[SergioMZ]

Aye from me, though I'd raise it to 16. Not for anything, but it's illogical to let 15yos see but not do it until they're 16, and lowering the age to 15 would be far too complicated, so I'd change "15" by "16" in this bill.

Edit: Oops, I have just remembered I am no longer an MP. Sorry.

[daniel_williams]

In all honesty I think we should keep the rating system as it is but look at the boundaries at which things are classed. Whilst I think its important to protect younger minds from certain things we are a bit too strict at times with what can and can't be shown, especially with the boundaries between 12 and 15 films. 18 and 18R should be exactly the same.

maybe being more lenient with the 12+ group and change the age to 16 to be able to chow more sexual content as it will be of an audience who are all above the age of consent... thsi way the 18/18R would be a more suitable rating for films which depict quite disturbing graphic scenes and certain hardcore sexual acts.

[Cardozo]

I suppose considering we've decided young people can pretty much do anything there's little arguement to protecting people from anything...

[The Referee]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
In all honesty I think we should keep the rating system as it is but look at the boundaries at which things are classed. Whilst I think its important to protect younger minds from certain things we are a bit too strict at times with what can and can't be shown, especially with the boundaries between 12 and 15 films. 18 and 18R should be exactly the same.

maybe being more lenient with the 12+ group and change the age to 16 to be able to chow more sexual content as it will be of an audience who are all above the age of consent... thsi way the 18/18R would be a more suitable rating for films which depict quite disturbing graphic scenes and certain hardcore sexual acts.

Over the age of consent by 3 years...AOC in TSR land is 13

[paperclip]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Another one minute bill, but I do believe in it. I just think that it's a pointless, restrictive law that serves little to no practical purpose other than creating some fig-leaf pretence that it's 'protecting' children. ********.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by paperclip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

There is no need to link me to GCSE psychology concepts lol. 15 year olds are not children and SLT is not negated, or even greatly diluted, by these laws so I'm not sure what your point is?

[LawBore]

I've no objections.

[Thunder and Jazz]

... will think about it.

[paperclip]

(Original post by paddy__power)
There is no need to link me to GCSE psychology concepts lol. 15 year olds are not children and SLT is not negated, or even greatly diluted, by these laws so I'm not sure what your point is?

You mean a-level and degree as well

If it is GCSE then most people don't do GCSE or above psychology anyway. If you know about the theories and studies then you know the effect untraviolence can have?

And these laws ensure that children under 18 aren't exposed to a large amount of violence, which is a good thing. Social learning theory isn't only applicable to children

[Cardozo]

(Original post by paperclip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

Interesting.

Unrelated: I was there when that guy had the banner in your video.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by paperclip)
You mean a-level and degree as well

If it is GCSE then most people don't do GCSE or above psychology anyway. If you know about the theories and studies then you know the effect untraviolence can have?

And these laws ensure that children under 18 aren't exposed to a large amount of violence, which is a good thing. Social learning theory isn't only applicable to children

Yes but the basic concept [in as much as you need to know to understand it's relevance here] is covered in GCSE apparently, but that's not largely important. I didn't do it; I took the A level but didn't actually read most of it so couldn't tell you much of what's covered tbh - I think SLT was at some point.

I know the effect it can have yes, I contest the effect this law actually has on restricting exposure to such things not that exposure is potentially harmful! They are two distinct things and you appear to be arguing the latter - which is misplaced.

No they don't and that's the problem; I know it isn't [obv], but the bobo doll experiment is [if I recal correctly, my psychology knowledge has largely filtered out of me over the years].

[paperclip]

(Original post by paddy__power)
I know the effect it can have yes, I contest the effect this law actually has on restricting exposure to such things not that exposure is potentially harmful! They are two distinct things and you appear to be arguing the latter - which is misplaced.

That's a bit of a cop out, no?
'It is harmful, but some people get access so we'll legalise it for everyone'

No they don't and that's the problem; I know it isn't [obv], but the bobo doll experiment is [if I recal correctly, my psychology knowledge has largely filtered out of me over the years].

Will you reconsider this bill if i give you research into the SLT based on adults?

The social learning theory is considered psychological fact - they explain a number of things including the development of language (it's not just based on trial and error as behaviourism would have you believe).

And under 18s are largely children. Most of them certainly don't act like adults.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Cardozo)
Interesting.

