Anti-Video game propaganda... Your thoughts?

[000Ronald]

About a week later, the ACLU field a counter claim, stating that the bill "stomped on the first amendment". I kid you not. While it may be true that it destroyed their first amendment rights, all they were doing was slandering a dead soldier and our country.

It's in the club's handbook that you can be an ass within certain perimeters.
If you don't like the handbook, get it changed. But you can't just ignore it when it doesn't suit you.

I'm not ignoring it; if I was ignoring it, I wouldn't have brought it up.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

I'm not ignoring it; if I was ignoring it, I wouldn't have brought it up.

I mean you're ignoring the 1st amendment because it's annoying to you in this instance.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

(1)They just want to ruin everyone else's fun because they're too damn lazy to be real parents for a change and make sure that their children play age appropriate games. They don't want to take ten seconds out of their precious time to look at the rating. How do you think kids get those games anyway? (2)The stores won't sell them to anyone under 17 without a parent/guardian present.

Here's where I start to get insulted. First off, this is self supportive bullcrap. You're trying to prove yourself right by generalizing things. Let me correct you on a couple of matters.

1) This isn't nessecarally true. The parents who buy mature games for their children either

A, by which I mean the most part) belive their children are mature enough to know that video games aren't real and

B, by which I mean the people you hear about) think of video games specificaly in the terms of Tetris.

Meaning the people you hear about don't know that there are games like GTA or Manhunt. They probobly lead very busy lives, and dont' watch much TV, so they don't see the advertisements, as few as they are. That means they're genuinely surprised when these games turn out to be as violent as they are. And they pitch a fucking fit, because even thought they don't spend nearly enough time with their children, they do genuinely care about them.

I would disagree to both those points. For A, if a parent feels the child is mature enough to handle the game, then they shouldn't be complaining about the level of violence in the game. Now, it's not my place to tell them how to raise their child, nor how mature/immature said child might be, but any parent complaining about a video game after buying the game based on the point under A has no place complaining about video games.

As for Point B, ignorance is no excuse for further ignorance. Not to mention that retailers will generally explain why they're warning about the game. I read an article (here on the escapist even) written by a game store clerk who had to deal with an enraged parent who bought a violent game for her child. Mind you, not even an hour beforehand he had been explaining the details of the game to the parent, which the parent shrugged-off and bought the game anyway.

Now, I'm not going to say that's the case every time, but when parents will blatantly ignore a store clerk's warning that a game has excessive levels of violence, how can you justify those same parents getting outraged when they see how much violence was involved? If they're really THAT worried about what their child is doing, they should make it a point to educate themselves about it. The problem is that it's much easier for them to remain ignorant, so that's what they do.

 

[Ultrajoe]

"What is your idea Ultrajoe?" the crowd of people chorused

Just you wait.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I'm not ignoring it; if I was ignoring it, I wouldn't have brought it up.

I mean you're ignoring the 1st amendment because it's annoying to you in this instance.

Think of it along the same lines as internet trolling. We can goto, and post on, whatever topic we want. But if we gather a group of people specifically to flood a topic with flames and slander, our messages will be deleted and our accounts banned/suspended. Granted the forums aren't governed by the US Constitution, but it's the same principle. Just because you have the right to gather and say whatever you want, doesn't mean it's always legal to do-so.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Think of it along the same lines as internet trolling. We can goto, and post on, whatever topic we want. But if we gather a group of people specifically to flood a topic with flames and slander, our messages will be deleted and our accounts banned/suspended. Granted the forums aren't governed by the US Constitution, but it's the same principle. Just because you have the right to gather and say whatever you want, doesn't mean it's always legal to do-so.

Unless the rules specifically said you could.
Right to freedom of assembly.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Lol those should be anti army reserve advertisements

 

[Radelaide]

At least we know what we're dealing with.

It's almost as if you're implying using the term "we" to refer to a group who meet a set criteria to which both parties of the discussion belong is also logically invalid.

