Guest LilBambi Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Having said that ... I enjoy a good game of Duke Nukem 3D as much as anyone, more than others. :'( I do know the difference between killing an imaginary game piece and the real thing as do most people, IMHO.However, there are probably some games that are better left to older teens and adults who can better keep the fantasy and the reality separated.My children grew up without seeing R-Rated movies until they were of age as well. Same kinda thing in my mind.I think the problem is much greater than video games. It is a mind set of some parents that do not get involved enough in their children's lives to know what they may be doing. And allowing them to buy things above their level or watch movies that are above their level.There are many R-Rated movies that handle subject matter that children probably should never come in contact with in that graphical of a manner. The same holds true in my mind about video games.But like I said, everyone has their own opinion on these things.As an adult, I think I can make up my own mind as to what is appropriate for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The real problem is that in order for game ratings to work parents have to do their job. LilBambi is a great example. By being active in what your children can watch and play you prevented them from seeing content that you felt was inappropriate for them, without blocking other adults access to that game or movie. The problem is that parents don't want to do that any more, which is why some would prefer that the government block all access to those questionable things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 epp... you do a fine job of making a counterpoint to everything Nline posted, but did you think of a counterpoint to this game? How about it should be allowed because it allows people to vent frustrations in a non-harmful way... There have been many times in my life that I've been pushed to the limit, and I've found that some games allow me to release that frustration... Much better to blow a game character's head off than a real person's head off... I agree that some games go too far, but there is something to be said for a virtual frustration releaser Ha! You could go chop some wood or run around the block a few times also... Exactly. It's perfectly understandable that physcial release of your anger (running around, vigerously chopping wood, actually making yourself tired) would provide much better venting than clicking buttons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Hmm,Actually, some officials in the U.S. government do want a say in who you marry, if you happen to wish to marry someone of the same sex. Fortunately in Canada the federal government has decided that they have no right to bar same-sex marriages! (Actually the the Supreme Court told them they had no right to do so, since we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)This fumes me when I hear about the legalization of the perversion and twisting of marriage I have nothing more to say on this. NOTHING is going to change my thinking on this, so don't even try. Do not hit "Reply", do not pass go, do not collect $200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 LilBambi, I understand your point about being able to decide for yourself because you're an adult. I also concur with the points made in this discussion stating that age doesn't provide "instant wisdom".Personally, I don't buy into any of this crap: "Oh, I'm just a kid, I can't decide for myself and I don't know any better". Certainly, you don't need to be 35 to know that there are better ways to spend your time than using a video game to fantasize killing human beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prelude76 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Firearms should be banned as they encourage violence.I'd like to see a cop try to take down a criminal without a gun ("Put your hands up or we'll...uh, um...chase you with my fist!")as a matter of fact, they do catch criminals without the use of guns in England. next time, research a bit; it helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prelude76 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Certainly, you don't need to be 35 to know that there are better ways to spend your time than using a video game to fantasize killing human beings.like for example, you can watch CNN and Bush's Iraq Conquest on TV and the debate over Saddam facing the death penalty; those are all adult-aproved ways of fantasizing killing human beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GolfProRM Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I have nothing more to say on this. NOTHING is going to change my thinking on this, so don't even try. Do not hit "Reply", do not pass go, do not collect $200.That's fine... you're more than entitled to your opinion, so long as you realize we're all entitled to ours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I think that what I was suggesting is that older teens and adults probably can handle the separation much easier than an any 11-15 year old and certainly better than 6-11 year olds, IMHO.The 11-15 year old range is due to the hormones during this time frame and they really make anyone have a difficult time with sorting feelings and reality. Think back, was this the easiest time of your life? It wasn't for me or for anyone I have ever met in my nearly 50 years of life.The younger set (6-11) because they don't need to be watching R-Rated movies or playing Mature rated games.16 to 17 is a grey area and it depends on the individual teenager as to whether they can handle such things. Most can IMHO, but not all.But anyone 18 or older should be able to play whatever video games and watch whatever movies they deem appropriate for themselves. They are adults. They can die for their country at 18 why would they not be able to choose for themselves