13 year old father attempts murder over a video game

[Dragoria]

It would be statutory rape, which is when at least one partner is below the age of consent (not an adult).
(it's technically only a crime if the parents of one of the partners presses charges)

And if the Mother is also 13?

Mutual Statutory Rape, unless a "romeo&juliet law" (I think that's what they're called...) is in effect.

[Benomia]

And if the Mother is also 13?

Mutual Statutory Rape, unless a "romeo&juliet law" (I think that's what they're called...) is in effect.

What if they were both consenting?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It would be statutory rape, which is when at least one partner is below the age of consent (not an adult).
(it's technically only a crime if the parents of one of the partners presses charges)

And if the Mother is also 13?

"No two minors can consensually have sex" would say someone who doesn't know about children...

[The Corparation]

And if the Mother is also 13?

"No two minors can consensually have sex" would say someone who doesn't know about children...

Except that its true in the eyes of the law. Legaly they can't give consent. Rather stupid, but then that's why Romeo and Juliet Laws exist.

[Person012345]

It doesn't?

It actually does, but its still the Daily Fail and its not a credible source. Seriously has anyone found a credible source on this happening? Anyone?

You have a point. There are other sources, but they all seem to cite either the daily fail or the daily record (which seems to be the scottish version of the fail?) as their source.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It actually does, but its still the Daily Fail and its not a credible source. Seriously has anyone found a credible source on this happening? Anyone?

You have a point. There are other sources, but they all seem to cite either the daily fail or the daily record (which seems to be the scottish version of the fail?) as their source.

From the BBC

[The Corparation]

You have a point. There are other sources, but they all seem to cite either the daily fail or the daily record (which seems to be the scottish version of the fail?) as their source.

From the BBC

No mention of the 13 year old being a dad though.

[Andrewtopian Pangaea]

There's people out there who've never touched a video game, yet would kill over $5, so I don't think violent video games have much to do with it. This is just an insane person doing an insane thing.

[Central Slavia]

A 13 year old is playing a rated 18 game that is notorious for blood, gore, swearing, violence and everything else you'd expect from such games as this?

Obviously the kid's parent didn't consider the age rating when buying the game for their child.

I say use the same procedure as you do with cigarettes and alcohol. Challenge for ID and if an adult is buying a game orientated toward younger people, challenge them as well. Don't ban video games, that would go of the way of the drugs trade.

A 13 year old should be well able to tell reality from fiction.
If a violent game, rather than his own violent tendencies were at fault here,as in, he was influenced by it so much it's what made him cut his mate's throat, he's also a nutcase. Not a fault of the game.
Hell, I played plenty of violent games at 13 (hah, almost a decade ago) and slashing someone's neck because of a fucktarded online dispute is not something that ever occured to me.

[Knask]

Hell, I played plenty of violent games at 13 (hah, almost a decade ago) and slashing someone's neck because of a fucktarded online dispute is not something that ever occured to me.

I smoked plenty of cigarettes since I was 13, and getting cancer is not something that's ever occured to me. So cleary cigarettes should be available on demand to kids, since they're harmless.

Same principle as with games.

[Benomia]

Hell, I played plenty of violent games at 13 (hah, almost a decade ago) and slashing someone's neck because of a fucktarded online dispute is not something that ever occured to me.

I smoked plenty of cigarettes since I was 13, and getting cancer is not something that's ever occured to me. So cleary cigarettes should be available on demand to kids, since they're harmless.

Same principle as with games.

Not the same, considering we have proved without doubt that cigerettes cause cancer.

[The God-Realm]

Hell, I played plenty of violent games at 13 (hah, almost a decade ago) and slashing someone's neck because of a fucktarded online dispute is not something that ever occured to me.

I smoked plenty of cigarettes since I was 13, and getting cancer is not something that's ever occured to me. So cleary cigarettes should be available on demand to kids, since they're harmless.

Same principle as with games.

You fail.

Those cigarettes are proven to harm. Video game have no proof.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hell, I played plenty of violent games at 13 (hah, almost a decade ago) and slashing someone's neck because of a fucktarded online dispute is not something that ever occured to me.

