I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Video games are a "danger to public health"
- Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
I just skimmed over it, but I didn't see anything wrong with the article. That's why the games are rated M.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
That's actually quite ridiculous. It depends on the violence though, I think stuff like Final Fantasy or Zelda violence should be T, but anything involving guns and such should be M.bovine wrote:violence = pg-13, boobs and swearing = R, penis = porn
so is the north american media standard.
The nudity issues are cultural mostly, and I think they are a bit outdated. A woman in a loose tank top and no bra isn't even considered indecent exposure anymore, and topless sunbathing on public beaches seems to be legal now too (or at least no one ever says anything about it anymore), so I don't see why tits should be R-rated.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Actually, the ESRB ratings are a little bit more balanced than the MPAA in terms of violence and ratings.
As far as the article, we're talking about M-rated games, so kids don't apply. If parents want them to play M-rated games, that's their choice, but don't make any more "parenting" laws. We already have enough of that shit on the law books.
As far as the article, we're talking about M-rated games, so kids don't apply. If parents want them to play M-rated games, that's their choice, but don't make any more "parenting" laws. We already have enough of that shit on the law books.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
When has the government ever been given the authority to dictate what "values" ought be preserved in our society?
Why is it that politicians sit atop their hill and declare what it is that we may watch, what it is that we may see? Laws on crime are one thing--laws against violence, theft, murder, extortion--all of these things, the hard lines, that's what we need the government for.
Or, rather, not NEED. What we HAVE government for. Their responsibility lies in preserving public order.
We don't need any watchdog groups declaring what is best for our children. The next generation should not be defined by the previous one. We, the people, the youth of the nation, are stagnating away into a boiling puddle of political correctness and impotence. Who are they to define what is "Inappropriate?"
It's hypocrisy. Censorship shouldn't be allowed, on any level. Ideal societies, primal cultures--the peoples who came before us had their children exposed to violence and hardship from birth.
Birth! Birth itself is a violent, bloody act.
The child psyche isn't going to be scarred any worse by a video game than it is by a movie. The problem isn't with what they are seeing--what is available for them to see--the problem is that we don't LET them see it. We bring our children up in a world where everything can harm them, where all our problems can be solved with a drug or a pill.
Our children don't understand violence, pain, suffering, sex--they don't understand any of it because we hide it from them, forcicng them to discover for themselves what the REAL world is like. Childhood shouldn't be a fantasy--it should be preparation, learning. We shouldn't hide the world to our children, nor should we shove it down their throats. We should, however, not LIE to them, not try an PROTECT them from the TRUTH. The truth is absolute and important, and we should not cover it up under any circumstance.
So, fuck the FCC, the MPAA, all of that. Fuck censorship. Fuck all of that.
Violence is like drinking and drugs. If we treat these things with gloved hands, hold them away and place them in some idealized, exotic location where "Decent" people dare not go, than children, teenagers--they'll just want to do them more. That's not an opinion, it's solid fact. We need a middle ground, and nobody's asking for one--nobody even THINKS that there should be one, because we're so afraid. We're afraid, and I don't even think we know what we're afraid of.
I don't even know.
But I can guess. I think we strive so hard in this country to keep our children "safe", to keep them away from things we feel will harm them because we ourselves are so unaccustomed to being harmed. We're so used to being "safe", because in this country we have SO VERY MUCH.
So very much, and if anything threatens that, we panic. If our Age of Excess is at all threatened, we lash out in short, but powerful anger. We have no perspective, and in the end, it's not we, the people, of the United States, who will suffer.
It's the children.
Why is it that politicians sit atop their hill and declare what it is that we may watch, what it is that we may see? Laws on crime are one thing--laws against violence, theft, murder, extortion--all of these things, the hard lines, that's what we need the government for.
Or, rather, not NEED. What we HAVE government for. Their responsibility lies in preserving public order.
We don't need any watchdog groups declaring what is best for our children. The next generation should not be defined by the previous one. We, the people, the youth of the nation, are stagnating away into a boiling puddle of political correctness and impotence. Who are they to define what is "Inappropriate?"
It's hypocrisy. Censorship shouldn't be allowed, on any level. Ideal societies, primal cultures--the peoples who came before us had their children exposed to violence and hardship from birth.
Birth! Birth itself is a violent, bloody act.
The child psyche isn't going to be scarred any worse by a video game than it is by a movie. The problem isn't with what they are seeing--what is available for them to see--the problem is that we don't LET them see it. We bring our children up in a world where everything can harm them, where all our problems can be solved with a drug or a pill.
Our children don't understand violence, pain, suffering, sex--they don't understand any of it because we hide it from them, forcicng them to discover for themselves what the REAL world is like. Childhood shouldn't be a fantasy--it should be preparation, learning. We shouldn't hide the world to our children, nor should we shove it down their throats. We should, however, not LIE to them, not try an PROTECT them from the TRUTH. The truth is absolute and important, and we should not cover it up under any circumstance.
