Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Coffee or T (and A)?

Well, its been a hard few days...things are rolling in what could be a new direction for me, so if all goes well I'll blog whats been going on after the dust settles...

Did you catch (how could you miss it?) the hubbub over the game GTA3: San Andreas? Apparently, there are viewable sex scenes of the playable character and his "girlfriends" to be accessed in the game with a mod patch that unlocks them. The patch is known as the "hot coffee" patch, which I find hilarious...

Of course, politicians (namely Hillary Clinton) saw an opportunity to tighten the screws on censorship even more and jumped on the bandwagon calling for stricter rules, and boards, and commitees, and fines, and legistlation, and basically the government sticking its nose in even further into What. You. Are. Doing. With. Your. Own. Life. The game was already rated Mature, by the ESRB, which puts ratings on all games. This means that if you're playing the game, you should be old enough to already know about sex, right and wrong, real life versus video games, and have a healthy growing cynicism towards all things related to government. If you're playing the game and you're not old enough to know about all that, then somebody's parents are asleep at the wheel.

That's the real issue here, isn't it? People want the government and legislation to take care of their parenting for them. Instead of teaching and guiding children to make their own decisions based on knowledge and a moral code, and then keeping a watchful eye on what said children are doing, people would rather have a thousand 'Cybernanny' programs installed on their computers so they don't have to do any of that while the kid surfs the net in their bedroom.

The weird thing about all this is, the uproar on GTA is about the hidden sex scenes that you have to put an effort into to see of PIXELATED, computer generated characters. It's not even real sex between real people! All this flack about the sex and I don't seem to be hearing much about the violence you can inflict in the game. So, the message is that playing a character who can shoot, stab, beat, drive over, and do just about anything to any character in the game is ok? However, watching that character have sex in pixelated form is going to be the end of civilization? I always thought this was a little weird. Violence in media forms (movies, music, games, etc) gets a much easier pass in today's age than sex. Everybody gets panicky when sex is involved in any form. However, in real life, having consensual sex with someone is a completely natural act and a big part of life and the ongoing of the species. Last I heard, perforating someone with a machine gun is not a natural act. Isn't this whole sex / violence hoopla backwards? Also, from what I've heard, it's an American (or Western) thing. Europe is different, in that sex is much more acceptable in the various media, but there are harder rules on violence...could be wrong on that though.

Anyway, it just seems that people are getting bent out of shape over the wrong things. Also, it's not the governments job to make sure your kids turn out well and don't see things that are too much for them at impressionable ages. It's the parents job. A demanding and difficult one to be sure, but it comes with the territory. I don't have kids, nor do I ever want to. However, I know there is no bigger responsiblity on earth than to raise children, and it doesn't seem to me that enough people are considering all the angles, pressures, and responsibility before diving in and enlarging the gene pool. If the government wants to get involved in maintaining kids, maybe they should get involved ahead of the curve and try maintaining parents. You need a license to drive a car, a license to shoot a gun, collateral to buy a house, but anyone can have a kid without any prerequisites whatsoever. Something odd about that, I tell ya...

Anyway, end rant ;-)

Comments on "Coffee or T (and A)?"

 

Blogger The Original LRU said ... (July 21, 2005 6:00 PM) : 

Well, I could almost agree with everything you mentioned, until I got to the end... :-)

You complain about too much government interference, and then suggest that the government regulate who can be parents?

Perhaps you didn't intend for that to be a serious recommendation, but I must protest anyway.

I don't think the government should get anywhere close to regulating human reproduction. It gives government way too much power, not only to control the desirable/undesirable ratio, but also to goof up royally and affect an entire generation of the country.

China is just starting to deal with this exact issue right now. For years, there have been limits on the number of children a couple can have. I believe the limit was one child. This has turned the next generation into a country with no brothers or sisters, with an attitude like they are the only people in the universe. Well, their parents thought so, so it must be true, right? :-)

Also, the Chinese culture values male babies higher than female babies. This led to tragic reactions of abandoning unwanted babies. If a family is only allowed one baby, it might as well have a valuable male.

Which means that now the male/female ratio is also out of whack in China.

All because of government interference to control overpopulation. It seems like a mess to me.

Government has no business dictating what families can have children, and how many, or what families are more desirable, or what religion is more favourable to teach future citizens. If government can control reproduction, it can mold the future, to potentially disastrous ends.

 

Blogger Eaglewing said ... (July 21, 2005 8:36 PM) : 

Well, I wasn't really suggesting government control, certainly not to the extent of what you mentioned in China. That's pretty messed up right there. What I said and meant was maintaining. Maybe training courses that get people to really think about what's invovled. (money, time, etc) It just seems people have kids because they can, then are shocked at the amount of work involved. Take the game, for example - no one under 18 should really be playing that, and if you're over 18 and unlock the sex scene, then you should be old enough to know what's what anyway. Now, the government wants to wade in, and you're right - the government involved in family is not a good thing. I'm just saying that there should be something that helps parents before the fact and maybe even make some realize they are not capable yet to raise another human being. Anybody can pop out a kid with no forethought whatsoever, and from what I've seen, anybody does...

You need to have training and be able to prove competence to be a doctor, nurse, or nanny, and look after other people. However, if you bring your own person into this world, the only competence you need to have is knowing that tab A goes into slot B. After that, it's anybody's guess. Something just seems odd about that, that's all...

Unfortunately, there is no common sense in the governement, so they should keep their hands out of it, I guess. They'd probably just keep to their track record, over do it completely, and screw the whole thing up - parents, kids, and taxpayers...

 

Anonymous vicki said ... (July 25, 2005 2:46 PM) : 

So I have to agree that parenting skills are probably the most important skills to "get right" in a person's life and if all things were perfect in this regard we wouldn't have to worry about our children having access to inappropriate video/internet games. Ideally, I think that people wanting to become parents should be offered free classes regarding the demands, joys and challenges of becoming great parents. They could then make a more informed decision about actually taking that step and whether or not they are prepared for all it entails both physically, emotionally and financially. Much like classes before getting married, they would help you undertake informed discussion before making these life changing decisions.
However, how could we then manage those situations where people jump into a relationship, produce the embryo and then are unprepared to face the consequences! Should there be a metre reading on successful parenting after children are a certain age (3 or 4 years) before families are allowed to have their next child. Those children who appear not to be cared for should be indication that the family is not ready or deserving to have another child. But then again, how does one enforce the rules? It's kind of back to the China syndrome!
At any rate, vigilance by parents in terms of desiring that their children are raised in a healthy environment free of violent or sexual images which assault the brain, is really the only solution. This can only be accomplished if you are a responsible and loving parent and, in a perfect world, this would be the only type of parent in existance. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see all the children of the world loved in this way? Only will happen in heaven!

 

post a comment