? Giant pots lining the roadway. That's
right, big old pottery clay pots to be admired at 55 MPH.
Wow, how artful! One protester (considering the work, it had
to be more than one) painted a commode GOLD and set it up along
with the rest of the pots. That was the most noticeable one of
all. In fact, it was removed, even though it was the very best
and it didn't cost taxpayers a dime to make.
Politicians and artists are rarely the same. Politics and art
shouldn't mix, imho.
WPet8888
There is no "recruiting" of kids by homosexuals in sex-ed class. You KNOW
that's a lie. I'm in charge of the curriculum for my district, and it's very
conservatively taught. Almost entirely biological, with some "wait until your
old enough" messages. No sex-instruction, no recruitment; give me a break!
Sean Howard
: <snip snip snip>
I actually wrote a point by point rebuttal to all your retarded ramblings
on education. I can't believe I wasted 20 minutes of my life on that. But
here is what I want you to hear.
I'd like to thank you. At one point in your message you said that you hated
school, and figured that everything you needed to learn, you learned by
youself.
I had always considered myself rather average (everybody does), until
I took the SATs and got about 300 points more than I thought I would.
That, and several other events that occurred around that time, got
me all impressed with myslef. I got so occupied with my own intelligence,
that I thought I was always smarts and that I didn't need school. I had
the same opinion as you did about school. School was not there for me.
I was. Everything I need to know, I learned by myself.
I am smart. I'm brilliant actually. But not because of my intelligence.
It doesn't matter how high your SAT score is if you are only good at
doing simple math problems and answering questions about short passages.
I am smart because of my education. All those books that I didn't want
to read. The history I thought was boring. The math I couldn't find a
use for. All of that has made me the person I am today. Somehow it soaked
in, when I wasn't looking, and made me a better person.
I've had to read books I didn't like, and I've had to read books I didn't
know I'd like. I've had teachers that sucked, and teachers that were
great. I've had math that seemed like a waste, and I've had math that has
surprisingly come in handy. I've studied history that was boring, and I've
studied history that was fascinating. I've had exposure to lots of
sciences, religions, philosophies, ideas, concepts, art, writings, novels,
papers, and people that I wouldn't have attempted by myself.
In short, I've had the best of times, and the worst of times. But now I
understand that I am a far far better man than I've ever been before.
I'd like to thank you, Charles Doane, for being so much like me in this
one way, that I see what a completely retarded fuck I've been for the past
few years. I hope one day, you will have someone return the favor to you.
I feel like this huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I'm not
quite as angry anymore.
I'm serious. Thank you. You may have just saved my life.
@@
Sean Howard
Charles Doane
Sean Howard wrote:
>
> Charles Doane (gdo...@primenet.com) wrote:
>
> : <snip snip snip>
>
> I actually wrote a point by point rebuttal to all your retarded ramblings
> on education. I can't believe I wasted 20 minutes of my life on that. But
> here is what I want you to hear.
Okay. I'll read it. Mind if I respond?
> I'd like to thank you. At one point in your message you said that you hated
> school, and figured that everything you needed to learn, you learned by
> youself.
I hated MANDATORY school. I liked taking the courses *I* chose, even the
tough ones like Electronics Drafting. I do not hate schooling which *I*
choose (and typically pay for).
> I had always considered myself rather average (everybody does), until
> I took the SATs and got about 300 points more than I thought I would.
> That, and several other events that occurred around that time, got
> me all impressed with myslef. I got so occupied with my own intelligence,
> that I thought I was always smarts and that I didn't need school. I had
> the same opinion as you did about school. School was not there for me.
> I was. Everything I need to know, I learned by myself.
I do deserve credit for what I've learned. Who earns credit in a College?
The teachers, or the students? If it's anything like a normal school, the
credits and grades are given to the students, and not to the teachers.
> I am smart. I'm brilliant actually. But not because of my intelligence.
> It doesn't matter how high your SAT score is if you are only good at
> doing simple math problems and answering questions about short passages.
> I am smart because of my education. All those books that I didn't want
> to read. The history I thought was boring. The math I couldn't find a
> use for. All of that has made me the person I am today. Somehow it soaked
> in, when I wasn't looking, and made me a better person.
A "better person" cannot be made, as it's an achievement, not a product.
It's entirely possible for a "better person" to become a very bad person,
after all. Not only is it an achievement, it must be maintained or lost.
How smart you are is completely relative to your environment. From your
Florida State University headers, I'd say you're in a University sort of
environment. I've lived in Florida, for several years. There are things
a Florida resident needs to know about surviving a Hurricane that really
don't concern me now that I'm in Arizona. Desert survival isn't a big
deal in Florida, either. Smart is relative.
> I've had to read books I didn't like, and I've had to read books I didn't
> know I'd like. I've had teachers that sucked, and teachers that were
> great. I've had math that seemed like a waste, and I've had math that has
> surprisingly come in handy. I've studied history that was boring, and I've
> studied history that was fascinating. I've had exposure to lots of
> sciences, religions, philosophies, ideas, concepts, art, writings, novels,
> papers, and people that I wouldn't have attempted by myself.
