This Just In--Of Drained Resevoirs

[Schmoe]

The parent should not allow the child to purchase the game and decide how to prevent access to the game. If the child purchases the game it is the parents fault.

I'm guessing that you're not a parent, or at least not a parent of teenagers.

[BoiseBYU]

JV--I do not think this is a "victimless" crime. Some advocate that the State ought not to ban pornography because there is no victim. Yet there is academic literature that exposure of such does have effects on the viewer that causes them to view sexual assault less seriously. Those views can result in harm to society. Similarly having children participate in grossly violent videogames can have a like negative impact that will have negative repercussions on society and in fact harm us. So parents ought to be doing the right thing, but there are a boatload of parents who are not doing right. That means we can either sit on our hands and pontificate that parents should do better while more and more children are being desensitized to violence and sexual assault by playing these games with the attendant harm that will flow to society. Or we can as a society lay down the marker that there are some things that a child should not participate in

[jvquarterback]

Your argument is individuals are harmed by playing these games. I don't disagree, but the person producing or selling the game is not harming anyone. The person purchasing and playing the game is injuring their own person. Anyone arguing force should be used to prevent agency that results in injury to no one else is barking up the wrong tree.

Wrong. When the individual is harmed, society is harmed. As a society, we all enter into a compact, and when we allow people to do harmful things to themselves, you think it has no reaching effects on society in terms of actual cost? That is stupid. If you need further proof, look at the obesity epidemic. You telling me that we need to allow everyone to eat themselves into oblivion "because it harms no one else" and then just sit back and bask in their individual freedom as our medical and health related costs continue to rise as a result of this "freedom"? Sorry--not buying it.

People have duties to society and if they decide to ignore those, then society has a right to basically compel them to act responsibly.

I'll let boisebyu tell me himself if I've summarized his argument correctly. But you can take your harming or duty to society bunk and compel someone else.

How is this possible? I owe God everything and have every duty to obey, yet he has never nor will ever compel me in any way. But I have absolutely no duty to you yet you have dreamed up some right to compel me in all things.

No you sure aren't buying anything, you'd rather force me to buy your load of tripe.

Quit trying to pawn off your or anyone else's shortcomings on society. There is a reason it is called personal responsibility and not societal responsibility. My kids aren't fat or skinny or disillusioned about killing others in LA or Iraq because of anyone but me and their own self once they are accountable.

[jvquarterback]

JV--I do not think this is a "victimless" crime. Some advocate that the State ought not to ban pornography because there is no victim. Yet there is academic literature that exposure of such does have effects on the viewer that causes them to view sexual assault less seriously. Those views can result in harm to society. Similarly having children participate in grossly violent videogames can have a like negative impact that will have negative repercussions on society and in fact harm us. So parents ought to be doing the right thing, but there are a boatload of parents who are not doing right. That means we can either sit on our hands and pontificate that parents should do better while more and more children are being desensitized to violence and sexual assault by playing these games with the attendant harm that will flow to society. Or we can as a society lay down the marker that there are some things that a child should not participate in

Well then stand by your guns and advocate the children should be taken from their parents and raised by this society you speak of.

I would be more compelled by saying the children playing the vids are harmed, but you and Lawboy have created some abstraction called society and state that it is harmed. Point to individuals who have been harmed and use the law to restore those injured as best you can.

[Mars]

I declare this thread Off-Topic/Political!

[snoscythe]

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

[SpiffCoug]

The Lord compels people all the time. Go read Alma 32 where the people were compelled to be humble.

[jvquarterback]

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

Government exists to secure the rights of individuals. Not some nebulous society that Lawboy dreams up. Individuals cannot give to government powers they do not have as individuals.

So do you have the right as an individual to use force to prohibit a child from playing a video game? If not you have no right to delegate such a right to any level of government.

I know you guys get upset when I refer to religious leaders in these matters but you might want to check this out from Ezra Taft Benson (BTW I only found it after Lawboy asked me if I was a member of the John Birch Society so thanks for that.)

[snoscythe]

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

Government exists to secure the rights of individuals. Not some nebulous society that Lawboy dreams up. Individuals cannot give to government powers they do not have as individuals.

So do you have the right as an individual to use force to prohibit a child from playing a video game? If not you have no right to delegate such a right to any level of government.

I know you guys get upset when I refer to religious leaders in these matters but you might want to check this out from Ezra Taft Benson (BTW I only found it after Lawboy asked me if I was a member of the John Birch Society so thanks for that.)

Maybe you should reread D&C 143, especially verse 1: "We believe governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

[BoiseBYU]

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

Government exists to secure the rights of individuals. Not some nebulous society that Lawboy dreams up. Individuals cannot give to government powers they do not have as individuals.

So do you have the right as an individual to use force to prohibit a child from playing a video game? If not you have no right to delegate such a right to any level of government.

I know you guys get upset when I refer to religious leaders in these matters but you might want to check this out from Ezra Taft Benson (BTW I only found it after Lawboy asked me if I was a member of the John Birch Society so thanks for that.)

I'm no expert, but I don't think I personally have a legal "right" to stop someone from getting drunk and getting into his car and driving off. I am sure glad there are laws that allow the govt to stop and arrest such a person. I may not have a legal "right" to stop someone from downloading and observing violent child pornography. I am sure glad there are laws to allow the govt to stop and arrest such persons. In both instances, in my judgment, such laws protect society and its members.