Indeed, indeed. We can't prove negatives. That's why it's incredibly important we don't allow arguments to be the asserters, completely devoid of any facts, putting the onus on the opponents.

I see. You think that a child would likely be damaged by playing GTA? If this is the case, was there a particular meta study or journal article, etc, that convinced you? I'd be interested in reading it, if that's the case.

I'd argue that I wasn't too personal. I was kinda rude, but I'd not think I said anything below the belt. Yeah, I called someone's parents lazy - a response to that person calling my parents bad. There is some hypocrisy in my posts, but there's more in his. Thanks for reading and being reasonable though!

"Please bear this in mind when you're calling other parents "lazy" and questioning their "interest in your cognizance".

Capitalism?

"if this had happened in the USA & a few days later the child had shot the mom or dad in the face with a gun that had been left laying about, who & what would be blamed, the game would be blamed !"

So your deconstruction of my replies as if they were contained in an essay seems a bit of a wasted effort. Most of my replies have been responses specifically mirroring the tone of the original commenter as a common attempt to rhetorically show absurdity. You've been unable to judge the tone of that.

I can't really engage with your first point, 'cause it's just sort of 'Cause I said so'. But you're right about the ESRB. I'm just trying to find some kind of international line to walk here.

As others pointed out, the gun analogy is pretty bad. Can you link me to any sort of evidence which suggests me playing GTA at 11 was likely to cause damage to me? 'Cause I can link you to a bit of evidence which suggests letting me play with a gun at 11 was likely to damage me. That's the difference.

So you took things from a level of quipping and condescendingly attacking arguments, which I was doing, t swearing at me and insulting me as a person. Because you've lowered the tone, I won't be engaging much more with you, but I will give you this last reply.

Well of course, but that's the exact same point which could be levelled at the other side of the argument. And it'd be more relevant there, considering they're advocating banning something for some people.

Did you play GTA when you were young, too? Because you're guilty of what you've just accused me. Hey, maybe we've found a causation?! Playing GTA as a kid directly leads to posting snarky comments on Kotaku as an adult. Science, bitch! Right? You with me?!

Or it suggest my retort wasn't very good. Either way, I don't particularly care. More important is the actual argument.

Well, no, actually I don't. You're right in saying the brain peaks at 25, but we reach our processing optimum at 15 (that is to say, a 15 year old can process information faster than a 40 year old), but it's entirely irrelevant. The brain doesn't have to have peaked in order to playa video game.

Great post.

Well indeed, but isn't it the case that games will only become as realistic as films? Unless your suggestion is that the interactivity in a game is more likely to cause psychological harm, I'm not sure I accept the conclusion of your point.

That's a very valid point. Just to make a legal analogy, in tort law we have this maxim, right. Damnum datum injuria. Basically, there is no delict or tort unless there is fault, loss, and injury.

How well aquatinted are you with the kid anyway? I mean I know you're obviously not making an actual judgement on his personality and development from a thirty second video. That would be ridiculous, right?

Yeah, great point. The hysterical among us haven't really developed any sort of argument here. They're simply saying the kid shouldn't be allowed to play it, just because. Some of the more extreme moralists have vaguely hinted at a link between playing GTA and school shootings and sociopathy. Which is absolutely…

Almost like 'film'?