• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to hear violent video game case

Ah ha!

I don't think the government needs to get involved. Parents need to be more involved in the life of their children. This is just an excuse to again let the government babysit so mommy and daddy can go smoke more crack.

They smoke crack and dont raise their kids, hence the state needs to be involved.
 
They smoke crack and dont raise their kids, hence the state needs to be involved.

No it does not.

This is the problem from the beginning. As soon as the government gets involved, people give up being responsible.

It does not work. Never has and it never will.
 
No it does not.

This is the problem from the beginning. As soon as the government gets involved, people give up being responsible.

It does not work. Never has and it never will.
Yet it's obvious from past times in history that when the government DOESN'T get involved, you have truly horrific conditions created. I draw your attention to the Industrial Revolution pre 1900's.
 
Yet it's obvious from past times in history that when the government DOESN'T get involved, you have truly horrific conditions created. I draw your attention to the Industrial Revolution pre 1900's.

We are talking about video games. That comparison is just a tad extreme don't you think?

I mean really, the welfare state and all the nanny crap like zero tolerance have done little to nothing and been a complete waist of time and money.

Are people so stupid that they really need the government to watch out for their kid playing video games???
 
We are talking about video games. That comparison is just a tad extreme don't you think?

I mean really, the welfare state and all the nanny crap like zero tolerance have done little to nothing and been a complete waist of time and money.

Are people so stupid that they really need the government to watch out for their kid playing video games???
I was under the impression the conversation wandered a bit from the subject of video games.
 
I was under the impression the conversation wandered a bit from the subject of video games.

Ahhh, just using it as an example bro, no biggie man.
 
Just to be clear Dan, the law bans the sale or rental of M(mature) rated video games from children. It's not an overall ban. I am a video game fan, and I am split on this. I can see both sides of this.

Edit: OMG, I just agreed with a conservative...

This should be decided and enforced by parents, not by the government, using MY tax money.
 
This should be decided and enforced by parents, not by the government, using MY tax money.

I agree that this should be decided and enforced by parents. Disallowing sale to a minor is how the enforcement stays with the parent rather than with some store clerk that just wants to sell stuff to anyone who will buy it.
 
This should be decided and enforced by parents, not by the government, using MY tax money.

I just really don't see what the big deal is with this one.

I would FULLY understand being upset with this if they were banning "M" rated games in general, from anyone. But what they're doing is no different than with R rated movies, Cigerettes, Alcohol, Pornography, etc.

There's a rating system at play for video games. Certain games are listed as Mature. Saying those games rated above the age of a kid can't be bought by the kid doesn't seem like a giant deal to me in the least.

If you, as a parent, want the kid to have the game buy it/rent it for them.

If this was an outright ban, absolutely not. But it seems to be tied to the rating system. Now having a problem with the rating system is a whole other ball and wax, but while we have it I see no reason why this would be a bad thing to have as a general statute. I highly doubt its a huge tax payer drain unless there's super secret investigations going on to find retailers that aren't upholding it, in which case year that's stupid.

There's a lot of government "nanny state" type things to get up in arms about. I really don't see this as one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom