Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Companies Being Sued Over Columbine
Rajeev Raghavan writes: "According to this article at the Denver Post. One of the families of the slain teachers at Columbine is suing 25 game companies for $5 billion in damages plus damages of $5000 to $10 million for individual parties in the class action law suit. Great, lets blame more people for our problems, shall we."
Don't you understand? Saying that guns do damage is even more stupid than saying that violent video games do damage. Guns are merely a tool; the problem is that there are some people out there that think that they should kill other people for no good reason. Violence in the culture may foster this belief, though personally I think that's a load of crap. Certainly, however, it is not the fault of the guns.
Besides, guns are probably less deadly than bombs... I personally think that if we can keep the crazy students trying to kill everyone with a couple of guns we'll be a lot better than if they figure out that a few bombs can do much more damage.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
If these people win, I'm done with America. I'm moving to Canada.
... but when you are suing because you spilled coffee on yourself ... can I sue my parents for getting a divorce when I was a young kid ..."
Pack yer bags.
The legal system here is beyond control when I can sue because I'm an idiot.
It depends on who you are, who you're suing, who your lawyer is and how deep the defendents pockets are.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
How is it if kids play Doom and shoot up a school, they're victims of the horrible video game industry.
And how is it that if kids read the Bible and bring violence against other people because of some message that says to do so, they're just crazy?
Get your priorities straight. The Bible has been the center of more violence than anything else in our civilization. Put an NC-17 rating on the Bible before you could even think of doing it for video games.
"Where will it end?"
Good question. If the games companies involved here lose the case, then who knows where it will end.
However, there's an optimistic view that says this court case is a positive thing: if the jury throws it out of court, and I really hope they do, then we have a precedent, and it may just turn out that the answer to the question "where will it end?" turns out to be "with this court case".
Here's hoping.
--
>If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it.
Violence is bad. Please, can you explain to me how sex is bad?
He was referring to "porn", not sex. Which is different.
Arguably, not all porn is bad. But, a quick look at some newsgroups is enough to see that the over abundance of porn, most particularly the abusive and degrading one, can (and is) a factor in many sexual assaults.
It's as possible to be addicted to violence as it is to be addicted to sex as it is to be addicted to drugs (ranging from Flintstone vitamins to gasoline vapors).
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
AC isn't making much of a good point by ignoring, as you do, the key points in the original message; and that is, of the degrading and abusive aspects of some of the porn found on the newsgroup.
AC has yet to mature enough to realize that the abuse are not posted on usenet, but ratter publicized on it.
And you have to realize that a person who's sexual dependency is heightened and excited by the abundance of imagery that teaches him(/her in rarer cases) "it's OK, everybody else does it" is a factor that will push that person across the line and commit those acts.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Yes, I am. Those points are irrelevant unless you can show that they actually have anything to do with sex crimes.
I dont have to know that. It's been shown before. Read up on psychology and sexual behavior.
I know precisely what's on Usenet. What's your point?
Your mother was a hamster...
(Or do you actually read and not just pretend? Cause if you do read, then you missed the point; nothing goes on in usenet (aka, it's not a phisical place eh?); nor what's presented or it's users are in direct cause, but ratter, what's presented is a factor of enforcement of ill-constructed judgement that can lead to acting upon criminal sexual behaviour by some predisposed individuals).
Evidence, bucko, evidence. I'm quite sure that this is a conviction of yours, but that doesn't make it true.
It's not my conviction. I do support conclusions brought in my psychology specialists of any kind on this subject however. And you're right: because they said so, it doesn't make it true. But, I have to trust those who know infinitely more on the subject than I do. I just took psy for 3 terms or so.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
>> Funny, you ignore our religion and culture: a vengeful, violent biblical God who thinks nothing of wiping people out with plague
> When one understands the nature of God, while not pulling the reality of violence out of context, you will understand that the Bible comunicates a loving God.
Your god, being omnipotent, had a thousand other options that would have harmed no one. He decided to send a series of plagues. If that's okay, then what's wrong with what the Palestenians are doing? They don't have good options, yet we get upset about them picking one of the few effective ones, the same one your god consisently chose.
"Dale Todd, Evan's father, said he hooked up with Thompson through research he did on violent video games. He even obtained a copy of "Doom" and played it himself. He was appalled. "
:)
'Obtained' a copy. Hrm, he's a warez feind. Oh well.
My issue is the fact that they use the OLD games as evidence. I dont belive games cause issues with kids, I just find it funny that they keep mentioning Doom instead of UT, or Half Life or anything else. They'll probably mention scorched earth or one must fall 2099 soon enough.
_14k4
Do we blame the alcohol industry when someone dies as a result of drunk driving?
Unfortunately, bad example. $DEITY help me, but I've seen several lawsuits where the bar or liquor store was sued -- successfully -- for wrongful death in a civil court. Nobody's responsible for their own actions anymore. Why should they be?
I don't know about this "jury of your peers" bullshit -- I think I'd rather have a panel of three judges who understand the law deciding the case... I've just seen too much evidence that the people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty are sheeple, not my peers. And, most of the people who don't try to get out of it and want to be there, will be far more likely to vote guilty on anything.
No, I don't have evidence, I just felt the need to rant.
-30-
How about some 1.6 million abortions every year. If Mom and Dad can abort little Jessica, why can't I kill that gigantic prick at school?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Woah there, hold it a second. You're saying I should have "just ignored it" when the abuse (verbal and physical) hit me in high school? Cool! You must have been one of the counsellors I used to ask for help! You're right in one regard, though: some people manage to get through it. Y'know what I did? I got sick of high school really fast. Two years of it was enough. At fifteen, I pushed really hard to get on the roster of students that the school district would pay (small) scholarships for to go to college. Here I sit, 23 years old, firmly upper middle class (for a full three years now, we've been in the black, instead of hemorrhaging money like my abusive "classmates" back in high school are now), quickly ascending the "corporate ladder", and in a much better position than I'm sure most of the loser jock and preppy assholes I attended school with are. Feels good. Not everyone can accomplish this though, and whether "it happens all the time" or not, it's not right. I went to school to learn certain things; I had expected "how to beg your way out of being bludgeoned with an engineer's scale," or "how to hold it in and show no emotion when the teasing got so bad you could just, well, kill your classmates" NOT to be on the roster of "things my high school will teach me." Yes, I really did want my classmates to die. I wished I could hurt them back. I lacked the physical strength, size, or agility to hurt them physically. I lacked the wit and clever retorts I needed to stand up for myself in the verbal assaults. I sometimes lacked the sheer will not to break down in front of them (which, I promise you, they revelled in). I truly relished the news that one of the pricks who'd been particularly cruel to me had been killed on a four-wheeler. Yes, I think it served him right. I earned some respect (or fear) that day at school by being in the best mood I'd ever been in there. I hope you don't get nailed by an American moderator, ad nauseum. More people are needed to shred your arguments to pieces as they so richly deserve. Yes, I survived the horrific experience that is high school. No, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. And to anyone from Thompson Valley High School who might be reading this: fuck you.
Read my stuff.
For instance, in Muslim countries women aren't leered at and treated as sex objects, because society conditions them not to.
You are wrong. You don't see American women
shy away from a mastectomy (in case of breast
cancer) for fear of losing their husband's
favor. You do see that in Muslim countries.
Hell, yes: by the very act of suing iD, they're impugning iD's products!
