Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games 421

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the nanny-state dept.
An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games

Comments Filter:
  • face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macsox (236590) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:33PM (#26424689) Journal

    Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.

    • by slugtastic (1437569) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:36PM (#26424721)

      Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect.

      But did you really think about that? Sorry, I'm not convinced.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151)

      The anti-gunners honed this strategy years ago. Remember how stupid it looks when your elected officials try to use it elsewhere/everywhere.

      • by Hojima (1228978) on Monday January 12, 2009 @09:24PM (#26426087)

        Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.

        • by torkus (1133985) on Monday January 12, 2009 @11:46PM (#26427533)

          The real irony is that the violent cartoons our parents (read the 40-60 year old generation that are our world's decision makers today) watched as kids didn't seem to corrupt them too badly. They turned out 'all right' by their own standards apparently. Heck, I'm still quite a few years from 40 and still played cops and robbers, watched "violent" roadrunner cartoons, and pretended to "shoot" people with my finger in elementary school. All things that supposedly that are "harmful" yet i'm a productive member of society, don't do drugs, have a steady job, good education...and so on.

          Or maybe they're turning all the kids today into pussies.

        • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday January 12, 2009 @11:51PM (#26427567) Homepage

          You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, they will most likely find an enriching career within the U.S. senate

          There, fixed it for you.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Thanshin (1188877)

          Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.

          That would be a pretty huge label. We could sell games in old LP disc boxes, I guess.

        • by Loundry (4143) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @09:21AM (#26431561) Journal

          Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation.

          You're obviously biased one way, and that's fine. Furthermore, it may be confusing cause and effect, something people haven't don't seem to have put much thought into. I have no doubt that psychopaths will enjoy violent video games.

          That said, can you cite the studies you reference? I'm very curious.

    • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:59PM (#26425043) Homepage Journal
      I want warning labels for politicians.

      Labels could include:

      1. "Remember - I lied to you the last time you voted for me."
      2. "Warning: Politicians serve their biggest contributors first."
      3. "Politicians - their #1 priority is sincerity - once they can fake that ..."
      4. "#1 sign that a politician is lying - their lips are moving."
      5. "Warning: If you think your choices suck, then it is YOUR responsibility to do something about it."
      6. How does a religious leader say "Fuck you"? - "God bless you!" How does a politician say "Fuck you"? "My fellow Americans ..."

      And for the bonus round:

      Q: What do you call 1,000 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?
      A: Not enough sand.

    • Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:28PM (#26425441)

      I say let them do it.

      They did it with music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory) and the sales sky rocketed.

      "This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence"

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by joocemann (1273720)

      Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.

      I don't really care how they make the package look so long as they still let me buy it. Thats my concern. I don't think its quite a slippery-slope argument to say that this type of action may lead to bans or restrictions in the future. And that would suck... I like my freedom.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gfxguy (98788)

        The first step to get people to agree to something they might not otherwise have agreed to (like banning video games) is getting them in the right mindset. As a good example, you'd never have gotten away with outright banning of cigarette smoking in private establishments 20 years ago, and we're at the point now where there are people who would ban smoking entirely, even in private residences and private automobiles. I had a ridiculous argument with someone that argued the government ought to be able to b

        • Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted AT slashdot DOT org> on Monday January 12, 2009 @09:54PM (#26426421)

          The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.

          I say there's no right more fundamental, that the right to do with your own body as you please. But the second most important rule of a society is, to do no harm to others. And that's exactly what making tobacco so addictive, while keeping quiet is. It's tricking you into dependence on their product. So we should forbid that exact behavior. And punish the one who decided it in exactly one of two ways (in that order): A) Expel them, and disallow them any direct or indirect relationship to this country, while explaining very clearly what is non-acceptable behavior in this society. That way he has to deliberately continue despite knowing that we don't want it, to reach... B) If that does not help: Get your agents to shoot them.

          Plain, simple, fair.

          Unfortunately the government, and companies like that, are largely the same thing nowadays. So the government are the people that should be punished by (A), or (B) if really necessary.

