Do you think they should ban certain video games for people under the age of 18?

Started by: altair500 | Replies: 116 | Views: 12,718

Scarecrow
2

Posts: 9,168
Joined: Oct 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 2:14 AM #593084
as soon as i figured out how to properly choose builds the game became really easy. but on the first playthrough i'm like WRTF HOW IS HE SLOWING ME AND SO FAST
Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 3:19 AM #593101
I played fucking Silent Hill when I was like 8 and look how I turned out! Completely normal.
1&onlyZACKIE

Posts: 34
Joined: Feb 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 9:15 AM #593169
Nothing wrong with an underage kid playing extremely rated games.

I played them when i'm like, 12! It's just sometimes, the obsession of games to people that worries me.
Arch-Angel
2

Posts: 9,496
Joined: Jan 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 2:52 PM #593250
I played GTA a shit ton and when I went to go driving for behind the wheel I tried running over the curb in the parking lot...
Fuck backing up.


"A few winners a whole lot of losers"
"The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own"

Natural selection. If one out of one hundred million kids decides Halo is fucking cool because they play 18 hours on end so they kill their parents for taking their addiction away, that's fucking cool.
We have too many people anyways. Everything is perfect the way it is now. We shouldn't have to change laws and making everything fucking retarded for a whole nation because a few kids think it's going to try shit out in real life.
I believe this debate is pointless, and Blasphemer and Scarecrow have practically won the argument.
bubbles
Banned

Posts: 1,633
Joined: Sep 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 3:24 PM #593264
Maturity isn't specific to age groups, to a certain extent. A 14 year old can act maturely, it's just certain individuals that act like inbreds.

I can understand if your child was like 8 years old and extremely impressionable, but really that's up for the parents to decide, if a child grows up on a diet of profanity and digital entrails, and lands up killing cats for fun when he's older, then blame the parents. They where retarded enough to let it happen.
Arch-Angel
2

Posts: 9,496
Joined: Jan 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 3:40 PM #593266
You seem to have forgotten that it is never the offenders fault, haven't you?
Sure if some kid goes ham and kills his parents, oh no it wasn't his fault fuck that.

So like I said, if a kid decides to kill some people, as long as the death toll isn't in the hundreds, it's all good.
Sure it sucks when people die, and I wouldn't want something like that to happen in my life, but that's just it. It's life, shit happens, and no matter what we have to get used to it.
We have 308 million people in our country, and one hundred of them die, no one should care except for the families of the deceased. That shouldn't impact the way the rest of the 308 million people live their lives.
Especially in the sake of a video game. If a kid plays too much halo and kills his parents, it's the games fault because the kid can't face the fact that he fucked up.
If a kid watches too much tv and his parents piss him off to the point where he kills them, it's the tv's fault right? We should attack the producers and make new laws to further limit their creativity and fuck with business even more in a fuck shit economy right?

No, we should face the fact that no one gives a shit about 100 people that they do not know and move on.
I'm not saying life isn't precious or anything. Take for example the cruise ship incident where the guy sunk the cruise ship because he sailed too close to an island.
I feel bad for the people and families that died, because they were literally killed by another mans stupidity. I don't think the captain of the boat played GTA before they set sail, he was just fucking stupid...
bubbles
Banned

Posts: 1,633
Joined: Sep 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 3:51 PM #593270
You make a good point.
Ashlander
2

Posts: 1,944
Joined: Mar 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 9:41 PM #593390
Quote from Fusion
I played fucking Silent Hill when I was like 8 and look how I turned out! Completely normal.


Man Silent Hill 2 used to give me the chills playing in a dark room with that radio static going on...
Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 13, 2012 10:07 PM #593402
Quote from Arch-Angel
You seem to have forgotten that it is never the offenders fault, haven't you?
Sure if some kid goes ham and kills his parents, oh no it wasn't his fault fuck that.


It's without a doubt true that it's the kid's fault that he pulled the trigger, but it's almost always not his fault that he grew up to be a psychopath.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 16, 2012 1:54 PM #598864
Quote from Fusion
It's without a doubt true that it's the kid's fault that he pulled the trigger, but it's almost always not his fault that he grew up to be a psychopath.


I think you missed the whole "shit happens" point of his post. It doesn't matter who or what is at fault.

