Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/1/06 04:22 AM, fli wrote: In this case: the parents or gaurdian...

Right, this really makes it the parents' decision. It's not like the kids can't get the games, they just have to have their parents get them. This reinforces the parents' duty in deciding what their kids do.

Parents aren't reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids.

There should be a law in which parents need to get an Intelligence examination to determine if you are qualifed to either have children at all or make decisions for their children.

At 5/1/06 02:09 PM, Dranigus wrote: Parents aren't reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids.

There should be a law in which parents need to get an Intelligence examination to determine if you are qualifed to either have children at all or make decisions for their children.

Yeah, but how can you resist?

At 5/1/06 02:09 PM, Dranigus wrote: Parents aren't reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids.

There should be a law in which parents need to get an Intelligence examination to determine if you are qualifed to either have children at all or make decisions for their children.

I still cannot get over the fact that you are 26. Wow.

At 5/1/06 02:47 PM, peedee wrote: I still cannot get over the fact that you are 26. Wow.

Hes not. Hes a liar and misrepresents himself so take anything he says with a grain of salt.

At 4/29/06 12:05 AM, Dranigus wrote: Cause I might be young, being 21 and all, but I'm not impressionable nor do I listen to any of my friends. All my ideas about women come from first handed experiences. And I believe there was a case I converse online with you about.

At 5/1/06 02:09 PM, Dranigus wrote: Parents aren't reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids.

If they're not reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids--
How are sure they're reasonable enough to allow kids to bring in their homes?

I think most parents have a good notion what's appropriate... some are lax and others more strict. It's a judgement call, and what they're comfortable.

There should be a law in which parents need to get an Intelligence examination to determine if you are qualifed to either have children at all or make decisions for their children.

err... I think its reasonable if a parent decides not to buy a rated M game for their 13 year old.

At 5/1/06 02:48 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 5/1/06 02:47 PM, peedee wrote: I still cannot get over the fact that you are 26. Wow.

Hes not. Hes a liar and misrepresents himself so take anything he says with a grain of salt.

At 4/29/06 12:05 AM, Dranigus wrote: Cause I might be young, being 21 and all, but I'm not impressionable nor do I listen to any of my friends. All my ideas about women come from first handed experiences. And I believe there was a case I converse online with you about.

Hehehe... yeah...

But it's not really a lie. I just typoed that's all.

And is it really such a bad thing since more than 90% of the people on this domain lie about either their age or their gender or sometimes both?

I mean with you Fabulous, you could just be a 16 year old, base on the manner you represent yourself.

Grain of salt? Are you so certain that anyone other than me and you are going to understand that figure of speech?

But you are right I do misrepresent myself, considering the fact I act more mature than I am. The complete opposite of your behavior so far, especially with that "Grain of salt" comment.

At 5/1/06 02:56 PM, fli wrote:

At 5/1/06 02:09 PM, Dranigus wrote: Parents aren't reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids.

If they're not reasonable enough to know what to buy for their kids--
How are sure they're reasonable enough to allow kids to bring in their homes?

What??? Buy their kid? How "who" is sure they're reasonable enough to allow "who's" kids to bring "what" in their homes?

I think most parents have a good notion what's appropriate... some are lax and others more strict. It's a judgement call, and what they're comfortable.

You are wrong. Most parents are either too lazy or too stupid. I know this for a fact, because I've seen how children are raised in my community and I'm told that it is no different than how everyone else pretty much raises their children and I'm pretty much sick of it.

There should be a law in which parents need to get an Intelligence examination to determine if you are qualifed to either have children at all or make decisions for their children.

err... I think its reasonable if a parent decides not to buy a rated M game for their 13 year old.

But they aren't smart enough to know that. Besides it shouldn't be if they decide to buy an M rated game. It should be that they shouldn't buy any M rated game for anyone under the respective age censor.

There is too much freedom for a land ruled by imbeciles and because of that is why we have all these problems.

In concept this law is very valid, after all the mature content in these games really are not suitable for anyone under the age of 13 and not necissarily suitable for people under the age of 17. However, in practice the people that are being affected the most are in the 13 - 17 age bracket.

Think about it, nearly everyone under the age of 13 is getting their video games from their parents already. If they were going to buy them mature games before then they would not be stopped anymore now. But with the teenagers it prevents those with their own income from spending it how they see fit.

