Printable View
I don't think it's a bad idea at all to make it tougher for kids to walk into stores and buy M-rated games, it's common sense. Yes, the parents will still be able to buy it for their kids, but if it has a disclaimer like that on the box somewhere atleast the manufacturers and publishers are being more responsible. I'm sure there's specifics that fall to furious ears, but the core of the issue isn't a bad one.
The point is:
a) violent media, cigarettes and alcohol when used by people also have an effect on society
b) rules are in place to stop the propogation of the latter two
So I don't see why a) we should keep those laws or b) why we shouldn't add this one. It doesn't go down any slippery slope.
If you argue that the law can be circumvented, then I ask why we have the other two in place.
I wanted to keep it to the individual, but yes others are affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You can also find studies showing the opposite. A good article about the one's you're talking about can be found here. According to the author, even in the studies that show a ' increase in aggression' there is reason to question the results or even the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You could say that about any study on anything, though. In fact, they do. That's what error is.
There are studies that say heat does not increase aggression. BUt I'm living proof that that is wrong.
And this is where I totally disagree. You cannot lump violent media in with things that pose a marked health and safety risk, it just doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Right, but there is a point where the weight of evidence in one direction or another makes it easier to come to a rational conclusion. Take smoking for example, I'm sure there are studies that say there is no link between smoking cigarettes and developing lung cancer, but those studies are completely overshadowed by the weight of evidence showing a correlation between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
My point is that there is not enough evidence to justify making public policy on it.
"but those studies are completely overshadowed by the weight of evidence showing a correlation between the two."
And there are more studies that say there is a link of violence than studies that say otherwise. Do kids not mimic? Whether the parenting is good or not is irrelevant.
The law may or may not do any good. But frankly, until someone shows me how this law is going to affect free expression, I see no reason to not have one.
No, there are few studies that actually show an increase in 'violent behavior' among children. There are studies that show increased 'aggressive cognitions', which are completely different and irrelivant when you consider the circumstances. To quote the author of that article I linked to:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Quote:
In some of the studies, if the people in the violent game condition have more thoughts of aggression than those playing the non-violent game, this is considered an indication that violent games cause aggression. This interpretation is not justified. After eating a huge meal, you probably are thinking about food - but you are less rather than more likely to want to eat. After watching a war movie, you probably have thoughts of war, but no one would suggest that you are more likely to wage war unless the movie promoted war. After Schindler’s List, I imagine that most people thought about war and torture and violence, but I hope that most people were less likely to be aggressive rather than more likely. Whatever stimulus you are exposed to, you are more likely to have thoughts related to that stimulus, but that does not mean that your behavior has been affected. Indeed, Graybill et al used aggressive thoughts as a manipulation check to see if the aggressive content of the game was salient, not as a measure of aggression.
I think the law is unnecessary because it injects legislation in a place where it is not needed, and the only conceivable reason to do so is to cater to certain interest groups and use it as a step ladder for harsher legislation down the road (ex. banning violent games). The industry CAN self-regulate in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
We're just going to have to agree to disagree here, or else we'll just be going in circles for weeks.
It shouldn't be law because the ESRB is not a government organization.
Neither, for that matter, is the MPAA.
Now, if the government doesn't control how things are rated (or, for that matter, if products even need to be rated) or how these organizations are run, then why would they step in any make it law? That would open a pretty big can of worms, even ignoring any censorship issues.
Exactly what I've been saying. The film industry has been self-regulating violent content in movies for decades with the MPAA without problems. The ESRB is no different. There is no need for legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
"There are studies that show increased 'aggressive cognitions', which are completely different"
Not when kids act on them, which they do all the time. I don't need anyone to tell me this, and if they try to say otherwise, I would discount them immediately. Last time I checked, Schindler's List didn't glorify war.
And again, I see no problem with the government stepping in and taking the place of the industry's rating policy.