So, fuck the FCC, the MPAA, all of that. Fuck censorship. Fuck all of that.
Violence is like drinking and drugs. If we treat these things with gloved hands, hold them away and place them in some idealized, exotic location where "Decent" people dare not go, than children, teenagers--they'll just want to do them more. That's not an opinion, it's solid fact. We need a middle ground, and nobody's asking for one--nobody even THINKS that there should be one, because we're so afraid. We're afraid, and I don't even think we know what we're afraid of.
I don't even know.
But I can guess. I think we strive so hard in this country to keep our children "safe", to keep them away from things we feel will harm them because we ourselves are so unaccustomed to being harmed. We're so used to being "safe", because in this country we have SO VERY MUCH.
So very much, and if anything threatens that, we panic. If our Age of Excess is at all threatened, we lash out in short, but powerful anger. We have no perspective, and in the end, it's not we, the people, of the United States, who will suffer.
It's the children.
Preaching to the choir, man.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
From 2050 BC until about present AD.RentCavalier wrote:When has the government ever been given the authority to dictate what "values" ought be preserved in our society?
For example:
Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality). Such a use of the notwithstanding power must be contained in an Act, and not subordinate legislation (regulations), and must be express rather than implied.
Under section 33(2) of the Charter of Rights, on the invocation of section 33(1) by Parliament or a legislature, the overriding legislation renders the relevant Charter right or rights “not entrenched” for the purposes of that legislation. In effect, parliamentary sovereignty is revived by the exercise of the override power in that specific legislative context. Section 33(3) provides that each exercise of the notwithstanding power has a lifespan of five years or less, after which it expires, unless Parliament or the legislature re-enacts it under section 33(4) for a further period of five years or less.
A number of rights entrenched in the Charter are not subject to recourse to section 33 by Parliament or a legislature. These are democratic rights (sections 3-5 of the Charter), mobility rights (section 6), language rights (sections 16-22), minority language education rights (section 23), and the guaranteed equality of men and women (section 28). Also excluded from the section 33 override are section 24 (enforcement of the Charter), section 27 (multicultural heritage), and section 29 (denominational schools) – these provisions do not, strictly speaking, guarantee rights.
All rights and freedoms set out in the Charter are guaranteed, subject to reasonable limitations under the terms of section 1. This has the effect, in combination with section 32 of the Charter (making the Charter binding on Parliament and the legislatures) and section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (making the Constitution, of which the Charter is a part, the supreme law of Canada), of entrenching the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter. The invocation of section 33, and especially of section 33(2), pierces the wall of constitutional entrenchment and resurrects, in particular circumstances, the sovereignty of Parliament or a legislature. Consequently, the Charter is a unique combination of rights and freedoms, some of which are fully entrenched, others of which are entrenched unless overridden by Parliament or a legislature.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Rent, politicians cater to the hypocracy of the voting population, which right now is made up mostly of the 40 to 50 year-olds who grew up in the 60s and 70s. They don't want their children to do what they did so they're voting for the politicians to stop them. Well, those and the lifeless people make up the majority of the population.
So, they cater to them to get re-elected. This whole "for the public good" is just bullshit to get re-elected and make money. End of story.
So, they cater to them to get re-elected. This whole "for the public good" is just bullshit to get re-elected and make money. End of story.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
My rage has cooled, but there's just so much I can't stomach anymore in our society.
Politicians don't just thrive on voter apathy--the entire structure of our voting SYSTEM is that it HINDERS the masses from actually voting...en masse. Voting is a privilage, not a right--and that, effectively, means that they, the constituents of the United States Congress and members of the Judicial Branch--can thusly control WHO votes.
Freedom is a lie. Political Science class is just making me a bitter person.
Politicians don't just thrive on voter apathy--the entire structure of our voting SYSTEM is that it HINDERS the masses from actually voting...en masse. Voting is a privilage, not a right--and that, effectively, means that they, the constituents of the United States Congress and members of the Judicial Branch--can thusly control WHO votes.
Freedom is a lie. Political Science class is just making me a bitter person.
I'm a 4th year polisci major! let's have a party! a party in my tummy!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=R9PqjMSNfkU
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=R9PqjMSNfkU
Yeesh. You can have your poli-sci major. I've enough trouble being a journalist, and we're all wastrels anyway.
Politics is too depressingly corrupt for me.
Politics is too depressingly corrupt for me.
Well this thread sure took a nasty turn... I'll never understand you crazy kids who pick majors that will only make your life MORE miserable than if you hadn't even bothered with college... liberal arts, poli sci, psych (without a masters), journalism, etc.
*turns and runs*
*turns and runs*
