The CA Legislature Strikes Back

[Joust Williams]

"Huh, that doesnt make any sense."

Yes it does. A few more copy-cat acts and this will pass if the argument is simply "they aren't dangerous enough".

[Mman]

"Huh, that doesnt make any sense."

Yes it does. A few more copy-cat acts and this will pass if the argument is simply "they aren't dangerous enough".

Im not sure how CA legislature works. Is this going to be voted on as an initiative by the general public?

[Joust Williams]

I don't think so, but it's probably not going to matter. Depending on the state, anyway.

[Tracer]

"the man has an agenda"

With me, though, the agenda is irrelevant. The end result is what I care about. And when there's a law proposed that I don't agree with, I'll put my foot down.

The agenda suggest that this legislation isn't nessiarly a single means to a single end. I hate to sound paranoid, but if he's willing to equate them to ciggerettes on the case to not sell them to minors, he might make the case, as anyone could with ciggerettes, that they can be justifyably regulated further, using moreorless the same grounds.

[Joust Williams]

"The agenda suggest that this legislation isn't nessiarly a single means to a single end."

True, but nothing ever is. It's like this: I'm sacrificing nothing but a small step closer to the lack of free expression at worst (non-issue for me), and nothing at best.

[Tracer]

"The agenda suggest that this legislation isn't nessiarly a single means to a single end."

True, but nothing ever is. It's like this: I'm sacrificing nothing but a small step closer to the lack of free expression at worst (non-issue for me), and nothing at best.

...and our paths diverged suddenly. The inherent ideological diffrence here (shown in bold) between you and I cannot be readily or relyably argued, proven or disproven. At this point there's nothing more to say, on the issue at hand of introduceing legislature to ban the sale of mature rated videogames to minors. We've concluded (as I understand) that at best, we get little from this that isn't already somewhat provided by industry regulation and at worst, an infringement on free expression in reguards to videogames. Whether or not the worst-case-senario is really all that bad or not is another debate. What I can conclude from this is that there's better chance of this being adverse to some or many whilst being ideologically beneficial to very few and thus - legislation is not required. If the argument is "the worst-case isn't all that bad," is a topic for another debate. One which I belive will go absolutely nowhere.

[sethsez]

"The agenda suggest that this legislation isn't nessiarly a single means to a single end."

True, but nothing ever is. It's like this: I'm sacrificing nothing but a small step closer to the lack of free expression at worst (non-issue for me), and nothing at best.

And you, personally, aren't gaining anything either.

[Joust Williams]

Other than a lower chance of a copycat act of violence being committed against me or a loved one...which I value more than a higher chance of lack of free expression to glorify bad acts.

[sethsez]

Well, in that case I'm glad you're not in a position of power anywhere.

You do know, of course, that unstable adults imitate art too, right? What should be the limits there?

[Tracer]

Copycat violence doesn't come from videogames exclusively, nor is violence in general exclusively a side effect of violent media and copycat violence is likely to be commited by indivisuals who are already prone to violence in the first place. The net result is one has a conveinient scape goat, when it is deemed "copycat."