|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:53 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:15 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:18 am
 |
|
|
|
It's times like this that I'm glad I'm Canadian.
Anyways, I hate all this bullcrap about banning video games and stuff because of the violence and mature content. Now if parents just watched their stupid brats in the first place, and maybe, oh, gee, I dunno, maybe ASKED what it was that they're playing and TOOK THE GAME AWAY it just might cut down on all these stupid rallies and laws and stuff. I mean, isn't the point of parenthood for YOU to raise your own damn kid?
I remember when I was a kid, I found this book at the library called, "The Parent's Guide to Nintendo 64 and Playstation Games" It was published either in 1999/2000, so I guess it wouldn't be all that effective now, but it had a list and description of all the games for the Nintendo 64, ratings, storyline and everything. It even had a section for the actual stations and the accesories. It also had this little part that showed the percentage of rated M games for Nintendo and Playstation. It was an awesome book.
I really wish that they'd just update it so it would be like, "The Parent's Guide to Nintendo Wii, XBox, and Playstation 3 Games". That way, if a mom or dad wanted to know what's in the games their kid is playing, or what kind of games that they don't/do want their kids to play, they could just look it up. Although it might be a double edged sword, because then all the bitchy soccer moms can know about all the violent games that are out there and available and b***h some more.
But seriously though, all that time and effort used to make piket signs and protest down at the Rogers, Movie Gallery, or wherever would be better spent just sitting down and explaining to little Jimmy about why Mommy doesn't want him shooting up cops or Nazis on his XBox.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:54 pm
|
|
|
|
Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Rhed King This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming? actually I guess China already did that. oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they? no I'm just kidding, we're fine. or am I? <.< >.> -.- 0.0 oh god they got him! Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one. We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway. Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent. Fun fact: there are people who have survived car crashes because they were wearing a seatbelt. There are also people who've survived car crashes because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. It's safer overall to wear a seatbelt, but please make that argument in a way that doesn't involve absolutes next time. /tangent
Fun fact: It's a good idea to actually read a person's argument before you make a counter point. I never stated that if you get in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt you are absolutely going to die. I said you'll get ******** up (which means get hurt). Now someone will probably try to make the argument that two cars can collide at 5 mph and no one will be hurt at all but they can go ******** themselves. No one drives that slow and I really don't consider that a car crash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:47 pm
|
|
|
 |
-Hel the Reaper- Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Rhed King This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming? actually I guess China already did that. oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they? no I'm just kidding, we're fine. or am I? <.< >.> -.- 0.0 oh god they got him! Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one. We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway. Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent. Fun fact: there are people who have survived car crashes because they were wearing a seatbelt. There are also people who've survived car crashes because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. It's safer overall to wear a seatbelt, but please make that argument in a way that doesn't involve absolutes next time. /tangent Fun fact: It's a good idea to actually read a person's argument before you make a counter point. I never stated that if you get in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt you are absolutely going to die. I said you'll get ******** up (which means get hurt). Now someone will probably try to make the argument that two cars can collide at 5 mph and no one will be hurt at all but they can go ******** themselves. No one drives that slow and I really don't consider that a car crash.[/quote ]
WELL I think what I was trying to say was lost behind a slew of car metaphors. ... happens all the time... Basically the relation I was trying to make was that it makes no sense to force someone to wear a seat belt, just like it makes no sense to force people to avoid buying these video games and etc. providing a way to protect youself (like with a seatbelt) should be mandatory, just like the video game rating system is mandatory. deciding to blame games for the 'corruption' of our youth is like blaming a car manufacturer for the death of a person becasue they chose not to wear a seatbelt. /interrogation of bad metaphor? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:25 pm
|
|
|
|
-Hel the Reaper- Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Rhed King This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming? actually I guess China already did that. oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they? no I'm just kidding, we're fine. or am I? <.< >.> -.- 0.0 oh god they got him! Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one. We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway. Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent. Fun fact: there are people who have survived car crashes because they were wearing a seatbelt. There are also people who've survived car crashes because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. It's safer overall to wear a seatbelt, but please make that argument in a way that doesn't involve absolutes next time. /tangent Fun fact: It's a good idea to actually read a person's argument before you make a counter point. I never stated that if you get in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt you are absolutely going to die. I said you'll get ******** up (which means get hurt). Now someone will probably try to make the argument that two cars can collide at 5 mph and no one will be hurt at all but they can go ******** themselves. No one drives that slow and I really don't consider that a car crash.
