"The infamous 'R' rating!" (spoken in a mysterious 'dooooom' voice)

[GuyYouMetOnline]

[QUOTE=Siren]But you didn't answer my question. What does the inability of children/minors in getting to a movie theatre have to do with the movie ratings? How is that a factor? What bearing does it have here? How does it help your argument that the movie ratings are...useless?

I do not see any point in bringing up how minors are unable to get to the theatre by themselves. A child's inability to get to the theatre independently from their parents has absolutely no bearing on the MPAA's rating system. A film's [i]content[/i] is the determining factor, not if a child will be able to get to the theatre.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here, because, quite honestly, I can't find a point anywhere in your reply.

EDIT: Oh, watch your tongue, please. I don't curse at you, I'd appreciate it if you don't curse at me.[/QUOTE]
First, bull**** isn't exactly a curse. The F-word is a curse word. Bull**** is not. People even say that at my school, and you just don't hear cursing at my school.


Now, the point is that young people are already unable to see movies their parents don't want them to see. The current restrictions, most notably the fact that you can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie if you're under 17, don't have any really notable affect, and are frequently a nuisence(sp?). To me, it seems very stupid that we allow 16-year-olds to drive, but that only 17-year-olds can see any movie on their own. I mean, if 16-year-olds aren't mature enough to see R-rated movies by themselves, without specific adult permission, then they aren't mature enough to be trusted on the road.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Takuya']First, bull**** isn't exactly a curse. The F-word is a curse word. Bull**** is not. People even say that at my school, and you just don't hear cursing at my school.[/quote]
The censor does block it, you do realize.

[quote]Now, the point is that young people are already unable to see movies their parents don't want them to see.[/quote]
And this makes the Rating system broken...how? If the young people are already unable to see those movies their parents don't want them to see, how could there be a problem with the Rating system? It's simply making those restrictions official.

[quote]The current restrictions, most notably the fact that you can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie if you're under 17, don't have any really notable affect, and are frequently a nuisence(sp?). To me, it seems very stupid that we allow 16-year-olds to drive, but that only 17-year-olds can see any movie on their own. I mean, if 16-year-olds aren't mature enough to see R-rated movies by themselves, without specific adult permission, then they aren't mature enough to be trusted on the road.[/QUOTE]
So...your point here is that...if we're treating 16-year-olds as not mature enough to see an R-rated movie...then they aren't mature enough to drive? Perhaps I'm just utterly exhausted, but I can't see how those two subjects relate at all. In fact, they don't. I hardly think one's ability to drive is in any way indicative or any measure of their ability to comprehend and view R-rated cinema in a mature manner.

If you would like me to treat your comparison as having any relevance and/or bearing here, you will need to provide me with a few reputable studies that strongly establish a real link between the two.

As it stands now, however, your analogy is incredibly weak.

[GuyYouMetOnline]

[quote name='Siren']And this makes the Rating system broken...how? If the young people are already unable to see those movies their parents don't want them to see, how could there be a problem with the Rating system? It's simply making those restrictions official.[/quote]

The movie ratings are [i]guidelines,[/i] not restrictions. Theaters impose restrictions. These restrictions are, as I've said, unnecessary, simply because other factors already have the same effect.

[quote name='Siren']So...your point here is that...if we're treating 16-year-olds as not mature enough to see an R-rated movie...then they aren't mature enough to drive? Perhaps I'm just utterly exhausted, but I can't see how those two subjects relate at all. In fact, they don't. I hardly think one's ability to drive is in any way indicative or any measure of their ability to comprehend and view R-rated cinema in a mature manner.[/quote]

I'm not talking about knowing how to drive, but having the judgement to make responsible decisions. Let me put it this way: if a 16-year-old judges that an R-rated movie is appropriate for him/her (to make this easier to read, I'll just be useing male pronouns from now on), and then sees it and discovers that he does not find the content appropriate for himself, well, maybe he throws up, or develops a phobia, or something like that. If that same person makes an incorrect judgement while driving, his car could be damaged, someone's property could be damaged, someone else's car could be wreaked, he could even end up killing not only himself, but other people. If a 16-year-old can't be trusted to accurately decide what movies to watch, than can that same 16-year-old be trusted to make the much more important and frequently urgent desisons he'll face while driving? My answer is 'no'.

[quote name='Siren']If you would like me to treat your comparison as having any relevance and/or bearing here, you will need to provide me with a few reputable studies that strongly establish a real link between the two.[/quote]

Never ask people for proof if you don't have any yourself. Before you go asking me to provide evidence of what I say, give me some evidence to back up what you say.

[quote name='Siren']As it stands now, however, your analogy is incredibly weak.[/quote]

This seems like a good place to point out your strategy in this agruement. You say that my analogy is weak. Why does that matter? It's an example. I'm using it to help explain my viewpoint. Talk about my viewpoint, not about the methods ai use to explain it. You've tried to make everyone's examples seem irrelivent, but if nobody had provided examples, you would have demanded that you be given examples. Oh, and when we attack your examples, it's an unforgivable attack on the perfect rating system, whereas when you do the [i]exact same thing[/i] with ours, it's 100% acceptable.