Looksee, it's the American Legal System at work here. Rationality doesn't enter the picture.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
iD software should COUNTER-SUE, claiming that the parents' irresponsible guardianship led their children to cause harm to the business, by creating a situation in which the company's video games became linked, in the news media, to their killing spree.
The reduction in sales has cost iD software millions of dollars. The parents are liable for that loss!
Hey, it's no more inane than what's being claimed by big bad John DeCamp...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Then why don't children in Switzerland grab their Daddy's assault rifle and go shoot up their classmates? Every adult Swiss male has one, you know, they are required to.
Go ahead, come up with some flippant reply that will allow you to disregard this simple question so you don't have to think about what is wrong with these kids. People are not inherently evil and violent, there is something wrong with our culture. I don't profess to know what the real problem is, but taking away guns is not going to make it better (they'll just start making bombs).
You really think you would have killed someone if you had a gun? I grew up with guns around and never shot anyone. Sure I thought about it, in a fantasy mode like the way you'd think about punching your boss in the nose when you're really pissed off, but I never seriously considered it or thought I might "snap" and do it. Hunting as a kid taught me what bullets do to flesh and bone and I knew damned well that I would regret hurting a person like that.
Do you really not trust yourself with the power of life and death over others? Maybe you should turn in your driver's license.
I think anyone, with even half a braincell, can see where this is going.
If we accept it as a fact that movies and videogames are to blame for peoples actions, then why not books, comics, radio and theater as well ?
If seeing someone beeing killed in a specific way, makes someone kill in a similar way, then it is just a small step from saying that 'hearing' about someone kill, will make someone to kill in the same way.
And just where will we get a change to say that enough is enough, that ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.
Haven't we had enough of books beeing censored already, to be "political correct" for our children ?
Will the evil wizard/witch just take off to a long Vacation in the future ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
>If I tell you jump off a bridge and you do it,
> a[m] I responsible?
Well, if by jumping off the bridge, I have a small
chance of survival, while staying on the bridge
with you, I do not, then yes, you are responsible.
I wonder if it makes a difference whether the killers bought the game or bootlegged it. If any of them paid retail for a shooter, I'll eat my hat.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The point is, levelling the school and everything for a block around it is easy, and can be done with stuff that's difficult to impossible to ban and no special equipment. Getting a gun is hard. The risk won't go away if you ban guns.
Another point is, the person most likely to know how to level the school is wearing a collared shirt with pocket protector, not a trench-coat printed with a drunk Euro symbol. The risk won't go away if you terrorise minority groups, nor if you protect them.
In order to fix the problem, you must fix the people. You won't fix the people with more indoctrination, regimentation and random harassment. You'll fix the people by not crushing their individuality, creativity, authority and responsibility; by giving them less time in schools, not more; by letting the parents back into their lives instead of shutting them out as much as possible.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No, it's only something that they think they can fix. Schools are doing what they are supposed to do, this is only an inevitable side-effect.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Not to mention the routine practice in *some* Muslim countries of mutilating women's genitals in such a way as to make it impossible to obtain any physical pleasure from sex. Or the practice of marrying girls off at ridiculously young ages.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If the court is idiot enough to let this go thru, we will have a whole slew of issues to blame on video games: We can sue pubs of driving/racing games for auto accidents, PacMac for my eating disorder, and, on the bright side, Msft for a new liver since they drove me to drink.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Well, if a gun could only be fired once is "safe", then obviously duels should be reinstated; they traditionally used single-shot pistols. Ask Alexander Hamilton how safe one is. Oh, wait, he was killed. By a single shot.
Second, saying that single-shot firearm is somehow useful for defense shows a misunderstanding of the reality of weapons used for defense. FBI statistics show that when firearms are used legitimately (this includes police officers), the rate of accuracy is low - something on the order of 20%. So, my "safe" single-shot pistol is virtually useless for defense. Only the most highly-trained marksmen would ever stand a chance of hitting a target - and police, like the military, don't get nearly enough firearms training.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
FYI~ 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' can be used interchangeably in modern English, but they do have slightly different meanings. Disinterested can sometimes mean 'formerly interested' or 'lost interest in', while 'uninterested' always means the simpler 'has no interest in'.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
WTF does someone do with 5 million anyway?
I'd buy a new gaming rig... <g>
C-X C-S
Attacking the First Amendment is generally much more lucrative than defending it.
And so if someone breaks the law and you get injured because of it, why can you not sue them for damages?
Yeah, that's fair enough - but if the law really says that I'm not responsible for my own actions, then it needs to be changed.
What next - getting away with theft because the combination of the capitalist society we live in and the lack of a well-paying job meant that I was "forced" into it?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
...and the shops for making them so easily available and selling the games, too!
Sue the tech support people who put the PCs together, and fix them when they break!
Hell, sue MS - it's their OS that the games run under!
What's next - suing people for not preventing people from doing things? Oh wait, that's already happened...
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
In this case, I imagine the lawyer is doing it pro bono (for free). It is typical in American pro bono cases, for the lawyer's percentage to be as high as 40%. Thus. 40% of 5 billion dollars - a hefty 2 billion. That should cover his costs rather nicely, with a few pennies left over.
Plus, the publicity generated ensures him cases into eternity, even if he does lose.
He knows what he's doing.
That's how conditioning works, and that's what's happened here. There is no way that violence has no effect.
I'll - sort of - concede your point; one can become inured to violence. But I've spent years playing Manic Miner on my spectrum (and speccy emulator); so for it hasn't made me any more likely to jump over toilets. Equally, many nerd-hours spent on quake hasn't inculcated in me a desire to buy a shotgun (though I wouldn't mind a BFG).
My point: computer games aren't violent. Hands up everyone out there who's ever been hurt playing quake (RSI doesn't count)? Who, upon joining the army, was fasttracked into the special forces because they can kill the end-of-game monsters on Doom without dying once?
I like quake, for the same reason that I like Tapper. Both test my reflexes, and are fun to play. No-one dies when I play Quake, and no-one's teeth fall out after drinking soda when I play Tapper.
I'm not saying that people can't be adversely affected. But I am saying that those people were pretty close to the edge anyway, and that they could be tipped over by something as innocuous as a computer game, or as sinister as a game show. There's usually no way of knowing what the exact stimulus was, and there's never any point in blaming that stimulus.
Dude! don't mention "Heathers!" They'll come and take away all my copies! :)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
So, let's ask what other targets they can take on.
Or, of course, the people could take some responsibility for their lives and deal with that time-tested statement "Shit Happens."
With my sarcasm spent, let me note how lawsuits like these combine two of the worst parts of our society - a tendancy to blame others and a lawsuit-happy attitude. These people are blaming others for their problems, so they're going to take them down without caring about the repercussions or the ethics.
Some moral stance they're making.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Most games have a rating on them, letting the purchaser know what type of material is contained within.
In BC (not the rest of Canada) I believe there is law requiring vendors to actually enforce this rating. Everywhere else, it's just informational (as it should be).
All those bible-thumping the media-made-my-kid-a-satanic-postal-worker types should go live somewhere else, like China.
Yep. Sounds like those darned video games are to blame to me. . .
Except for when he's not.
