The British Government Doesn't Like Ao Titles

[rowdyburns21]

Hi guys just wanted to point out a few things, firstly ill be playing halo 3 in about 2 hours so who gives a damn about any other game lol?!!!
I just wanted to say that videogames can sometimes get a bad rep for no reason, does anyone remember a game that was going to be bought out called 'bully' on the ps2? well obviously dumb name but the story was that you were the kid who stood up to the bullies (in a harry potter non magical sort of way) all the 'lets get rid of videogames and fun' crew were going mad yet they couild not be bothered to learn the background of the story (would anyone have gone to seen silence of the lambs with no idea about the story? i think not!)
I think videogames can turn someone bad if they are genetically inclined to go that way, however I do think that the films out nowadays are a lot worse than any of the videogames.

 

[Yazan]

The only games i play these days are Halo, Runescape, The Bank Robber, Bow-master prelude, Pokemon Crater, Fish Tycoon, Virtual Villagers, Need For Speed 2, NRL, soccer games and racing games.

I'm not interested much in "Man Hunt/2" or any other scary type games, i'm not even old enough to play "Man Hunt".

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Hi guys just wanted to point out a few things, firstly ill be playing halo 3 in about 2 hours so who gives a damn about any other game lol?!!!
I just wanted to say that videogames can sometimes get a bad rep for no reason, does anyone remember a game that was going to be bought out called 'bully' on the ps2? well obviously dumb name but the story was that you were the kid who stood up to the bullies (in a harry potter non magical sort of way) all the 'lets get rid of videogames and fun' crew were going mad yet they couild not be bothered to learn the background of the story (would anyone have gone to seen silence of the lambs with no idea about the story? i think not!)
I think videogames can turn someone bad if they are genetically inclined to go that way, however I do think that the films out nowadays are a lot worse than any of the videogames.

Yes there is a lot of violence and other obscenity in todays films. I'd also argue that parents should definitely monitor what their children are watching. But I guess the point I'd like to make is that the difference I see (which is a relatively small one) is that in video games, the player is often rewarded for violence and brutality. And the player controls the level of violence that occurs in the game.

Take Grand Theft Auto for example, as the player of the game, your objective is to go about killing, mugging, maiming, whoring, etc as much as possible. In a movie you see a lot of killing and sex etc, but in a game, you participate in the actions albeit in a virtual sense. Do children really need to play drug dealer, murderer and/or Pimp/John doe? How can that have anything but a negative effect on them?

That's my main take on it anyway.

SLC

 

[Danno]

I'm glad that people took an interest in this debate because believe it or not but this is a big concern in the gaming world and video game marketing. I do believe that parents need to monitor there children, but if you are over 18 and in the eyes of the world, and adult, what power does the government have to censor the public in these cases? This may seem minor, but what is next? ... newspaper articles, movies, books?? If you are over 18 and want to purchase Manhunt, you should be able to. Although I will say one thing though. Giving stuff like this to your kids would be like giving your kids something that would need an ID at a store....the first things that come to mind to be in beer and smokes...and porn.... - not stuff that kids should get ahold of.

 

[andywg]

But GTA are all 18 rated, so the children shouldn't play them, let alone need to.

As for violence in the media, just watch the news, you'll see far worse on that than films, and on the news it's real blood from real people. Look at the delight with which the news programs are showing in playing news and showing pictures of the Japanese camerman killed in Burma.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

But GTA are all 18 rated, so the children shouldn't play them, let alone need to.

As for violence in the media, just watch the news, you'll see far worse on that than films, and on the news it's real blood from real people. Look at the delight with which the news programs are showing in playing news and showing pictures of the Japanese camerman killed in Burma.

You're right Andy, but while I don't enjoy watching the news much and hearing of all the violence that happens on a day to day basis, I do have to point out that in the news, violence is not glorified, well at least not in the sense that the news tries to make it look appealing or in someway acceptable. The news reports are pointing out some very unacceptable behavior that happens in this world, all of which has very real and lasting consequences. The reports of people being killed in Burma are intended to make people aware of a tragedy that is occurring, not to supply people with a gore fix for pure entertainment value.

Video games and Movies often give the illusion that violent or deviant behavior is acceptable, often desirable. It is the main aspect or point of much of mainstream entertainment media these days. It is difficult to deny that this sort of constant exposure has a strong effect on young and impressionable minds.