Oh, one more thing. I've noticed that on several occasions, you've said that the rating system is objective, when it's clearly a subjective system. My proof is simple: the people who rate the movies do so based on their oppinion of the content. Some people may think blood and violence deserves an R rating, while others don't. For example, Alien vs. Predator is rated PG-13, while many far less graphically violent films recieve R ratings for the reason of graphic violence. Given instances like that, I don't see how you can possibly believe that the rating system is objective.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Takuya']Now, the point is that young people are already unable to see movies their parents don't want them to see. The current restrictions, most notably the fact that you can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie if you're under 17, don't have any really notable affect, and are frequently a nuisence(sp?). To me, it seems very stupid that we allow 16-year-olds to drive, but that only 17-year-olds can see any movie on their own. I mean, if 16-year-olds aren't mature enough to see R-rated movies by themselves, without specific adult permission, then they aren't mature enough to be trusted on the road.[/quote]

[color=green]That?s not true. Teenagers just don?t get issued cars upon 16th birthdays. Parents allow their children to have cars, to use them and retain control of those privileges. A parent won?t allow their child to drive if they don?t think their child is mature enough or has the skills required to handle a car. Movie ratings allow parents to determine what is appropriate for their child, and determine whether or not they?ll allow their child to view it.

In both cases, the system allows parents who wish to be actively involved in their kid?s lives to do so. If a kid?s parents feel that their child is ready to see a movie that?s considered by the general public to be too explicit for a person of that age, a parent can take their child to the movie (R Rating) or rent/Pay Per View/Download the movie for their child (NC-17 Rating).

Seems like a good system to me.[/color]

Just thought I?d post these for general reference.

[b]G[/b] - General Audience. All ages admitted. This signifies that the film rated contains nothing most parents will consider offensive for even their youngest children to see or hear. Nudity, sex scenes, and scenes of drug use are absent; violence is minimal; snippets of dialogue may go beyond polite conversation but do not go beyond common everyday expressions.

[b]PG[/b] - Parental Guidance Suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children. This signifies that the film rated may contain some material parents might not like to expose to their young children - material that will clearly need to be examined or inquired about before children are allowed to attend the film. Explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use are absent; nudity, if present, is seen only briefly, horror and violence do not exceed moderate levels.

[b]PG-13[/b] - Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard.

[b]R[/b] - Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Takuya]The movie ratings are [i]guidelines,[/i'] not restrictions. Theaters impose restrictions. These restrictions are, as I've said, unnecessary, simply because other factors already have the same effect.[/quote]
Then the Rating system isn't hurting anything, so why complain about it?

[quote]I'm not talking about knowing how to drive,[/quote]
"The ability to drive" does not only mean knowing how to drive. I think you need to understand that. The phrase encompasses the entirety of automobile usage.

[quote]but having the judgement to make responsible decisions. Let me put it this way: if a 16-year-old judges that an R-rated movie is appropriate for him/her (to make this easier to read, I'll just be useing male pronouns from now on), and then sees it and discovers that he does not find the content appropriate for himself, well, maybe he throws up, or develops a phobia, or something like that. If that same person makes an incorrect judgement while driving, his car could be damaged, someone's property could be damaged, someone else's car could be wreaked, he could even end up killing not only himself, but other people. If a 16-year-old can't be trusted to accurately decide what movies to watch, than can that same 16-year-old be trusted to make the much more important and frequently urgent desisons he'll face while driving? My answer is 'no'.[/quote]
You're still comparing apples and oranges here.

Vomiting and developing a phobia are unconscious physical/emotional reactions that are neither driven nor initiated by the conscious mind. Nobody is making a decision to develop a phobia, or to vomit. There is no lapse of judgment when vomiting or getting so terribly frightened by something that one develops a gripping fear of it. A physical reaction is a physical reaction. Conscious decisions do not play a part in whether or not someone is going to become violently physically or emotionally ill, [i]especially[/i] emotionally.

Driving, on the other hand, the majority of accidents are due to recklessness or carelessness on the road, better known as lapses of judgment. Some drivers think they can make the turn at that speed. Others believe they can make it through the yellow light before it turns red. Some do not believe they need to wear a seatbelt. Others believe they're able to drive even after they've had whiskey upon whiskey upon whiskey. We all have seen and heard how those conscious decisions turn out.

You're still comparing apples and oranges here.

Oh, just for argument's sake, let's say that 16-year-olds shouldn't be driving alone (Come to think of it, they're not allowed to drive alone anyway. Permits and provisional licenses and such), because they lack the fundamental decision-making abilities to be able to drive safely, since you seem to be saying that's the case. If 16-year-olds truly do not know how to drive well, then the movie ratings are even more appropriate, which further makes your analogy useless to your argument that movie ratings are useless.

[QUOTE]Never ask people for proof if you don't have any yourself. Before you go asking me to provide evidence of what I say, give me some evidence to back up what you say.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of a few talks I've had with an ex-friend. The ex-friend in question did not respond well to when I began dating a girl we both knew. My ex-friend has had a crush on me for approximately four years now. She reacted very, very poorly (said incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i] mean and nasty things about me and my girlfriend) to what was a very innocent beginning to a wonderful relationship.

She was clearly in the wrong, and she knew this. She knew she had absolutely nothing to stand on in her defense. But when I requested that she apologize to me and to my girlfriend, she refused. She claimed that I needed to apologize first. Clearly, I had no need and no reason to apologize to her, as I had done nothing wrong in the first place.

My ex-friend was just stalling, trying to buy herself time, trying to deflect the issue, like you are doing right now.

