• 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!

Your opinion on California's Violent Video Game Law?

Do you agree with the law?

  • Total voters
    36
samsmart said:
So do you think we should repeal laws that require age limits for driver's licenses?
Click to expand...
Parents are required to go with a new driver to get their permit and license when the child is under the age of 18. So the answer depends on the state your asking about or are you suggesting there should be federal requirement?

samsmart said:
SoSo do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing alcohol?
Click to expand...
Parents should be involved in their Childs lives and guide them to discern right and wrong. The existing laws do not prevent children from purchasing, getting and using alcohol.

samsmart said:
SoSo do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing tobacco products?
Click to expand...
. Parents should be involved in their Childs lives and guide them to discern right and wrong. The existing laws do not prevent children from purchasing, getting and using tobacco products.


samsmart said:
SoSo do you think we should repeal laws that prevent children from purchasing porn?
Click to expand...

Parents should be involved in their Childs lives and guide them to discern right and wrong. The existing laws do not prevent children from viewing pornography.


Apparently you believe laws are the answer to all things and by proxy government. I believe involved parenting trumps laws. That does not mean all laws are ineffective, just the stupid law we're discussing which is about video games. The answer is not always another law.
 
Ockham said:
Parents are required to go with a new driver to get their permit and license when the child is under the age of 18. So the answer depends on the state your asking about or are you suggesting there should be federal requirement?


Parents should be involved in their Childs lives and guide them to discern right and wrong. The existing laws do not prevent children from purchasing, getting and using alcohol.

. Parents should be involved in their Childs lives and guide them to discern right and wrong. The existing laws do not prevent children from purchasing, getting and using tobacco products.




Parents should be involved in their Childs lives and guide them to discern right and wrong. The existing laws do not prevent children from viewing pornography.


Apparently you believe laws are the answer to all things and by proxy government. I believe involved parenting trumps laws. That does not mean all laws are ineffective, just the stupid law we're discussing which is about video games. The answer is not always another law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering questions I didn't ask.
 
samsmart said:
Thank you for answering questions I didn't ask.
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking irrelevant questions. The per suit of yet more government regulation and laws should always be challenged, except where your involved. I suspect you'd relish government involvement in all aspects of American life.
 
Another lost post, no thanks to the accursted "spell check"!
Its no wonder few use the "service".
Rules and regulations are necessary in any modern society, I think most men agree with this premise.
But, when parents fail in their duties, the state must step in.
Define fail......
When the state fails, the Federal Government must act.
Do we have any good accurate crime stats to prove anything?
And, do we have the quality of enforcement?
 
Last edited:
How is prohibiting the sale of M and AO games, as rated by the private organization ESRB, any different than prohibiting access to R and NC-17 movies, as rated by the private organization the MPAA?

We limit childrens' access to smut in every other media. There is no reason to exclude software.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
How is prohibiting the sale of M and AO games, as rated by the private organization ESRB, any different than prohibiting access to R and NC-17 movies, as rated by the private organization the MPAA?

We limit childrens' access to smut in every other media. There is no reason to exclude software.
Click to expand...

The MPAA is a voluntary restriction that most companies abide by. You can't serve jail time for selling an R rated movie to a minor.
 
Today I read about the "Bad Frog Beer" case - in which they were denied a permit for their label because it was an image of a frog giving the middle finger. . . rather interesting.
http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Reader/docs/BadFrog.pdf
The court basically said that "if you want to protect kids from this type of visual-influence then you need to limit it in EVERY area - not just one or the other" . . . and "removing this one thing will not actually keep kids from *ever* seeing the middle-finger . . . "
So they overturned the permit-denial.

Reading about that made me think of this issue with CA's law and this thread - thought I'd post it.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
That's not even the issue.

Now, proponents may want to make it the issue to support this measure. And opponents may want to make it the issue to refute this measure. But that's not the issue.

The issue is "Should underage children be allowed to purchase video games found to have extreme violence on their own without any parental oversight, and if not should the California state government have the legal authority to prevent it?"

I say No, underage children shouldn't have the innate right to purchase overly violent video games without parents' permission. I also think the California state government should have the legal authority to regulate this.

And, should a parent decide their children can handle an overly violent video game, then that parent can just purchase the video game for their child and let their child have at it. Which, I think, is more preferable than the child making that decision for himself or herself.
Click to expand...

In the state where I live, this is the way it is. I'm pretty easy going as far as games go, but I do draw lines for certain games for my son. He's 14 and like I said.. I'm not really anal, but there are some games I would not, will not buy for him and I'm glad that he can't just walk into a store and buy it for himself.

As a parent, I have a responsibility to make choices for my underage children who cannot fully understand some of the ramifications of bad choices they may make.

I'm not a fan of censorship for adults, but I believe there is a causefor certain forms of censorship for persons who are not fully yet capable to make such decisions.

I do agree with Gabriel insofar as playing violent video games does not mean that the game itself will 'turn' a person violent.. there has to be some other unseen issue that would contribute to a person's mental stability who may already have some violent tendancies and/or thoughts.
 
Your Star said:
The MPAA is a voluntary restriction that most companies abide by. You can't serve jail time for selling an R rated movie to a minor.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I wasn't aware of this-- largely because I've never run into a theater that doesn't follow it to the letter. Until I started looking about 35 in my late teens, I was carded for R-rated movies more often than I was for liquor.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
In the state where I live, this is the way it is. I'm pretty easy going as far as games go, but I do draw lines for certain games for my son. He's 14 and like I said.. I'm not really anal, but there are some games I would not, will not buy for him and I'm glad that he can't just walk into a store and buy it for himself.

As a parent, I have a responsibility to make choices for my underage children who cannot fully understand some of the ramifications of bad choices they may make.

I'm not a fan of censorship for adults, but I believe there is a causefor certain forms of censorship for persons who are not fully yet capable to make such decisions.

I do agree with Gabriel insofar as playing violent video games does not mean that the game itself will 'turn' a person violent.. there has to be some other unseen issue that would contribute to a person's mental stability who may already have some violent tendancies and/or thoughts.
Click to expand...


:allhail

Such common sense... amazing!
 
1) There is no solid evidence that violent video games are harmful to children. Thus, the state has no reason to get involved as there is no actual danger to minors. Certain parents may consider certain video games bad, but the same could be said with dancing or rock music.

2) Parents already have the ability to control exactly what kind of video games their children play. Even if the kid can buy the game, Playing a game requires access to a TV or computer, which lets the parent see what their kid is playing and decide if it is appropriate. It is even possible for the parent to lock down the device so installing any new game requires a password.

3) This won't stop kids from downloading games, which is already common because they can't afford them.

So essentially we have a law that doesn't protect kids from harm, doesn't give parents any more control over their kids than they have now, and won't even prevent kids from obtaining objectionable games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom