Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 07-25-2004, 03:03 PM

The problem is, ART, we're not debating about the accessibility of violent video games to young people. No one here has said "I want 10 year olds to be able to play Hitman." Instead, we're defending the rights for this stuff to exist. Just like erotic material is marked as such, violent video games are as well. Stores will not sell video games rated MA to any 10 year old that walks in, just like they won't sell Debbie Does Dallas to them.

The "passioned" debate comes in this fact. The debate is not "10 year olds should have access to this," but, rather, it is "adults should have access to this." The politicians and lobbyists involved in attacking video games are not arguing that children should not have access to hitman. While that may be what they layer their arguments with, because children are a popular tool to getting what you want in the world of politics (a disgusting practice that is threadworthy in its own right), the real argument they make is that NO ONE should have access to this material. It's akin to someone saying "erotic material is bad for children, so all erotic material should be banned from everyone everywhere."

Many people have problems with the fact there are rating systems for things such as video games and music CDs. While it may be appalling to have someone else deciding, by their own set of rules, how "good" something is, the ratings systems are ultimately good to have. Without ratings on video games, then 10 year olds could go out and buy Hitman themselves without parental approval. Of course I agree this is not a desirable situation. However, the debate being made is not about ratings systems - because we already have them - it is that, now that the ratings systems exist, they would like to see any game that would be rated Mature be banned instead of restricted access. That is wrong.

So, the passionate defense doesn't come from any delusion that video games - especially violent ones - serve some greater good or are not "mind dulling nonsense." That passionate defense comes from the fact that it is a defense against people who want the government to legislate morality not to children, but to adults.

EDIT: For example, you don't think you do much good for society as a whole (this is probably true for most individuals). I suspect, based on that belief, that if someone tried to limit your interactions with society for this reason, you would not fight it. They are allowing you to exist but basically saying you contribute nothing so you shouldn't be allowed access to mediums in which people who do not expressly choose to interact with you may end up doing so. That's basically what we have now with a ratings system.

Now, if, instead of limiting your access because you don't contribute much good, let's say people were fighting to have you killed because of it. You do not contribute good to society, therefore you should not exist and your life should be taken. I think you would attempt to defend yourself against this. This is basically the argument that's being made against violent video games. Not that they should not be accessible by children - they already aren't - but that they should simply not exist.

07-25-2004, 03:03 PM	#94 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	The problem is, ART, we're not debating about the accessibility of violent video games to young people. No one here has said "I want 10 year olds to be able to play Hitman." Instead, we're defending the rights for this stuff to exist. Just like erotic material is marked as such, violent video games are as well. Stores will not sell video games rated MA to any 10 year old that walks in, just like they won't sell Debbie Does Dallas to them. The "passioned" debate comes in this fact. The debate is not "10 year olds should have access to this," but, rather, it is "adults should have access to this." The politicians and lobbyists involved in attacking video games are not arguing that children should not have access to hitman. While that may be what they layer their arguments with, because children are a popular tool to getting what you want in the world of politics (a disgusting practice that is threadworthy in its own right), the real argument they make is that NO ONE should have access to this material. It's akin to someone saying "erotic material is bad for children, so all erotic material should be banned from everyone everywhere." Many people have problems with the fact there are rating systems for things such as video games and music CDs. While it may be appalling to have someone else deciding, by their own set of rules, how "good" something is, the ratings systems are ultimately good to have. Without ratings on video games, then 10 year olds could go out and buy Hitman themselves without parental approval. Of course I agree this is not a desirable situation. However, the debate being made is not about ratings systems - because we already have them - it is that, now that the ratings systems exist, they would like to see any game that would be rated Mature be banned instead of restricted access. That is wrong. So, the passionate defense doesn't come from any delusion that video games - especially violent ones - serve some greater good or are not "mind dulling nonsense." That passionate defense comes from the fact that it is a defense against people who want the government to legislate morality not to children, but to adults. EDIT: For example, you don't think you do much good for society as a whole (this is probably true for most individuals). I suspect, based on that belief, that if someone tried to limit your interactions with society for this reason, you would not fight it. They are allowing you to exist but basically saying you contribute nothing so you shouldn't be allowed access to mediums in which people who do not expressly choose to interact with you may end up doing so. That's basically what we have now with a ratings system. Now, if, instead of limiting your access because you don't contribute much good, let's say people were fighting to have you killed because of it. You do not contribute good to society, therefore you should not exist and your life should be taken. I think you would attempt to defend yourself against this. This is basically the argument that's being made against violent video games. Not that they should not be accessible by children - they already aren't - but that they should simply not exist. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 07-25-2004 at 03:10 PM..