Also, I just ran a search in Google for a variety of phrase combinations that relate to your analogy. The search would have produced results...if the results existed. So, it appears more and more that your refusal to produce studies that support your comparison, studies that establish a link between the two unrelated points, is due to the fact that you know there is nothing to substantiate your analogy.

[QUOTE]This seems like a good place to point out your strategy in this agruement. You say that my analogy is weak. Why does that matter? It's an example. I'm using it to help explain my viewpoint. [b]Talk about my viewpoint, not about the methods ai use to explain it[/b].[/quote]
As I recall, and as I glance over my previous replies, I notice that I have been breaking down everything you've been saying. I don't see how you're able to accuse me of not being thorough here, when I've been doing point-by-point rebuttals, making sure to cover whatever it is you've been trying to say, pointing out inconsistencies in your replies, problems with your analogies, and faults in your logic.

[quote]You've tried to make everyone's examples seem irrelivent, but if nobody had provided examples, you would have demanded that you be given examples. Oh, and when we attack your examples, it's an unforgivable attack on the perfect rating system, whereas when you do the [i]exact same thing[/i] with ours, it's 100% acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Is it my fault that the examples people are using are totally irrelevant to this discussion? What is this "attacking," anyway? I'm not attacking anyone here. I'm merely challenging what is clearly a faulty argument with faulty pillars of support. This is not a vendetta. I'm not here to beat you to death. I'm debating with you here because your argument is flimsy.

[quote]Oh, one more thing. I've noticed that on several occasions, you've said that the rating system is objective, when it's clearly a subjective system. My proof is simple: the people who rate the movies do so based on their oppinion of the content. Some people may think blood and violence deserves an R rating, while others don't. For example, Alien vs. Predator is rated PG-13, while many far less graphically violent films recieve R ratings for the reason of graphic violence. Given instances like that, I don't see how you can possibly believe that the rating system is objective.[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that the MPAA is comprised of identical clones? Do you think the MPAA is nothing more than one person duplicated ad nauseum? Perhaps this will help. [url=http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm][u]MPAA[/u][/url]. I'm seeing a mention of diversity on that site, so there are various viewpoints and opinions there, so that could be considered subjective. But look at the end result. All of those varying opinions and viewpoints come together and agree upon a set standard that they all believe in.

While the preliminary discussion may be subjective, ultimately, the Ratings of the Rating system [i]are[/i] objective, because they are a "universal" standard agreed upon by the individuals. It's a case of Universals versus Particulars here, and the Universals come out on top.

Your proof isn't simple at all, because it isn't proof.

[Zeta]

Like I said before, I believe them to be just guidelines.\

I'm not buying Bobas argument for the driving though. Who is to say that the kid is actually mature? He could just be pretending, for the reason to get the car. Which would back up Taks argument in a way. The parents don't know if their kid is truly mature. I act differently around my mom than I do in public. Im sure many, many people act more mature, just so that they can get something out of their parents. Or when people go for their road test. They drive completely different than they do if they pass, most of them do anyways.

Who wants to see movies with their parents? Not anyone I know. Many times kids don't want to be seen at places like the mall, or movie theatres with parents. Exactly, though what I am talking about with the T.V. Kids see things just as bad as movies on television. More than half the time the parents just order it to shut the incessant begging up. And many families just have HBO/Starz/ etc. and the kids can just watch it without their parents having to order it for them.

I still believe that they should just be guidelines. It is only a matter of time before the kids see the movies really. What should be done, is that employess should ask the kid what they know about the movied, and if they feel they are ready/able to handle what will happen in the movie, allow them to go see it. If they are there, it is highly likely their parents know what movie they are seeing, and have allready given them persmission to go out period. Swearing and fighting are some reasons movies are rated R. YOu see things like this all the time at school. Swearing is commoin, fighting is common. I don't see why it should be restricted when it is just acting/entertain ment, when they see things just as bad in real life. *shrug*

[PWNED]

Well, down here in Australia, The [COLOR=Red][SIZE=4]R[/SIZE][/COLOR] rating goes to movies with extreme violent/ [SIZE=4]BIG [/SIZE]Sex scenes/ Lots of Drugs or any combination of the three. And when I say Extreme i mean [SIZE=4][COLOR=Red]X[/COLOR][/SIZE]- Treme. However, Movies that get the R in America usually end up as MA 15+ in Australia. example- Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is rated R in America which I found out on my DVD of it although it is rated MA in Australia. As It has been said before, It is all about Parameters, if the movie does not fit the parameters for a rating, Ex- If it holds too much coarse language or Violence for an M film then it will be boosted up to a MA.

[Pumpkin]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][SIZE=1]I think it all depends on you and what movie you are seeing. Some movies, such as horror ones can freak out younger kids, say 14 year olds (not trying to pick on anyone) but I suppose the society doesnt want kids to be influenced by all the sex, drugs and violence. Which can happen, if a kid is too young and takes the stuff seriously. If we didnt have restrictions, then there would be kids running around with guns everywhere thinking its cool. I'm young myself but I still feel and know that even if it seems strict, its for a good cause. Some of the movies are over-rated though and should not be Rated R and I've seen anyway when i was under-age, those I can relate too. But there are some explicit movies that should not be in the hands of a 14 year old. I know I wouldn't have liked it[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

The bottom line here is that the choice of what movies children can see is no longer left up to the parents. Because of theaters' restrictions, whether or not parents think their children are "mature" enough to see whatever movie is in question, the children cannot unless they're 17+ or the parents go see the movie with them. But it's not that often that parents have time to see (nor do they want to see) all the films their children want to go to.