That is one transparent way of lying or self-deception. It's related to
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Violence has existed in human culture since its very beginnings. Man evolved, through a combination of wit and violence, above the animal kingdom, but has never lost that violent edge at any point in his history, as any casual inspection of the history of wars and crime will tell you. At the same time, art and literature throughout human
history have depicted violence; it is a facet of human life, and no artist can simply wish it away if he wishes to remain true to life. (Anyone who believes that violence in art is a new phenomenon should enhance their knowledge of human culture by reading The Illiad. Acbilles is as cold-blooded a killer as has ever appeared on a computer monitor, and the body count far exceeds any Hollywood film I have seen recently.)
Previous posters have created a tremendously simplified view of the world in which the media and electronic games condition and incite us (particularly children) to violence. In reality, even in the complete abseence of external media, man is an often-violent creature. One cannot eliminate violence from man; it is inherent to his nature.
The reasons for every mass-killing in the last few years are complex, but largely have nothing to do with art, music, the media, or computer games. Millions of pscyhologically balanced people enjoy these with no problems. Instead, we should be asking outselves why some members of our society are so incredibly estranged and angry that they are driven to commit such acts, and what we can do to help them. We should also be asking ourselves why it is that guns are so easy to come by in our society that even an average teenager has no problem getting his hands on a few. Going after the computer gaming industry is a sad attempt to focus attention, but it misses the point entirely, and in the end will bring us no closet to solving the myriad of problems which are responsible.
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
Am i the only one here who gets a very strange, and dirty-tasting deja-vu feeling here?
.. Anything strange == evil and bad
if i remeber correctly, before video games were a hit, rock-and-roll music was demonic, causing youngsters to missbehave. (70's).
Then in the 80's and 90's music from the metal persuasion caused kids to kill and kill them selves..
Then video games became populair, and now they are causing kids to go postal..
The only red line i see here is that parents will blame anything that
1) They don't know from there own childhood, since its strange and new, it surely must be the cause of this behaviour
2) Will find any reason why there kids are not well-behaved, other then there own responcibilities..
This in its self is human nature, we people seem to be very afraid of everything we dont know or grew up with. Think of the fear technology used to (and still does) bestow on people, think of rasism, think of gene modifications, etc
in the end its just the old 'monsters under your bed' syndrom, what we dont understand we fear.
So far ok i gues, its what makes us human, but to sue the game companies, rock bands, etc because we are collectivly in denial about our own responsibilities, and histories lessons, is a bit far fetched and has a frantic ugly smell to it
Hell, why not sue bed manufactures since they scare kids into thinking there can be monsters under the bed, and think of the violance that will cause!!
Ps, please sue the 8'oclock news as well, if that wouldnt turn anyone violent, i don't know what would..
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Because silver bullets are way too expensive...
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Three, according to the article. All in the same family.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
And what if I'm wearing the Euro symbol?
Well, weren't the comics to blame for twisting the minds of the parents and grandparents before the Comics Code in the 1950s?
Why sue the parents?
The kids are the ones who committed the crime. The kids are dead. I can't really say for certain (not being a parent), but I imagine that the parents already a) feel like shit from this whole incident and b) they've already lost their kids.
No amount of money will bring the victims back from the grave. Any lawsuit over this sort of thing is just profiteering. Fuck that.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
The anti-"blame everybody else except me" angle is exactly what I was going for.
:)
Parents don't always know what's going on with their kids, and it's not always the parent's fault. Hell, when I was a teenager I frequently lied to my parents about my whereabouts, my friends, and activities whenever anything was happening that I knew they wouldn't approve of. I don't consider them bad parents, but I could have stockpiled weapons and gone on a shooting spree pretty easily if I'd gotten the urge.
I'm really getting sick of civil lawsuits in general. You want someone punished for their misdeeds, get a criminal case going.
A funny sidenote to all the anti-Doom sentiment...back in high school I used to play multiplayer Doom and Doom 2 via a BBS that would make a virtual IPX network (so's you could have 4 player over modems)...aside from other students in the area, know what the most common occupation of the players was? Lawyers.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
These kids killed because, IMHO, they got pushed so far out of normal existence, it didn't really matter anymore. Look at the media forces that push different people away and you'll find a better culprit than the one which probably kept me from getting into a number of fights. Ban elitist consumer culture, if you want to ban something evil.
--
+&x
I agree with you wholeheartedly except when it comes to one thing, I don't think guns are a social evil. Guns are, as George Washington put it, the people's liberty's teeth.
Democracy depends upon many things, one of them being the ability of the people hold the government accountable for its actions. The people are senior to the government, not the other way around. Firearms provide the power to the people necessary to maintain that relationship. A people disempowered are a people disenfranchised. Something else that democracy depends upon is that the people be well informed. When information is controlled people are controlled. The first and second amendments to the constitution are, in a very real sense, the true foundation of our nation.
Why anyone would want to jeopardize either one is beyond me. I think that there are an awful lot of people out there who are simply not informed. They're ignorant, misled, and running as fast as they can towards a precipice that they don't know is there. The problem is that they're trying to drag the rest of us along with them.
One of the most valuable tools anyone can have is a knowledge and understanding of history. Of course the subject is itself riddled with political BS, but not everything is skewed, and its not too hard to see through the BS when it is there provided you seek out enough sources. Study history and an awful lot of things that are going on in the world and in our country today will seem almost comically familiar. Its the same old song and dance, just a different tune. History repeats itself because, while times may change, and situations may vary, human nature is static.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Aren't they the ones that went in and shot up everyone? How exactly is it that anyone else is responsible for their actions?
Why is anyone looking to blame video games, the internet, their parents, the music the listened to, the color of their socks, etc? Put the blame where it belongs, on the shooters themselves.
I don't remember anyone wanting to blame the practice of camping for the crimes of the Unabomber. I don't remember anyone blaming Jack Daniels for the crash of the Exxon Valdez. No one blames cigar companies for what Bill Clinton did with their products. So why are we looking to blame anyone and everyone other than those truly responsible, Klebold and Harris?
Now you might be thinking that the fact that they were young meant they weren't responsible for their actions. Bullshit. They were 17 and 18 YEARS old, not 17 and 18 months old. Neither had been a child for some time.
If you're old enough to understand your actions and the consequences of them, you are old enough to be held accountable for them. I don't think anyone can argue that the two didn't know what they were doing or what the end results would be.
I really do wish that just for once the public would place blame for a crime on the person truly responsible, the criminal themself.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Its hard to believe that they aren't including the movie and TV industry in this suit. Maybe that'll happen after the made-for-tv-movie comes out and the checks clear.
...Kids with guns, lots of guns, kill people.
