Personally, I support the age restrictions. To discuss a few of the arguments brought up ealier:
- Art
Context is everything. A movie about slavery that displays a african-american slave being beaten by his master could be deemed educational. A game showing the same scene, but for entertainment purposes, could be deemed racism.
The content is indentical, but the context in which it is displayed is not.
- Sex is natural
Defecation is natural. Would you support graphic pictures/movies of defecation being shown to your children on T.V./in movies? Perhaps a children’s show dedicated to the wonders of scat and watersports.
- It doesn’t stop them
Laws have failed to stop crime. Murder, rape, theft, assault, they’re all outlawed - that doesn’t stop anyone from doing them anyways. By the logic used, we should decriminalize everything, since people will do it anyways.
Sex is a massive responsibility, one which pornography fails to carry the gravity of. It shows sex as always being fun and happy and cheerful, and doesn’t show any of the potential harms:
- Emotional pain and consequences - Unwanted pregnancy/abortion/giving up child - Sexually transmitted diseases
More important than their failure to show the consequences is the way in which sex is displayed.
Take Road Runner. How many times has he caused Wiley Coyote to be hit with an anvil, or fall of a cliff, or get exploded, etc.? This is obviously very harmful in real life, yet in the very next frame Wiley Coyote is fine.
But Road Runner is clearly separated from reality. It’s spoofed to the extreme. It is done in such a way that even a child can distinguish the difference between the cartoon reaction, and the real life reaction.
Pornography pushes that line, and arguably crosses it. It isn’t made to be comical or parody, it shows a distorted mirror version of real life (without showing any of the consequences). It’s the difference between Road Runner, and Doom III.
It glorifies sex, and glosses over the consequences. It can be aruged to encourage promiscuity. In short, it’s something only suitable for someone who can clearly distinguish the blatant fabrication from reality. The same way Doom III isn’t something a child should play, but Road Runner is fine.
There is no real reason why a child can’t wait a few years to play an adult game. The average person lives to be over 70, five or six years isn’t going to kill anyone.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Context is everything. A movie about slavery that displays a african-american slave being beaten by his master could be deemed educational. A game showing the same scene, but for entertainment purposes, could be deemed racism. The content is identical, but the context in which it is displayed is not. - Sex is natural
In other words it is all a matter of interpretation from how the individual sees the content in context, and nothing more, so why should anyone else's interpretation be forced upon another person, I don't think it should and as you said sex is different then those that you mentioned far different as you said sex is natural. Enslaving another is not natural, but sex is natural and we are all literally living proof of that fact, not to mention that sex along with being something that requires responsibility is something that is enjoyable.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Defecation is natural. Would you support graphic pictures/movies of defecation being shown to your children on T.V./in movies? Perhaps a children's show dedicated to the wonders of scat and watersports.
Actually though perhaps in the minority, I would support such being on television and shown to my children. First of all I would not watch it, but that does not give me the right to deny anyone else that wants to have the right to have it on television from having that right. Also if I had any children, and if they wanted to see it, I would trust them not to watch what they don't want to watch, I would give them one of the greatest freedoms of all, the freedom to choose.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Laws have failed to stop crime. Murder, rape, theft, assault, they're all outlawed - that doesn't stop anyone from doing them anyways. By the logic used, we should decriminalize everything, since people will do it anyways.
That is not logical, there are some people that laws have stopped and there are some people nothing will ever stop perhaps because they are insane and think they are killing Martians or something. We cannot think this loosely by saying "well people murder so the law does not work", don't ask how many it does not work for ask how many it puts enough fear into that they don't murder, or steal or etc. As with sex ask not if it will harm the children but does restriction of this knowledge harm children and I think there was a pretty good book written on this topic of withholding this information from children called Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Sex is a massive responsibility, one which pornography fails to carry the gravity of. It shows sex as always being fun and happy and cheerful, and doesn't show any of the potential harms: - Emotional pain and consequences - Unwanted pregnancy/abortion/giving up child - Sexually transmitted diseases
Yes but what most adults forget is sex is also fun, if it were only a responsibility it would be a chore and if it was a chore all of us might not have been born. All things must be done carefully in life for there to be life, but if we continually worry about what will go wrong rather then take precautions, which are learned over time, against what can go wrong life will be nothing but a continual worry and you cannot enjoy things as you should enjoy them.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: More important than their failure to show the consequences is the way in which sex is displayed.
Have you seen any violent movies? Do they show the consequences of the actions of a movie hero killing the bad guys? Or does he often die? No rarely dies despite numerous dangerous feats and is never arrested for murder, tired and found to have committed justifiable homicide or murder, and is always allowed to walk away as the police arrest what's left of the bad guys. So why should we be so concerned about sex when we are not violence?
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Take Road Runner. How many times has he caused Wiley Coyote to be hit with an anvil, or fall of a cliff, or get exploded, etc.? This is obviously very harmful in real life, yet in the very next frame Wiley Coyote is fine.
But Road Runner is clearly separated from reality. It's spoofed to the extreme. It is done in such a way that even a child can distinguish the difference between the cartoon reaction, and the real life reaction.