But you'd never do such a thing, because that would be stupid.

Well no matter what I call us and them, I'm still labelling both parties. It's just the more convenient way of doing it.

 

[Nargleblarg]

God DAMMIT things like this piss me off everyone looks for a excuse for all the violence in the world and they have to blame video games. Do they know books movies music TV and everything else is just as violent. I have played video games all my lifesince I was 5 and I'm not going to leave tommorrow and start gutting people at random. For the last time video games do not make psychopaths, psychopaths get their hands on video games.

 

[Beowulf DW]

"What is your idea Ultrajoe?" the crowd of people chorused

Just you wait.

He's photoshopping his own counter-propaganda.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Think of it along the same lines as internet trolling. We can goto, and post on, whatever topic we want. But if we gather a group of people specifically to flood a topic with flames and slander, our messages will be deleted and our accounts banned/suspended. Granted the forums aren't governed by the US Constitution, but it's the same principle. Just because you have the right to gather and say whatever you want, doesn't mean it's always legal to do-so.

Unless the rules specifically said you could.
Right to freedom of assembly.

Which, again, is just like on the forums. We can gather a large group of people where-ever we want, but if we gather in a topic to specifically flame the people in that topic already, we'll be moderated for it.

 

[N_of_the_dead]

Yeah it must be the games fault and not the retard parent who buys it for them even though it says there's violence in it i mean logic man
how the hell are they smart enough to make a descent picture using photoshop but aren't smart enough to use common sense or as previous posts have said scientific method

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Well no matter what I call us and them, I'm still labelling both parties. It's just the more convenient way of doing it.

I think you missed the point of my criticism. A gamer is someone who plays games. Thus if you play games, you qualify for the title of "gamer". However, a gamer is not someone who eats babies. A subsection of gamers can indeed engage in baby eating, who will earn the title of "eater of babies" + "gamer". To say all gamers eat babies is fallacious.

Comparatively, it is fallacious to say parents groups are of the opinions, attitudes or ideals you give them, as it is not a criteria for qualification of such a title. "They" is the key word, as it implies a quality of the group that is unevidenced to exist as the whole group.

Again, kind of like they do to us by saying gamers eat babies or something to that effect.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I got a suggestion...We kill every technophobic bastard so they stop breeding/Converting people to ignorance.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Which, again, is just like on the forums. We can gather a large group of people where-ever we want, but if we gather in a topic to specifically flame the people in that topic already, we'll be moderated for it.

I mean it's part of US law. You can't bring guns or shovels or lynch a guy, but other then that you're free to assemble. No riots!

Somewhat humorously, the international treaty of human rights differs in that it recognizes as an exemption the public's "morals" being harmed as cause for refusal of the freedom. In this instance America really is the free-ist

 

[Radelaide]

Well no matter what I call us and them, I'm still labelling both parties. It's just the more convenient way of doing it.

I think you missed the point of my criticism. A gamer is someone who plays games. Thus if you play games, you qualify for the title of "gamer". However, a gamer is not someone who eats babies. A subsection of gamers can indeed engage in baby eating, who will earn the title of "eater of babies" + "gamer". To say all gamers eat babies is fallacious.

Comparatively, it is fallacious to say parents groups are of the opinions, attitudes or ideals you give them, as it is not a criteria for qualification of such a title. "They" is the key word, as it implies a quality of the group that is unevidenced to exist as the whole group.

Again, kind of like they do to us by saying gamers eat babies or something to that effect.

You've read way too far into my "They" usage. It's just the easier way of distinguishing the two parties involved.

They way that the parent groups of "Gameover.info" are portraying games is that they're evil, and since it's actually good propaganda, it can convince others to think the same. It's kinda like "knocking it before you try it". For lack of a better phrase.

 

[Jobz]

Spoiler: Long Post: Click To Read

Parents who try to get violent games banned are just plain silly. It won't work because the right to create, produce and distribute these games are protected under the right to free speech which most developed countries have.