Answer me this: what good will come to you or anyone else as a result of exposure to M-rated video-games, or gory, violent, or perverse films?

SLC

 

[Yazan]

But GTA are all 18 rated, so the children shouldn't play them, let alone need to.

How come 3 of my friends have/play GTA and they are under 15?

 

[andywg]

You're right Andy, but while I don't enjoy watching the news much and hearing of all the violence that happens on a day to day basis, I do have to point out that in the news, violence is not glorified, well at least not in the sense that the news tries to make it look appealing or in someway acceptable.

Yet despite already having informed us of the death of the Japanese camerman, we later have to see pics of him dying, and then a little later have to see more pics of it from different angles. If they weren't glorifying it, why keep showing us new and more gorey images of something they have already covered?

The news reports are pointing out some very unacceptable behavior that happens in this world, all of which has very real and lasting consequences. The reports of people being killed in Burma are intended to make people aware of a tragedy that is occurring, not to supply people with a gore fix for pure entertainment value.

Then why the continued attempt to get more bloods and guts into the shot. When I was growing up (only 10-15 years ago) you would barely see a dead body, you might see a foot that wasn't moving. Now we get to see the corpse in situ with blood streaming from the wound and onto the ground all around. Does the news tell me better about the problems of the world now? No. It just tries to produce the most shocking picture to get people's attention. It adds nothing to the content of the story in any way.

I would estimate we are only a couple of steps from the news making Rotten.com obselete.

Video games and Movies often give the illusion that violent or deviant behavior is acceptable, often desirable. It is the main aspect or point of much of mainstream entertainment media these days. It is difficult to deny that this sort of constant exposure has a strong effect on young and impressionable minds.

So do many books, with even more graphic points. I can watch and look at anything (just ask the people in chat about some of my links) yet the only time I have ever truly been reviled was when reading Black Sunday. Should we perhaps ban all violence and references thereto in books?

It is easy for me to deny it, show me some decent peer reviewed science to show that violent video games have a noted affect on their target audience. You produced some links above which show that ultra violent video games can affect young people's minds. That is a redundant point when you have an age rating system. What is the point of making a video game for 18 year olds and over when parents will buy it for their 14 year old and moan it has affected him?

I have never heard of any adults being affected by adult movies/games, and the level of gore does not matter. One of your links quite clearly states:

Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.

So I assume that after you have banned the violent video games you will be bringin the final curtain on any repeats of Tom and Jerry and Sonic the Hedgehog games?

Answer me this: what good will come to you or anyone else as a result of exposure to M-rated video-games, or gory, violent, or perverse films?

None, but what true harm will come to me either? I play GTA, love watching slasher horror films and was one of the first to truly enjoy the chainsaw in Doom. The only violence I ever get involved in is within the boundaries of the rugby pitch (only one yellow card to date too, not bad for a prop). Those people that are so easily affected by computer games will just get affected by other things. I am fairly sure that Harold Shipman didn't play GTA.

The attack on video games is just a poor attempt by politicians and people who don't understand society as a macro-entity to try and blame the problems of society on a small part, rather than looking at the true issues in societies today. It's like the parents who want to have people watching schools to ensure no paedophiles come to grab their children, despite the fact that the number of paeodphilic incidents by strangers having remained pretty much constant since the end of WWII.

Some people read the bible and use it as an excuse to hate and kill other people, do we then ban the bible? No, because we understand that the affect it has on the vast minorities is more a reflection of the state of their minds, not the actual affects of the bible. and let's be honest, even GTA3 doesn't have you kill as many people as God in the Old Testament.

What is next, blaming Leisure Suit Larry for rapists?

But GTA are all 18 rated, so the children shouldn't play them, let alone need to.

How come 3 of my friends have/play GTA and they are under 15?

Because you have broken a law. Enforcement of the law is not the responsibility of the game producers, but of law enforcement officers and parents (in the case of minors). If people under the age of consent are having sex, should we then ban all sex? No.

Why should I not be able to play a game, just because some people who the law say shouldn't have been able to?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I have never heard of any adults being affected by adult movies/games, and the level of gore does not matter.

Well I'd recommend you do some reading about a certain man named Ted Bundy! He's a serial killer who raped and murdered women all over the U.S. before being caught. He claims that he got his start toward deviant behavior from adult films etc.