So kids are smart enough to know that a pixel image of a road runner killing a coyote is fake but are dumb enough to think a pixel image of a woman having sex is real? If this is not the right interpertation my apologies but that is what I got from it.
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Pornography pushes that line, and arguably crosses it. It isn't made to be comical or parody, it shows a distorted mirror version of real life (without showing any of the consequences). It's the difference between Road Runner, and Doom III.
It glorifies sex, and glosses over the consequences. It can be aruged to encourage promiscuity. In short, it's something only suitable for someone who can clearly distinguish the blatant fabrication from reality. The same way Doom III isn't something a child should play, but Road Runner is fine.
You do not think then that violent games do not glorify violence? They do not push that line even more, it glorifies killing. So would you rather kids having thinking about sex or thinking that "avenging a wrong" through killing the bad buy and end up trying to kill a friend who they think is the bad guy for breaking a window with a rock?
quote:Originally posted by Syd: There is no real reason why a child can't wait a few years to play an adult game. The average person lives to be over 70, five or six years isn't going to kill anyone.
The longer you keep information from a child, the worse it is, once more I site that book. Yet following this idea, why stop them from playing just these games, why not just isolate them from all games, the violent ones too? As you said it won't kill them to wait.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-14-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Syd: It isn't made to be comical or parody, it shows a distorted mirror version of real life (without showing any of the consequences).
I’ve been thinking about this discrepancy, and I discovered that even though I agree it is a curious difference, I still think age restrictions on these games are appropriate.
Now I think I know why.
People are simply capable of understanding the rules concerning violence at a younger age. I am NOT going to get into “what the rules are” because they’re different for different people; but children are mature enough to have opinions on this subject at a very early age.
Sex, on the other hand, is something that is literally incomprehensible to someone who is prepubescent. By definition. That’s what puberty is, fundamentally. Therefore people cannot form any informed opinions about sex until they’ve reached puberty.
Now, it takes time to develop the maturity to handle an issue - any issue. People can develop this maturity at a younger age for violent acts than they can for sexual acts. Therefore it seems to me to be appropriate on these grounds.
quote:Originally posted by Nandemonai: People are simply capable of understanding the rules concerning violence at a younger age. I am NOT going to get into "what the rules are" because they're different for different people; but children are mature enough to have opinions on this subject at a very early age.
Sex, on the other hand, is something that is literally incomprehensible to someone who is prepubescent. By definition. That's what puberty is, fundamentally. Therefore people cannot form any informed opinions about sex until they've reached puberty.
Maturity is part of it, but is not another part of this the fact that from day one parents will punish their children for doing a violent act, parents, the school, religious organizations will say why violence is "evil" why no one should ever use violence, (even if they then turn around and glorify a movie hero or the army). They teach the wrongs and, if this is possible, rights about violence from day one.
Sex on the other hand is hidden, it is pushed aside, it is something that parents often say "oh that's something you will learn later". Well how? By actually having sex, by sneaking porno's into your bedroom and reading/watching them at night? Schools don't teach about it, parents rarely teach about sex and religious organizations often say simply it's a sin and nothing more so how can kids reach a maturity level, or an understanding on how to deal with level about sex at a young age when they are never taught anything about it as they are violence?
Not to mention puberty happens at different ages for different people and some think each gender is massively different, so do we have four of five friends learning about it at puberty and the other forced to wait a year or two until he or she reaches puberty?
quote:Originally posted by Nandemonai: Now, it takes time to develop the maturity to handle an issue - any issue. People can develop this maturity at a younger age for violent acts than they can for sexual acts. Therefore it seems to me to be appropriate on these grounds.
[edit]Yes there is something about reaching a certain age to understand the feelings they are talking about in relation to sex, but that does not mean they should not teach anything about it, and who knows maybe they would reach a sexual maturity a lot younger if they were taught about it starting when they are violence. For once again, how can anyone understand the "rights and wrongs", the responsibilities that go with sex if no one ever teachs then about it from a young age as they do violence?
To me it is no wonder kids are "better able" to deal with violence and the "rules of society" regarding violence at a young age and rarely the "rules of society" dealing with sex even when they reach puberty. We teach them jack so we should expect them to know jack about the "rules of society" for sex, or at least we should expect them to know only rumor, what they read in porno's, learn from friends, or if we are lucky what they learn from PBS's NOVA.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-15-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Context is everything. A movie about slavery that displays a african-american slave being beaten by his master could be deemed educational. A game showing the same scene, but for entertainment purposes, could be deemed racism.
And a game about kicking dogs, stealing candy from babies or knocking down defenseless strawmen could be deemed antisocial. He opens by playing the race card - not encouraging. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/frown.gif[/img]
quote:Defecation is natural. Would you support graphic pictures/movies of defecation being shown to your children on T.V./in movies?
Actually, I think that was a major theme for a show called Ren and Stempy, but people got tired of it after a while. But let's return to the subject of this discussion. Should the age restriction for b-games be lowered from 18? I'm not talking about some evil person "showing my children" nasty and foul acts. I'm referring to older adolescents in the 15-17 age range being allowed legal access to games they are currently downloading illegally or acquiring under false pretenses. We're not talking about introducing innocents to some horrible new depravity.
quote:Laws have failed to stop crime. Murder, rape, theft, assault, they're all outlawed - that doesn't stop anyone from doing them anyways. By the logic used, we should decriminalize everything, since people will do it anyways.
