New Zealand warns parents about illegally buying GTA IV

No, you're still crazy.

Even in this - your "worst case scenario" - I'm still free to walk into a store and buy Grand Theft Auto IV in New Zealand - just like I always said I could.

The only way my "freedoms are being violated" is that I'm not able to buy the game if I tell the salesperson I'm buying it for my toddler. I'd probably find it difficult to buy cigarettes if I said the same thing, funnily enough.

If you're going to use the argument that there's no evidence that violent video games are bad for children, then you also have to concede that there's no evidence that this law has ever, or will ever be, enforced.

And before you come back with "Oh, but it's still a law, even if it's not enforced," you should try taking a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica to Texas - the entire set is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

To summarise:

Can you buy GTAIV in the US? Yep.
Can you buy GTAIV in Europe? Yep.
Can you buy GTAIV in Australia? Yep.
Should kids be playing this game? Nope.

You may disagree with the means, but the ends are the same.

I know it might fly in the face of America's "Land of the Free!" policy, but you know what? We're not America. It's a difficult concept, I know, but there ARE other countries out there. And we don't all do things the "right," American way.

You may not agree with the way other countries do things, but unfortunately (or rather, fortunately), that's not for you to decide.

--No, you're still crazy.--

Let me get this straight. I'm crazy because something I conjectured in the previous thread is actually true--understood. Also, please dispense with the ad-hominem attacks.

What country are you from? I'm just curious seeing that this might not just be a clash of ideas, but a clash of cultures as well.

Now, let's get to the strawmen:

--The only way my "freedoms are being violated" is that I'm not able to buy the game if I tell the salesperson I'm buying it for my toddler. I'd probably find it difficult to buy cigarettes if I said the same thing, funnily enough.--

Strawman number 1. You're trying to weaken my argument by comparing videogames to cigarettes. You're also trying to insinuate the following without an actual rebuttal: cigarettes = bad for children, so mature games = bad for children. The latter’s causality has not been proven. There are studies that prove cigarettes are unhealthy. The same is not true for videogames. There was a case/situation in the US where a person of the correct age was not able to purchase an M rated game simply because the clerk "believed" that the person was purchasing the game for the younger person that was with him.

Link: Best Buy Forbids You From Buying Assassin's Creed, Insists You're Buying It For A Minor
http://consumerist.com/344525/best-buy-forbids-you-from-buying-assassins-creed-insists-youre-buying-it-for-a-minor


--If you're going to use the argument that there's no evidence that violent video games are bad for children, then you also have to concede that there's no evidence that this law has ever, or will ever be, enforced.--

Strawman number 2. You concede, as I have not conceded anything as I have posted links to studies proving the following assertion, that there is no evidence that violent video games are bad for children. You then try to change the subject, and persuade persons you are correct without actually rebutting my violent videogames studies, by saying the law has never and will never be enforced. These two things are mutually exclusive. I don't have to, and will not concede the latter.


--And before you come back with "Oh, but it's still a law, even if it's not enforced," you should try taking a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica to Texas - the entire set is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home.--

Strawman number 3. You try to block me before I can make an argument against your statement by stating that any argument I make will be invalid. Also, this law has nothing to do with minors, fines, or jail time, hence the comparison is invalid. If you can provide a detailed link to the law then I'll consider changing my argument. If you were trying to say that this is a bad law like the New Zealand law, then I would agree with you. Any law on the books can be enforced at the will of the state - this is a fact and will not change unless the law is changed or discarded.

Link:http://www.netsafe.org.nz/keeping_safe.php?pageID=170§ionID=information&menuID=170

It seems like the law has been used mostly for child pornography, but there is an ambiguous definition of “other objectionable material” that is undefined and can be activated at their whim.


--I know it might fly in the face of America's "Land of the Free!" policy, but you know what? We're not America. It's a difficult concept, I know, but there ARE other countries out there. And we don't all do things the "right," American way.

You may not agree with the way other countries do things, but unfortunately (or rather, fortunately), that's not for you to decide.--

Strawman number 4. You are trying to insinuate that I am intolerant of other cultures because I'm American and I don't agree with their laws. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If I think a country's laws are hostile towards its citizens, yes I will speak on it. I will also not go to that country. That does not mean that I am intolerant of other peoples' rights to govern themselves. Plus, I never said America does everything right, I specifically stated some base information on rights, the role of government, and law.

The last sentence is true. It's up to that country's people to decide, and hopefully, for them, they choose wisely.


--To summarise:

Can you buy GTAIV in the US? Yep.
Can you buy GTAIV in Europe? Yep.
Can you buy GTAIV in Australia? Yep.
Should kids be playing this game? Nope.

You may disagree with the means, but the ends are the same.--

I'll reiterate the final decision lies with parent. Being one person, you only have control over what you allow your child to interact with. If you don't want your child to play mature games, I'm fine with that. Just don't try to impose your will on others through state coercion i.e. law.

I've looked up this law. Unfortunately, it applies to all media, and the penalties are pretty steep. In Virginia, US, where I live, we have what's called Project Exile. An ex-con caught with a gun can receive 5-15 years in prison: 5 for possession, and 10-15 for committing a crime with a gun. The punishment for this New Zealand law is nearly equal to Project Exile-where you're and ex-con and have an actual gun:

Link: http://www.censorship.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Amendment-Act-2005?OpenDocument

5 years in jail for possession (non ex-con)
10 years in jail for distribution (store clerk/parent/non ex-con)

I would think any logically thinking person would think that this was outrageous, excluding child porn.

The end justifies the means talk is what a lot of unscrupulous persons throughout history have used to obtain greater power: (I'm being a bit hyperbolic for this situation)

Machiavelli - Le Petit Prince
Patriot Act - US
Genocide - Various Regimes
Suspension of Habeas Corpus - US

It leads to subjugation of the people and no good can come of it.