I'm just saying that to me I can't see why that if game companies want to profit from harmful material, then what is wrong with requiring them to help keep that material from falling into the wrong hands? There have been documented incidents where violent gaming is believed to have played a part in violent crime. In Columbine Colorado, 13 were killed by two teenagers who then took their own lives. It is understood that these were two very disturbed young kids, they were outcasts and that probably played the largest role in their decision to commit the massacre. But they were also known to be heavily involved in violent video games, and the manner that they committed their crime is sickeningly similar to the manner that one goes about killing everything in sight in many popular video games that these two participated in.

If there is even a chance that they got their ideas from playing a game, then there are 13 deaths that testify to the fact that there needs to be heavier restrictions placed on these types of games. Losing even one life is far too great a cost not to.

SLC

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

You're right Andy, but while I don't enjoy watching the news much and hearing of all the violence that happens on a day to day basis, I do have to point out that in the news, violence is not glorified, well at least not in the sense that the news tries to make it look appealing or in someway acceptable.

Yet despite already having informed us of the death of the Japanese camerman, we later have to see pics of him dying, and then a little later have to see more pics of it from different angles. If they weren't glorifying it, why keep showing us new and more gorey images of something they have already covered?

The news reports are pointing out some very unacceptable behavior that happens in this world, all of which has very real and lasting consequences. The reports of people being killed in Burma are intended to make people aware of a tragedy that is occurring, not to supply people with a gore fix for pure entertainment value.

Then why the continued attempt to get more bloods and guts into the shot. When I was growing up (only 10-15 years ago) you would barely see a dead body, you might see a foot that wasn't moving. Now we get to see the corpse in situ with blood streaming from the wound and onto the ground all around. Does the news tell me better about the problems of the world now? No. It just tries to produce the most shocking picture to get people's attention. It adds nothing to the content of the story in any way.

I would estimate we are only a couple of steps from the news making Rotten.com obselete.

I play GTA, love watching slasher horror films and was one of the first to truly enjoy the chainsaw in Doom.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me Andy! I'd think you'd be one of the ones who's glad to see the news then.

SLC

 

[andywg]

I have never heard of any adults being affected by adult movies/games, and the level of gore does not matter.

Well I'd recommend you do some reading about a certain man named Ted Bundy! He's a serial killer who raped and murdered women all over the U.S. before being caught. He claims that he got his start toward deviant behavior from adult films etc.

The rantings of serial killers are hardly good proof of what influenced them. What's to stop him making many wild and crazy claims. I could kill 20 people and claim it was the bible that gave me the idea. Would you then insist that the Bible is removed from all bookshops?

While there is evidence that minors are affected by violent computer games (whether they be gorey or entirely cartoon and fictional in the nature of violence) but no one has shown any work done on adults - the target audience of the adul games.

I'm just saying that to me I can't see why that if game companies want to profit from harmful material, then what is wrong with requiring them to help keep that material from falling into the wrong hands?

Which is why we have the age system, like in videos and films. As I said before, enforcement of the law is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies. Should we ban strong alcohol because some under age drinkers exist? That's hardly fair to the many people that use it responsibly. You seem here to be demanding a system that already exists.

There have been documented incidents where violent gaming is believed to have played a part in violent crime. In Columbine Colorado, 13 were killed by two teenagers who then took their own lives. It is understood that these were two very disturbed young kids, they were outcasts and that probably played the largest role in their decision to commit the massacre. But they were also known to be heavily involved in violent video games, and the manner that they committed their crime is sickeningly similar to the manner that one goes about killing everything in sight in many popular video games that these two participated in.

So in other words, you have one incident you name where the people were social outcasts and had issues as well as the video games. The way they killed people is probably also similar to the way people spray bullets around the room in the old war movies that don't show any blood and gore. Should we ban all the John Wayne movies?

If there is even a chance that they got their ideas from playing a game, then there are 13 deaths that testify to the fact that there needs to be heavier restrictions placed on these types of games. Losing even one life is far too great a cost not to.

SLC

Why not just enforce the restrictions already in place regarding age? Of course there is a chance they got their ideas from playing a game. there is also a chance they got their idea from the news. Would you then ban the news?

Your position is untenable. you have decided you don't like the more gorey films and games and are looking for reasons to ban them. What would you do about fantasy violence? Games with unrealistic violence (such as World of Warcraft, or even the old Disney games) is also shown to cause a raise in aggression in those playing it. Will you then ban Disney games? I bet you wouldn't because they don't offend you and that is the driving feature behind this.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me Andy! I'd think you'd be one of the ones who's glad to see the news then.