Here you go comparing b-games with every criminal act known to man. That's a tactic usually used by War on Drugs crusaders. Fact is, playing games - or watching H-anime, for that matter - is a private act that harms no one, especially others, as opposed to your examples.
quote:Sex is a massive responsibility, one which pornography fails to carry the gravity of.
I maintain there's a difference between B-games and pornography, but setting that aside, do you think playing Kana or Crescendo would lead to irresponsible behavior? I'll let you in on a secret. Teenage boys are already massively interested in sex. Watching cartoon characters "do the dirty" isn't going to inspire them to run down to the local high school and start molesting young girls. Not every game is suitable for every age group. I'd prefer to see games with non-consensual acts kept "adults only" [I'd prefer to see them off the market entirely, but for other reasons.]
All of the values you argue for must be instilled by parents. If they rely on laws and prohibitions to keep their children on the right path, they are in for a disappointment. It's not the state's job to instill individual morality or make the world "child-safe". That path leads to repression and loss of freedom for all.
quote:More important than their failure to show the consequences is the way in which sex is displayed.
You argue that cartoon characters exhibiting violoence are OK, because such acts are spoofed to the extreme. I'd like to suggest that sexual acts depicted in most games are also presented as fantasy. In real life awkward teenage boys don't find themselves in harem situations. Catgirls and magical characters don't materialize out of thin air demanding sexual favors. You worry that sexual encounters are shown to lack consequences. Not all works of fiction need be morality plays. Such values should be taught outside the context of entertainment. Teaching children to distinguish between reality and fantasy is an important job for parents and something that should be learned early in life.
quote:There is no real reason why a child can't wait a few years to play an adult game. The average person lives to be over 70, five or six years isn't going to kill anyone.
There is a real reason why a "child" should be discouraged from pirating b-games. As things currently stand, anyone under 18 is prohibited from legal access to such products. They are being taught to download, steal their parents' credit card and lie about their age when posting to a forum such as this one. Even those web pages that disingenuously tell underage viewers to "click here if you're over 18" promote deceit and hypocrisy. Before you get too upset over the bad influence exerted by adult games, consider that other consequence.
[This message has been edited by perigee (edited 08-15-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by perigee: You argue that cartoon characters exhibiting violoence are OK, because such acts are spoofed to the extreme. I'd like to suggest that sexual acts depicted in most games are also presented as fantasy. In real life awkward teenage boys don't find themselves in harem situations. Catgirls and magical characters don't materialize out of thin air demanding sexual favors.
[This message has been edited by perigee (edited 08-15-2004).]
What? They don't?! And herer I was thinking it was just me ...
quote:Originally posted by perigee: Teenage boys are already massively interested in sex. Watching cartoon characters "do the dirty" isn't going to inspire them to run down to the local high school and start molesting young girls. Not every game is suitable for every age group.
This goes along with part of what I was saying, we are harming them more then helping by having age restrictions and not teaching them about these acts in a way that might be through games where in the sex is consensual and after a slight romance, i.e. Crescendo.
Not teaching them does not stop them from desiring sex, does not stop them from knowing at least some of the feelings even if they don't understand them, it [edit=however does] stop them from knowing how to deal with those feelings in a responsible manner or so I think, which is perhaps one of the unintentional, or niavely ignored, backlashes of age restrictions.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-16-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by SCDawg: This goes along with part of what I was saying, we are harming them more then helping by having age restrictions and not teaching them about these acts in a way that might be through games where in the sex is consensual and after a slight romance, i.e. Crescendo.
Not teaching them does not stop them from desiring sex, does not stop them from knowing at least some of the feelings even if they don't understand them, it [edit=however does] stop them from knowing how to deal with those feelings in a responsible manner or so I think, which is perhaps one of the unintentional, or niavely ignored, backlashes of age restrictions.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-16-2004).]
The real question is maturity and for now the only way to define it is by age, and 18 ( or what ever ) is a safe bet for the law.
[This message has been edited by woodelf (edited 08-16-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by woodelf: The real question is maturity and for now the only way to define it is by age, and 18 ( or what ever ) is a safe bet for the law.
Anime uses a sliding scale for releases with a mature content. Chobits is rated 16+ while Cosplay Complex is rated 17+, for example. I wonder if something like that could be used with b-games? It wouldn't be a way to enforce age restrictions but might be helpful to consumers in deciding 'how adult' an adult game actually is.
quote:Originally posted by woodelf: The real question is maturity and for now the only way to define it is by age, and 18 ( or what ever ) is a safe bet for the law. [This message has been edited by woodelf (edited 08-16-2004).]
Yes but I think all of us agree that is a highly ineffective way to judge maturity as you can have a 16 year old that is very mature in sex, very responsible and a 26 year old that will try and bed anything in a skirt not caring the consequences to them.
Is there a better way? Nothing that I think would be publicly accepted but repeal all age limits in regards to all printed and computerized materials, actually teach sexual education in the schools or community meetings, and keep some of the age limits in regards to marriage and anything dealing with real physical contact.
