Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by jeremiah.l.burns, Mar 12, 2004.
Well... I haven't really read the older posts... Just had to say something, lol
I for one, don't see the big deal with violence in videogames. If I'm honest, it's something I look for. Why? Because it's fun beating people up, and let's face it, I couldn't get away with it in real life unless I joined an organised crime syndicate.
If parents don't want it to influence their kids in the wrong way, then they should do something about it. Sure, it might be up to the kid to take a little responsibility and listen to what their parents want for a change, but let's face, they're not going to. Why? Because it's fun. When people try to censor you from something, curiosity usually wins out, and you make it your business to find out why people don't want you to see it.
People who sell violent games are interested in one thing: Selling them. They don't check for ID because all they want is your money. Therefore, it is the parents' job to stop their kids from buying violent games, especially since it's them who are so afraid it's going to warp their children's fragile little minds
And suing companies like Rockstar games, for example, isn't going to stop them from making games like GTA, it's more sort of an inconvenience. They only make the game. They don't sell it to the public. Their games are rated M (or 18, depending on where you live) for a reason. The content is unsuitable for kids. That rating has been given by a panel of people, who are no doubt parents themselves, so how companies can get into trouble for their games is ridiculous. It'd be one thing if extremely violent games, or games with questionable content (ie sex, use of drugs etc) were given the wrong rating, but they never are.
i played GTA and the like starting at about 10 and i am fine, i dont do stupid stuff like that
I didn't mean EVERY child that played such a game would be influenced, lol
Exactly. All depends how well they were parented and raised.
i agree with what you guys said
Nest on sensationalist idiots against gaming:
PSPs able to magically summon porn 'out of thin air'
somehow i dont think people would be as shocked if they put it like this; 'PSPs can wirelessly connect to the internet' because essentially thats just it. You wonder who pays people to write stories like this.
Well despite the rhetorical nature of the question, thanks.
Well I'm affraid to say it IS the answer. I get the feeling Fox IS Ruppert Murodoch and whatever HE thinks will be broadcasted. The power of money if you like...
I remember a book - think it was HG Wells', concearning a media tycoon who took over world domination by choosing what to show the world - and what not to. Those in favour of his would get air time, those who oppose him as well, but in a completely different matter. Truth lay in his hands. I get the feeling Ruppert Murdoch read that book at some moment in time...
An interesting idea, but i doubt anyone would gain that kind of wealth or power without first having control of enough of the world and its resources to make the media side unneccesary.
Reminds me of the save the internet debate that was here about net neutrality, with american telecomm companies lobbying to gain greater control. In essence they would get the power you describe, able to give more or less bandwith to those they choose, most debates around this concern the pricing of webspaces concerning that issue and that the poor wouldnt get a voice. But with what you just said, maybe it would be more sinister, them only showing the messages they want shown.
Anyone who read the fox9 news article should read this;
courtesy of penny arcade......I couldnt put it better myself.
Nice one, Crusader
Few weeks ago I saw a good documentary about this subject. It smelled like a good conspiracy theory - but the director made some good points. I think it was called WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception, about journalism in the Iraq war, and how Washington was trying to influence it. One of the things it claimed was a daily memo for all Fox9 employees, stating what should be said in the news - with a suggestion how it should be told. Fox denies. Of course.
I don't really think Ruppert Murdoch has the power to monopolise the news business - but he has a very big voice in things. And he knows it, and it wouldn't surprise me at all when he's aware of this and tries to manipulate things one way or another now and again...
Yep, with the amount of power he has I would be surprised if he didnt do a little manipulation, if not for his own agenda then for someone else's with a lot of money.
Video games are just that video games, violent or otherwise, if you play grand theft auto and then the next day you go out and just randomly steal cars and what not, the game did not influence you, you know the law, you know that doing it is wrong, its take a conscious act on your own part to break those laws. A game in no part ever tells you to go and do bad things. Yes ve played games, e.i mario bros and ive never felt the urge to jump on mushrooms and expect a big gold coin to pop out of its ass.