To say that the restrictions are necessary is basically to say that parents cannot decide such things for themselves, nor can they enforce their decisions. To what I say that these sorts of parents won't be able to "shelter" (for lack of a better word) their children from anything anyway, seeing as their parenting is ineffective.

So, point is: were there guidelines but no restrictions, it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The bottom line here is that the choice of what movies children can see is no longer left up to the parents. Because of theaters' restrictions, whether or not parents think their children are "mature" enough to see whatever movie is in question, the children cannot unless they're 17+ or the parents go see the movie with them. But it's not that often that parents have time to see (nor do they want to see) all the films their children want to go to.

To say that the restrictions are necessary is basically to say that parents cannot decide such things for themselves, nor can they enforce their decisions. To what I say that these sorts of parents won't be able to "shelter" (for lack of a better word) their children from anything anyway, seeing as their parenting is ineffective.

So, point is: were there guidelines but no restrictions, it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).[/QUOTE]
But that isn't the bottom line and you know it. It's more than possible for a parent to walk up to the ticket counter with their child, so your argument there is weak. So the parents don't have time to see the movie with their children. I seriously don't think it's a huge problem for them to simply accompany their children when they're buying the tickets. My mom has done it in the past.

Again, I'm going to mention that the Rating system and its application is not some Fascist organization that's impeding on personal/individual freedoms. It is not implying that parents cannot make decisions for themselves, nor is it stripping them of any decision-making power. I don't know whose comments you are referring to, Sciros, but no-one here is saying that parents are unable to decide for themselves, or that parents are incompetent, or that their parenting skills are ineffective. That's not what anyone is saying.

Sciros, it's always in the hands of the parents, regardless of a Rating system or not. The Rating system is not stripping parents of all their parental power, and it's ridiculous of you to say that, because it's simply not true.

You're still treating this like Fascism, when clearly, it isn't.

[Zeta]

[QUOTE]Sciros, it's always in the hands of the parents, regardless of a Rating system or not. The Rating system is not stripping parents of all their parental power, and it's ridiculous of you to say that, because it's simply not true.[/QUOTE]

I have on many occasions, in many different theaters around the nation(vacations and so one) when my mother walked up to the counter with me. She bought 2 tickets for a rated R film for my brother and I. And when asked if she was seeing it she said no, and the people refused to let us see the movie. That is clear permission for us to see the movie, yet they didn't let us, even when it was her who bought the tickets.

I had a friend who went to see Matrix Revoultions. He went with his brother who was 18. Since there was a huge crowd, they had people waiting at the entrance to the movie to check tickets. When they got to him, they asked where his parent was. He said he had his brother with him who was 18. They didn't allow him in. His dad had to then come and tell them it was ok for him to see the movie. Now if you look at it, his borhter is 18, and if their song is with their older brother, there is a high probability that his parents all ready knew where he was going.

EDIT:

Now what really gets me is this. My friend wasn't able to get into a rated R movie with his own brother, who is 18. My mother took a group of friends and I to go see Resident Evil when it came out in theatres. My mom was there and bought three tickets, and when she was asked if she would be seeing the movie,she replied no. They refused to sell us a ticket, if she wasn't going to be there.
But then a group of my friends happens to come along and is seeing the same movie. My friend Lee has his cousin with him, who is 18. We say we are then with them, and they allow us to see it. What the heck? What if my mom hadn't taken us there and we got there ourselves? They would have still let us in I am guessing. So no, just because a parent takes you there, does not mean you will get into the movie.

[James]

[color=#707875]Just to add a footenote to that, in Australia, if you want to watch an R-rated film and you're under 18, you need to be with a parent or guardian. So siblings don't count, unfortunately.

In terms of them not letting you in even with a parent there...well, in Australia, that wouldn't be right (I mean, it wouldn't be legal I guess). I don't know what the situation is in America though.

But it depends if that person just bought the tickets or if they went in with you as well. Perhaps they have to actually go in with you. I don't know, but it definitely sounds a little shifty.[/color]

[Dagger]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']But it depends if that person just bought the tickets or if they went in with you as well. Perhaps they have to actually go in with you. I don't know, but it definitely sounds a little shifty.[/color][/quote]

Enforcement varies drastically from region to region, not to mention from theater to theater. Some will accept a parent's word--some force the parent to sit and watch the entire movie along with his or her child. Obviously this isn't always feasible, and because there are not (to my knowledge) any set guidelines instructing theater employees on how to back up the ratings, plenty of people don't plan for having to stay with their children. The aforementioned spotty enforcement is a boon to some kids but can be horribly inconvenient for parents, particularly those who didn't think they'd have to stay with their son or daughter during the movie.

~Dagger~

[Manic Webb]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Enforcement varies drastically from region to region, not to mention from theater to theater. Some will accept a parent's word--some force the parent to sit and watch the entire movie along with his or her child. Obviously this isn't always feasible, and because there are not (to my knowledge) any set guidelines instructing theater employees on how to back up the ratings, plenty of people don't plan for having to stay with their children. The aforementioned spotty enforcement is a boon to some kids but can be horribly inconvenient for parents, particularly those who didn't think they'd have to stay with their son or daughter during the movie.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
I was just about to say that. The restrictions placed upon theatres vary depending on which theatre you go to. The MPAA doesn't force the theatres to restrict minors from seeing R-rated movies, the theatres themselves do that.