Would that idea work, well as said the law is a very ineffective way to judge or enforce morals, at least on this issue so in short ask if what is in place is working now and I think the amount of 18+ items under most teenagers beds would give you the answer to that question.
[edit] However, since that way would never pass by these parents that scream 'think of the children' not realizing they might be harming their children more the helping them, I think perigee has an excellent solution, but them on a sort of sliding scale where a game such as Crescendo could easily get a 16+ or 17+ rating since it is a lot of romance and which opens it legally to a much larger group.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-16-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by perigee: Anime uses a sliding scale for releases with a mature content. Chobits is rated 16+ while Cosplay Complex is rated 17+, for example. I wonder if something like that could be used with b-games?
I've always thought that this type of rating system was totally bizarre. 16+, 17+, and then 18+ for H-anime. I can't speak for anyone else but there was no change in me between 17 and 18, and virtually none between 16 and 18. Without knowing their ages how can you differentiate between a 16 and 17 year old? Having age ratings that are so close together just seems like nonsense, is everyone at an exact stage of maturity at a precise age?
quote:Originally posted by dco_chris: I've always thought that this type of rating system was totally bizarre. 16+, 17+, and then 18+ for H-anime. I can't speak for anyone else but there was no change in me between 17 and 18, and virtually none between 16 and 18. Without knowing their ages how can you differentiate between a 16 and 17 year old? Having age ratings that are so close together just seems like nonsense, is everyone at an exact stage of maturity at a precise age?
Really? I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are mistaken. I at least changed a whole lot between 16 and 18; I used to be a moron (not smarts-wise, you know what I mean). I'm much much less of one now.
As for age systems, the general consensus is that age restrictions are a lousy was of approximating what the true restriction is: maturity. We cannot require "you must be so mature in order to purchase/view this item", so people pick an arbitrary date that seems right and bar access to those younger.
In particular people don't go to sleep incapable of understanding a given work (say, Cosplay Complex) and wake up on their 17th birthday fully prepared. Just doesn't work that way.
The real problem is that in order to even remotely enforce maturity restrictions we'd have to start testing for it. Do you really want to have to take a relationship exam to get your intercourse license?
quote:Originally posted by dco_chris: Having age ratings that are so close together just seems like nonsense, is everyone at an exact stage of maturity at a precise age?
This is actually one of the reasons why I think there should be no age ratings at all, you are being unfair to those that mature quicker under the theory they are in the minority.
quote:Originally posted by Nandemonai: Do you really want to have to take a relationship exam to get your intercourse license?
Reminds me of a Dilbert where Dogbert is giving out future parent exams and when the guy asks if they will make good parents Dogbert replies "No and you'll have to leave some 'body parts' at the door".
I think there is a difference between having to be mature to be in a relationship and having to be to play these games. They cannot teach maturity but at the same time one really does not need to be mature to play them, it would be nice if they were but let's ask how many 18 and up's who play these are really mature and you will find some at least that probably are anything but mature.
quote:Originally posted by Nandemonai: Really? I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are mistaken. I at least changed a whole lot between 16 and 18; I used to be a moron (not smarts-wise, you know what I mean). I'm much much less of one now.
No, I'm not mistaken. That's why I said I can't speak for anyone else [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I just didn't change much, and my friends didn't either. Admittedly some people seemed to mature overnight after their GCSE exams (UK exams at 16) at school, perhaps they realised that the next two years actually mattered.
Personally I'm not against age ratings, but I don't believe that teenagers seeing sex in a game is harmful if it is totally consentual (especially given the number of minors actually having sex). Also there is an inconsistancy in slapping an 18+ rating on everything sexually explicit. The age of consent is not 18 everywhere, so people may be able to do it but not see it. Crazy!
That is the other interesting thing, though these games are pretty much nationally 18 and up there are some states that have 16 as an age you can wed and one, might be Mississippi or Nevada, where with consent of the parents you can marry at 14.
Forgetting any possible issue of maturity there, if that is allowed, even if it does not happen often it is allowed, why is no one crusading to make the legal age of marriage 18 and up on a national level, since marriage involves whispering “adult relationships” which seems to be their main concern, consent of the act or not, about what goes on in these games.
quote:Originally posted by SCDawg: In other words it is all a matter of interpretation from how the individual sees the content in context, and nothing more, so why should anyone else’s interpretation be forced upon another person, I don’t think it should and as you said sex is different then those that you mentioned far different as you said sex is natural. Enslaving another is not natural, but sex is natural and we are all literally living proof of that fact, not to mention that sex along with being something that requires responsibility is something that is enjoyable.
Nobody is forcing interpretation. You are free to interpret anything however you like. You just aren’t free to expose minors to something that is deemed harmful to them. You are mixing the right to freedom of thought, with an assumed right to act on that thought.
quote:Actually though perhaps in the minority, I would support such being on television and shown to my children. First of all I would not watch it, but that does not give me the right to deny anyone else that wants to have the right to have it on television from having that right. Also if I had any children, and if they wanted to see it, I would trust them not to watch what they don’t want to watch, I would give them one of the greatest freedoms of all, the freedom to choose.