And I never said that you said that. I said that I didn't like your using an absolute to make your point because one exception ruins your argument. If someone survives an accident because they were not wearing a seat belt, then this is an exception that needs to be addressed.
You were also saying that seat belt laws and video game laws aren't comparable. I was arguing that they are. Some people act more violent because of video games. Other people act less violent, and others won't really show any difference. It's the same with wearing seat belts: some people will come out of the accident in better shape for it, but others will come out in worse shape because of it, or in the same shape as they'd have been in without the seat belt. Both laws, however, use one group's experience with the product as a reason to force it onto everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:23 pm
|
|
|
|
Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Rhed King This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming? actually I guess China already did that. oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they? no I'm just kidding, we're fine. or am I? <.< >.> -.- 0.0 oh god they got him! Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one. We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway. Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent. Fun fact: there are people who have survived car crashes because they were wearing a seatbelt. There are also people who've survived car crashes because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. It's safer overall to wear a seatbelt, but please make that argument in a way that doesn't involve absolutes next time. /tangent Fun fact: It's a good idea to actually read a person's argument before you make a counter point. I never stated that if you get in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt you are absolutely going to die. I said you'll get ******** up (which means get hurt). Now someone will probably try to make the argument that two cars can collide at 5 mph and no one will be hurt at all but they can go ******** themselves. No one drives that slow and I really don't consider that a car crash. And I never said that you said that. I said that I didn't like your using an absolute to make your point because one exception ruins your argument. If someone survives an accident because they were not wearing a seat belt, then this is an exception that needs to be addressed. You were also saying that seat belt laws and video game laws aren't comparable. I was arguing that they are. Some people act more violent because of video games. Other people act less violent, and others won't really show any difference. It's the same with wearing seat belts: some people will come out of the accident in better shape for it, but others will come out in worse shape because of it, or in the same shape as they'd have been in without the seat belt. Both laws, however, use one group's experience with the product as a reason to force it onto everyone.
I'm just going to let the car/seatbelt metaphor/argument go because this is becoming far too confusing and pointless.
Anyway, I highly disagree that videogames are the CAUSE of any shift in violent behavior in people (same with movies, music, etc.) It's far more likely that people who become violent is because of a poor support system at home or abuse/neglect at the hands of others. If you are supported and have a good life it is highly unlikely that a person will become violent for any reason. (Excluding mental illness, which may be the true cause behind a lot of the violent outbursts we hear of.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:42 pm
|
|
|
|
-Hel the Reaper- Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- Rhed King This reminds me of the seat belt law. It is mandatory in some states to wear a seat belt. This is preposterous, why should anyone need to wear their seat belt, it supposed to be a choice. the same thing goes with video games. this indirect harm crap is just going back to second degree, third degree, and so on. what's next, they ban video games, then blame video game corporations? maybe they can ban imagination next? or how about dreaming? actually I guess China already did that. oh no the thought police are coming! Oh wait, no they're not... or are they? no I'm just kidding, we're fine. or am I? <.< >.> -.- 0.0 oh god they got him! Actually, I don't think your comparison of banning videogames to mandatory seatbelt laws is a very good one. We KNOW for a fact that if you don't wear your seatbelt and you're in a car accident you WILL get ******** up in your car, or worse you'll be ejected and have your brains splattered across the highway. Videogames however (like it states in the article) have never been proven to make people snap or become more violent. Fun fact: there are people who have survived car crashes because they were wearing a seatbelt. There are also people who've survived car crashes because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. It's safer overall to wear a seatbelt, but please make that argument in a way that doesn't involve absolutes next time. /tangent Fun fact: It's a good idea to actually read a person's argument before you make a counter point. I never stated that if you get in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt you are absolutely going to die. I said you'll get ******** up (which means get hurt). Now someone will probably try to make the argument that two cars can collide at 5 mph and no one will be hurt at all but they can go ******** themselves. No one drives that slow and I really don't consider that a car crash. And I never said that you said that. I said that I didn't like your using an absolute to make your point because one exception ruins your argument. If