SLC

And you are wrong. I am a mature (ish!) adult who can recognise the difference between real and fantasy. I know that the actor who is shot in a gore movie gets up and goes home. I know that in doom all I have really done is interacted with a program that has caused the visual display to show a bit more red.

I also know that when someone dies on the news they are completely dead. Gone. A life ended. That makes the images that much worse because you know that that person is never going home and a family has lost a member. The whole reason we have a watershed and age restrictions on media productions is to prevent younger peoeple who are genreally less well able to acknowledge the difference above from experiencing realistic deaths and injuries on screen.

This all smacks to me of the Mary Whitehouse Brigade. Some people don't like certain media products and as such want it all removed so no one else can have to watch it, all just because they can't operate the remote control or the off button.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I know how to shut the TV down when there's nothing on that I like, and I also don't wish to ban all media, I do think that the largest part of the responsibility for enforcing violent video game restrictions should rest on the heads of the people who insist on putting those games out there.

You ask why you shouldn't be allowed to play a game just because it might affect a young child who shouldn't get it in the first place, well you should be allowed to play your game, I haven't refuted that. But why should I be required to pay the bill for police officers to enforce the restriction that keeps your game out of the hands of minors? I'm not allowed to pick and choose what taxes I pay am I? I think that those who create the product (and the demand) for violent games, and also perhaps the people who choose to participate in them should have to foot the bill. It's even worse when i realize that these restrictions that I have to help pay to enforce aren't really even being enforced, I'm paying taxes in part for nothing!

Perhaps then, when the price of these games is higher, parents will think twice about getting them. It's sad but in todays world, it's the pocketbook that rules the family before common sense and parental influence do.

And yes Andy, I'm offended by gore and gratuitous violence, to me life is too precious to even pretend to destroy.

Bwoods

 

[andywg]

I know how to shut the TV down when there's nothing on that I like, and I also don't wish to ban all media, I do think that the largest part of the responsibility for enforcing violent video game restrictions should rest on the heads of the people who insist on putting those games out there.

Why? There is no "insistance" on putting these games out there, they are released and sell hugely well, indicating they are massively popular. This in turn points out that many people are playing these violent games (GTA3 is a massive hit with millions being sold) yet very, very few are becoming murderers. So low that the number of murderers that do play the games can just be considered statistical co-incidence. I bet there is no statistically significantly higher incidence of murderers within games than without, likewise for violent offenders.

You managed to come up with 1 example of a possible effect (and that isn't in any way proved). Hardly evidence of a huge corrupting influence on society, is it? How many psychos kill people and claim "god" or "Angels" told them to do it? Have we stopped religion yet?

You ask why you shouldn't be allowed to play a game just because it might affect a young child who shouldn't get it in the first place, well you should be allowed to play your game, I haven't refuted that. But why should I be required to pay the bill for police officers to enforce the restriction that keeps your game out of the hands of minors?

Why should I be required to pay my taxes which go to religious schools? Why should non smkoers pay taqxes to heal smokers? Why should I, who almost never goes to the doctor, pay taxes so that the NHS can treat ill people? Because we live in a SOCIETY and that is how society works, we give for the greater good.

I'm not allowed to pick and choose what taxes I pay am I? I think that those who create the product (and the demand) for violent games, and also perhaps the people who choose to participate in them should have to foot the bill. It's even worse when i realize that these restrictions that I have to help pay to enforce aren't really even being enforced, I'm paying taxes in part for nothing!

Wrong, if they aren't being enforced then your taxes are being spent on other things, so you can't moan on both those points there. And you can't choose what bits of law you pay to have upheld. That is society. We don't always get exactly what we want. I don't want to pay benefits to people too lazy to get a job, nor do I want to have millions of my money paid to Africa so that two-bob dictators get rich while people in my own country are starving. Until there can be a clear line drawn to show how these games are truly affecting the minds of those that they are targetted at and legally allowed it, they should be available. You still haven't answered me on whether you will support my point to ban the bible as many murderers follow religion. Then we can ban drink as so many admissions to British A+E are from drink related incidents.

And ALL laws should be enforced. That is society, if a law is not enforced then one should look at what that law is there to do and whether it is necessary, if it is necessary we should look at its applications. In this case we need stricter point of sale control. Consider this, how often will someone get askede for proof of age to buy alcohol compared to GTA3? Both have the same age limit in the UK, but one you will never get asked.