Well, you’re consistent at least. But you are mistaking once again the freedom to opinion with the right to act on that opinion. Actually, defecation just might be allowed, since it can’t really be argued to be harmful - just obscene.
quote:That is not logical, there are some people that laws have stopped and there are some people nothing will ever stop perhaps because they are insane and think they are killing Martians or something. We cannot think this loosely by saying “well people murder so the law does not work”, don’t ask how many it does not work for ask how many it puts enough fear into that they don’t murder, or steal or etc. As with sex ask not if it will harm the children but does restriction of this knowledge harm children and I think there was a pretty good book written on this topic of withholding this information from children called Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine.
The fact is, you make no distinction other than personal preference for which laws should be discarded. Just as murder is harmful, and as such will always be illegal, showing pornography to children has been deemed harmful. You have the right to disagree, but not the right to act on that opinion.
quote:Yes but what most adults forget is sex is also fun, if it were only a responsibility it would be a chore and if it was a chore all of us might not have been born. All things must be done carefully in life for there to be life, but if we continually worry about what will go wrong rather then take precautions, which are learned over time, against what can go wrong life will be nothing but a continual worry and you cannot enjoy things as you should enjoy them.
I’m sorry, but that’s purely semantics. Children are mentally and emotionally immature (aside from obviously physically), which is why they are treated differently than adults.
They are incapable of understanding certain concepts, such as the true reprecussions of sex. A game or movie which misrepresents sex being shown to minors runs the very real risk of being taken at face value, or at a value other than truth.
That’s dangerous.
quote:Have you seen any violent movies? Do they show the consequences of the actions of a movie hero killing the bad guys? Or does he often die? No rarely dies despite numerous dangerous feats and is never arrested for murder, tired and found to have committed justifiable homicide or murder, and is always allowed to walk away as the police arrest what’s left of the bad guys. So why should we be so concerned about sex when we are not violence?
Violence and sex aren’t the same, for one thing. It doesn’t require the same level of mental or emotional maturity to understand the true nature of violence. However, I still support the 17+ age restriction of graphically violent games and movies.
quote:So kids are smart enough to know that a pixel image of a road runner killing a coyote is fake but are dumb enough to think a pixel image of a woman having sex is real? If this is not the right interpertation my apologies but that is what I got from it.
The fact that it’s animated is irrelevant. It’s the way the act is displayed. No sane human being could even begin to draw parallels between Road Runner and reality. They are two separate entities.
Adult games and movies base themselves in reality, then twist it until it no longer accurately represents reality. The most dangerous lie is one based on truth. Why? Because on a basic level, it’s believable. We know it has at least some truth, so we take it as true.
Adult games and movies rarely separate themselves from reality in such a distinct fashion that a child (who doesn’t know better) couldn’t mistake many of the themes and imagery shown as truth.
quote:You do not think then that violent games do not glorify violence? They do not push that line even more, it glorifies killing. So would you rather kids having thinking about sex or thinking that “avenging a wrong” through killing the bad buy and end up trying to kill a friend who they think is the bad guy for breaking a window with a rock?
As mentioned above, violence is simpler for a minor to understand than sex. Moreover, I still support age restrictions for graphic and ‘realistic’ violence - violence that takes reality as it’s mold, then changes it, leaving an indistinct blur of truth and lies.
quote:The longer you keep information from a child, the worse it is, once more I site that book. Yet following this idea, why stop them from playing just these games, why not just isolate them from all games, the violent ones too? As you said it won’t kill them to wait.
You can cite the book, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to buy it or read it just to win an argument on the internet.
We deny children access to ideas they cannot understand. A false understanding is more dangerous than none at all. Allow me to explain.
Let’s say you are in a plane, some… oh… 3000 feet up. I ask you to jump out without a parachute. Would you?
Now let’s say you are in the same plane, and I ask you to jump with a parachute. Are you at all more likely to jump now?
Realize now then that the parachute is, in fact, faulty. Not real. Doesn’t work.
Partial knowledge and understanding is dangerous because we don’t realize it’s partial, and thereby flawed. We think we understand, so we act like we do. Just as the parachute gives the illusion that they are safe, even though the parachute doesn’t actually work; they don’t know that, they don’t understand it, so jumping seems safe.
Nobody is denying children knowledge or experience for kicks. But there are some concepts they simply cannot understand, no matter if you tried to teach them or not.
And unfortunately, if they think they understand the risks of sex (regardless of if they actually do), they will act as if they do. The result is a lot of children jumping from the proverbial plane with a faulty parachute, only to find themselves on a long fall to rock bottom with no way out.
For perige:
quote:And a game about kicking dogs, stealing candy from babies or knocking down defenseless strawmen could be deemed antisocial. He opens by playing the race card - not encouraging.
Children can understand the consequences of anti-social behaviour. Not the same with sex.
And “race card”? I could have used half a dozen different examples that all point to the same message. Rather than sidestep the point on a technicality, you might have wanted to actually think about it.
quote:Actually, I think that was a major theme for a show called Ren and Stempy, but people got tired of it after a while. But let’s return to the subject of this discussion. Should the age restriction for b-games be lowered from 18? I’m not talking about some evil person “showing my children” nasty and foul acts. I’m referring to older adolescents in the 15-17 age range being allowed legal access to games they are currently downloading illegally or acquiring under false pretenses. We’re not talking about introducing innocents to some horrible new depravity.
