@crono71: "No true Scotsman" refers to an ad hoc change to a definition to make the statement remain true, especially when the two statements have no direct relation. In the usual example, drinking tea and ethnicity/nationality have no logical connection, and therefore creating the connection is a fallacy. In this example, however, one's beliefs and one's political party membership (a group of people with similar beliefs) does have a logical connection, so it is not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
@darkelf83: Even if the ratings enforcement is less effective now, they're still good at informing the type of content that's the reason for the rating (unlike the MPAA which just slaps a "PG-13" on and calls it good).
@Jinzo_111887: Hollywood would respond the same way they have for the past few decades, but to a greater degree: buying PG-13 ratings for it's most profitable movies. Unlike the ESRB, CARA and the MPAA have no integrity.
@broncos7: To add, M-rated video games aren't even allowed to be sold to under-18s in the first place, so this wouldn't "protect" them any additionally (assuming current rules were actually followed).
Do these studies differentiate between long-term and short-term effects of video games on aggressive behavior? Because it seems incredibly obvious to me that 5 minutes after intense PVP, you're going to be more aggressive; that's the whole point of adrenaline, to get you amped up so you can fight more effectively. But do the effects persist a week later? I seriously doubt that, especially with this line: "However, some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence."
F-Lambda's comments