what video games to play or movies they can watch.I find that a good shoot'em up is a great stress reliever and helps me focus better when I return to whatever I had been doing.I remember an old dating scenario that explored human being's need for increased levels of expectations. Many of you may remember that one. I will not elaborate here as I can't remember how to do it in the funny way it was explained so as not to offend. However, I think the same is true of human beings in anything they do.If a child is allowed at an early age to do certain things, they have certain level of expectation, and the next time they raise the bar of expectation, and so on and so on. This is inate in human beings and must be accounted for in what we allow our children to do and participate in.If this were not true, why do kids get upset when they perceive that their right to go somewhere or do something is taken away that they have been used to doing for awhile, or the car keys are taken away after having free reign with the car, why have people bucked the RIAA, why do people get upset when their privacy is invaded, etc. etc.I think we have to consider the human element particularly when dealing with what we as parents (and it is our job, as parents, not the government's job to do this) try to determine what is in the best interest of our children.Any rating system in place for movies or video games needs to be an aide to parents, not a criminal offense, such as if a government mandated rating is turned into some sort of mechanism to thwart the ability of parents to provide leadership and authority for their own families. That is the parent's responsibility, not the government's. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Very good points, Fran. I forgot in my previous post that we were discussing children's access to these games, and since I don't own any children, I can't really speak to that with any authority. I agree with your points, though. I do seem to remember as a youngster thinking that comic book heroes might be realistic (i.e. one might have super powers). So I suppose it's not much of a stretch to imagine that video games could seem real to a person of a particular age.You make a good point regarding parent's responsibility vs. government control. Banning restricts everybody's access, when in reality only certain members of society are supposedly the one's we want to deny access to.Perhaps one problem is that a lot of younger parents are parents because they didn't take responsibility for their own actions...then they fail to take responsibility for their children later. They never do learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 As is common in these discussions, they often degenerate into a question of the right or freedom to do anything you want to do as an adult (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (at least overtly)).However, I originally wanted to approach this question from a different angle, i.e does a game such as this have redeeming social value? Does a "game" whose only goal and purpose is to kill things and achieve a high score in the process serve a valid purpose for the majority of a society? And does society have the power and right to make a decision on value? Or is an individual's right to run their own life as they see fit paramount?IMO, I believe that society does have the right to make a decision on social value for the supposed betterment of the society. Who is empowered to make this decision? In the USA, that would be our elected officials and the judicial branch of the government.In this case, I see no redeeming value in this game or its goals for the general public. Some have brought up the possibility of tension release and I submitted that there are other, perhaps more productive methods of achieving that goal. I firmly believe that there are SOME people who are influenced by games such as this, just as their are people who are influenced by TV shows or movies. When the MTV Jackass program was running, there were stories about young adults who, despite all the warnings, tried to do some of the same stunts Jackass copycats or Stupid peopleGiven the variety of stories about the VERY dumb things that people do and which appear in the media daily, I don't have a lot of confidence that the average teenager or adult is truly capable of making informed and rational decisions, not only for their own good but for the good of others also. Therefore, I say that the argument that adults are capable of making good decisions simply because they are "adults" is fallacious.So I applaud NZ for taking the initiative vis-a-vis this game. Unfortunately, it would be next to impossible for that to happen in the USA. Some will applaud this inability to act as an example of "freedom" here in the USA. I see it as society that will continue to decay morally. Total freedom = complete anarchy, IMO... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."Journey to FreedomEven though this speaks specifically about censorship of the press, the same can be said of any basic freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nlinecomputers Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Ibe,I think many people would agree with your assessment that some items lack any redeeming social values. But who's values should be used to make that judgment? In a society that honors freedom of speech and religion above all else how can you design a system that is fair to all people? Some people's opinions would condemn even you(or I) to standards we would find too strict. An Amish man would ban almost all the items in our lives as immoral or even dangerous. Yet most would disagree with that assessment and even call it irrational. But our society allows him to make that judgment for himself. But he cannot impose his will on another.The jackass show was a stupid show that had stupid people killing themselves to do stupid things. Is this not a benefit to mankind? If