While this may very well be true, a country also has the right to protect the moral integrety of it's people, even if it means stamping on the first amendment. To put this in perspective, let me use a much different example that constitutes, in essentiallity, exactly what you're saying.

About two years ago my uncle, a decorated Green Berett, died in Iraq. After his burial in Arlington National Cemetary, there was a memorial held for him in his hometown, which I attended. While we were there, a religious group from Tenesee (I think it was) interrupted our memorial by shouting such statements as "THE ARMY IS GAY!", "AMRICA IS GOING TO HELL!", and other such slanderous statements. After they did this for about fifteen minutes, everyone, disheartened, left (on a side note, a couple of them, including my grandmother, were followed home and harassed there. Most of them were arrested, but I know for a fact that a couple of the ones that harassed my grandmother had to be taken to a hospital; another one of my uncles apparently beat the ever-loving shit out of them).

A couple of weeks later, my grandmother (this is when we were still on speaking terms) hands me several pieces of paper and says that I need to get as many signatures as I can on it. It was a petition for a bill, the Let Them Rest In Peace Act. It would prohibit petitioners from entering a 200 yard radius of a funeral or a memorial. Well long story short, it passed (I personally got at least 1000 signatures, including most of my teachers and classmates; I made a formal request during first hour the day I got it) unanamously.

About a week later, the ACLU field a counter claim, stating that the bill "stomped on the first amendment". I kid you not. While it may be true that it destroyed their first amendment rights, all they were doing was slandering a dead soldier and our country.

Let me turn that around, so you can see it from the perspective of someone who doesn't aprove of violent video games, "Why do your first amendment rights superceed my child's mental saftey? If these games do cause violence, then developers shouldn't even be allowed to make them."

On some level they have a point; while some violent games do, in fact, have a point (I'd hold up COD4 and Half-life (well, everything after the original half-life) as a reference, and perhaps DMC3, because that was one hell of a point in my eyes) most of them are just insipid boom-feasts. Does that mean they cause violence, or that they should be banned, even if they don't? No; but it makes the point that much harder to defend. An art form is only as good as it's best work, and if no one can find it's best work, then it's a moot point anyway.

First of all let me say that I agree with you on one point. There comes a time when a line must be drawn, when free speech is taken too far and get's to the point of being abusive. I believe the group you are talking about is the Westboro Baptist Church, they've been known to do things like that (They're infamous for their "God Hates Fags" campaign, and for saying tragedies like Columbine and the VTech shootings were blessings from God).

I do believe however, that there is quite a difference between something like this and a violent video game. Violent video games are not forced on anyone. People choose to play them in the same way that they choose to watch violent movies or read violent books. Yes, this content will offend certain people, which is why they are given ratings to warn people about what they contain.

Things like what happened to you and your family (And I am sorry that happened, it was a despicable act) are not optional. They are forced on people for the sole purpose of causing serious psychological scarring. Video games and other forms of media can cause this form of scarring I suppose, but as I said, they are not forced on anyone, and so are far less likely to.

I've taken it upon myself to highlight certain points of contention for your viewing pleasure. Or, more, so you won't be as confused by what I'm going to say.

(1)They just want to ruin everyone else's fun because they're too damn lazy to be real parents for a change and make sure that their children play age appropriate games. They don't want to take ten seconds out of their precious time to look at the rating. How do you think kids get those games anyway? (2)The stores won't sell them to anyone under 17 without a parent/guardian present.

Spoiler: Long Post 2: Click To Read

Here's where I start to get insulted. First off, this is self supportive bullcrap. You're trying to prove yourself right by generalizing things. Let me correct you on a couple of matters.

1) This isn't nessecarally true. The parents who buy mature games for their children either

A, by which I mean the most part) belive their children are mature enough to know that video games aren't real and

B, by which I mean the people you hear about) think of video games specificaly in the terms of Tetris.

