It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by invader_chris
Veteran state Rep. Lou Lang, an attorney, believes the Illinois General Assembly this year approved at least two proposals that are unconstitutional.
One measure, an initiative of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, is designed to prevent children from buying violent and sexually explicit video games.
Now this is just stupid. I think that whether or not a child can play a certain video game should be up to the parent. Parents are too irresponsible these days, their children are still children, and they have to do what they're told until they are adults, which includes the types of games they play, shows they watch, ect.
Originally posted by MCory1
They did this so a kid wouldn't sneak around and buy the game themselves, so they need a parent (or any adult) to get it for them. If the parent is doing their job, the kid shouldn't have a need to sneak around. The kid should either know that getting such a game is not worth their time and/or something their parents would consider bad, or they should have earned enough trust from their parents for the parents to allow them to make the purchase on their own with the knowledge the kid can handle it.
Now it's broken down into two possibilities. One, the kid approaches their parent to buy the game and the parent does. Great--family trust, bonding, happy times. Second scenario, either the parent won't let the kid get it or the kid is afraid to ask their parent. They enlist outside assistance, parent finds out, kid gets in trouble and the parents loose trust. This latter scenario will probably be the most frequently occuring, and it's entirely due to a lack of communication and respect on both parties.
All that I'm saying is that the burden of raising the kids, of teaching them what is right and what is wrong, should be on the shoulders of the parents. Not a rating board, not a store, not the government. You had the kid, either planned or otherwise, so it's your responsibility to know what they do, who they do it with, and why they do it. Not Walmart's, not Rockstar Games, just you.
Originally posted by Ariana
Okay, I realize my post might not have made sense, but it did in my head, I swear....
Originally posted by Ariana This kid isn't allowed to watch rated R movies, but can play games rated M for mature, where he can actually interact with the violence. Does anyone else see the irony in this?
Originally posted by llpoolej
If a child lies to me about *anything* my trust is broken and hard to repair.
How is it not doing my job if I look at a rating, decide my child does not need such a mature/violent/whatever game and say NO. That rating you seem to rail so hard against, is a very good way for me to parent effectively. It helps this mother know what my child is buying, without having to buy it and THEN be upset.
Originally posted by chitoryu12
My opinion is: If the kid isn't adversely affected by the game, he's mature enough to play it.
Originally posted by MCory1
My personal opinion is that you should be up to date on your child's habits and desires to know what a game is about before it becomes an issue.
I grew up with Nintendo and Super Nintendo, when this wasn't an issue.
But when it came to movies, my parents would go so far as to watch the movie before hand without me to determine if it was appropriate or not.
How hard would it be to rent the game and spend ten minutes trying to figure out whether you should let your kid play it or not before you buy it?
Why let someone else decide what is good or is not good for your kid?
Why not take the time to find out for yourself if the game is good or bad, and if it's bad then explain why it is yourself.
Take the 20 minutes to go down to Blockbuster and rent the game, you're out $4. Come home, spend 10-15 minutes trying to get the hang of the controls so you can play through a level, spend half an hour playing that level, and make the decision yourself.
Now you're out $4 and a little over an hour, and you can take the time to explain--on an adult-to-adult level--that this game is not something you want them to play for such and such reason.
You should be able to know enough about what's going on to tell your kid why they can't play it, and "Because these people say so" doesn't make a good parent in my opinion.
Originally posted by unbeltedjoker
I'm 13 ...
I use adults to buy me tickets to movies and alcohol and that sorta stuff .
I think censorship is horrible . Violence and sex are part of our existance , and if we ever try to denie our base animal insticts were [naughty word]****[/naughty word] .
What good does censorship do ? ... but I think a 10 year old can handle that kinda stuff .
Parents are annoyed that their children may encounter a sexual scene in a computer game that features people brutally murdering each other.
So decapitating people with chainsaws and throwing molotov cocktails at police cars is fun, but throw in a nude woman and we've crossed into a forbidden realm here.
No one is denying your basic animal instincts. But if we were left to rely on soley those instincts, then we wouldn't be human. We would be animals
Originally posted by feebus
We are animals. Don't let your H-Sap ego get in the way of this fact. This is the reason these games exist and, possibly, the reason why its unhealthy to restrict them too much. maybe if you let your kids play the occasional GTA they wouldnt have snapped and killed their teacher in a hail of bullets. probably not though.
maybe if you let your kids play the occasional GTA they wouldnt have snapped and killed their teacher in a hail of bullets.