Right there is a case for Trading Standards to force the vendors to comply with the law. It's nothing to do with the manufacture of the games/videos.

Perhaps then, when the price of these games is higher, parents will think twice about getting them. It's sad but in todays world, it's the pocketbook that rules the family before common sense and parental influence do.

So because some parents don't parent I have to pay more? Why not just police it more rigourously and fine the parents and vendors? Problem solved. But then I can't help but feel that still wouldn't sit well with you as you are personally against these games, and as such prejudiced against any information regarding their effects.

And yes Andy, I'm offended by gore and gratuitous violence, to me life is too precious to even pretend to destroy.

Bwoods

Herein lies the rub. Something doesn't agree with your values, so you don't want it.

I would like to ban anyone reading any religious texts to kids under 18 to prevent anyone tainting kids with the lack of tolerence and free thought so often seen in the truly religious (I work with someone who is completely homophobic and stated the bible tells her it is wrong, yet was most surprised when I pointed out the bible also tells her to stone people who work on the sabbath), but I don't think that will happen somehow, despite religion being a factor in many unstable people including murderers. One only needs to look at the Middle East to see the effect of religion. Are you truly happy to have that taught to minors, but you want to ban video games for all so that there isn't a chance of a kid seeing GTA3, especially now that British citizens are flying to the Middle East to help the fight?

Remind me again just how many deaths are attributed to video games and how many have died in the Middle East since the late 1940s, yet no one tries to prevent religion capturing children at an early age.

You can't blame recent violence and massacres on these video games any more than you can blame them on the bible, torah or qu'ran.

Let's be honest, drinking and smoking kill far more people than these games ever will. Until I see some real concerted campagin agaqinst these I shall ignore the selfish mutterings of those that want everyone else to have the same values as them bleating on about computer games.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I know how to shut the TV down when there's nothing on that I like, and I also don't wish to ban all media, I do think that the largest part of the responsibility for enforcing violent video game restrictions should rest on the heads of the people who insist on putting those games out there.

Why? There is no "insistance" on putting these games out there, they are released and sell hugely well, indicating they are massively popular. This in turn points out that many people are playing these violent games (GTA3 is a massive hit with millions being sold) yet very, very few are becoming murderers. So low that the number of murderers that do play the games can just be considered statistical co-incidence. I bet there is no statistically significantly higher incidence of murderers within games than without, likewise for violent offenders.

You managed to come up with 1 example of a possible effect (and that isn't in any way proved). Hardly evidence of a huge corrupting influence on society, is it? How many psychos kill people and claim "god" or "Angels" told them to do it? Have we stopped religion yet?

You ask why you shouldn't be allowed to play a game just because it might affect a young child who shouldn't get it in the first place, well you should be allowed to play your game, I haven't refuted that. But why should I be required to pay the bill for police officers to enforce the restriction that keeps your game out of the hands of minors?

Why should I be required to pay my taxes which go to religious schools? Why should non smkoers pay taqxes to heal smokers? Why should I, who almost never goes to the doctor, pay taxes so that the NHS can treat ill people? Because we live in a SOCIETY and that is how society works, we give for the greater good.

I'm not allowed to pick and choose what taxes I pay am I? I think that those who create the product (and the demand) for violent games, and also perhaps the people who choose to participate in them should have to foot the bill. It's even worse when i realize that these restrictions that I have to help pay to enforce aren't really even being enforced, I'm paying taxes in part for nothing!

Wrong, if they aren't being enforced then your taxes are being spent on other things, so you can't moan on both those points there. And you can't choose what bits of law you pay to have upheld. That is society. We don't always get exactly what we want. I don't want to pay benefits to people too lazy to get a job, nor do I want to have millions of my money paid to Africa so that two-bob dictators get rich while people in my own country are starving. Until there can be a clear line drawn to show how these games are truly affecting the minds of those that they are targetted at and legally allowed it, they should be available. You still haven't answered me on whether you will support my point to ban the bible as many murderers follow religion. Then we can ban drink as so many admissions to British A+E are from drink related incidents.

And ALL laws should be enforced. That is society, if a law is not enforced then one should look at what that law is there to do and whether it is necessary, if it is necessary we should look at its applications. In this case we need stricter point of sale control. Consider this, how often will someone get askede for proof of age to buy alcohol compared to GTA3? Both have the same age limit in the UK, but one you will never get asked.