I think it was around my 16th birthday when [i]Shaft[/i] (starring Samuel L. Jackson) came out. Me and a friend went to go see it, and nobody tried to stop us, or even asked us for ID. It was rated R. My local theatre doesn't enforce restrictions, or at least they didn't.

That same year, my step-brother and I went to go see [i]Scary Movie[/i] at a different theatre. Again, no problems. I wasn't carded, and nobody stopped me from buying my ticket.

Ironically, the only time a movie theatre has stopped me from seeing an R-rated film was when I really was 17, and had no ID. This was probably divine intervention, however, as the movie was [i]Resident Evil[/i].

--EDIT--
Fixed a typo.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Siren]But that isn't the bottom line and you know it. It's more than possible for a parent to walk up to the ticket counter with their child, so your argument there is weak. So the parents don't have time to see the movie with their children. I seriously don't think it's a huge problem for them to simply accompany their children when they're buying the tickets. My mom has done it in the past.
...
Sciros, it's always in the hands of the parents, regardless of a Rating system or not. The Rating system is not stripping parents of all their parental power, and it's ridiculous of you to say that, because it's simply not true.[/QUOTE]

Well, now that you've had a chance to read the replies that followed your last post, you know that what you said isn't true a good deal of the time. It's not true here in central Ohio at the AMC theaters, for one, and those are the biggest and best theaters here.

The Rating system itself would be fine if it weren't so... abused. The restrictions imposed by certain theaters are the "real" problem, one might say, but it seems to me that the easiest way to handle this problem is to adjust the rating system rather than force by law all theaters to be more "lax" in their admissions.

[Falkon]

Personaly, I agree here with Sciros DarkBlade. See, if we let our parents decide what movies we could and couldnt go to, I think that would bemore appropriate because our parents know more about what we can handle than just a general visualization of a group of people.

However, there is a bad side to this. A child could just go into any movie he/she wants to, saying that their parents said it was ok, whether it was or not.

To fix this, maybe we should have parents come with their child(ren) to the ticket counter, have the parents give verbal or written permission for the child to view the movie, then let the child in. Eh.. just lost my train of thought from here, but that is the general idea.

[James]

[QUOTE=Falkon]
However, there is a bad side to this. A child could just go into any movie he/she wants to, saying that their parents said it was ok, whether it was or not.

[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Exactly. There are a lot of situations where parents aren't going to be able to make the decision, either because they aren't there, or because they simply aren't aware of the situation.

I mean, let's be serious here...none of us would let a ten year old into a strip club or something like that. There are age-based restrictions on many things in society, in an attempt to protect children.

I [i]do [/i]believe that restrictions on movies can tend to go a bit far (the whole controversy over the "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl is an example of how so many in America are complete wowsers), but still, I think it's also true that it shouldn't be open slather. We do need to have some basic standards involved.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Falkon']However, there is a bad side to this. A child could just go into any movie he/she wants to, saying that their parents said it was ok, whether it was or not.[/quote]Exactly. What some here (like Sciros) are advocating is a total disregard for any measure of restriction, based on minors being unable to view an R-rated movie with or without their parents approval, which is ludicrous. Granted, the theatre not allowing a minor in, even when the parent says it's okay, is unfortunate, but this hardly constitutes doing away with the guideline/restriction system.

[quote]To fix this, maybe we should have parents come with their child(ren) to the ticket counter, have the parents give verbal or written permission for the child to view the movie, then let the child in. Eh.. just lost my train of thought from here, but that is the general idea.[/QUOTE]And this is a good idea. Keeping the objective guidelines/restrictions in place is a necessity, but a worthwhile ammendment to that would be just what you said, which I've been saying all along, surprisingly. It's not about forcing theatres to become more "lax" in their application of the rating system, and it's not about destroying the entire restriction system, either. The application of the rating system is not as broken as people (like Sciros and TN) are making it out to be.

If a law/requirement were to be passed that instituted a system where on-site parental verbal/written permission would be suitable grounds to allow a minor to see an R-rated picture, that would fix much of the "problems" that people are complaining about. I think that is a much more viable solution to this "problem" than abolishing the entire restriction structure in the movie industry.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']Exactly. What some here (like Sciros) are advocating is a total disregard for any measure of restriction, based on minors being unable to view an R-rated movie with or without their parents approval, which is ludicrous.[/quote]
Har. If you had read what I written, you'd have noticed that what I in reality ADVOCATED was an adjustment of the guidelines, as stated in my last post (although I did make it clear that I personally don't think the restrictions are necessary because I don't feel this need to "protect the innocent"; but what I would like to see happen and what I advocate are two different things). I said that the restrictions (which are based on those guidelines) are difficult to control because they're privately decided upon by theaters, so the guidelines simply need to be adjusted. Sure, passing a law that would control the sorts of restrictions theaters can set in their admissions would work just as well (which is what that written permission suggestion is), I just think it would be more difficult. But then again, maybe it would be just as difficult; I haven't tried either of them, lol.

On a side note, I'd like to ask everyone:
If you are [i]for[/i] a system of restrictions set by theaters, is it because you don't want [i]your[/i] child to see stuff he/she you disapprove of? Or is it also because you don't want other people's children to see stuff you disapprove of?

