Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games 421
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.'"
face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
Re:face. palm. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
The anti-gunners honed this strategy years ago. Remember how stupid it looks when your elected officials try to use it elsewhere/everywhere.
2nd warning label following the initial (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the roadrunner and coyote cartoons of even the 70's were censored from what I remember in the late 60's. I was watching them with my kids in the early 80's (I'm almost 52) and surprised when some of the scenes I remember were trimmed out.
[John]
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:2nd warning label following the initial (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The APA (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.
I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html [apa.org]
I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.
You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"
The APA says:
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"
The APA says:
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"
The APA says:
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?
I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:
1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).
2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.
3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players
Examining PBS's counter to psychological studies (Score:3, Informative)
To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html [pbs.org]
And PBS claims:
2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.
(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodolog
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that your child should play GTA. In my initial post, I was clear to state a young enough child will simply imitate what is done on the video game. What I am saying is that in my view (as a student in progress to becoming a scientist), the results are inconclusive as to whether or not aggressive behavior can stem from violent video games. I have yet to see a decent controlled experiment that has lasted up to a year (though in my opinion it should last decades to be 100% conclusive) that has man
Warning Labels for Congressmen (Score:5, Funny)
Labels could include:
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:Warning: Power Corrupts (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Warning - banging hookers in GTA may impair your ability to bang hookers in real life.
Re:Warning: Power Corrupts (Score:4, Insightful)
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
- Jimi Hendrix
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Power corrupts
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Petty power corrupts all out of proportion to the real amount of power.
Politicians are endowed with a special mix of petty and absolute power such that they are all 100% corrupt while not being absolutely powerful.
Re:Warning Labels for Congressmen (Score:5, Funny)
I'd already be satisfied with "Warning: Subjects in politicians speech can appear better than they are".
Uhh... I smell an idea for a political satire webpage. Imagine this, politician speeches with appropriate warning labels.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, lovely. You've invented loliticians. As though there weren't enough things on the Internet with captions glued to them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about: "The neutrality of this politician is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." or: "This political speech does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this political speech by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
xkcd had it right: Wikipedian Protester [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:face. palm. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Funny)
That later go on to become officials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Label the kids? (Score:5, Interesting)
While there are many things I'd hold a parent responsible for, unfortunately we haven't identified the parenting method that leads to school shootings.
Until we have done so and teach the avoidance measures necessary, I find it premature to hold parents responsible when a child goes off the deep end that far.
Much like straight suicide, often these kids are already receiving professional help; but again sometimes like suicide there's no obvious sign they're going to commit a spree killing before they do so and the 20/20 hindsight investigation happens.
For example, I've long had an arsenal 'under my bed', but despite my profession I've never shot anybody. Yet on the news, obtaining of arms is considered one of the signs. The possession was also considered a risk factor for suicide in one of the anti-suicide classes I attended. My response was 'A gun is a vector, a tool, of suicide, not a risk. You might as well check to see if somebody owns rope, a knife, or has sleeping pills.
I blame the rise of spree killings on a number of factors - first is that we've gone from local reporting to national, even world reporting. How many incidents would have been reported in the 1950s? Consider that school shootings are not even an annual event, and back then we had half the population. Second would be opportunity. It was much rarer to have access to a completely disarmed target area back then. For example, a school shooting DID occur - in 1956, by Charles Whitman [wikipedia.org]. He killed 14, wounded 32. He faced suppressive fire from civilians, forcing him to keep his head down, limiting his opportunities to kill more. How much worse could he have been if he'd attempted that at Virginia Tech, in the year 2007? After all, Whitman was a trained marine. Third would be the possible link to prescribed anti-depressants. Whitman had some sort of brain tumor.
Finally, I'll end with the note that despite our violent movies and violent video games, that most violent offenders don't play video games, and the rate of violent crime in minors has been dropping.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's easy, it'll go back to books.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Well he is the ScrewMaster ...