The people filing this suit likely know perfectly well that even if they win, nothing will change, but that is not what they want. They are exploiting the death of their family member to get money for themselves, and to me this seems like it is dishonoring the memory of those who had died. I really hope they do lose this one, there are so many precedents to follow. The only direct responsibility is that of the attackers, indirectly, maybe those who bullied them so much. Video Games didn't trigger this, if anything it may have given them a place to vent. Blame the parents for being so neglectful. Blame the bullies for unfairly tormenting people. Certainly, blame the attackers for not dealing with their problems in a better way. But don't go leeching money off anyone with deep pockets who can turn a tragic death of a child into a ticket to fame and fortune.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I personally blame the media. All they ever show on TV is real-life blood and guts, not the pretend stuff in movies and in games. Every damned time there is a shooting or a supposed threat they swarm the scene like flies on a fresh pile of shit. They make a mountain out of a mole hill. They never tell you that violence in schools is on a massive decline. That's right! Violence in educational institutions is dropping like a rock! You'll never hear that from the media though because that's a big source of revenue for them. When Columbine happened, violence in schools was less than half of what it was in the mid-70s. It's been going down ever since. Now you may not believe me since everything you hear on TV or read on the front cover of newspapers says otherwise. They have a new "incident" every damned day. Without the real numbers in front of you, an unknowing person that just watches the news would think that our country is going to hell in a hand basket. It is true though. Violence in schools is on the decline. Do the research. Find out for yourself. I have. The irresponsible actions are actually promoting violence in our schools. They present the kids with guns and their friends with the chance to become a martyr (or at least think they will be). I don't know what we can do to fix the problem though. If we try to hold the media accountable for their piss-poor actions, they will scream "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" from the highest hilltops. I love those freedoms as much as the next guy and I wouldn't want them taken away either. Still there is something that can be done, isn't there? What about simply requiring that the media record where every piece of information for an article came from so that if they are ever accused of being irresponsible, that info can be audited by a official power to determine if they were actually reporting fact of fiction. If they falsely reported something, I think they should be forced to print a retraction and the retraction should be placed in the same position in the paper. ie, if they accuse teacher XYZ of being a horrific sex offender on the front page and later it is found out that a couple of his students set him up, than the retraction should be displayed just as prominently on the front page.
This violence in schools issue is a very touchy subject for me. I have gotten in more hallway verbal brawls over it than imaginable. My mother is a elementary school teacher in a small district. I came from a rural community with a graduating class of 32. I've been brought up hearing all this about the media and the poor job many parents today are doing for years. It wasn't until I actually did the research that I could then believe it for myself. Do you realize that last year there were more suicides by teenagers claiming to be tortured at school than there were deaths by school related shootings? That gives you something to think about. How many of you have seen those commercials that go something like "Do you part. Mentor a child."? Maybe we should. If all /.ers see part of this problem as being a lack of appropriate guidance from parents, maybe we should step up to the plate and become a mentor. I'm willing. Are you?
--
I was so pissed when I started writing my comment that I goofed up the title rather badly. I meant to saw Who really cares for the kids? in reference to those people that are suing and just not letting it go for the kids sake.
--
The plaintiff seeks remedies, presumably for negligence, resulting from allegations that a computer game tortiously resulted in the injury, death and mental injury suffered by the students in Columbine. Even assuming that the first amendment the claim could stand after a first amendment analysis, it seems an unlikely result.
Its very difficult to be liable under a negligence theory for the criminal intentional acts of a third party. The Plaintiff will have to prove that the defendants owed a duty of care to the particular plaintiffs (or in the case of wrongful death, the decedents), and further that the video game caused (not just in the "but for" sense, but also in the sense of legally, or proximally causing the result). This is an enormously tough row to hoe, both legally and factually.
In each case, the plaintiff will have to prove that it was forseeable that this particular individual would have injured these particular defendants, or similarly situated defendants. Unlikely. A substantial body of law tends to treat intentional torts, such as violent crimes, to be intervening acts that are not forseeable, perhaps even as a matter of law. Such an intervening act might well "cut off" the chain of proximate cause from prior conduct of a defendant.
While the abuse excuse might have (however unlikely) been a defense for those who actually did the shooting, had they lived, there is no law of which I am aware that would provide reasonable grounds for using abuse excuse as grounds in support of a plaintiff in a civil case to impute proximate cause to a vender of content for the intentional acts of a third party.
In other words, there may well be legal grounds that would, in themselves, preclude bringing the matter to trial, or admit judgment as a matter of law for the defendants. Even if it did survive summary judgment and motions to dismiss, and even if the tearful and sympathetic plaintiffs led a jury to find for them, the judge might well issue judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. Even were the judge too timid to intervene as she should in the face of a meaningful verdict, there could well be rock-solid grounds for appeal.
All that from basic tort law issues, even presuming that the first amendment does not, itself, preclude the cause of action entirely.
Better not hire any boys named Sue, they've been known to go loco.
Now imagine the lawsuits from this one! How are you going to cope?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Well, if they were smarter geeks, the bombs they made would have wasted the cafeteria and killed far more than their guns. But they were duds.
A sick and agile mind is more dangerous than any kind of brute force.
<joke>
Now if they'd been let loose with a dozen grams of
marijuana, who knows how many may have died.
</joke>
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I've had access to erotica and pornography for quite some time. Granted - back in MY day, we didn't have this fancy-smancy internet to click-click for porn. We had to sneak MAGAZINES. But later I got into the BBS scene and eventually stumbled on content of a more adult nature than computer discussions and game software. It doesn't hold a candle to today's high quality stills and Divx movie caps... but it was something for its time.
Nudity and sex wasn't the only thing I managed to find. I made a fair collection of bomb making information. It ranged from the idiotic to some rather interesting and complex formulas. But it was all forbidden knowledge and I had a regular arsenal of it.
I also played video games. Lots of them. Days lost at the local arcade. I played computer games. Lots of those. What the game lacked in visual carnage, I made up in gleefull attempts to rack up more kills.
I played role playing games - lots of those, too. And the grand-daddy of them was Dungeons and Dragons. My grandparents sent concerned letters to my parents chock full of literature from their church warning of the psychopath I was becoming by being exposed to such filth. My parents were concerned. I rolled my eyes and played away.
I had an interest in "gun games". Despite my parent's best attempts to wean me away from any interest in guns... I still found them interesting. I played war games. I organized games of Assasin at my high school. Photon was simply amazing.
I was also a target for ridicule in high school. And I was none too happy with my experience there.
All this has not caused me to lash out in violence of any sort.
Today, I still watch porn (occasionally with my wife). I play video games - to include the violent FPS games that are so popular. I play online RPGs. I play dice-and-paper RPGs. I do both (openrpg.com). I play paintball. I find firearms facinating... though I don't own any.
I am now a husband, a father, and a career professional. I've served in the US military, and I'm a stable citizen in civilian life.
I failed to blow up anything or go on a shooting spree. I forget to treat women as sexual objects. You'll have to forgive me if I've failed to live up to my "conditioning".
People do destructive things. I've known a few in my life. But the vice is often just a symptom of a greater problem.
Err... yes, but in Muslim countries, women are also stoned to death for being the victims of sexual assault. Not your best example.
-- I'm not evil, I'm
Not to get offtopic, but I think a lot of the dialog in Canada about bullying has arisen from a number of teen suicides that directly resulted from bullying. The number of suicides in teens far outnumbers the number of kids who go to school and try to shoot their classmates.
IIRC, Suicide is the #1 cause of death (or #2?) amoung people that are under 18, in Canada -AND- the United States.. and teen suicide isn't talked about seriously in the USA either, except in the context of "avoiding depression", and feeding the kiddies antidepressants..
..don't panic
These people bringing the lawsuit are on the right track, they mailed John Carmack personally to demand that he personally prohibit any person under 17 from playing his game. He is a genius coder, he must be able to figure out a way to do it. Senseless auto-killing brainwashing ought only be reserved for those over 18
I have a personal pet theory of why school administrators and (some) parents are going apeshit about Columbine, getting kids booted for even mentioning guns, etc - That theory is that these parents / teachers / adminstrators know FULL WELL the kind of things that drive kids to shoot randomly, they know how bad it is, and they're scared shitless that their kid might get shot. (or hell, why stop with your classmates, might as well go for the office..)