      • Re:face. palm. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tibman (623933) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @01:07AM (#26428129) Homepage

        Something else to point out is this type of warning label wouldn't affect online sales. Physical retail stores will start looking like death dealers though. Parents will see the labels as proof that it causes violence and warm up parents to idea that banning games is good.

    • Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Martin Blank (154261) on Monday January 12, 2009 @09:26PM (#26426113) Journal

      Joe Baca is generally a problem. He was influential in getting new regulations passed to make it easier for lower-income families to get loans, and now his district is one of the highest, if not the highest, foreclosure rates in the nation. He has steered PAC money to his sons' election attempts when the use of that money explicitly conflicted with the guidelines for their use. His election to head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was a public one when the Caucus is supposed to hold private votes. When Rep. Loretta Sanchez -- also a Democrat, Hispanic, and from the same state -- pointed this out and called for a new, secret ballot, he called her a whore.

      Even for a Washington politician, Baca is quite capable of some low deeds.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      The median IQ is 100. There are over 400 congressmen, is it any wonder that half of them are dumb as boxes of rocks?

      Note this dimwit merely wants warnings. Its legislation hasn't been passed, and I doubt it will, considering that no study has ever showed what this idiot congressman thinks.

      Do we have the new Jack Thompson here? people in California, please get rid of this retard next election!

  • Label the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by retech (1228598) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:36PM (#26424715)
    Warning: Poor parenting leads to disaffected members of society.
    • by Mystery00 (1100379) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:38PM (#26424751)

      That later go on to become officials.

    • Warning: people in office dumber than they appear.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wahsapa (767922)
      or better when you pop out of the womb "WARNING This life may witness violence"
    • Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Monday January 12, 2009 @09:15PM (#26425969)

      Dead on. Mod that up, it sums up pretty much the whole problem we have at hand.

      Is it only me, or is pretty much the only entity who could be held responsible for kids turning out badly are by default above any doubt and out of obligation? Maybe it's time to start spinning ourselves. We need a nice catch phrase. How about "What happened to parenting?"?

      Why isn't anyone even considering the possibility? Why did nobody ever look at the parents of kids going completely insane and blowing their brains out (and/or some other brains)? Is there some unwritten law that you must not blame parents for bad parenting when their kids turn out antisocial?

      Why, I ask?

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zwekiel (1445761) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:36PM (#26424723)
    That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anthony_Cargile (1336739) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:41PM (#26424799) Homepage
      Playstation Home has worse content/comments (thanks to the human players) then some GTA stories. Yeah, the ESRB can say "online experience may change", but case in point - its not rated T, yet contains bad content. Just proof that the labels, censorship, and this BS bill really can't stop every little thing kids get exposed to, but come on - can you really expect kids to not be drawn to something so censored from their lives? Hell I know I did everything I could to find a playboy back in the day...
    • It's more insidious then that.

      Once the premise has been accepted through actions like this, the lawsuits will start flying to cash in on our âoejackpot justiceâ system. What do you bet heâ(TM)s a former attorney helping his buddies out through this intellectual Trojan horse?

    • "and other media" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by svnt (697929)

      http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviolence.pdf

      I especially like the part where R-rated movies were included in the bill based on the conclusions of similar dubious studies. Oh, wait, they weren't. Wonder why that is?

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by bobdehnhardt (18286) on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:02PM (#26425081)

      I think that's the crux of the matter. The comparison the cigarette labels is misleading. In that case, there has been an incontrovertible link between smoking and various diseases - even the tobacco industry now admits this. The link between violent video games and violent behavior is far more tenuous, supported somewhat by some anecdotal evidence, and strongly disputed by many behavioral scientists. I've got no problem with the label per se, IF it's accurate.

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:25PM (#26425397)

        It's also not as if putting labels on cigarette packets saying "smoking this is going to harm your health" encourages people to start smoking. Kids, on the other hand, are pretty much guaranteed to want products with "no, kids, it's not for you" on the label a lot more than if the label were blank. The "Parental advisory: explicit lyrics" sticker on UK CDs is pretty much a standard marketing tool for the record labels, and has been since about three seconds after some fool invented it.