Right there is a case for Trading Standards to force the vendors to comply with the law. It's nothing to do with the manufacture of the games/videos.

Perhaps then, when the price of these games is higher, parents will think twice about getting them. It's sad but in todays world, it's the pocketbook that rules the family before common sense and parental influence do.

So because some parents don't parent I have to pay more? Why not just police it more rigourously and fine the parents and vendors? Problem solved. But then I can't help but feel that still wouldn't sit well with you as you are personally against these games, and as such prejudiced against any information regarding their effects.

And yes Andy, I'm offended by gore and gratuitous violence, to me life is too precious to even pretend to destroy.

Bwoods

Herein lies the rub. Something doesn't agree with your values, so you don't want it.

I would like to ban anyone reading any religious texts to kids under 18 to prevent anyone tainting kids with the lack of tolerence and free thought so often seen in the truly religious (I work with someone who is completely homophobic and stated the bible tells her it is wrong, yet was most surprised when I pointed out the bible also tells her to stone people who work on the sabbath), but I don't think that will happen somehow, despite religion being a factor in many unstable people including murderers. One only needs to look at the Middle East to see the effect of religion. Are you truly happy to have that taught to minors, but you want to ban video games for all so that there isn't a chance of a kid seeing GTA3, especially now that British citizens are flying to the Middle East to help the fight?

Remind me again just how many deaths are attributed to video games and how many have died in the Middle East since the late 1940s, yet no one tries to prevent religion capturing children at an early age.

You can't blame recent violence and massacres on these video games any more than you can blame them on the bible, torah or qu'ran.

Let's be honest, drinking and smoking kill far more people than these games ever will. Until I see some real concerted campagin agaqinst these I shall ignore the selfish mutterings of those that want everyone else to have the same values as them bleating on about computer games.

Well I'm not in the UK so my taxes don't go to any religious schools, and my taxes don't go to advance the cause of religion either. It's considered a deeply personal thing here, and the government does it's best to steer clear of the influences of religion.

And to respond to your accusation that religion breeds intolerance, yes I've seen it happen all too often. But again you have a personal issue with religion so your viewpoint is clouded as well in that regard. I've seen plenty of instances where religion promotes acceptance and peace, christianity in it's true sense is a good example, but too many have used it's influence over people to get personal gain and cause suffering.

But to promote tolerance doesn't have to mean that a group of people accepts a lifestyle and doesn't object to it's practice. Just that they don't condemn it and intentionally cause trouble for it.

I'm a religious person (you probably already assumed that), and my organization condemns the practice of homosexuality. But the condemnation of the practice is where it ends! We are taught to love accept and befriend all people, and not to judge, but we also have guidelines for personal conduct that we hold for ourselves. We don't expect others to adhere to our standards, but we do expect others of our faith to. That's where it ends!

People see our views on homosexuality as hateful, why is this? We make ourselves perfectly clear when we say that we love and accept all people regardless of their race background and lifestyle. But because our religion forbids the practice we must hate homosexuals right? Not so!

Your claim that religion causes violence is false, it is the misinterpretation of religion that causes violence. There is no way to misinterpret the intention of GTA3 or other games. But like you, I feel you have a personal vendetta for religious belief so a discussion on the subject will be of little value. You my friend are just as biased as I am.

SLC

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Let's be honest, drinking and smoking kill far more people than these games ever will. Until I see some real concerted campagin agaqinst these I shall ignore the selfish mutterings of those that want everyone else to have the same values as them bleating on about computer games.

Well move on over to the USA, we've been fighting Tobacco for years now. The Tobacco companies have been saddled with the responsibility to help pay to keep their products out of the hands of youngsters, they can not advertise anywhere but in printed magazines, and they are paying huge penalties for targeting youth with harmful materials in the past. This program is actually what I modeled my idea about requiring the video game manufacturers to pay after.

I think it's a good thing and your ramblings about my "religious blinders" don't change a thing! As a matureish adult, surely you recognize that sometimes you have to give up something you enjoy to benefit those in your care! And exposing children to violent entertainment can have nothing but a negative effect on them. You still haven't come up with anything to refute that! Until you do, I think it is your stance that is invalid. Bringing in other things that you have a problem with doesn't somehow make the original point of this thread any less valid!

SLC