I smoked plenty of cigarettes since I was 13, and getting cancer is not something that's ever occured to me. So cleary cigarettes should be available on demand to kids, since they're harmless.

Same principle as with games.

What you just said doesn't make sense, like at all.

[Knask]

I smoked plenty of cigarettes since I was 13, and getting cancer is not something that's ever occured to me. So cleary cigarettes should be available on demand to kids, since they're harmless.

Same principle as with games.

Not the same, considering we have proved without doubt that cigerettes cause cancer.

Then how come I don't have cancer?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not the same, considering we have proved without doubt that cigerettes cause cancer.

Then how come I don't have cancer?

Uhmm... I guess I should point out is not fulminating cancer and it develops over time.

I am not sure how can you think cancer is an immediate thing.

[Knask]

I smoked plenty of cigarettes since I was 13, and getting cancer is not something that's ever occured to me. So cleary cigarettes should be available on demand to kids, since they're harmless.

Same principle as with games.

You fail.

Those cigarettes are proven to harm. Video game have no proof.

There's plenty of proof, if you look for it. Just like with video games, all cigarettes does is increase the risks.

But I managed fine, so there can't be any real risks. If there were, I would have cancer now, and I don't.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Not the same, considering we have proved without doubt that cigerettes cause cancer.

Then how come I don't have cancer?

Because they give you a high probability - much higher than if you do not - but not in all cases.
Video games, however, rarely result in murders or shit.

[Knask]

Then how come I don't have cancer?

Uhmm... I guess I should point out is not fulminating cancer and it develops over time.

So? I don't have it now. Surely that proves that nobody can get it?

I am not sure how can you think cancer is an immediate thing.

I'm not sure how can you think negative influences by video games are immediate things.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Uhmm... I guess I should point out is not fulminating cancer and it develops over time.

So? I don't have it now. Surely that proves that nobody can get it?

I am not sure how can you think cancer is an immediate thing.

I'm not sure how can you think negative influences by video games are immediate things.

I'm not sure how can you think playing videogames can lead to chronic negative effects.

Really now, I have been playing videogames for about 20 years, and I haven't experienced such "negative effects" people speak of.

EDIT: In fact, I've had more issues with morons out in the street than what I do because I play videogames.

[Knask]

Then how come I don't have cancer?

Because they give you a high probability - much higher than if you do not - but not in all cases.

Nah, that can't be it.

I mean, that would also mean the argument trotted out by everybody else about how "I've played games for x years and I'm not a knife-wielding murderer!" is completely irrelevant bullshit. And it can't be, because it's repeated so frequently in this thread by so many posters...

[Benomia]

Because they give you a high probability - much higher than if you do not - but not in all cases.

Nah, that can't be it.

I mean, that would also mean the argument trotted out by everybody else about how "I've played games for x years and I'm not a knife-wielding murderer!" is completely irrelevant bullshit. And it can't be, because it's repeated so frequently in this thread by so many posters...

Who's got two thumbs and doesn't know how to debate?
This guy!

[Knask]

So? I don't have it now. Surely that proves that nobody can get it?


I'm not sure how can you think negative influences by video games are immediate things.

I'm not sure how can you think playing videogames can lead to chronic negative effects.

Science? Googling for research papers?

Really now, I have been playing videogames for about 20 years, and I haven't experienced such "negative effects" people speak of.

And as I've said, I've smoked for years and I haven't experienced such "negative effects" people speak of

[Vaktrania]

Those stupid children...

[Benomia]

Those stupid children...

Ban children!

[Knask]

Nah, that can't be it.

I mean, that would also mean the argument trotted out by everybody else about how "I've played games for x years and I'm not a knife-wielding murderer!" is completely irrelevant bullshit. And it can't be, because it's repeated so frequently in this thread by so many posters...

Who's got two thumbs and doesn't know how to debate?
This guy!

You.. do realize that the whole "two thumbs" spiel only suggests that you don't know how to debate, right?

But respect for the admission, mon.