    • by Chabo (880571)
      I prefer Yahtzee's wording:

      Controversy and the games industry go hand-in hand like Ico and Yorda, if you'll forgive the incredibly nerdy analogy. And like Yorda, the controversy tends to stay focused for an average of about eight nanoseconds before getting bored and drifting off to do something else. But when it does get focused it can get very exasperating, such as when youthful paragons of self-control are called nasty names and decide that murder would be the wittiest comeback, and then is found to have stood next to a videogame sometime in the past. Then the media generally start drooling the usual uninformed questions as to whether wholesome, boyish pretend violence has any correlation with the real world. Short answer: No. Long answer: No, and go fuck yourselves, you ignorant, scaremongering cockbags. [Text in review: No, and I consider your argument misinformed.]

      Source [escapistmagazine.com] -- Transcription [wikiquote.org]

  • No (Score:5, Informative)

    by fiercedeity (1429639) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:36PM (#26424727)
    "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.
    • Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:43PM (#26424841)

      "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.

      There have been some studies that have found linkages (the warning doesn't claim causality, it merely implies it), and others that haven't.

      An even bigger problem is that a game can be rated T or higher (even as high as AO) without any violent content, so even assuming that a direct, substantial causal linkage was established between violent video games and aggressive behavior, the proposal -- to require the warning on all T or higher rated games -- would still be nonsense.

    • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Corpuscavernosa (996139) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:44PM (#26424849)
      "WARNING: Excessive exposure to Congress and other politicians has been linked to all types of ill shit, including but not limited to: sexual harassment, infidelity, wanton abuse of taxpayers' money, and just being an all-around douche."
    • by KiwiRed (598427)
      Sure it has. By the media who want to warn you about it.
    • Re:No (Score:5, Funny)

      by philspear (1142299) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:49PM (#26424935)

      "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.

      Well, we'll just have to put a disclaimer on the disclaimer

      "Warning: the above warning is somewhere between misleading and complete bullshit."

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by joocemann (1273720)

      "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior"

      Except that it hasn't been.

      Your post including the words 'violent media' reminds me that if they will go this far, they ought remember to make all the major news organizations do it as well. Not that there aren't stories otherwise, but pretty much all I (and most people) see on the news is violence.

  • Citation needed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WCguru42 (1268530) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:36PM (#26424729)
    I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.
  • by DocJohn (81319) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:37PM (#26424735) Homepage

    Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:

    http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/17/the-link-between-video-games-and-violence/ [psychcentral.com]

    I'm all for research supporting reasoned legislation, but in this case, it is ignorance and misconceptions supporting "feel good" government nannies.

    --
    Yes, the answer is no.

    • Thanks for the link. From your article:

      Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don't cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.

      That's from a psychologist. Why can't the lawmakers figure it out?

      • I find it interesting that they are willing to make This is offtopic, but it's interesting that they're willing to go into the which-caused-which with this, but not with things like depression, tempers, etc. (e.g., chemical imbalance came first or something else?)

        More on topic, it's odd that we randomly believe a psychologist, where's the [citation needed] sign :) They didn't answer the question what cuased anger/aggression, all they did was say "It's not video games." I'd also like to mention that not

        • psychologist > politician

          Both may make statements for political reasons, but the former has qualifications, while the latter has none.

    • Indeed. Even if there was some kind of correlation, I would be more inclined to believe that already aggressive kids were drawn to violent video games, not that the games bread aggressive kids. Although I do worry about the realism in a lot of games these days... killing very realistic people in a game would have a much different effect on a kid than jumping on a mushroom, but I guess we're getting into parental guidance there.
    • by aztektum (170569)

      Thanks, I e-mailed that link to my state's senators with my opposition

  • by acehole (174372)

    You can have a warning on video games but as a trade off all political sites and offices must have a huge sign erected out front with "WARNING: Dangerous amounts of stupid inside."

  • Yeah? Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremi (14640) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:38PM (#26424759) Homepage

    I'm lobbying to get a mandatory message printed on all cell phones, that reads: "WARNING: cell phone usage has been linked to the collapse of honeybee populations".

    • Could you make it so it displays for a full two minutes on my cell phone display, locking out all other functions, every time I turn it on? That would be awesome!