Your premise is they’re getting it anyways, so make it legal. So if children are smuggling guns in to school despite laws against it, we should just say “Oh well” and legalize children having guns?
Children cannot fully understand the consequences of sex. As mentioned above, partial knowledge is more dangerous than none at all; and a lie based on truth is more dangerous still.
Their lack of understanding mixed with what is a gamed based on twisted truth is the danger.
Defecation was simply an example pulled out of my hat, much like racism. I can substitute alternate examples if you prefer. It doesn’t change the point of the comment, however.
quote:Here you go comparing b-games with every criminal act known to man. That’s a tactic usually used by War on Drugs crusaders. Fact is, playing games - or watching H-anime, for that matter - is a private act that harms no one, especially others, as opposed to your examples.
It harms children. That’s just as bad (in my book) as any violent crime. I’m not condemning adult games by the way, as you infer. I’m condemning exposing children to something that they cannot understand, and can lead to a great deal of pain and harm.
quote:I maintain there’s a difference between B-games and pornography, but setting that aside, do you think playing Kana or Crescendo would lead to irresponsible behavior? I’ll let you in on a secret. Teenage boys are already massively interested in sex. Watching cartoon characters “do the dirty” isn’t going to inspire them to run down to the local high school and start molesting young girls. Not every game is suitable for every age group. I’d prefer to see games with non-consensual acts kept “adults only” [I’d prefer to see them off the market entirely, but for other reasons.]
I’ve never played either of those games, so I won’t attempt to answer the question related to them.
However, it’s not the sex that is the problem. It’s taking reality, twisting and misrepresenting it, and then handing it to someone who can’t tell the reality from the fantasy. That’s the danger.
quote:All of the values you argue for must be instilled by parents. If they rely on laws and prohibitions to keep their children on the right path, they are in for a disappointment. It’s not the state’s job to instill individual morality or make the world “child-safe”. That path leads to repression and loss of freedom for all.
Children are mentally and emotionally immature. It is impossible to make them understand the values you hope to impose on them. They will be able to understand when they are older, however until then you have to protect them.
If you have a young child, you don’t leave knives laying around. You certainly wouldn’t propose simply telling the child not to play with knives, and assuming he’ll listen. You keep the knives out of his reach, to ensure his safety.
This doesn’t infringe on anyone’s right. Adults can play adult games if they want, children cannot. An adult can hold a knife if they want, a young child cannot. We aren’t infringing on the right of the child, he doesn’t have the right to hold the knife in the first place.
Freedom also comes with responsibilities, such as protecting those too young to understand the inherent dangers of life.
quote:You argue that cartoon characters exhibiting violoence are OK, because such acts are spoofed to the extreme. I’d like to suggest that sexual acts depicted in most games are also presented as fantasy. In real life awkward teenage boys don’t find themselves in harem situations. Catgirls and magical characters don’t materialize out of thin air demanding sexual favors. You worry that sexual encounters are shown to lack consequences. Not all works of fiction need be morality plays. Such values should be taught outside the context of entertainment. Teaching children to distinguish between reality and fantasy is an important job for parents and something that should be learned early in life.
Not everything needs to be a “morality play”, however children should not be exposed to content which makes them believe false truths; particularly when beliving those truths could have very harmful consequences.
Regardless of the circumstances leading to the sex, sex itself takes it’s cue from real life, but alters the inherent truth to suit fantasy. A child incapable of understanding the distinction will not be able to distinguish truth from fantasy.
This isn’t a matter of just “teaching” them. There are some concepts children are simply too mentally and emotionally immature to understand. You may as well attempt to teach a 5 year old calculus. It’s simply above their head.
quote:There is a real reason why a “child” should be discouraged from pirating b-games. As things currently stand, anyone under 18 is prohibited from legal access to such products. They are being taught to download, steal their parents’ credit card and lie about their age when posting to a forum such as this one. Even those web pages that disingenuously tell underage viewers to “click here if you’re over 18” promote deceit and hypocrisy. Before you get too upset over the bad influence exerted by adult games, consider that other consequence.
So by outlawing children having guns, I’m teaching them to associate with criminals and illegally purchase or steal guns? I guess I’d better legalize children having guns A.S.A.P.
You didn’t actually expect that argument to hold any water, now did you?
Stealing has, and always will be, immoral. It doesn’t matter if you want something. I may want an Xbox, but if the store refuses to give me one, they aren’t teaching me to steal it. They have every right to deny me a sale if they see fit, and they aren’t condoning theft.
If you want to stop piracy, then attack piracy. Legalizing children owning adult games to stop piracy would be like lopping off my arm to get rid of a blemish, or blowing up your house to kill an ant.
It takes measures far beyond, and completely unrelated to, the issue of theft. If you want to stop theft, you teach that stealing is wrong and punish thieves.
It’s truly been fun debating this issue, but I think I can safely say it’s been hammered in to the ground. If you still disagree with me (your choice), nothing I can say will change your minds.
