Yeah. And 12 million other people are playing it and yet they didn't go on a massive murder spree. Osama Bin Laden or any of his terrorists weren't playing World of Warcraft either. What could that possibly mean?
Prosecutors Blame "Violent" World of Warcraft for Breivik's Shooting Spree
- Thread starter Calbeck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Clearing the Eye said:
Which is why it's stupid that they went for that option and didn't just go for a criminal conviction. This is not his defense, this is the prosecution trying to say he's crazy.
They didn't have to go for that charge, they chose it so that they would be able to discredit him, not the other way around, they didn't choose it because it was the better option, he clearly would be punished harsher in prison than in an institution, they chose it because they wanted to discredit him. Why would the need to give him a semblance of validity, why opt to go for the route of discrediting him. They could just let the defense argue he's nuts, they didn't have to open the door.
Does it really surprise anyone? Video games almost always take the fall whenever the dangerous psychopath of the week decides to swiss cheesify some dudes with a gun.
However, they should have blamed Call of Duty. That is, of course, assuming that saying violent media actually has any effect on the average person is a valid court offense/defense.
However, they should have blamed Call of Duty. That is, of course, assuming that saying violent media actually has any effect on the average person is a valid court offense/defense.
They never claimed World of Warcraft was responsible for the man's actions--the thread title is sensationalist. In reality, they simply said Breivik was unable to, or had difficulty, differentiating between reality and his video games. In affect, they claim the rules of the real world became lost on him; his perception of right and wrong had been deformed due to mental illness.Adam Jensen said:
I'm not disagreeing with you. But the events have taken a massive toll on Norway and its people, both emotionally and financially, so just what they are going to do is still a confusion riddled haze to even them.Dreiko said:
Oh for the love of... this again?! When will people realize that violent games don't cause death, psychopaths do?! ...Though I honestly doubt they ever will...
How about owning up to your actions and taking some goddamn responsibility like an adult, Breivik.
Besides, World of Warcraft is about as "violent" as Halo is.
IE, not very much at all.
Besides, World of Warcraft is about as "violent" as Halo is.
IE, not very much at all.
It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)Clearing the Eye said:
World of Warcraft's ESRB rating
I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.Vrach said:It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)Clearing the Eye said:
World of Warcraft's ESRB rating
I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.
Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.
Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.
This was my very first thought on the matter too, he's looking for attention, nothing more. The sad thing is, he's getting it.Ickorus said:
Wasn't really an insult, just a dismissal of your argument parallel to your dismissal of everyone else's based on a faulty one of your own. The title of this thread is not sensationalist, it merely draws a very logical conclusion that the article it cites expects their viewer to draw.Clearing the Eye said:I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.Vrach said:It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)Clearing the Eye said:
World of Warcraft's ESRB rating
I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.
Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.
Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.
You don't have to say something outright for it to be something you said, it's exactly what I meant with my "read between the lines" 'insult'. It's very obvious from the article what reaction they were going for and this thread is reacting to just that.
Actually, the prosecution is arguing the gunmen is legally insane and not that video games had anything to do with it. They argue he suffers a form of psychosis that renders him unable to determine the difference between fantasy and reality, causing him to not fully appreciate his crimes. The video game was mentioned as evidence of the man's extreme isolation (he openly admits he used the digital world to escape contact with others). When the time came for him to commit the murders, the prosecution is arguing he was not totally aware of the consequences.Vrach said:Wasn't really an insult, just a dismissal of your argument parallel to your dismissal of everyone else's based on a faulty one of your own. The title of this thread is not sensationalist, it merely draws a very logical conclusion that the article it cites expects their viewer to draw.Clearing the Eye said:I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me, but it's not much cared for and did nothing to help your point.Vrach said:It says so on the sticker, it must be true. Of course it's violent. But there's different degrees of violent content and if your reading skills went past the face value of what's written, you'd understand why people are making fun of them and dismissing their credibility (that they've lost with way, WAY more than just this argument)Clearing the Eye said:
World of Warcraft's ESRB rating
I was simply commenting on the absurdity of discrediting, mocking and outright refusing to read an article based on, and I'll give you an exact quote here, "played the violent computer game World of Warcraft." The game is violent and that is all that was said. The title of this thread is sensationalist and pure knee-jerk in response, as nowhere in the entire article was the video game, or any other, blamed for the shootings.
Some people here simply jump the gun the gun whenever violence is mentioned and assume the other party is calling the game the son of Satan. As you said, there are many forms of violence and many degrees of violence. World of Warcraft happens to contain a degree. That is all that was said or inferred.
Perhaps it was you who didn't look beyond the surface.
You don't have to say something outright for it to be something you said, it's exactly what I meant with my "read between the lines" 'insult'. It's very obvious from the article what reaction they were going for and this thread is reacting to just that.
Again, the gamers that are giving in to knee-jerk emotion and of whom are commenting before understanding or even reading the actual story, are the ones causing the problem. This thread is part of that problem, even; it is a blatant grab for attention on a gaming site and purely sensationalist. A violent video game was mentioned, not in causality, but in correlation and some gamers erupted into a frenzy of ignorance.
Unfortunately, that argument would ignore the basic context of the article itself.dogenzakaminion said:
The very phrase "the violent computer game World of Warcraft" presents it as a given that WoW is inherently violent --- why not "the lushly-rendered cartoonlike computer game World of Warcraft"? Because, in the context of the article, that would be uselessly unrelated. We are told that WoW is "violent" because, in the view of the author of the article, it is relevant to the article itself.
The whole point of bringing up the link between Breivik and WoW is intended as an argument for his insanity. If the only concern is to establish that he had developed an unhealthy obsession for something which, itself, contributed nothing to his madness, there would be no reason to label the game as "violent". You would need only to note the obsession.
I like how anything with a gun means someone just turned into a serial murder rapist 2.0. Usually video games.