That's why they want to crack down so hard, because it's something they can fix. The underlying issues are much harder. School shootings in Canada (on a smaller scale) have provoked national debates (on TV, even) about the nature of school bullying and what adminstrators can do about it. I saw no such coverage on CNN; the focus was on evil kids and black hearts.
..don't panic
oh fucking yawn. Do the world a favour, ban everything for people under the age of 18. Lock them in their homes and dont let them out lest they learn something about how cruel and unkind the world is.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You seem to be confusing games with reality.
The examples you gave are the conditioning of an individual to behave in a certain way because they see others behaving the same way.
Using your examples of muslim women and swearing etc, people behave that way because people around them behave that way.
Quite how you link playing a game with violence in it to actual violence is unclear. Muslims don't respect women more because they played a game about respecting women. Kids dont kill people because they played a game about it either.
If however, kids say others killing people in real life that would of course make them more likely to copy that behaviour.
Here's another example:
If the people a kid spends most of their time with (ie, parents) clearly demonstrate that they don't give a fuck about the kid then that conditioning will teach the child to behave in the same way to others. In extreme cases this can easliy end up with somebody getting shot. I expect when that heppend the parents would know deep down that it was their fault, but probably live in denial and try to blame others and convince the world it wasn't them via the publicity of a lawsuit against games companies.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
They can't cope because they never had to cope. Coping is a skill that is learned, like any other. A toddler who bawls his/her eyes out about going to bed, if ignored, will learn to cope, while if the parent comes in and "poor babies" him/her to death, the child will become a spoiled brat. (Assuming this method of parenting continues throughout the child's life.)
Organisms (yes, including humans) adapt quite well to their environments. People do what is demanded of them. Ask a child psychologist that doesn't have a political agenda.
I'll probably get nailed by an American (US) moderator, ad nauseum. Carmack shouldn't have to put up with this.
If we shipped all the lawyers in the world to some island, what kind of society would they build?
"The first thing we do..."
------
Because the parents of shool-shooting-types will probably buy their kids the games. Only people like me, who learned a lot about 3D graphics programming from playing Quake (seriously), will suffer (and I'm not exactly going to go around shooting people).
------
I overcame the teasing easily (believe me, there was a lot), because my parents always told me that those people's opinions didn't matter in the end ("You'll be the one with the good job making money", etc).
Your parents really make the difference of how well you take being a geek at school. I guess you didn't have the same support I did.
------
Guns are entirely safe when used properly.
ROTFL. I suspect you don't even see the irony of this statement.
Or maybe it's just that nobody has "used a gun properly" toward you. The proper use of a gun still involves sending a projectile at high speed. Toward a living thing.
Proper usage of a gun is to KILL something. Last I checked, killing something doesn't qualify as "safe". Or do you want to go tell Death Row in Alabama that the state's electric chair is "safe"? Somehow I doubt that would affect their fears.
"But wait," you chime in, "you don't have to kill anything when you shoot a gun! I shoot at targets all the time!" Well, there are plenty of ways to do the same thing without launching lethal projectiles. Surely you can shoot a paintball gun for target practice, for example. Or fire rubber bullets (which are still lethal when used like the police use them - ie not firing them at the ground first).
The only purpose of a gun is to kill. I wouldn't call that "safe" in any manner. Perhaps when properly used they're safe to people not in the line of fire... which meant that there was nothing unsafe about their usage in Columbine.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
My favorite online mag has a mention of him as well, as part of a skeptical look in the whole recovered memories thing that he seems to be involved with.
o n.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9609/conspiracy.html
My balony detector is going off hardcore.
Another articles that might pertain discusses the bullcr*p that is "Subliminal Messaging" http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/subliminal-persuasi
Does anyone know of a single peer-reviewed paper that has been published making the link from viewing violence to persueing violence that has since held up to scurtiny?
I've heard a lot of anecdotal eviedence, and occasionally about a poorly done study. I have yet to hear of one that has held up to a skeptics scrutiny though.
---
RobK
Myddrin
As a Nebraskan, I wasn't terribly surprised to see the lawyer for this suit was named as "John DeCamp." Those of us in Nebraska have long experience with this man's erratic behavior, wild charges, publicity seeking and general fuzzy-headedness (just my opinion, of course). For example, do a Google search on "John DeCamp Nebraska." You'll get to read about a long series of unsubstantiated litigation claiming DeCamps' clients as victims of cultism and satanic abuse . . . and that's just for starters. Sigh.
"When I grow up, I'll be stable."
Take your right wing views about the Big Bad Liberal Media "America Should Eat Itself" Conspiracy and put it somewhere painful.
Censorship is hardly limited to the right wing. In the last US election the loudest calls for censorship came from Joe Lieberman, and let's not forget Tipper's crusade against naughty words in music.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
While i agree with you that there are a lot of concerned parents out there (they have a reason to be concerned), that is not why everyone picks on videogames or any kid that puts "shoot" and a classmates name in the same sentence.
That's why they want to crack down so hard, because it's something they can fix.
No, they don't fix a thing by sending a kid that was bullied home for three days. The kid will only learn to keep his trap shut. And no, they don't fix a thing by banning videogames either, because most will ignore that ban anyway and only learn to hide things from their parents.
These kids have proplems. Some need professional psychiatric help. They need to be found. Many of those kids need people to talk to, their parents, teachers, social workers. That means time. Time many parents don't have because they work hard at two or three jobs, time the teachers aren't paid for and time of social workers which the richest country on earth choose not to employ. And time is money. Either money the hard working parents don't earn, or money professionals need to be paid with.
So there is the solution. Talk to the kids about their problems, have someone guard the schoolyard for bullies. Build places where kids can go after school and where some socialworker ensures that things don't get out of hand. But it's an expensive solution.
Now if you don't want to pay all that money, but want to quiet the parents worries there's an other option: do something, anything, and make a lot of mediaruckus about it. Pick out something like games and say "Hey, those games turned the child a killer", disregarding the fact, that in other countries children play the same games without killing half the school. And send children home for three days if they say the bad word at school (no, not "fuck", "gun").
A cheap solution, but one that won't help much i think.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You know. I have the hardest time figuring out who these people are politically, in reference to the people behind this rediculous class-action lawsuit. Are they liberal Democrats or fundy Replublicans? IIRC, the Democrats, liberal or not, are usally on the "stay out of my personal or family decisions" but "fund my needs" side of the argument. The republican fundies are "this is how you should make personal and family decisions" but "stay out of my capitol investment" and "fund it yourself" side of the argument.
The reason I muse over this is because I want to correctly address the right party when I curse them. Based on the above logic, I could say, "Fscking fundies," but I'll refrain. Instead, I'll call them "Fscking clueless jerks."
--
assert(expired(knowledge));
Instead of suing over violent games (which in fact enable the kids to express theire violence - which is build-in the human genes - without arming anybody) they should sue the goverment that allows these kids to have access to guns!
When I looked south of border and see the americans wanting to ban sex and violence in the media and in the other hand is letting people get almost any guns they want, I'm not sure if I must laugh or cry!
It seems that the americans prefers to loose free speech as long as they keep the ability to kill the neighboors.
now I can sue slashdot for all the time I've wasted at work, not to mention the trauma of being moderated down...