Now do most 13 year olds have the mental stability and faculty to separate the fictional world of video games and the real world of life? I would guess not. So in this case it serves some purpose. However the older a person gets, the more they can handle the fictional gore and violence. I would personally argue that some people reach this point long before turning 17 while others reach it long after.

Personally because I've seen too many 13 and 14 year old sprain an ankle or break an arm because they were imitating wrestling moves from TV and video games so I support the idea of limiting access of violent games to young teens. Really, I'd support reducing the age limit of this law to 16 or 15 1/2 as a much more practical age.

The government needs to invest in more refined education for parents on the harm of violent video games than the Daily Mail. When watching Richard & Judy a year or two ago about GTA: SA, they showed some visibly frightened parents clips of various violent games that they had all bought their children.

I think lack of knowledge on the parents half is to blame here. Simply improve their knowledge, and when their 13 year old son says "Mummy, can I get game_x?" the parent will be aware of the violent areas of that game, and will be able to say "No."

Also, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a violent game when accompanied by a child under the age limit. I know that wouldn't stop that much, the child could just stay outside the door of the shop, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. As the parent goes to the counter, the sales attendant says "Are you aware that this game is extremely violent, and should not be played around children?". I think that such a simple thing as that would do wonders.

At 5/1/06 02:57 PM, Dranigus wrote: Hehehe... yeah...

But it's not really a lie. I just typoed that's all.

Oh yes, the 6 and the 1 are so close n the keypad. Logic is impeccable.

And lets face it. Who is 26 and watches Dragon Ball Z. I dont even think I ever watched that when it was popular back when I was in 7th grade.

WE DONT NEED MORE laws you idiots. Stop enslaving the american people to your every whim. Jesus H. Christ you people piss me off. For starters, no proof has been presented that violent video games make people violent. Secondly, passing more laws changes nothing, so its a waste of money.

I thought M rated games were already illegal to sell to minors. What, now it's like....double-y illegal?

I've always wondered how a person can purchase grand theft auto for their child and then say OMG! Games R teh suxorz! or whatever the hell perents say.

Things to check out:
Comic on the new game law, click on the news link for more info.
http://www.penny-arc..com/comic/2006/03/20

Link to new study that video games lead to an increased acceptance of underage drug and alchanol use.
http://today.reuters..0_US-VIDEO-GAMES.xml

Oh yeah, the study was in the form of a survey. A survey of college students, ages 18-21. Students that live on campus.

Screw this, selling games to minors isnt like porn. Porn is a direct "poision" to children. while gaming has less effect on a childs pyshce then music does. Politicians just want parents on their side, and parents being so biased will go with them because they think "violence" and "gore" is bad for their children, when studies have proven they arent as long as you arent trying to brainwash them. I mean, dont sell games like manhunt to 8 year olds, but if the kids are at least in their teens or 11 or 12 years old then it should be morally correct. It isnt harming them, its become an Urban Legend that gaming "turns your children into murderers!!!" Its all BS.

Penn and Teller would back me up!

I like how most of the people against the law are under 18. Tells you something.

At 5/2/06 12:12 AM, darkfiretime1 wrote: WE DONT NEED MORE laws you idiots. Stop enslaving the american people to your every whim. Jesus H. Christ you people piss me off. For starters, no proof has been presented that violent video games make people violent. Secondly, passing more laws changes nothing, so its a waste of money.

On the site of the american psychriatric association(apa.org) they have at least one article saying that violent video games effect a persons behavior.

I was playing M rated games when I was 5, and there is nothing wrong with me. I have no violent thoughts, I dont waste dozens of hours each day on the computer. No more on the god damn laws. Its the parents responsibility.

I think it's a good idea. Yes I know many kids might say "OMG oppression!".... but look at it this way. Can you go to a movie store and rent a Rated-R or Rated-X movie? Ok some movie stores will do it, but they are breaking a law. These laws are already in place for movies, it should just be extended to video games that's all.

Another reason it's a good idea is because it will lead to more graphic violence, nudity and coarse language. As long as it's banned to minors, they should be allowed to make these games more geared towards adults, like Rated-R movies. Like have a Pulp Fiction game or Natural Born Killers... with no restrictions to the swearing, sex and violence.

Oh and finally, kids should shut up anyway because think about it. Have you ever seen a Rated-R movie? How did you get your hands on it? Obviously there's other ways of getting these movies and the same will be for the games. Maybe an older brother will get it for you or your friend's older brother. There's lots of ways of getting around these laws, but thanks to these laws I'm just hoping it will give game manufacturers a free hand to make games more adult orientated, like Rated-R movies.