And since I disagree with the funadmental principles of the arguments used, no variation or elaboration of them is apt to change my mind.
Agree to disagree, and all that jazz.
[This message has been edited by Syd (edited 08-16-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Syd (edited 08-16-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Syd (edited 08-16-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Syd (edited 08-16-2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Syd: Nobody is forcing interpretation. You are free to interpret anything however you like. You just aren't free to expose minors to something that is deemed harmful to them. You are mixing the right to freedom of thought, with an assumed right to act on that thought
I am not sure I am for once again who is interpreting what is and is not harmful to expose minors too and I really encourage you to check out that book (even if just in a bookstore) I mentioned earlier. If I were a parent I would be outraged that anyone might have the gall to tell me what is and is not harmful for me to show my children, but in short that is what you are saying through interpenetrating what is and is not harmful and slapping on age restrictions. As I see it the interpretation now rests with telling me what is and is not harmful to minors and that should rest with the individual parents and no outside force to determine.
quote:Well, you're consistent at least. But you are mistaking once again the freedom to opinion with the right to act on that opinion. Actually, defecation just might be allowed, since it can't really be argued to be harmful - just obscene.
I think once again you are missing the bigger picture here, the right to act on that opinion goes with the right to have it and rests with everyone. If I want to put a defecation program on television you have the choice to simply not watch since I won't go into you house with a loaded gun put it to you head and say watch or die, so what right do you have to restrict my choice and action to act on that choice to put it on the air? Freedom of opinion automatically comes with the right to act on that opinion or it is not a freedom, one cannot convict me of my thoughts but if all they ever are is thoughts, it is not a true freedom.
quote:The fact is, you make no distinction other than personal preference for which laws should be discarded. Just as murder is harmful, and as such will always be illegal, showing pornography to children has been deemed harmful. You have the right to disagree, but not the right to act on that opinion.
Your's too is a personal preference though, or do you deny that telling others what is and is not harmful to children rests primarily on your own personal preferences and beliefs as to what you think might harm children?
I once more encourage you to read Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine, who gives a lot of evidence to the contrary of your point of showing it is harmful. Give me sites please that prove it is harmful, I have yet to hear of a child that grew up scared for life or became a serial rapist after seeing a Playboy or similar magazine at a young age. But you have a right to restrict others rights to act? Prove, I want proof, articles, books, evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt proves to me they are being harmed, that if I go back in time to when you were say 14 and show you one of these games you will be scared for life and doing something horrible as a result to prove you were harmed. If you cannot provide such evidence then I have every right to act on my opinion since there is no proof I am committing harm and I have evidence, mostly through the aforementioned book, that by not acting I am in fact bringing harm.
quote:I'm sorry, but that's purely semantics. Children are mentally and emotionally immature (aside from obviously physically), which is why they are treated differently than adults.
They are incapable of understanding certain concepts, such as the true reprecussions of sex. A game or movie which misrepresents sex being shown to minors runs the very real risk of being taken at face value, or at a value other than truth.
That's dangerous.
First off that is opinion and not a universal fact, second of all children are more mature and smarter then many give them credit for, and we treat them different now because in our minds they are different, but reduce the life span by say oh 70 years and suddenly we are treating 12 year olds as adults and guess what? They are mature enough to handle it, so go figure, it might actually have more to do with how we treat them and what we heaven forbid teach them about sex then anything with actually reaching maturity at a certain age.
We do not teach them the concepts we hide them from these concepts so how the hell are they suppose to understand them. TEACH THEM and you might be VERY SURPRISED at what children are capable of understanding, learning and being able to deal with at that point in life.
What about violence you have so far ignored that, does not a violent movie always grossly mirepresent violence? Does such being shown to minor run the very risk of being taken at face value or at a value other then truth? That is dangerous as you said but I still would rather have 12 year olds "playing doctor" and knowing what they are doing rather then holding water guns and knowing what they are doing.
quote:Violence and sex aren't the same, for one thing. It doesn't require the same level of mental or emotional maturity to understand the true nature of violence. However, I still support the 17+ age restriction of graphically violent games and movies.
Bullshit, it requires a higher level of mental and emotional maturity to understand violence or kids would not play with guns and accidentally kill each other in spite of the numerous lectures they are given, or do you dispute that children often hunt out guns to play with them? I think the true nature of sex requires less maturity, let's face it you have to be a lot more mature to deal with the fact you killed someone then to deal with the fact someone is asking you for sex.
quote:As mentioned above, violence is simpler for a minor to understand than sex. Moreover, I still support age restrictions for graphic and 'realistic' violence - violence that takes reality as it's mold, then changes it, leaving an indistinct blur of truth and lies.
Once again bull, violence is harder to understand the implications of, when someone dies they don't comeback with the push of a reset button, but most kids don't realize that until they get to be adults when they either join the army or learn to abhor violence, and it seems to be one of the two more often then not, and that is not to say those in the army love violence they just don't abhor it or they would not put themselves in a position where they might have to use it. On the other hand there are a lot of adults out there that do not understand anything beyond sex feels good when a lot of people I went to high school with "kids" you could call them since they were under 18 were massively careful, both boys and girls, with condoms, and yet were glorfying the killing of other people in video games, movies, etc., so what seems like something that is easier to mature in?