----
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
From the article:
I don't blame him, what with its blocky, 320x200x256-color graphics, 2.5D engine, MIDI music, and lack of any TCP/IP compatible multiplayer capability! Why, the game looks like it's, oh, six years old or something! I'd be appalled too!
(I shudder for the day when the media realizes the existence of Half-Life or Unreal Tournament...)
It is The Evil John Carmack who is actually behind this law suit -- as a cynical conceit via which he hopes to pawn off more copies of his obsolete video game PONG, er, I mean DOOM.
Seastead this.
I must be getting old, and my memory must be fading, but I don't remember hearing stories of kids dropping anvils on other kids heads after watching too many loony toons. There has always been violence in the media. I happen to agree that you should shield younger children from too much violent content. The problem is that the video game manufacturers are putting ratings on the games already, but parents are still letting their children play those games.
It is not the games industry's job to raise your children. It's not even their job to raise the children of those people you think are doing a bad job of raising their children. If society feels that selling these games to children under 17 is that bad, then they should lobby their politicians for a law preventing the sale of that material to children.
What bothers me is the increasing trying to sue and finacially harm companies which are selling legal products in a legal manner. This lawsuit should be dismissed, and the Sanders' should have to pay the legal fees of the game companies.
The Sanders' families suffered a great loss, but it's not the game companies fault. They and their greedy lawyers shouldn't be allowed to distort the court system in order to get some kind of warped revenge for this tradegy.
Shows what you know about muslim countries. I married into a liberal muslim family and even they still aren't big on the respecting women thing (for example, they've got a lot of daughters, but only because they thought they had to have a son, so they kept having kids until a son was born, then they stopped). The more radical muslims are far, far worse.
h tm
Ever hear about honor killings? This kind of murder is almost sanctioned by many islamic governments (although the Quran itself is not big on the idea at all). Here's a link to the first hit in Google on "honor killings:"
http://www.uchastings.edu/cgrs/campaigns/honor.
The short and ugly reason behind the way women are treated (forced to wear full-body coverings, not allowed to speak, etc) is that Islam considers men to be uncontrollable sexual animals. If they even get so much as a hint of a woman's sexuality, then they will not be able to stop themselves from assaulting her. Because of this attitude - this conditioning, women, especially unaccompanied women, are often in far more danger out in public in muslim countries than they would be in similar circumstances in a western country.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Now, I haven't bought a game in ages, but don't most games these days have a rating on them? Or at least it says on the box "extreme violence"? Maybe that's just in Canada, or just in BC, I don't know.
In any case, if a kid is playing Quake for hours a day and parents don't know, then it's probably their fault. All they need to do is knock on the kid's bedroom door and see what's up.
Ok, I don't post often, but this is too much for me.
First, there are no computer game companies responsible for the actions of anyone. If I tell you jump off a bridge and you do it, and I responsible? No! Next thing we see are going to be parents of teenagers who end up with children suing porn companies and book publishers because they publish sexual content. Monkey see, Monkey do. Monkey needs to get some common sense.
If these people win, I'm done with America. I'm moving to Canada. The legal system here is beyond control when I can sue because I'm an idiot. Don't get me completely wrong though, there are still some good law suits out there the help protect the American people, but when you are suing because you spilled coffee on yourself, or because you're reading a superman comic and you try to fly like superman. That's just too much. And people win these cases. How I ask you?
When this is over, can I sue my parents for getting a divorce when I was a young kid. Or sue my father for making me move around the country every two years? "It disrupted my life and I could have turned out better." I can just see the headlines now "Son suing father over incident that happened 20 years ago."
I think it's time for me to write a script to send the DOJ about six million emails telling them they need to work on this system a little. I don't think that what happened should have happened, but that doesn't mean this is how you deal with it.
~Travis
I don't by any means want to diminish the horrific nature of the acts at Columbine and other such places, but where has personal responsibility gone? It strikes me as amazing that the first thing people want to do is externalize the causes of these tragedies, to find scapegoats to blame for the actions of a misguided (and in some cases, truly ill IMHO) few.
... well, to EVERYTHING. It's really a shame.
On second thought, I guess it's not that amazing. It's just far simpler to point the finger of blame at others, rather than acknowledge that part of the problem might have been in the homes and family lives of the shooters.
(Preamble for below: I'm Canadian, and I live in the U.S. - have for some years now).
The American (it's primarily in the U.S. AFAIK and yes, I've travelled extensively off the north american continent) culture of victimization is an astounding thing. Personal responsibility takes a back seat to finger pointing and blame mongering. It's sad to see reasonable, mature adults, no matter how distraught they are, abdicating their responsibility as parents in order to blame others for the sad events that resulted largely from their home situations.
In the U.S. the media has helped entrench this culture, making it all right to blame external forces and people for everything from bad breath to
-drin
Amen to that, brother. Frank Zappa and John Denver were both a boon to those of us with a shred of respect for civil liberties. May they both rest in peace.
What I despise is the fact that these politicians (and now lawyers) are barking up the wrong tree. When kids play violent video games, it's a symptom of a problem, not the cause. Same with music. No Ozzy song ever made me feel like killing myself...(now Britney Spears, on the other hand...)
Although I think this case will be thrown out, I do worry that it will have a chilling effect on companies making video games, jus like Tipper Stickers have had a chilling effect on the availability of political music (Rage Against the Machine notwithstanding).
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it.
Violence is bad. Please, can you explain to me how sex is bad?
(BTW, I do agree that there's too much "useless" violence on TV, but before restricting that, I'd start by restricting guns, which do far more damage)
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
It's funny how things are different from one place to another. I I had posted this same comment on a canadian forum, I would probably have been modarated down for "stating the obvious". Now, posting this on an anerican forus (which is what Slashdot mostly is), it's a flamebait...
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Besides, guns are probably less deadly than bombs
Bombs are less deadly that nuclear weapons, so let's distribute bombs to everyone!
Guns are merely a tool.
It is true. Better education would reduce crime. However, if people can't (or can with a lot more trouble) get a gun, they can't shoot at anyone. On the other if everybody carries a gun, all it takes is for someone to go nut for 10 seconds and you have a couple bodies.
There's a vicious circle about guns:
Q: Why do you carry a gun?
A: To protect from people with guns.
Yeah, surely guns are useful!
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Also, what about agressive team sports like tackle football, hockey, etc. These sports actively encourage real world violence, but I haven't heard much about banning them.
(firewall: I don't have a problem with these sports, I've played them and I think they are a lot of fun. My point is that everything in the environment can contribute to a person's psyche, and it's stupid to blame small parts of it for the total person's behavior)
I would go the other way.
What value do guns provide to society? Well what value do kiddie bopper boy groups provide to society? What value does alcogol provide to our society?
I think it is plain: government enforced prohibition does not work. When a person wants something, they will obtain it. If there are enough people who want something and are willing to pay money for it, someone will produce it.
There will be arms rings "diverting" guns from legal shipments to the police and armed forces (well I supose they already exist for some things).
There will be illegal production houses making guns. Its not hard. It would take less to teach someone how to use a few machine tools to make a gun than to make drugs.
Sure, these wouldn't be highquality guns. Hell, alot would probably blow up in peoples hands after a few rounds... but they would still be guns.
Why make an even larger black market? Hasn't our government been funding black markets by creating niches for them for entirely too long?