I am asking because in my case, I couldn't care less if some random 5-year-old watched House of 1000 Corpses or The Last Samurai or Double Impact. And if I was concerned that my kid wanted to see those films (and I didn't want him/her to), I'd be able to do something about it on my own (without help from theaters). The way I see it, if I don't trust my child to listen to what I tell him/her, then I have a larger problem on my hands than his/her watching an R film on his/her own. Because, you see, it usually IS possible, even with enforced restrictions, to see whatever film you like, granted you do it in an underhanded fashion. It's the honest folk for whom the restrictions are an actual "barrier."

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Sheesh, your post has stubbornness written all over it. If you had read what I written, you'd have noticed that what I in reality ADVOCATED was an adjustment of the guidelines, as stated in my last post (although I did make it clear that I personally don't think the restrictions are necessary because I don't feel this need to "protect the innocent"; but whatever). I said that the restrictions (which are based on those guidelines) are difficult to control because they're privately decided upon by theaters, so the guidelines simply need to be adjusted. Sure, passing a law that would control the sorts of restrictions theaters can set in their admissions would work just as well (which is what that written permission suggestion is), I just think it would be more difficult.[/quote]"Stubborn?" Let's see about that.

Sciros, since you're now denying that you've been advocating a total abolishment of the restriction system, let's see what you've said previously in the thread, shall we?

One of my points to you was the following:

[quote name='Siren']Are you suggesting that theatres shouldn't strictly adhere to these age restrictions? Are you suggesting that theatres should let anyone and everyone into whatever movie they want to see?[/quote]To which you replied,

[quote name='Sciros][b]Why not?[/b'] How much should we try to shelter other people's children? I am confused by this tendency to "protect people from themselves." Considering that most of the people who actually give two craps about the rating system are overly concerned and ignorant parents, if they really care enough they can take a more personal role in deciding what their children can and cannot do or watch.[/quote]So, you weren't supporting deconstructing the entire restriction system there? What about the following quote?

[quote name='Sciros]So, point is: [b]were there guidelines [u]but no restrictions[/u][/b], it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i'] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).[/quote]Again, how were you not supporting the deconstruction of the restriction system?

You may not realize it, Sciros, but throughout the course of this thread, the target of your criticisms has changed entirely. You've gone from describing the horrors of the restriction system, and how it [i]should[/i] be [i]done away with[/i] (as I've illustrated by those quotes), to how the guidelines need to be changed. Your entire argument here has just pulled a total 180 and you don't even realize it.

In fact, if there was a precise moment where your entire point changed, it was when members mentioned how if there were no restrictions in place, the movie industry would be essentially anarchy. None here have used those precise terms, but if there were no restrictions at all, like James and I have said, young children would be able to see adult films, and nobody in their right mind would believe that to be appropriate.

You're going to deny this, I'm sure, but it's very clear that you've "flip-flopped."

Also, ultimately, you're [i]agreeing[/i] with what [i]I've been saying all along[/i], in that the rating system/restriction system is not the problem, because there are very viable solutions to make everyone happy, the most prominent one here being the parental written/verbal permission ammendment, the same thing I suggested back some six posts ago, when I mentioned my Mom giving us permission to see Scary Movie back some six years ago.

Come on, man. Who are you trying to fool here? lol

[Zeta]

In my mind, if the restrictions were removed, the restrictions would come from the families instead. I still believe that they are just guidelines. Who is to say that some kid cannot see a certain movie besides their own parent? Even your idea of written/verbal persmission is not enough in many places, as I have shown you above. Now if the restrictions were to come from the family instead, a child would be much more inclined to follow that restriction, in fear of a punishment if they are caught.

An example being that when I was young I watched I Know What you Did last Summer with my brother, and he basically got the crap scared out of him, lol. After that, I was barred from watching horror films. Now when my dad told me that, I was, pardon my language here, pissing in my pants in fear I would get in trouble. Now before that, even with the restrictions set forth by the rating system, I didn't mind at all, I watched horror movies non stop. But when a restriction comes from a family, and punishment will follow if you break it, you won't do it.

What can the theatre do to you if you see a rated R movie when you aren't supposed to? Either tell you to go to the right theatre you are supposed to be in(if you sneak in that is) or they just kick you out if it is a continuing offense. Like when I snuck into Once Upon a Time in Mexico, all they did was tell me I was in the wrong theatre. Those two results aren't as bad as lets say getting grounded by your parents, so kids do it. When a parent tells a kid no, they listen, most of the time.

And look at it this way, the restrictions [i]don't[/i] work in many places. They have people buying tickets and then just walking into a different theatre. If they were needed, they would make sure you can't get in, but they don't. They aren't needed as much as you are making them out to be. Why keep something that doesn't work a good deal of the time? It is one own personal opinions on if they want to see the movie. There are 20 year olds who are no better off seeing a rated R movie than a 16 year old.

With PG 13 movies, it is reccomended(sp) that a parent be there if they are under 13. Reccomended(sp), not required. Yet do they sell 13 year olds or under a ticket? No. That is a guideline. If it were to say "Under 13 a parent is requier" I can see it that way, but if it doesn't anyone should be able to see it without problem.

I'm not saying the restrictions should be taken away, because it is pointless because they won't. I myself follow them as guidelines. As stated above, what gives those people the right to run the lives of other children? Seeing a rated R movie when you are 16, isn't a felony, it won't harm anything. Someone said something about a younger child going into a movie, lets say a 10 year old. How often would a 10 year old go in anyways? They are still scared of things, and certainly wouldn't want to be scared of lets say the movie Scream. They are smart enough to think for themselves, and won't purposefully get themselves scared, least from the places I have been they aren't that stupid.