Hey hey everybody!
Jack is back at it again:
"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer,"
Wow thats gotta be the stupidest thing Ive heard this week.
I guess that would be a statment poiltically incorrect and unfair, to a huge majority of video gamers. I guess perhaps he thinks that video games do give the gamers a mentality which enables them to "shoot someone in their face". Normally, unless you're charege with hatred or anger , you wouldn't unhesitatingly shoot someone literally in their faces. The hesitation to do this is completely absent in video games (obviously). Some game addicts who keep playing the games totally cannot see the barrier in real life, and they start acting like they do in video games.
Still, the thought of yourself shooting someone and that someone dying in his pool of blood twitching and groaning , might not seem asl horrifying for many video games as non gamers( not including psycosand other deraged ones) would. In other words, the horror of shooting someone is not as deterring to video gamers and violent people , as it would for other regualr people who do not play video games. Therefore in this respect, video gamers are a little more likely to be more violent than the non-video gamers.
That violent "instinct" is being aroused in us when we play the games. Self -control is another thing.But the fact is that video games elicit the violent side of us when we're playing these games. For people without self-control , such video games are deadly. I guess perhaps this Jack person is thinking that if there are no video games at all, there would be no such cases of violence at all, from the group of people lacking self-control.
I'm not saying that he's right. I'm sure that there are other ways to curb the rpoblems caused by viedo games besides banning them.
But its not really the stupidest thing I've heard this week. Its a sweeping statement produced emotionally, but i wouldn't call it stupid. . I just think that Thompson and his likes are the type who think that " Chop off the roots and the tree will die".To me, that is not stupid, only quite narrow. We have not stopped using cars because they release harmful gases. We have not stopped using planes because they crash. We certainly did not stop using the fire becuse it hurts when touched. I am sure we can think of other ways to curb this problem besides banning them.
Im saying its stupid because its an incorrect assumtion based on specious reasoning and political bias.
I dont agree with your points on gamers more likely to shoot anyone in the face, but thats an opinion and ill leave that there.
But his statement is stupid. Police...........There, one example that completely disproves the statement he made. Cops shoot people in the face if they have to, so do soldiers and so on. Not only that but I am willing to wager that if you profiled EVERYONE who had ever shot someone else in the face, the percentage that would be videogamers (excluding those whove onyl played tetris etc) would be miniscule, and there'd be a hundred other trivial factors to link that are higher on the list, such as 'were they smokers' or their age, does this mean if you smoke you shoot people in the face? or you only shoot people int he face at a certain age? of course not. Jack thompson has made a tentative link trying to associate his political 'enemy' with a horrible crime, one thats simply disproved and is based on flawed logic. If people were smarter, gamers should collaborate and sue him for slander.
That, is why his statement is stupid. And as a gamer, i find this along with many others frankly insulting.
But you are really looking into the literal part of what he said. I think what he means by " shooting in the face " might refer to violence in the form of crime. When a cop or a soldier shoots, it is usually not a crime. Not only that, videogamers by themselves as a category alone, would be very small. There are many factors attributed to people who do such violent crimes, I agree. Video gaming is one of them.It does not mean that if you smoke, or play video games, you will definitely be a violent criminal. These factors are like ghee to the fire of violent instincts within a disturbed mind. Pouring ghee on nothing does not cause a great fire. But if you pour small drops of ghee onto a small fire, that fire becomes big.
These "trivial factors" are not causes.They are, however, catalysts that egg on violent feelings. Video games don't cause the guy to shoot someone ( there are other personal reasons)but they make it a lot easier, thats what I think.
I gather that Jack Thompson did not phrase his statement carefully, for it is obvious that his statement is illogical due to its absolute nature. However, for the sake of knowing what he is trying to say, I put that aside and try to look at it from a reasonable point of view and think " oh, so perhaps thats what he meant".
However, that statement does insult video gamers, like me and you
Separate names with a comma.