Are there things that our government needs to prohibit? Sure, actions. We prohibit murder, we prohibit rape. However, at least those are crimes with victems and evidence, we can hunt for them.
Owning a gun would be another crime with no victem. Another product that can be easily made, transported and sold. AAnother niche black market.
Do we really need to make organized crime organizations more profitable?
They always have effects on communities that are many times worst than the ills that we try to prohibit in the first place.
Just look at alcohol prohibition (which made alcohol many times more available to children than previously, or currently). Or drug prohibition.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> The making of guns is FAR from simple. If you
> truly believe someone would build one at home
> from common household parts your a moron.
You can't make methamphetamine from "common household chemicals", but the chemicals are easy to obtain. Hence the explosion of in-home meth labs (which is much more dangerous to make than guns).
Can you do it with "common household" stuff. Hell no. But buying a lathe doesn't draw much attention. With a lathe you can make a bullett filling tool, barrels, etc.
Few hundred dollar investment.
> By your logic then rape should be legal because
> people will just do it anyway since it's
> illegal.
Only if it had no victem. It also has little comercial value. Guns can be produced easily in a makeshift gunmaking shop. Turning your basement into a gunsmith shop could be done easily and woul dbe harder to detect, than a pot garden (which can be found with infrared cameras from helicopters)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
They do have a responsibility, and their parents are to blame partially.
However, it's not all - like it or not, this type of conditioning is part of it.
I think games like Doom, Quake and all are harmless if they're played by the right people, but they definitely can get people on the wrong track. If you grow up thinking that shooting people is fun, you're much more likely to try it in the real world.
Are the makers of those games directly responsible? I think no. But those who market them to kids share the guilt.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Um, I don't know what muslims YOUR talking about ... but the mulsims I know, women are objects that can be bought and sold. Muslims have absoultley no respect for women ... You know if a muslim woman dosen't have a hymen I as her brother can legally kill her for dishonoring the family? Fuck your TROLL muslims :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
In America today, there is a common inability to admit that you got screwed over by circumstances beyond anyone's control. There always needs to be someone to blame, something to do, some way to "get back" at the people/person who caused your pain. That's not always possible. When there are suspects to be tried, compensatory damages to be collected from the wrongdoer we have our "justice", no matter the real benefit, at least we can say "somebody paid for what happened".
We are so used to it, this automatic satisfaction, we cannot begin to understand that things aren't always "fixable". That unlike the sitcoms we grew up on, not everything can be neatly wrapped up in a set period of time. When there is an absence of "justice", when there is no tit-for-tat, we freak out.
We have grown up believing hopelessness is not a white, middle class, suburban feeling. It is something felt by people half the world away, when we see them on the nightly news. Hopelessness is for people in some foreign-looking hellhole, not an upscale, midwestern community.
The parents in Littleton are trying to find something to fill the dark void in their life, the part of them that was ripped out by events beyond their...or really anyone's control. I have sympathy for their plight, but they should not continue on their quest to place blame where it doesn't belong. It's not easy to simply blame two people who are now dead, we can't get our ideal "justice"...but we have to realize and accept that we don't always get the satisfaction we want...or need. There will be no day in court, no explinations, no chance to scream at Eric and Dylan for the lives they ended.
There are far too many questions still lingering after two long years, and it seems we are nearly out of answers. No one will ever get to ask Why, to dig into the motivations of the killers, to get anything but the slightest hint of the thoughts behind the massacre.
Such is life.
With the inability to even begin to understand anything beyond what was seen in the hallways of Columbine on that afternoon, it is impossible and irresponsible to make assumptions about the deeper issues, the intangible aspects of what was going through their minds, what might of driven them to do what they did. Suing game publishers for billions of dollars is not justice, it does not punish anyone who was involved in any way, it does not bring back the dead, nor does it honor their memory. This is lashing out plain and simple. Lashing out against people who had no part in their troubles. Who didn't do anything, but who are simply convenent targets for rage, the rage of people without any answers, without any hope and who have a disabling inability to deal with the events in their life.
After all that has happened, you think people would have learned by now that no good comes from doing such things.
I implore the parents of the Columbine victims to stop this crusade...even if it suceeds there will be no tangible benefit...except the piece of mind that somebody paid.
I don't think we as a society can afford that. (Note: I strongly suggest people watch the film The Sweet Hereafter )
I couldn't agree with you more. People like to distance themselves from what they do that is wrong, they rather choose to rationalize what they are doing as right. Though its tough to argue with that porn man.... its soooooo good :-)
You have a point here which is very valid in any situation. If a person is exposed to something more and more (be it violence or spicy food), that person will become more accustomed to it, and not be as alarmed by its presence, as they have become acclimated to it.
This is where you go all wack job on me. You are saying that because these kids played violent video games that they went postal in their high school? I think you are missing a bit of supporting evidence, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody but the dullest of idiots who would buy the argument the way that you laid it out here.
Again, you've taken your foundation which ws rather good, and just gone all wierd on me. I'm just not able to follow you here. Just because someone is exposed to something, does not mean that they will fall in and follow that model. Now I get to pull out my favorite little quote from my statistics class. Correlation does not proove causation.
I'm not saying that the exposure and conditioning didn't have anything to do with the fact. I'm just saying that citing it as the only factor in the problem is just wrong. Most likely there were problems that went on for years that built up to this, and finally there was something that broke the camel's back and they decided it was now time. Nobody saw any of the signs, nobody did anything about it.
The whole thing is very sad, but being reactionary is not the answer to this problem.
The parents purchased a copy of "The Bible" and read it. "I was appalled," said Jimmy's father Ted Smiles, "I had no idea that such a brutal and descriptive text existed on how to torture and kill.". The book apparently also teaches that crucified people can "rise from the dead", calling into question, in troubled minds, the finality of their actions.
Furthermore, the two attackers were actually brought to a school each Sunday whose only purpose was to teach from this book. "If that's not sickening, then I don't know what is," noted Jimmy's mother.
This isn't the first time that Christian teachings have been implicated in violent acts. Professor Reuben Fitzgerald noted the violent "crusades" of earlier centuries. "It is astonishing that this material is still so easy to get - even for youngsters. Surely it should be restricted, or perhaps even banned."
Jimmy Smiles was described as a gentle and sweet boy who liked to ride his bike, write stories, and play video games like Doom, Quake, and Unreal Tournament.
Services will be held this Sunday.
"The Sanders' suit, filed hours before a two-year statute of limitations expired, claims that if not for violent games and other media images - in particular, a school massacre scene from the movie "The Basketball Diaries" - the rampage by Harris and Klebold wouldn't have happened. "
Interesting how noone has sued the students who marauded, abused, assaulted, tormented and drove the gunmen to this point, isn't it? But of course, they were "jocks" and "preps", ergo they could not have actually DONE anything. It was harmless fun. Teasing.
""But money may be the smallest part of the goal," said John DeCamp, the Sanders' Nebraska-based attorney. "This is a class action that says that, ultimately, money ain't gonna do it."
Money is the smallest part of it?!?! To whom!?? Certainly not to a lawyer! And these revolting, disgusting pathetic individuals who are so blatantly going after money and ONLY money are so utterly beneath contempt it near enough makes you sick! A suit worth BILLIONS of dollars ISN'T about the MONEY!?! Oh of course not! Silly fskcing me for thinking that it would be. Billions of dollars and it is OBVIOUSLY for the statement. How could I be so foolish?
