Blaming Gaming - Page 2

PepsiChic · 06-20-2007, 02:50 PM

in that article the police dont even blame the game

Quote:

Police said robbery was the motive behind the attack on Stefan in Stokes Wood Park on 26 February 2004 - and not the video game blamed by Stefan's parents.

i do think its unfair not to allow the people the right to choose for themselves whether to play a video game or not. I can understand why certain bans are in place. the ban of firearms, lethal drugs and so forth. but a video game seems slightly over the top. perhaps they ought to try refinforcing the law of age guides for games.

i mean here they are getting more and more strict on the age to drink alcohol which is currently 18 and has been for a long time. HOWEVER we have a thing called "think 21" althought it is legal to buy and drink alcohol at 18, if you look 21 or under your likely to be asked for ID anyway.

we have age guides on games, 18, 12, 15 whatever. why not enforce similar rules for these things? i dont remember being asked for id for a 21 film i bought when i was 15, or a 18 rated game when i was 16.

Vautrin · 06-20-2007, 04:19 PM

Our drinking age is 16. At that age you can buy weak alcoholic products such as beers, and wine. Everything above 20% requires you to be 18 years or older. IDing is supposedly mandatory, but not enforced.

Last week a 12 year old apparently drank himself in a stupor, as he was just drinking in before going to a party.

Duke · 07-03-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Our drinking age is 16. At that age you can buy weak alcoholic products such as beers, and wine. Everything above 20% requires you to be 18 years or older. IDing is supposedly mandatory, but not enforced.

Last week a 12 year old apparently drank himself in a stupor, as he was just drinking in before going to a party.

Funny thing is, there's no age restriction on purchasing PAM and baggies nor is there an age restriction to buying cough medicine which kids can use to get high. At some point, society has to take a stance and not only allow people to make stupid choices but to properly punish them for harming themselves or others for making these choices.

The idea that a game, song lyric, movie, etc., is the reason that someone hurt themselves is completely ludicrous. The day the courts stop listening to this kind of trash and diluting the true focus of the case is the day that society takes a turn for the better.

God gave us free will and the courts are trying to take it away. If given a choice, I'll put my faith in God long before I listen to anything a court has to say.

Vautrin · 07-03-2007, 05:14 PM

Problem is of course that our society promotes these behaviours as "cool", in the case of alcoohol. A lot of parents don't teach their children anything about the dangers of alcohol abuse. Subsequently the alcohol producer is being blamed.

Are we going to sue Ford, because cars can crash into people?

Duke · 07-03-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Problem is of course that our society promotes these behaviours as "cool", in the case of alcoohol. A lot of parents don't teach their children anything about the dangers of alcohol abuse. Subsequently the alcohol producer is being blamed.

Are we going to sue Ford, because cars can crash into people?

Why not, we sue people when we slip on ice in front of their property? Never mind the fact that there's ice bl00dy everywhere and it's obvious, the fact you slipped on my property means I'm liable for your stupidity.

Vautrin · 07-03-2007, 06:51 PM

Why not sue the sun for shining? Afterall people do get skin cancer from it.

Duke · 07-03-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Why not sue the sun for shining? Afterall people do get skin cancer from it.

If you really want to think about it, a person can sue for just about anything. Of course, you can't sue the sun for burning us but maybe one day you can sue a top world polluter for thinning our ozone.

I'm not hinting this will ever be done but where is the line? It seems like the emphasis these days is to lay blame in every direction instead of accepting it. Is it possible that there may yet come a day when we can do anything we want without even considering the consequences?

Vautrin · 07-03-2007, 07:26 PM

I expect the day will come, that you will have to listen to a 130-page spoken manual, before you are legally allowed to open your eyes, as you wake up.

Duke · 07-03-2007, 07:42 PM

Well then the question becomes, is there anything that can be done about it?

Vautrin · 07-03-2007, 07:46 PM

Yes.

Before such a law is made, lawmakers and lawyers should be subjected to a million page spoken manual how much everyone hates them, wants to drink their blood et cetera. By the time the manual has been fully read, the lawmaker / lawyers should have passed retirement age, or have died, or have been ousted from office. And of course, not listening to the tape to the end, will ensure that they may be killed on sight.

That should work