someone survives an accident because they were not wearing a seat belt, then this is an exception that needs to be addressed. You were also saying that seat belt laws and video game laws aren't comparable. I was arguing that they are. Some people act more violent because of video games. Other people act less violent, and others won't really show any difference. It's the same with wearing seat belts: some people will come out of the accident in better shape for it, but others will come out in worse shape because of it, or in the same shape as they'd have been in without the seat belt. Both laws, however, use one group's experience with the product as a reason to force it onto everyone. I'm just going to let the car/seatbelt metaphor/argument go because this is becoming far too confusing and pointless. Anyway, I highly disagree that videogames are the CAUSE of any shift in violent behavior in people (same with movies, music, etc.) It's far more likely that people who become violent is because of a poor support system at home or abuse/neglect at the hands of others. If you are supported and have a good life it is highly unlikely that a person will become violent for any reason. (Excluding mental illness, which may be the true cause behind a lot of the violent outbursts we hear of.)
And the bolded, again, is an absolute. And incorrect; the video game may have just been the last straw, but that still means that it caused a shift in the person's violent behavior, regardless of how minor. 'Any shift' also means that a video game can't make a person less violent, which I've heard correlations of but I don't have a source for that at the moment.
Also, because I know I'll get accused of believing the opposite if I don't mention it now, I do think a video game ban is stupid. In most people, video games don't affect violent behavior (or at least not to a noticeable level). If someone does do something violent because of a video game, I'm certain that most of those cases can be traced to various factors and video games will be, at worst, the last straw for the person. At this point, I'm arguing because you keep using bad arguments and it's getting on my nerves.
Please, stop using absolutes. 'If you do X, this will/will not happen' and 'X will/will not affect Y' are very weak arguments because you say that this always occurs - no exceptions - and one example of this not being true has destroyed your argument. Use 'most' or 'generally will/will not' or 'usually' or 'there's a good chance' instead; that way you have some room for exceptions and your argument can at least survive 'I have one case where that didn't happen'.
/rant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Decavolty Argumentatives aside, you guys are still acting like this is 'DURR HURR BANNING VIOLENT VIDEYAGAEMZ'. It isnt. It's banning the sale of games to Little Timmy, like it OUGHT to be.
Good point, but where in the heck is little Timmy getting the money to buy these games? I've never seen a 9 year old pull out $60. And I've never seen little Timmy down at the store himself either. Usually he's with a parent, or a group, or an older sibling or cousin, and then the older person can just say that they're buying it for themselves.
And they banned the sale of cigarettes to people under 19, but kids still smoke them. (And I am NOT making a comparison to health hazards, just legal market.) If the day comes that they stop showing commercials for M-rated games, lock them behind opaque shelves, and make it so that you can't play them on your PSP as you walk down the street, don't be surprised if you eventually can't play them in the house anymore stare . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- I'm just going to let the car/seatbelt metaphor/argument go because this is becoming far too confusing and pointless. Anyway, I highly disagree that videogames are the CAUSE of any shift in violent behavior in people (same with movies, music, etc.) It's far more likely that people who become violent is because of a poor support system at home or abuse/neglect at the hands of others. If you are supported and have a good life it is highly unlikely that a person will become violent for any reason. (Excluding mental illness, which may be the true cause behind a lot of the violent outbursts we hear of.) And the bolded, again, is an absolute. And incorrect; the video game may have just been the last straw, but that still means that it caused a shift in the person's violent behavior, regardless of how minor. 'Any shift' also means that a video game can't make a person less violent, which I've heard correlations of but I don't have a source for that at the moment. Also, because I know I'll get accused of believing the opposite if I don't mention it now, I do think a video game ban is stupid. In most people, video games don't affect violent behavior (or at least not to a noticeable level). If someone does do something violent because of a video game, I'm certain that most of those cases can be traced to various factors and video games will be, at worst, the last straw for the person. At this point, I'm arguing because you keep using bad arguments and it's getting on my nerves. Please, stop using absolutes. 'If you do X, this will/will not happen' and 'X will/will not affect Y' are very weak arguments because you say that this always occurs - no exceptions - and one example of this not being true has destroyed your argument. Use 'most' or 'generally will/will not' or 'usually' or 'there's a good chance' instead; that way you have some room for exceptions and your argument can at least survive 'I have one case where that didn't happen'. /rant
Dear sweet Jeebus do you have any idea how ******** patronizing you are? We're in Gaia not a high school debate team, you know damn well what I ******** proper ways to argue aside.