Re: (Score:2)
"and other media" (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Discussing such things is almost as taboo as talking about how the 9/11 terrorists weren't "cowards" as Bush suggests.
Its quite obvious that social dynamics at school were much more to blame for the various school shootings than video gaming. However, as a wise man once said, the winners write the history books and in this case, the shooters are dead, and the survivors get to be ignorant of the reasons for the violence (often by choice).
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why doesn't anyone say it? It is blatantly obvious. And even if correlation != causation, it would at the very least put those that claim video games are somehow linked to the shootings into the position that they have to explain how linking games to the shooting is valid while linking school problems to them is not. All kids on a killing spree had violent games on their PCs? If this is a valid reason to blame video games, then blaming schools is at least as valid because all killing sprees happened at a school.
You cannot tell with any reasonable proof that they played some game before they went on their killing spree. But it's undenyable where they did it. Now, what is possibly stronger connected to it than the place where it is done? Is it simply rampage? Then why this invariable choice of target? What could be their goal? Fame? Hell, there's a LOT more surveillance cameras in other public places that contain a lot of potential random targets. A mall. A bank. A bus station. A sports arena.
It's also not a school. In every case that I know of, it was their school, the school that they went to or were expelled of. Anyone still wants to tell me this is by no means any indicator that this target was chosen deliberately?
I don't give a flying fuck about taboo, it's high time to call a spade a spade. Quit looking for a scapegoat and start working on the problem, or we get more rampages, more killings, more dead kids.
And while I hate playing that card: That next kid killed could be yours. Think about that.
I know it's not "comfortable" to think that maybe it's not "someone else" that we can shift the blame to but that we might have to look at ourselves for the problem, and thus the solution. Such a position isn't really endearing a politician to potential voters. It's much more pleasant to hear that he found a scapegoat and he's now going to do some "serious business" and "do something" for your kids.
But that's dangerous, people. Because it does not protect our kids. Essentially, it does, at best, nothing. At worst these games may be an outlet for potential gunmen that keeps them from snapping and going on a rampage. I'm not saying it is so, I say it may be so, I don't know. I only know one thing for sure: Using games as a scapegoat is not going to protect our kids. It may give us that fuzzy warm feeling we're doing something. But we're not. The problem remains, unaddressed and unsolved.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
"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)
"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)
Oblig. XKCD (Score:3, Funny)
Wikipedian Protester [xkcd.com].
Except this is exactly wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Kids were violent before they played the game (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
psychologist > politician
Both may make statements for political reasons, but the former has qualifications, while the latter has none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I e-mailed that link to my state's senators with my opposition
Sure (Score:2)
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)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
In other health news (Score:3, Funny)
Kinda makes me wonder (Score:2)
Kinda makes me wonder how bullshit the warnings on cigarettes are.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Free Stickers On Demand! (Score:2)
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.
dear parents (Score:2)
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)
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.
Dear philspear (Score:2)
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.
Good idea if used for other things unpleasant (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Just as long as in return.. (Score:2)
this is stupid (Score:2)
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."
Joe's brother (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Joe's brother (Score:5, Funny)
Congressman Joe Baca's brother Chew [google.se] is known to be quite agressive.
Yeah ... and when he loses a video game he pulls his opponents arms off.
Warning? (Score:5, Funny)
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
How about a few more warning labels? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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."
WARNING[citation needed] (Score:2)
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
Please label everything in existence (Score:2)
Baka = stupid (Score:4, Funny)
How fitting that his name means "stupid" in Japanese...
If this succeeds... (Score:5, Funny)
Appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
The word "Baka" (romanization) in Japanese means "Idiot".
And other violent media (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not tha weird... For CA (Score:2, Informative)
There should be warning labels! (Score:2)
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.
As a huge democrat I'm ashamed (Score:2)
video game violence (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's a better idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Other mandatory warning lables (Score:4, Funny)
"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?
It never occurs to these idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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.
Oops! (Score:3, Funny)
Correlation does not mean causation. I guess I've been playing too many video games