      Maybe that's what they can do with this game warning, every time you start the game you're forced to watch the publisher logo, the developer logo, the ATI/nVidia logo, the design studio logo, two previews for titles "coming soon!" and then this warning! It would be just like going to the movies!

    • At the very least, you should get the warning they're talking about here applied to cell phones

      "warning: talking on the phone about inane stuff no one wants to hear about while in a resturaunt, bus, train, airplane on the ground, elevator, or any public place will soon be linked to violence against you."

  • by Killer Orca (1373645) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:38PM (#26424763)
    The American Medical Association urged the FDA to tattoo a warning label on the forehead of all elected federal officials that states 'Listening to this individuals' logic has been linked to violent and aggressive behavior towards others.'
  • Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.

    • Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.

      Interesting that (in Canada) the government enforces cigarette companies to have pictures of diseased lungs, etc on their packaging, and yet the alcohol companies are not required to have pictures of diseased livers; which demonstrates the fact that these propaganda campaigns are politically biased.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Kreigaffe (765218)

        Drop the diseased liver. If you want to discourage drinking (and you shouldn't; nor smoking. people know they're bad, and these warnings and gross pictures are nothing but a waste of time) -- put pictures of the direct result of drinking on the bottle.

        that's right.

        fat chicks. in YOUR bed.

        that'll stop ya.

    • Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.

      But at least those warnings have scientific proof behind them, even if they did get there by some corrupt political agenda. There's no scientific basis behind this at all.

      • by QuantumG (50515) *

        Says who? I don't know about the warning labels on cigarettes in your country, but here, in Australia, we have warnings that link smoking to gangrene and blindness. I'd say almost 80% of everyone I know smokes or quit smoking in the last 10 years. None of them have ever had anything remotely exotic as gangrene and none of them have gone blind. It's just fucking absurd to demand warnings for things that are so unlikely. Sure, maybe it's possible but so is a whole lot of other statistically irrelevant bu

  • Warning labels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quacking duck (607555) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:40PM (#26424775)

    WARNING: Excessive exposure to warning labels and messages may make you less likely to pay attention to them, and prevent use of brain from exercising common sense and personal responsibility.

  • **/sarcasm
    I say they should just go for it. Everybody knows the best way to keep young people away from something is to have a label on it telling them it's risky or otherwise uncouth. It worked soooo well for the music industry in the 80's. Totally showed those hair-metal bands who was boss.
  • It isn't the government's job to raise your kids for you, nor is it their job to babysit them later in life. Furthermore, it would be grossly inaccurate to say that higher exposure to violent games leads to or somehow causes violent behavior.
    The government needs to go back to preventing one individual from harming another individual rather than being the morality/hand-holding police.

    • Dear wizardforce (Score:3, Insightful)

      by philspear (1142299)

      Parents by and large realize the government is not going to raise their children. They would like you to stop blaming the entire parent population for the political aspirations of a small minority of self-righteous idiots.

      • I don't blame all parents, I blame the ones who voted for and continue to support this "small minority" that keeps attempting to shove its values down everyone else's throat. It's to the point where those parents are no longer bearing any responsibility for the raising of their children and attempt to shift responsibility to others; politicians take advantage of this. "See look at me I'm protecting the childrrrren..." and everyone else has to deal with that nonsense.

  • by unlametheweak (1102159) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:41PM (#26424801)

    If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.

  • as we can affix a sticker to said State Representative's head that says "WARNING:Excessive exposure to politics has been linked to corruption and susceptibility to Moral Panics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic/ [wikipedia.org]
  • This is like those cans of oxygen (for welding) my friend found at Home Depot that read WARNING: This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California.

    How about this: We affix a label to all political offices that say "WARNING: There is no proven link between intelligence and holding public office. Political Science is really only a theory and should be judged critically and with consideration to other theories."

  • by I cant believe its n (1103137) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:43PM (#26424837) Journal
    Congressman Joe Baca's brother Chew [google.se] is known to be quite agressive.
  • Warning? (Score:5, Funny)

    by duguk (589689) <dug@frag.STRAWco.uk minus berry> on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:46PM (#26424887) Homepage Journal

    WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior

    Citation needed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by VisceralLogic (911294)
      And here I thought the warning was going to be that excessive exposure to violent video games would make you morbidly obese...
  • Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by porkface (562081) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:48PM (#26424911) Journal

    Let California stack up a bunch of feel-good legislation like this, so the rest of us can point to them as an example of a failed nanny state.