I truly never appreciated schools until I paid for them, and attended the
classes of my choosing. I resented being put into history classes and then
told what to study, even to memorizing dates. I could do it, but I didn't
like it. I'm a lot better at doing things I *like* to do than I am at
things I dislike.
> In short, I've had the best of times, and the worst of times. But now I
> understand that I am a far far better man than I've ever been before.
So you think, but the fact is, most of the learning I've done came well
after I got out of mandatory school classes.
> I'd like to thank you, Charles Doane, for being so much like me in this
> one way, that I see what a completely retarded $%^& I've been for the past
> few years. I hope one day, you will have someone return the favor to you.
> I feel like this huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I'm not
> quite as angry anymore.
Hey hey, the LANGUAGE! Yeah, you're a better man? You haven't even learned
to behave properly in a public forum. That's just crude, not smart.
I'm the one who was in the Navy, and I'm not cursing like a sailor.
> I'm serious. Thank you. You may have just saved my life.
Good, now go play a videogame and do some *real* learning.
Sean Howard
: > I'd like to thank you. At one point in your message you said that you hated
: > school, and figured that everything you needed to learn, you learned by
: > youself.
: I hated MANDATORY school. I liked taking the courses *I* chose, even the
: tough ones like Electronics Drafting. I do not hate schooling which *I*
: choose (and typically pay for).
And that's how I felt until recently. I HATE Charles Dickens. It was
extreme torture reading through Great Expectations and Tale of Two
Cities. I did not enjoy it, but I'm glad I read them. It has made a
difference in my life.
If I got to decide my own schooling, I'd take computer courses until I
couldn't any more. In fact, once I got to college, I did start taking nothing
but computer courses...strange that it was the language class I was taking
that completely changed my life, isn't it? I always thought that there was
nothing I could be but a computer science major, but here I am, packing
my bags to study in Japan for year as an Asian Studies major.
Sometimes, nobody knows what's best for you.
: I do deserve credit for what I've learned. Who earns credit in a College?
: The teachers, or the students? If it's anything like a normal school, the
: credits and grades are given to the students, and not to the teachers.
I don't understand. You are given credit and grades in college.
: A "better person" cannot be made, as it's an achievement, not a product.
: It's entirely possible for a "better person" to become a very bad person,
: after all. Not only is it an achievement, it must be maintained or lost.
No, a better person can be made. If I am taught to appreciate Shakespeare,
I am a better person, and that appreciation will likely never go away. I
do appreciate Shakespeare, and I am a better person because of it.
: How smart you are is completely relative to your environment. From your
: Florida State University headers, I'd say you're in a University sort of
: environment. I've lived in Florida, for several years. There are things
: a Florida resident needs to know about surviving a Hurricane that really
: don't concern me now that I'm in Arizona. Desert survival isn't a big
: deal in Florida, either. Smart is relative.
I take extreme offense of the FSU computer science department. I'll get that
out of the way right now. But it was FSU that changed my life for the better.
Sure, there are a lot of stupid people in my town, and my college is way
to preoccupied with football, but somewhere in there, I learned something.
Smart isn't necessarily relative. That is what the SAT and IQ tests are
about. They are problem solving tests, and not knowledge tests. Intelligence
is measured in the ability to solve complex problems and comprehend
complicated concepts. It doesn't matter if you don't know how to currently
survive a hurricane...only that you are capable of learning and understanding
how to survive a hurricane. The limit on my abilities is time, not
capability.
Creative people tend to be smarter than non-creative ones. They are able
to get to solutions quicker by skipping steps, or even going a completely
different route. One of the defining characteristics of really intelligent
people is creativity. You will be creative whether you live in Florida or
Arizona. It is not defined by your environment.
We are having a hurricane now, actually. Not even a big one.
: I truly never appreciated schools until I paid for them, and attended the
: classes of my choosing. I resented being put into history classes and then
: told what to study, even to memorizing dates. I could do it, but I didn't
: like it. I'm a lot better at doing things I *like* to do than I am at
: things I dislike.
: So you think, but the fact is, most of the learning I've done came well
: after I got out of mandatory school classes.
You never stop learning. Actually, you can, but your brain actually
atrophies. Scares the crap out of me.
I understand now that limiting myself to only the things I like is doing
a great disservice, and not just because I won't get the jokes on the
Simpsons.
: > I'd like to thank you, Charles Doane, for being so much like me in this
: > one way, that I see what a completely retarded $%^& I've been for the past
: > few years. I hope one day, you will have someone return the favor to you.
: > I feel like this huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I'm not
: > quite as angry anymore.
: Hey hey, the LANGUAGE! Yeah, you're a better man? You haven't even learned
: to behave properly in a public forum. That's just crude, not smart.
: I'm the one who was in the Navy, and I'm not cursing like a sailor.
I chose that word because it had the tone and intonation of what I really
felt like. There wasn't a better word to have gone there. I don't believe
in cussing, but I do believe in using the appropriate word for the appropriate
occasion, regardless, or rather because, of its offensiveness.
@@
Sean Howard