someone kills them self doing a stupid act then they eliminate themselves from the gene pool and hopefully that stupidity can be bred out of the species. And it also graphically demonstrates to the borderline cases that leaping out a car at high speeds can be fatal and perhaps should not be done. If you ban something then people are simply tempted to try harder to do it. Witness alcohol prohibition and the drug war of today. Ban anything and you get a black market.Honestly I find that kind of self-righteous and superior attitude to be very frightening. I know that you mean well but the idea that YOU(or any other group) can decide what is better then I makes me certain that I would not want you, or those with your attitudes, running anything let alone someone else’s lives. And I am sure that you wouldn't want me deciding what is good for you either. That kind of attitude is no different then the Taliban held over the people of Afghanistan. "Moral standards" have been used to justify every kind of discrimination ever seen. Some choices HAVE to be left up to the individual because the threat of abuse is too great. Good intentions can quickly turn in to a dictatorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 Ibe,I think many people would agree with your assessment that some items lack any redeeming social values. But who's values should be used to make that judgment? In a society that honors freedom of speech and religion above all else how can you design a system that is fair to all people? Some people's opinions would condemn even you(or I) to standards we would find too strict. An Amish man would ban almost all the items in our lives as immoral or even dangerous. Yet most would disagree with that assessment and even call it irrational. But our society allows him to make that judgment for himself. But he cannot impose his will on another.Actually, I don't think I have the intelligence nor the fortitude to make those kinds of decisions on my own. I'm not sure that anyone does. As I have repeated in my posts, the proper group to make such decisions are the people we elect. That is their job, that is why we elect them and that is why everyone should vote. Our government as a Republic (we are NOT a democracy, btw) has been granted the power to make decisions for us on all issues, including social values. While all decisions are supposed to represent the blended and weighed views of all constituencies, in reality, there isn't (and never will be) any way in any system of governance to truly ensure "fairness" and equality for all points of views. If you have been on the net a while, you know that no matter what one says or what position one takes, there will ALWAYS be someone who will take the opposite side. So getting back to the heart of the subject, IMO, I would not be unhappy were the USA government, like NZ, to ban excessive (all?) "shoot-em up, kill-em" games such as this one, under the premise that they contribute nothing of positive value to our society. I believe that this so-called freedom to do anything anyone wants without regard for possible negative effects on society is at the root of many of the problems we face in this country today. In order to ensure a positive society, it may be necessary to constrain some activities for the overall good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prelude76 Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Ford or GM laying off thousands, or Dell laying off hundreds as they relocate call centres to India, or Walmart coming into a town and forcing dozens of stores out of business; all those are a heck of a lot bigger factors of our underlying society's problems. why not ban layoffs, and hostile business tactics?Enron went down with billions owing to many families. So many people lost so much. And the government ignores such corporate crimes and puts all blame on the little people who are trying to forget society's failure by enjoying a game or two. One can even argue that government's failure to clamp down on corporate criminals causes a lot more deaths (through people resorting to crime, or others resorting to suicide) than all the isolated single cases of some kid taking a game too far and snapping. and if that game didnt snap him, TV would've, or music, or a movie, or a butterfly, or a dog, or a bully. my point is anything would snap a person that takes a silly video game too far. while NZ is at it, why not ban McDonalds for having no positive effect on society. it just creates millions of fat kids that will die early from obesity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 while NZ is at it, why not ban McDonalds for having no positive effect on society. it just creates millions of fat kids that will die early from obesity. Yeah, that would go over well for a McDonalds ad campaign :lol:Ever think about how unrealistic McDonalds ads really are? Seriously: a realistic McDonalds ad would show a 350-pound porker stuffing his face with cheeseburgers (er...rat burgers ), not 25 well in-shape people dancing around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 Ever think about how unrealistic McDonalds ads really are? Seriously: a realistic McDonalds ad would show a 350-pound porker stuffing his face with cheeseburgers (er...rat burgers ), not 25 well in-shape people dancing around. Ha! You mean like the beer commercials? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Ever think about how unrealistic McDonalds ads really are? Seriously: a realistic McDonalds ad would show a 350-pound porker stuffing his face with cheeseburgers (er...rat burgers ), not 25 well in-shape people dancing around. Ha! You mean like the beer commercials? Yeah, right!Well, actually, I saw a semi-accurate one the other day about a bunch of people playing dumb pranks and acting like complete imbecels -- but they were still slim people (hence my use of the word "semi-accurate") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.