Unrelated: I was there when that guy had the banner in your video.

I was at Glasto 2010 as well, missed it though

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by paperclip)
That's a bit of a cop out, no?
'It is harmful, but some people get access so we'll legalise it for everyone'


Will you reconsider this bill if i give you research into the SLT based on adults?

The social learning theory is considered psychological fact - they explain a number of things including the development of language (it's not just based on trial and error as behaviourism would have you believe).

And under 18s are largely children. Most of them certainly don't act like adults.

Not some, almost all.

I wouldn't no because I'm already fully aware of SLTs application to adults, including the formulation of language, relationships and forming ideas about what paradigms one should follow etcetc. This is neither here nor there in terms of this bill though. The fact is there is little, if anything, you could show a 15 year old from these 18 films they would not have seen before. They have nuerous opportunities to do so, and they do. I'm failing to see exactly what your point is mate, maybe we're just misunderstanding each other.

I'm not disputing the psychology, I'm disputing the capacity of such laws to have the effect they claim to.

-- Ya, but thousands and thousands of 'adults' act like children as well.

[chiggy321]

No, I don't really agree with this. The current system allows parents, if they object, to stop their non-independent in the eyes of the law children, from viewing 18+ goods, theoretically.

Although there's stuff online they'll always watch and have access to parents should make the choice where they can.

[paperclip]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Not some, almost all.

I wouldn't no because I'm already fully aware of SLTs application to adults, including the formulation of language, relationships and forming ideas about what paradigms one should follow etcetc. This is neither here nor there in terms of this bill though. The fact is there is little, if anything, you could show a 15 year old from these 18 films they would not have seen before. They have nuerous opportunities to do so, and they do. I'm failing to see exactly what your point is mate, maybe we're just misunderstanding each other.

Isn't that an argument for making stricter laws, not scrapping them, especially if you believe in the arguments for regulation?

Almost everyone has access to illegal downloading software, should we remove piracy laws?

I'm not disputing the psychology, I'm disputing the capacity of such laws to have the effect they claim to.

If someone does get access it's gonna be through a parent or older sibling. Most companies won't take the risk, because of the amount of fines there are and trouble they can get into. If you think businesses are gonna be relaxed, then tighten up the laws. With parents it's more difficult but you have to accept their decision at the end of the day; we do the same whilst promoting healthy food in schools but not forcing parents to do so. Unless you don't trust parents to make the best decisions for their children, in which case you need a massive overhaul of the current system.

-- Ya, but thousands and thousands of 'adults' act like children as well.

Terrible argument. Maybe we should scrap the age of consent because some children act like adults and vice versa?

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by paperclip)
Isn't that an argument for making stricter laws, not scrapping them, especially if you believe in the arguments for regulation?

No because it's impossible to stop it.

If someone does get access it's gonna be through a parent or older sibling. Most companies won't take the risk, because of the amount of fines there are and trouble they can get into. If you think businesses are gonna be relaxed, then tighten up the laws. With parents it's more difficult but you have to accept their decision at the end of the day; we do the same whilst promoting healthy food in schools but not forcing parents to do so. Unless you don't trust parents to make the best decisions for their children, in which case you need a massive overhaul of the current system.

Internet doesn't require either ot those things, and having older mates fulfills the same role - as does having any friend with an older sibling/parent willing to purchase it, access to late night tv, access to a library even. The opportunities are so multitudinous in todays world that such legislation is like trying to cure cancer with a plaster. Tighter regulations would fail in exactly the same way.

Terrible argument. Maybe we should scrap the age of consent because some children act like adults and vice versa?

It wasn't an argument [I'd have expanded it or referenced it to something] it was just a comment

[Eru Iluvatar]

Isn't this issue more to do with how the 18 rating is applied, than the rating itself? Reforming the criteria used by the BBFC, and identifying a more appropriate classification system, i could understand, but this seems a rather too simple approach to the issue.

[Adorno]

Och I really couldn't care less. It's not going to make films any more thoughtful, well-made, and meaningful so I shall abstain regardless of what happens.

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by Adorno)
Och I really couldn't care less. It's not going to make films any more thoughtful, well-made, and meaningful so I shall abstain regardless of what happens.

to be fair, how would you do that?

you cant force films to be good, lol...