    Anyone suggesting this in the face of a $44 billion budget deficit should be run out of town.

  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:49PM (#26424921) Homepage

    "Joining the military may be hazardous to your health."

    "Progress is the opposite of Congress."

    "Paying your taxes subsidizes stupidity."

    "Voting is an endorsement of the status quo."

  • What a wonderful idea you have there, Congressman! Let's have the warning read:

    "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."[citation needed]

    So... planning on citing a source on the warning label, or are you just going to blatantly declare that a massive medical or psychological study, conducted by a prestigious, well-known scientific organization, reached the peer-accepted consensus that "Excessive exposure to violent video games and ot

  • Sure, put warning on whatever you want. The people who smoke ignore those warnings. The people who play video games continue to do so. And everybody's happy in the end. Put a warning on me: Too Sexy. Ladies watch out! (Where's that come from?!)
  • by jx100 (453615) on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:58PM (#26425041)

    How fitting that his name means "stupid" in Japanese...

  • by MiKM (752717) on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:00PM (#26425061)
    If Congress passes this, I am buying a roll of stickers saying "[citation needed]" and visiting local video game stores.
  • Appropriate (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dice (109560) on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:04PM (#26425119)

    Joe Baca

    The word "Baka" (romanization) in Japanese means "Idiot".

  • by Scorchio (177053) on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:06PM (#26425151)

    ...and other violent media...

    Yep, so you go ahead and try to get the same message printed on all movies, too, and we'll see just how long you're representing California.

  • by Parris (1340575)
    This isn't really that weird for CA, they put warning labels on everything. You can find a "Warning [whatever we're labeling] is known to the state of California to cause [some really random condition]." Parking lots, food at the grocery store, beach water, you name it, CA slaps a warning label on it.
  • And they should read:
    Warning: Playing this game may turn you into a fat, socially introverted nerd. Side-effects may include cheeto-fingers, Mt Dew-insomnia, and acne from lack of bathing. Pro-longed exposure may result in heart disease or starvation from being too lazy to make a sandwich.

    I've seen a few WoW players with the early warning signs and let me tell you, it's not pretty. You're much better off binging on cigarettes and alchohol; at least then you'll be cool.
  • I have been a huge Dem since I was able to vote. Yes I honostly belive that they are the pro-speech party. However I am ashamed that my party seems to be in many ways leading the anti-videogame charge. From the Gore's to Mrs. Clinton somehow many democrats think that they need to regulate games. This is wrong and shamefull. I am somewhat comforted that good 'ol Jack is a raving rightwinger, but it doesn't excuse the party of change. Come on dems, do the right thing!
  • video game violence (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KrayzieKyd (906704)
    I just wrote an exhaustive essay on the so-called effects of video game violence. I'm really looking forward to any feedback you may have about it. For the record, I'm on the side of video games. http://www.digital-us.org/video-games/2008/11/27/violent-video-games.html [digital-us.org]
  • by Notabadguy (961343)
    I'd like to see a warning label affixed to every ballot that says: "WARNING: Electing politicians has been linked to recession, higher taxes, and war."
  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Monday January 12, 2009 @08:47PM (#26425619)
    "WARNING: Excessive exposure to news coverage of the war in Iraq may lead to aggressive behavior!"

    "WARNING: Excessive exposure to politician's speeches may lead to nausea and vomiting!"

    And of course the ever popular "WARNING: Excessive exposure to XXX DVD's may cause carpal tunnel and other Repetitive Stress Injuries!"

    A multitude of studies have linked cigarettes and lung cancer -- how many valid scientific studies have proven a causal relationship between video games and violence?

  • by macraig (621737) <[mark.a.craig] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday January 12, 2009 @09:24PM (#26426075)

    ... that the relationship might be reversed, and that it's developmentally aggressive tendencies that DRAW PEOPLE TOWARD the violent games in the first place? The games aren't CAUSING the aggressiveness, they're a REFLECTION of it.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...