I can walk up to a Blockbuster and rent a rated R movie(back when I was 16). Why aren't those enforced? But wait, the account says that I can rent rated R movies. Why is that written proof enough for a rental place, but not a movie theatre? It is the same movie. IF I can get the same movie at a rental place with written/verbal permission, it should be the same for ALL movie theatres. What is the difference? THere is no difference.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Siren, realize: I don't think the theater restrictions are necessary, yes. But I also don't think they [i]can[/i] be done away with. That's why I suggested adjusting the rating system which the restrictions enforce. I'm not sure why this is so confusing.
I'd support the "deconstruction" of the restriction system were it a possibility, but it's not.

As for your assumption that I "changed my views" or whatever after reading some peoples' posts, well it's incorrect. I disagree that if there were no restrictions we'd have [i]anything[/i] resembling so-called "anarchy." I don't think it's appropriate for a 10-year-old to watch adult films, but I'm not gonna make that decision for other people's children. I know James said that certain age restrictions need to be in place, and I disagree with him, because at a certain age (say, 9 for R-rated films) they almost don't matter, and later on they're not universally applicable. They're restrictions to be set by parents for their own children.

[QUOTE]Also, ultimately, you're agreeing with what I've been saying all along, in that the rating system/restriction system is not the problem[/QUOTE]
W-w-what? I said the rating/restriction system IS the problem! Especially if you treat it as a single system! Man oh man....
All the problems we're talking about pertaining to this subject have to do with either the guidelines themselves, or the restrictions based on them. If one isn't the source of the problem, it's the other. Which one you see as "the problem" depends on which one you're aiming to [i]fix[/i] to get rid of the problem. Ultimately the problem is the restrictions, which can be adjusted directly (assuming you think it's "viable" to enforce some ruling across all theaters in the country) or indirectly (by changing the rating system). So, coming back to the statement I quoted, I'm not sure where you were coming from when writing it, but it's inaccurate.

[Falkon]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]On a side note, I'd like to ask everyone:
If you are for a system of restrictions set by theaters, is it because you don't want your child to see stuff he/she you disapprove of? Or is it also because you don't want other people's children to see stuff you disapprove of?
[/quote]
Well, for me, being 15 years of age, I can't [i]really[/i] answer this question, but I can, however, answer with my parents... "ideas." Most of the time, in a scenario like one such as this, my parents would agree with the system because they don't want me AND other kids to see the content of such a movie.

See, and this goes back to a memory of mine. Ok, so my brother was supposed to write a paper for his college English class about how the media affects children. In his paper he stated that its not the media, per se, that "corrupts" shildren, but more of their personal life. I mean, for me, playing games like Driv3r and GTA, Devil May Cry and the Silent Hill series, (which are all M rated games, BTW) doesn't make me want to go out and kill people. Instead, these games provide a relief for when I am mad or pissed off at something.

Same goes for a lot of movies I watch: I get pissed off at someone or something, and I'll go watch Fight Club, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, both of which are rated R. These kind of activities lower my anger level. Karate does too, but that's a different subject.

So, what I am ultimately saying in [i]this[/i] post is that by exposing a child to a violent movie/game, (s)he isn't going to go out and go on a killing rampage throughout the streets of their city because they think it's cool.

I know I don't want to go out and kill everyone in my town for playing violent games, watching violent movies, and reading violent comic books (Johnny The Homocidal Maniac, Squee.)

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

This brings us to an interesting question: does general support of restrictions such as those in question stem in part from parents not trusting [i]other[/i] people's children to not be pushed to violence or some perverse behavior after watching R-rated films?

If the answer is yes (and in Falkon's case it appears to be) to any degree, then doesn't this relate to the conservative scapegoating of movies and video games that we so frequently encounter nowadays? After all, if parents are concerned about [i]other[/i] parents' kids, they're not really concerned [i]for them[/i] as much as they are for their own kids being influenced by these others, correct?

When thinking about these questions, it is important to consider that theater restrictions (or almost any such rules) really only apply to the "honest" citizens and "non-delinquents." That is, if some "punk" kid wants to watch porn and smoke pot all day long and then tell your kid how awesome it is, restrictions aren't gonna stop that.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Siren, realize: I don't think the theater restrictions are necessary, yes. But [b]I also don't think they can be done away with[/b'].[/quote]All right, then, if you don't believe the restrictions can be done away with, could you please explain what your motivation was for your following statement, which I had quoted previously and you had ignored/contradicted?

[i][quote name='Sciros][b]Why not?[/b'] How much should we try to shelter other people's children? I am confused by this tendency to "protect people from themselves." Considering that most of the people who actually give two craps about the rating system are overly concerned and ignorant parents, if they really care enough they can take a more personal role in deciding what their children can and cannot do or watch.[/quote][/i]

When one asks "why not," it often signifies that one does not have a problem with a particular action being taken, and thus would advocate it, which you have been doing in the early half of this thread: advocating removing the restriction system. If you like, I'll re-quote those excerpts. To put it simply, by asking "why not," you're directly asking what the problem would be with removing the restriction system. This is simple grammatical and syntactical analysis.

If you hadn't thought that the restriction system could be done away with, why would you be asking why it couldn't be done away with?