Meaning the people you hear about don't know that there are games like GTA or Manhunt. They probobly lead very busy lives, and dont' watch much TV, so they don't see the advertisements, as few as they are. That means they're genuinely surprised when these games turn out to be as violent as they are. And they pitch a fucking fit, because even thought they don't spend nearly enough time with their children, they do genuinely care about them.

Or it could be the kid's grandmother coming in to see him having digital sex. One of the two.

2) No. This isn't true at all. Retailers aren't supposed to sell mature games to minors and storetenders, for the most part, don't sell mature games to minors, you can't possibly say that all storetenders don't sell video games to minors at all. There was a point, if I remember correctly, when everyone was either unaware or didn't care about video game ratings. This is going to automatically envoke the response, once the general public becomes aware of the level of violence in some games, that they have to make the laws stronger, which is going to entail the possibility of banning some games. We are still dealing with this. You can't just ignore it, because it's a major part of their argument. You have to deal with the problem up front.

I'll respond to your points in the order you gave them just to make things clearer and easier to read:

1)
A. I understand that this could happen, and I'd just like to raise a point that I saw raised earlier in the thread that I agree with. If you believe that your child is mature enough to play games with violent content, why would you complain about said game having violent content? Perhaps you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

B. This is also possible, I agree. However, In any video game store i have been in the past six or seven years (Since they made the laws against selling games with mature content to minors much more strict) if there was an adult buying a game with mature content for his/her child, the clerk would make certain to let them know that the game did indeed have mature content, and would warn them several times. They would even go to the length of describing exactly what sort of content the game had to the parent.

Of course this does not address the issue of buying video games on the internet or at a yard sale or something of the sort, and I must humbly admit that I do not see a reasonable way of regulating the types of games sold to children that way. Aside from making sure that all parents know what the ratings systems mean, which the ESRB and ratings boards in other countries have been making an effort to do lately.

2)I mentioned up top that in the last six or seven years since the laws were made more strict I had never seen a store clerk sell a game to a child without a parent being present, and without making sure the parent knew exactly what sort of content the game had. This does not only apply to video game exclusive stores (Game Stop, EB Games, Game Crazy etc.) it also applies to other stores that sell them (Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City, K-Mart etc.).

But as I have obviously not been to every store in the world, it is possible there are some which still disobey the laws, but in today's day and age this is risky. Stores send, for lack of a better word, decoys into shops to attempt to purchase M-rated games. If the decoy looks under 30, the cashier is supposed to ask for ID, if he/she is under 17, he is supposed to ask if a parent or guardian is present to purchase the game for him.

If the cashier fails to do either of these and sells the game to the person, he/she will be given a substantial fine (I believe it's somewhere in the range of 10-12 thousand dollars) and lose their job. These spot checks can happen at any time, and so selling to underage people is very dangerous to store clerks these days.

Lastly as I mentioned before there is very little that can be done to stop the purchase of games over the internet and at yard sales, or to stop a child from borrowing a game from his friend. The only thing I can recommend is that parents become more involved in their children's activities, make sure what your child is playing or watching is appropriate for them. If not, don't allow them to play or watch it anymore, and perhaps help them to understand why they can't play it.

To close; Yes, violent and mature games will get into the hands of children. No, there is no way to stop this from happening completely. But should that warrant the banning of these games for the mature gamers who choose to view this content willingly? I don't think so.

 

[stompy]

It's just Dark Dungeons [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp] all over again.

That's just hilarious... these propaganda people have no idea.

And that's back in '84...

Sorry, I was meaning both D&D propaganda and these idiots.

 

[Graustein]

It's just Dark Dungeons [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp] all over again.

That's just hilarious... these propaganda people have no idea.

And that's back in '84...

Sorry, I was meaning both D&D propaganda and these idiots.

That there's Jack Chick. He's still going. Apparently Islam worships a moon god and the Catholic church is satanic.