People go on murderous rampages. It's horrible, it's tragic, and the basic human response to these situations is beyond idiotic. We see a story on the news about little Timmy putting a few bullets in his parents' heads and immediately we ask: why? What drove this poor, helpless child to act like this? There must be a particular set of outside circumstances that directly triggered the outburst, because if there are, we can find them. And then we can get rid of them, so we can avoid things like this in the future and live in the fucking utopia we want to create for ourselves.

But that's not reality. The fact is, some people are just fucking awful at handling emotions. During an emotionally distressing situation, judgement goes straight out the window, and bad shit happens because of it. The sort of person who would react to stress with a murderous rampage is fucked from the beginning. Something will set them off, and it'll probably be something 99.9999% of the population is perfectly capable of handling.

That scares the shit out of people, because people are generally idiots. If they acknowledge that innocent people are sometimes caught in the crossfire of someone who's just a fucking lunatic, for no good reason, what's to say it won't happen to them? Realistically it probably won't, but theoretically it's perfectly possible. So suddenly they have to take control and protect themselves, otherwise everything will fall apart and we'll be driven into chaos and destruction.

It's absolute twaddle. Humans instinctively look for reasons even when there clearly are none, and we're good at convincing ourselves of.. well, pretty much anything that avoids cognitive dissonance. This is another timeless example of that. A violent video game is nothing more than a virtual, inaccurate representation of acts that can easily be separated from reality by all but a statistically insignificant percentage of people who play them. Trying to change anything because of those few anomalies is an insult to the collective intelligence of the people who don't start kittens on fire and throw puppies into a lake because they played a fucking video game.

Just my two cents.
Jeff
Administrator
1

Posts: 4,356
Joined: Dec 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 24, 2012 3:05 AM #607639
I worked for a popular video game retail outlet for a while, and I'm surprised that a lot of posts in this thread don't seem to acknowledge that a system that prevents children from buying mature games is already in place. A child cannot buy a certain game without a parent present, and as retailers we are responsible for making sure a child doesn't buy the game on his/her own, and that the parent knows what kind of shit is in the game.

It's there mostly because parents flip out when the government doesn't tell them what may be bad for their kids.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 24, 2012 6:11 PM #607851
There's also a system to keep gays from getting married, but that's kind of irrelevant when debating if that system should be around. Same difference here, that's probably why nobody's mentioned it.
Fusion
Banned

Posts: 4,445
Joined: Aug 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 24, 2012 9:52 PM #607954
In fact I would say it's even more reason to debate it.
GZento
2

Posts: 537
Joined: Feb 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 25, 2012 12:30 AM #608014
Quote from Zed
Oh the lengths I go to for you, Blasphemer.


Kudos to you Zed, always handling it like a real gentleman,
and blasphemer, try to read the original fucking post next time before you get all aggro-douche about a simple debate, insulting a new member and a mod in two posts, you tried to insult Altair by using "Fucking retarded twelve year old". What if he actually was? is that how you talk to your family members? is that how you would talk to a mentally retarded twelve year old in public? Post with some fucking dignity and compassion,

ANYWAYS: here's the deal, I concur with Blasphemer on the truths behind environment and upbringing, I disagree with chemical make up, As, Cs, and Gs don't control your ultimate destiny, or inclination to do things, in other words, if you're a human being, you have a consciousness, so YOU decide whether you shoot all the little kids with the pumped up kicks. And so, I believe the influences of video games is much like that of television, a kid sees his hero, or idol doing something.... lets say... violent, or not so praised upon by society, and he emulates it, because, ya' know james bond, and the red ranger are cool as all shit, but it doesn't mean the kids psychotic, he's just misguided, and that's what parents are for, to GUIDE, so ultimately, my stance is that video game censorship or filtering is a sack of shit in a hell fire--it should never happen
Jeff
Administrator
1

Posts: 4,356
Joined: Dec 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Feb 27, 2012 2:00 AM #608934
Quote from Exilement
There's also a system to keep gays from getting married, but that's kind of irrelevant when debating if that system should be around. Same difference here, that's probably why nobody's mentioned it.


That the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you're arguing about whether or not you SHOULD have a system that already exists, why not discuss why it's there in the first place and express why you disagree/agree, rather than what people are doing now, which is wane intellectual about hypothetical situations that make no sense. It's entirely relevant that this system is around, because it shows what you're arguing against or for has already been god damn established. What you SHOULD do is take a look at the system and point out why you disagree with it. If the topic is "Should gay marriage be banned?", you look at why it's banned now and submit your point why it shouldn't.