I like to punch babies, kick puppies (I call it the M. Vick Kick), rob liquor stores, hijack cars, and shoot old people with guns; and it's all because I play video games.
âWARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.â
First of all, we already HAVE a rating system on video games. This is mentioned in the article I linked. Not only is it redundant, but it's absolutely insulting to consumers! I could go on but the article vents my frustration better than I could.
This is what grinds my gears with politicians today. In America, politicians want to make everything they hate illegal. This is quite a difficult thing to do. By making video games illegal, you will cause many uproars. So what do politicians do? They try to think of ways to ostracize the things they hate with, for lack of a better term, indirect force. Where am I going with all of this?
Rather than making video games illegal, these politicians want to stamp a giant scarlet letter "A" on the cover of video games in hopes of warding parents away from them.
I could go on and on, but I'll end the OP right now and get some input from everyone else.
That is so retarded, they might as well stick WARNING: The violent nature of this video game reflects the violent nature of some individuals. The link could just as well be the other way around. The link is inconclusive yet some people just want to play nannies so much, what's next? Clearly the current labels aren't enough so they have to stick something else, then in a few years time that won't be enough either so they have to stick another label until eventually you can't even see the game cover anymore.
I would also like to add that we shouldn't be stingy with labels. If we're going to label the potential (yet unrealistic and/or exaggerated) dangers of playing video games, I feel we should do the same for everything else as well.
Warning: Excessive exposure to ******** and ******* propaganda has been linked to the suppression of personal freedoms, infuriating rage, protests, and in extreme cases -- riots.
Don't they have bigger problems? Like educating the children better so they use critical thinking and MAYBE that will lower the risk of the teen aggression problems?
Don't they have bigger problems? Like educating the children better so they use critical thinking and MAYBE that will lower the risk of the teen aggression problems?
Do you honestly want people like Mr. Baca working on YOUR child's education?
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
CITATION NEEDED. INCONGRUOUS CLAIMS CAN BE CHALLENGED AND REMOVED.
So he, like other nit-picky individuals, base their claims off biased and incomplete studies? I'm going to go run for senator and propose a bill to make it against the law to skip rocks because it imitates throwing grenades.
Yeah, I can pull stuff out of my butt too. For example, studies that violence correlates against video gaming. A negative correlation.
I think I posted this in another thread, but, your government has (literally) no money to spend on important stuff (i.e. education, health care etc.)
I must say, what's the point of a new label when the ERSB label is precise in the nature, and contents of the game? What's next, a label saying how video games harm society?
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
That is (pardon my language) bulls**t. What games do all the guys play in my school? A: violent and M rated games Q: do they bring a gun to school and shoot everyone in sight? A: no [/quote] CITATION NEEDED.[quote] yes, I completely agree with you
One of my favorite things about this is that at least one of these congressmen is a California congressman. Where are many games made you ask? California. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing such a bill would hurt video game sales, and if it does the already horrible debt California has will grow.
I tink it is quite annoying since ESRB CLEARLY states the rating of each game, what does a kid do when he wants it, does he cover the label and say "I want Grand Theft Auto pweezze?" I think they just want to give people negative ssociations with video games but I dunno why but I say that because they did the same basic thing with cigaret packages too. Also if you ever flip through a video game magazine you would see at least 2 adds showing a gun a equal sign and a video game and in big words they say "THEY BOTH ARE THEY SAME, FIGHT BACK VIDEO GAMES" But what I don't get it why is he also going after teen games, that is what puzzels me.
To add to this, the reason why we put warning labels on smoking cartons is because it indeed does harm. What has been ultimately proven for video games? That they benefit some aspects of the cognitive processes. The only "detriments" I've heard from were inconclusive to say the least.
To add to this, the reason why we put warning labels on smoking cartons is because it indeed does harm. What has been ultimately proven for video games? That they benefit some aspects of the cognitive processes. The only "detriments" I've heard from were inconclusive to say the least.
That is true and also like I said it made everyone who didn't already smoke become more weary of them, I think that is what they are trying to dso with video games.
Tbh I don't agree with the ciggarette packages, people already know the bad effects of smoking and it's on TV like all the time. No need to force it on someone's face, theyll quit if they want to or not if they dont. As you've all said, video games already have clear and precise labelling of content so theres no need to add anything else. It's the governments job to make sure people are well informed, not force ideas in their face, thats like dictatorship.