[quote]That's why I suggested adjusting the rating system which the restrictions enforce. I'm not sure why this is so confusing.[/quote]You're now suggesting adjusting the Ratings system, but nowhere in the following excerpt did you mention [i]anything[/i] regarding adjusting the [i]Rating[/i] system, only discussing adjusting the [i]Restrictions[/i]:

[quote=Sciros]The bottom line here is that the choice of what movies children can see is no longer left up to the parents. Because of theaters' restrictions, whether or not parents think their children are "mature" enough to see whatever movie is in question, the children cannot unless they're 17+ or the parents go see the movie with them. But it's not that often that parents have time to see (nor do they want to see) all the films their children want to go to.

To say that the restrictions are necessary is basically to say that parents cannot decide such things for themselves, nor can they enforce their decisions. To what I say that these sorts of parents won't be able to "shelter" (for lack of a better word) their children from anything anyway, seeing as their parenting is ineffective.

So, point is: were there guidelines but no restrictions, it would be in the hands of parents whether to allow their children to see a film or not (which I think is more proper). Because there are restrictions, parents have no say in the matter unless [i]they[/i] feel like seeing a film with their children (and children want to see the film with them).[/quote]How are you able to deny that you've changed your entire focus/argument, when it's very clear that you were arguing for changing the Restriction system in the above excerpt, and are now arguing for changing the Rating system in your current reply? I can't understand this, so please, explain it to me.

[QUOTE]I'd support the "deconstruction" of the restriction system were it a possibility, but it's not.[/QUOTE]Apparently, from your above previous quote there, you'd support it either way, without caring about if it were a possibility or not, and not caring about the implications and/or consequences of removing it.

[QUOTE]As for your assumption that I "changed my views" or whatever after reading some peoples' posts, well it's incorrect.[/QUOTE]So, it's just an incredibly, exceedingly, insanely timely coincidence, then? Come on, lol. You mean to tell me that your entire argument and focus just arbitrarily change in the middle of a debate?

[QUOTE]I disagree that if there were no restrictions we'd have anything resembling so-called "anarchy." I don't think it's appropriate for a 10-year-old to watch adult films, but I'm not gonna make that decision for other people's children.[/QUOTE]Did I just read what I thought I read? You do not feel it's appropriate for a 10-year-old to watch adult films, but you're refusing to step-in when another child may be watching something that you feel (know) they shouldn't?

[QUOTE]I know James said that certain age restrictions need to be in place, and I disagree with him, because at a certain age (say, 9 for R-rated films) they almost don't matter, and later on they're not universally applicable.[/QUOTE]Nine years old? Not even in middle school? Fifth grade at most, and you're saying age restrictions don't matter--sorry, [i]almost[/i] don't matter--for a child fresh out of Elementary School? Forgive me for saying so, but that is utterly ridiculous. You're talking about letting a child who is not yet [i]ten[/i] go see Animal House, Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now.

[QUOTE]They're restrictions to be set by parents for their own children.[/QUOTE]I remember you insulting me a while back when we had that talk about "moral relativity." If you would kindly refresh my memory, were you for or against moral relativity? As I recall, you were vehemently against it, and kept harping on how there need to be restrictions in place in society, and how there is absolutely no room for people to have varying moralities when it comes to societal health.

[QUOTE]W-w-what? I said the rating/restriction system IS the problem! Especially if you treat it as a single system! Man oh man....[/QUOTE]I'm not treating it as a single system. I use the backslash out of convenience. It makes it easier to mention both of the systems. What are you talking about here? I've always treated them as two separate systems.

Also, quote me fully, please. You chopped off an entire two-thirds of that paragraph to make your "point." I would appreciate it if you actually included the entire excerpt in the quote portion. Call it a pet peeve, but if I'm going to be including all of your extended-length paragraphs in my replies, it seems appropriate to do the same for my posts. You have a habit of omitting sections of posts, which leads me to believe that you're trying to build a rebuttal off of something taken out of context.

[quote]All the problems we're talking about pertaining to this subject have to do with either the guidelines themselves, or the restrictions based on them. If one isn't the source of the problem, it's the other. Which one you see as "the problem" depends on which one you're aiming to fix to get rid of the problem.[/quote]What you're failing to realize is, I don't view these systems as problems. My suggestions and solutions here are a way to make you whiners feel better, lol. I have no problem at all with the Rating/Restriction system. I view complaints like these to be needless whining about something that doesn't even affect most of the complainers here.

[quote]Ultimately the problem is the restrictions, which can be adjusted directly (assuming you think it's "viable" to enforce some ruling across all theaters in the country) or indirectly (by changing the rating system). So, coming back to the statement I quoted, I'm not sure where you were coming from when writing it, but it's inaccurate.[/QUOTE]As I've illustrated above, that earlier in this debate, you were arguing that the Restriction system needed to be changed, yet were also arguing with me when I mentioned the parental written/verbal permission. It's as if you didn't even see it, and now, you suddenly begin to discuss it when others have mentioned it, and seem to be agreeing with them.

The fact of the matter is, you're repeating and using as some type of support point what I've been saying all along, and what I've been continually offering as the solution to the supposed "problem" that people are complaining about here.

My rebuttal points are hardly inaccurate.

EDIT: Just another thing I'd like you to clarify, if you weren't sure where my points were being based on, how is it possible to say they're inaccurate?