Obviously it is also easiest to mature in something you are taught and given a chance to experience in pictures, text, on the computer or in life, that which is hidden takes a lot longer to mature in, something I trust you cannot deny? Maturity comes from learning and experience not from age alone and any age can mature when they are taught, once more show me evidence that is wrong and there is little you can since no one has tired it on children for an irrational fear of harming them when in fact they are harming them by withholding information.
That is most of the violence out there an indistinct blur of truth and lies, be it killing Nazi's in some WWII sim to shooting down jets and such in the old Choplifter games. Realism rests much more in the person seeing the event then in the depiction of the event. Something can also seem a lot more real in memory then it ever was in reality.
quote:You can cite the book, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy it or read it just to win an argument on the internet.
No one said buy it but even if it is in Barnes and Noble, Borders, Books-A-Million, I do encourage you to read at least part of it and that's not just for this argument it might open your eyes to the other side as it were, and even if you do not change your opinion you might stop and think about these things before placing them on children of your own.
quote:We deny children access to ideas they cannot understand. A false understanding is more dangerous than none at all. Allow me to explain.
Did you ever stop to think they cannot understand because yet again We never teach it too them? We do nothing to help them understand it? We do not explain it to them in the first place? If we explained it to them allowed them to ask any question they might have and yes even answered those questions no matter how graphic we had to get, do you think then they might have a better chance to understand and have a greater chance to feel free to ask you, who would now deny them answers, anything they might not understand so they do not have a false understanding.
Kids are smart and eager to learn, give them a chance and show them you will not deny them anything they might ask you and they will feel free to ask you anything until they fully understand, then if you see anything that proves they don't fully understand, you approach and correct them, but never ever assume they cannot understand when you teach them jack to start with and refuse to answer any of their questions to the point they fear asking you.
[edit] No matter how noble the ideals restriction of information such as this is always more harmful then it is helpful to children in the long run.
quote:Let's say you are in a plane, some... oh... 3000 feet up. I ask you to jump out without a parachute. Would you?
That question is unreasonable because I have been taught the difference between life and death, you assume a child, who you never taught jack, cannot handle something they have never been taught. Teach them about sex, about responsibility about what "mommy and daddy" did to bring them into this world and if it is then something they cannot handle, maybe it is too early so you try again the next year. No one has ever truly be harmed by giving them knowledge.
Likewise, no one can handle something you hide from them or that they were never taught or exposed too, if I asked you to explain Einstein's Theory of Relativity in the shortest and simplest way possible could you? There is a very simple way to do it, but can you do it? That is something you should have been taught or read somewhere along the way so it is knowledge I expect you to have, so tell me it in the simplest and clearest terms possible.
quote:Let's say you are in a plane, some... oh... 3000 feet up. I ask you to jump out without a parachute. Would you?
No, because the parachute might fail and to be blunt I don't like to fly to begin with, so it would take a near miracle to get me in an airplane to start with, but that is a slight phobia and nothing to do with maturity levels or understanding.
quote:Realize now then that the parachute is, in fact, faulty. Not real. Doesn't work.
Like I said I would probably not be in the plane to start with, I have a great fear of mechanical failure then I do anything else when it comes to flying and the whole idea of being up there without anything under my feet has never given me a slight feeling of thrill.
quote:Partial knowledge and understanding is dangerous because we don't realize it's partial, and thereby flawed. We think we understand, so we act like we do. Just as the parachute gives the illusion that they are safe, even though the parachute doesn't actually work; they don't know that, they don't understand it, so jumping seems safe.
Knowledge itself full or partial is always dangerous, too much or too little knowledge will always get you into trouble but that is no reason to deny another knowledge and I would rather be in trouble for too much then for too little, remember you can always feign ignorance but rarely can knowledge. So you as a parent would not act as their parachute, there to answer any question and to correct their wrongs, you would let them plummet to their death as it were by denying them knowledge and refusing to answer their questions and perhaps scolding them for asking a sex based question?
quote:Nobody is denying children knowledge or experience for kicks. But there are some concepts they simply cannot understand, no matter if you tried to teach them or not.
I am not sure about that, children are smarter then you are giving them credit for, they learn a lot quicker then adults and I think if we gave them have a chance would be a lot more sexually mature then most of the adults I know which could perhaps lead to more sexually mature adults, but we might never know since everyone, or the ruling majority, is convinced that they cannot comprehend sex, which I still say is crap since no one has tired since the days when marriage had to be about 13 because waiting to 30 might be too late.
quote:And unfortunately, if they think they understand the risks of sex (regardless of if they actually do), they will act as if they do. The result is a lot of children jumping from the proverbial plane with a faulty parachute, only to find themselves on a long fall to rock bottom with no way out.
And adults who are suppose to be mature enough to understand the risks don't do this?
Honestly you give children far too little credit, they are more likely to say "Mommy" or "Daddy, am I right to think that doing this is bad and this right ..." or however kids would ask that question. I truly think if you gave them a shot kids would learn faster then adults, and I encourage you to give me sites that prove to me children were psychologically scared for life because they learned about sex at a young age.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-16-2004).]