I honestly think it's impossible (yup it's an absolute I hope you're squirming right now) for videogames to CAUSE people to become violent. If someone is that unstable to have videogames to cause that much of an effect on them then they are already gone.
The studies I've heard of that talk about behavioral shifts and videogames have been either inconclusive or biased. I suspect that any correlation they found was up to pure chance or it was twisted in someway.
@Decavolty
I understand it's talking about the sale not and not entirely banning, but this argument is far more interesting. I mean there isn't really a very good argument for allowing young children to buy M rated games.
@GrowingDandelion
Your prediction for the future is scary but somehow I doubt they'll ban M-rated game playing in public, since there is no direct link between M-rated games and cancer. XD (I hope...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:37 pm
|
|
|
|
-Hel the Reaper- Zephyrkitty -Hel the Reaper- I'm just going to let the car/seatbelt metaphor/argument go because this is becoming far too confusing and pointless. Anyway, I highly disagree that videogames are the CAUSE of any shift in violent behavior in people (same with movies, music, etc.) It's far more likely that people who become violent is because of a poor support system at home or abuse/neglect at the hands of others. If you are supported and have a good life it is highly unlikely that a person will become violent for any reason. (Excluding mental illness, which may be the true cause behind a lot of the violent outbursts we hear of.) And the bolded, again, is an absolute. And incorrect; the video game may have just been the last straw, but that still means that it caused a shift in the person's violent behavior, regardless of how minor. 'Any shift' also means that a video game can't make a person less violent, which I've heard correlations of but I don't have a source for that at the moment. Also, because I know I'll get accused of believing the opposite if I don't mention it now, I do think a video game ban is stupid. In most people, video games don't affect violent behavior (or at least not to a noticeable level). If someone does do something violent because of a video game, I'm certain that most of those cases can be traced to various factors and video games will be, at worst, the last straw for the person. At this point, I'm arguing because you keep using bad arguments and it's getting on my nerves. Please, stop using absolutes. 'If you do X, this will/will not happen' and 'X will/will not affect Y' are very weak arguments because you say that this always occurs - no exceptions - and one example of this not being true has destroyed your argument. Use 'most' or 'generally will/will not' or 'usually' or 'there's a good chance' instead; that way you have some room for exceptions and your argument can at least survive 'I have one case where that didn't happen'. /rant Dear sweet Jeebus do you have any idea how ******** patronizing you are? We're in Gaia not a high school debate team, you know damn well what I mean. ******** proper ways to argue aside. I honestly think it's impossible (yup it's an absolute I hope you're squirming right now) for videogames to CAUSE people to become violent. If someone is that unstable to have videogames to cause that much of an effect on them then they are already gone. The studies I've heard of that talk about behavioral shifts and videogames have been either inconclusive or biased. I suspect that any correlation they found was up to pure chance or it was twisted in someway. @Decavolty I understand it's talking about the sale not and not entirely banning, but this argument is far more interesting. I mean there isn't really a very good argument for allowing young children to buy M rated games. @GrowingDandelion Your prediction for the future is scary but somehow I doubt they'll ban M-rated game playing in public, since there is no direct link between M-rated games and cancer. XD (I hope...)
Well, apparently cell phones give you brain tumours. I don't have a cell phone though, so I'm okay.
Do have M-rated games though. AND NOW I'M A PSYCHOPATH!!!! *runs around wildly while shooting AK-47) xd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
