| Bodhesatva said: It's fair to say your position is the extreme minority -- very few people are arguing for aboslutely no restrictions. You're welcome to have that opinion, but it's definitely not what most people want. I have arguments against your position, but it's a 100 page, mean, nasty can of worms we're opening, and I'd prefer not to. |
I'd be curious to see what it is, as I too have written a thesis about how video games and movies don't have that much of an impact as people might expect. There is more psychological damage done when a parent flatout forbids it because it is wrong, yet the kid will get a chance of playing it or watching it, and will still be met with this forbiddance from the parent(s).
Let's propose that there is this nationwide curtailing of selling video games to minors, do you still think there won't be an outcry from some parents over the violence in video games? There has to be a dissenting voice now because if we just so happen to bend just a little, what is to say that we won't expect the same of what's happening in Britain where a few lawmakers will decide if a said game should see the light of day? They make it seem detrimental and bad now, later they could make it seem vile and corrupt, and it started with a simple rating for games, and now we might be facing a nationwide ban of selling games to minors. Who is to say that this won't go further?
Again, just because the road is getting paved it doesn't mean that there won't be cracks: Kids will still be able to rent games and movies, a few friends may have it because their parents bought it for them, or an older sibling or relative might be playing that game that has become "taboo."
