mrshowrules: Silly Jesus: A city determining paint color is not reasonable...and if your children are seeing it, then it is with your consent. Don't let them go where they will see such things if you don't want them to see them. You are trying to transfer the burden of parenting on to the business and the government. I know that's the liberal way, but shiat.Where do you live? Do you have any idea the type of restrictions zoning other business operating rules impose in a city? There is some truly repressive shiat going on in main street USA.Like it or not, the Government already has public decency laws making a parent's job easier that technically infringe on your personal liberties (publicmasturbation for instance). These laws already exist.It is already illegal for a kid to go and watch a porno film in an x-rated theater or get a private dance in a strip-club. Do you think this Constitutes Government raising my kids for me? Obviously not.So it is just a matter of where do you draw the line and new media types like violent video games. Whether the movie with mature content is in a theater, coin operated booth or an arcade machine? What difference does it make? If a law assists parents (tax payers) and doesn't really do fark all that affects you, why should you care? The video games creator isn't impacted. The First Amendment right isn't a right to have kids view your materiel without parent's consent.
mrshowrules: Hey, let's have stripper day at the park while we are at it. Obviously, a parent needs some controls/mechanisms to protect what there child is exposed to outside of their home. You have to draw the line somewhere. Requiring stores to conceal fashion magazines versus not allowing billboards of Sasha Grey getting a double-penetration on the side of the high way.So where do you draw the line. Society has already determined (more or less) what constitutes mature content which a parent should be able to decide if they want their kid to see or not. Porn or a movie like Saw for instance won't permit a child under-aged to see it without parental consent.Basically a law (I suggest is reasonable) seems to be an extension of that principle. If a child can't (without a parent) walk into a movie theater in a mall and watch this, they shouldn't be able to walk into a video game store or arcade without a parent and watch/play this. Why is that complicated or unreasonable?
Could we print out graphs like this, roll them up and smack politicians on the nose when they open their mouths about violent video games?
Farce-Side: Why are you guys so against banning violent video games? I mean, sure, it's not an end-all solution to violence but it's a start. Look at it this way: If banning violent video games saves just one child's life, why would you not want to do that? Why would you not make that sacrifice to ensure that child would live? If you can't get over your own selfish desires to own useless video games that do nothing but promote violent behavior in order to protect our children, then you are part of the problem. You have no right to own or play violent video games.
Gergesa: I hear in Canada Mortal Kombat was outlawed because so many people were allying themselves with Elder Gods and ripping people's heads off.
dwade: To paraphrase George Carlin "they want to ban fake guns and keep the farking real ones."
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 27 2017 19:01:29
Runtime: 0.226 sec (225 ms)