As Felstaff said (an ninja'd me while I wrote out this response), Serious Business is a much better venue for this to be argued. Here's my long-winded version of what he put very concisely. If you want to reply, please take it to an appropriate thread in SB and I will gladly not follow you there.
gleeb wrote:My rant subject is on the legislation of the proper way to raise a child. In current society, it is not only far from rare, it is expected of the Government to take the active role in the rearing of children. The current lunacy can be seen in the various laws that have made it hard or impossible to use corporal punishment when administering punishments to children.
This is not the Government telling parents the proper way to raise a child; it is telling parents to not
raise their children the improper
way: by beating them.
gleeb wrote:I for one do not support the physical abuse of any child or any person in any way, but if a child is scared that that is a possible, plausible and legal method of punishment, they will be far less likely to offend any rules. I wasn't smacked as a child but I can say with certainty that I was always fearful that my actions might bring a swift hand to my buttocks.
Look up the legal definition of "assault". No physical interaction needs to occur, merely the threat thereof.
gleeb wrote:After looking at that understandable but misguided change in the world-view of The Majority, it then moved on to other things, the most annoying of which to me is the censoring of media from children. While it's true that on some level it is upsetting to hear a child swear, it is also something that can not be discounted as a fact. Why, then, must we say that children should not hear swearing through our media? These words can, in fact, be used perfectly validly as expressions of emotion, more powerful than the suggested alternatives. It's not the use of the words that I object to, it's their overuse.
The government does not prevent you from swearing to, at, or in the presence of your children. Nor does it force you to prevent your children from consuming media with such content. It *does* have provisions preventing children in some venues, and it points to children to justify its banning of various words in mass media, but that affects everybody, not just children.
gleeb wrote:The same can also be applied to violence. Sure, violence is something that can be disturbing, but it is also a natural part of the human being, inexorable as it is.
Are you trying to suggest that the violence depicted on TV and in films is "natural"? Aside from that, the same goes as above: the government gives filtering tools to parents (e.g. the V-chip and standardized ratings), and it's up to those parents to choose whether or not use them.
gleeb wrote:For that matter, why do people seem to think that video-game and computer-game violence has a greater effect on it's players? I'm not denying that it doesn't.
So... you've built up a straw man, then instead of beating it down, you're using the straw-man to bolster your argument? Weak. Get facts. Look at studies. I don't have a clue what they say or if they are valid, but it's a better starting point than an ass-umption. Also, "greater effect"--greater than what?
A player is playing the game and has been given or may have selected a character to whom he will become attached by the very fact that he has direct control, within the power allotted to the player, over this character's life and even the lives of many characters surrounding him. This means that the player is more likely to understand what the character is doing and why, given proper exposition. This makes the player more able to understand the reason for the violence.
Oh, for fuck's sake, what a crock. Shall we coin the phrase "Bleeding Heart Libertarian" for you? This argument reminds me of an argument made back when cars were still a new invention. They said that people would get exercise out of cars because of the exertion while turning the steering wheel.
There are three main types of gamers... Those that play to play, regardless of story; Those that play to feel, engaged with the story; Those that play to improve, reaching for a set goal, and setting a new goal when they reach it. It is people that fall outside of those three categories that I worry about. They are the ones that take it to heart... but any person who would is just as dangerous without games. Luckily, they are few and far between.
I don't know about you, but when I play games I do it to play. To derive pleasure, i.e. from solving a problem. Most of the time I skip over the backstory it's useful to the functionality of the game.
Denying the antecedent
In Summary: I've been playing video games since before I could type/write, and I'm not a Serial Killer...
, not to mention your silly implicit straw-man premise that "playing video games will turn you into a serial killer."
Assume for a moment that 99% of people who played video games became violent. Not necessarily serial killers, but more violent than otherwise. And you were the 100th guy, who did not. I would think it pretty sound to base policy on that type of correlation. Not that I'm saying the correlation exists, I'm just rebutting your anecdotal evidence.
...so stop legislating games out of the hands of children perfectly able to play them without killing real people afterwards. Let the parent make that choice.
I'm all for getting the government out of people's private decisions, but the arguments you make do a very, very unconvincing job.
I am tired now, and probably won't return to this thread to see your reply. Consider all questions in this post to be rhetorical.