And of course, this bottom feeding lawyer isn't in it for the money either. He's in this for the message I'm sure.
Look... why don't these people just come right out and say it. I mean, just say, "it sucks that our father/husband got killed.... and while we are at it we are going to take these companies for every penny we can and live high on the hog for the rest of our lives! WooHOO! Dave WHO is dead? What do we care, we have BILLIONS of dollars! YeeeeHAAAWWWWWWWWW!"
Everyone spends time "educating" on how to "spot" the troublemakers. The geeks. The "losers". The "freaks". But no one does a fscking thing if Joe Football pounds the crap out of some kid because his glasses are too thick. Course not. THAT's just harmless fun. And if that "freak" finally snaps one day and goes into school (with guns he got easier than it is to rent a sofa) and starts getting a little of his own back, obviously we need to blame the movie/video game/entertainment industry.
Silly f*cking me...
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Lets sue the parents for not doing their job and letting it happen. Hell, what about the emotion stress that was caused to us for seeing it and the scare that something could happen to our children in schools.
Hey, if the families wanna pin the actions of Klebold & Harris on the game companies, then it only makes sense that the people in the game companies can pin their actions on someone else, too.
Eventually, we'll all be liable to someone else for something.
--
Remember that in America, everyone has identical access to redress of grievances. That means:
1] You can file a suit about anything or nothing.
2] If it IS about nothing, you'll be thrown out on your ear.
This is not a real lawsuit. It is not based on any law, statute, legal doctrine, or precident. The lawyer involved is simply using the legal system to try to make political waves.
In short: The Lawsuit Is A Troll Intended For the Media.
Slashdot bit, as did you. I'm sure a lot of radio talkshow hosts will be using it as a topic for their rants. This kind of pseudo-story is their bread and butter.
As a matter of fact, since millions of kids play these overly violent games everyday, we can now understand why millions of kids take guns to school and shoot millions of other, non-videogame-playing children and then kill themselves every day.
These people bringing the lawsuit are on the right track, they mailed John Carmack personally to demand that he personally prohibit any person under 17 from playing his game. He is a genius coder, he must be able to figure out a way to do it. Senseless auto-killing brainwashing ought only be reserved for those over 18.
I'll tell you - fewer, much fewer. Wackos who go on sword/knife/club wielding rampages tend to be overpowered very quickly.
A lot of stuff can be used for murder. The difference in this instance is that would have been very, very unlikely that so many schoolkids would have been killed if one of these wacko losers had run amok with a knife. At best they might have injured half a dozen pupils (some fatally or seriously) before being overpowered.
Having said that, the case you to which you refer does not illustrate this in the way you believe. The popular meme for this case is as follows: Ditzy woman orders coffee, drives away and spills it on herself and is scalded. She sues and is an instant millionaire. This is completely false. Here are the facts:
- Ms. Liebeck was not driving the car, neither was the car moving at the time of the incident.
- Ms. Liebeck was 79 at the time of the incident, and subsequently spent 8 days in the hospital undergoing surgery.
- Ms. Liebeck had 3rd-degree burns over 6% of her body. Her vagina was completely destroyed and had to be reconstructed by a plastic surgeon. She has permanent scarring over 16% of her body.
- Ms. Liebeck attempted to settle the case out of court for $20,000, but McDonald's refused. McDonald's offered her $800, refusing even to pay her medical expenses.
- McDonald's gave the court internal documents showing that in the previous 10 years, on average 70 people per year claimed to have been burned by McDonald's coffee.
- The court found McDonald's conduct "reckless, callous and willful."
- Finally, Ms. Liebeck never collected anything near $2.9 million (an amount, BTW, equal to 2 days worth of coffee sales at McDonald's worldwide). The amount was reduced to $480,000 by another court, and the parties later settled an undisclosed amount.
In short, I think the court system worked remarkably well. It's unconscionable that a company can serve food products which are capable of severe and immediate damage to human tissue if used as intended. McDonald's had know for more than a decade that their coffee was burning people, but they did nothing about it. They served their coffee at 185 degrees. Their warning labels were useless: "Caution: hot." They should have said, "Caution: contents are hot enough to liquify human skin in less than 3 seconds."Here's a handy Google search on the subject.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
If computer games are to blame for the massacre, then my (probably rhetorical) question is this: how does one, exactly, define the 'realm of influence' of gaming (violent or non-violent) upon a young mind?
And, assuming that such a realm of influence can be defined or at least rationally argued, then where does this place the impact of the agent's free will and choice?
Is the real argument here that the young minds are so weak as to negate the possibility of free will?
And -- follow me here -- if free will and choice are out of the equation -- if young minds are not, in fact, capable of free will or choice because they have been incapble of such action through computer games -- then how can you possibly accuse these young minds of acting in an immoral fashion?
You'll remember that Kant remarked that autonomy is the basis for morality. We have to be free -- and able to make a choice -- in order to be moral creatures.
If free will and choice are not available to us -- then our actions can no longer be judged as either immoral or moral.
"Ought implies can," is the Kantian formation. A moral judgement can only be made where there is a possiblity that it cannot be made. Where there is a choice, in other words.
So it seems that these lawsuits are trying to negate the possibility of choice on the part of the children. The end result of this (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that then these lawsuits are simply de-moralizing the (obviously) immoral actions of these violent children.
Except for when he's not.
At least that's what I find. Has anyone played the game Operation Flashpoint? You'll be walking along on a nice sunny day with birds chirping all around you with your buddies. Then one of your friends head explodes in a cloud of red from an enemy sniper that you have no idea about. The game seems more of a reality check about war and violence. After playing it a few times you begin to get more hesitant about running into combat or firing at an enemy and getting shot back at since all it takes is one bullet to do you in. In Quake you run out into people and start firing away, in Flashpoint you hide behind a bush for an hour hoping the enemy patrol won't notice you...
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Typical approach for the school to "solve" this problems:
a)Come up with simple gut-feeling explanations to the problem - "they played violent games that's why they were violent" ("killing people in games makes killing people in real life" seems a more obvious explanation than "being ignored by parents and teachers and being bullied by collegues makes killing people in real life")
b)Put the responsability in an area out your influence - "violent games" (They didn't play them in school so that's not our responsability - they were bullied at school but the problem was not that, the problem were the violent games)
c)Take visible actions against apparently correlated events - if the shy, quiet kid threats to kill somebody then send him home (seems a direct risk), if the bully beats the hell out of a kid just ignore it (it's a normal event, plus he didn't mention killing when beating the kid up)
Personaly i think these explanations only convince low-inteligence people, but then again my opinion of most people is not very impressive (and it gets worse everytime i turn my TV on)
From the Article:
"But money may be the smallest part of the goal," said John DeCamp, the Sanders' Nebraska-based attorney. "This is a class action that says that, ultimately, money ain't gonna do it."
Then how come they already put a price tag on it? The fact that the attorney is the one that is saying this makes it even more unbelievable.
The ignorance of this world never ceases to amaze me
see, here's where DOOM pays off. by playing DOOM (etc), the child learns how to improve his shooting skill so he doesn't have to shoot randomly anymore; they'll be a more polished shooter and get their target the first time.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The problem here is that it is none of these people's damn business what game companies or any other companies do! Consumers can vote with their wallets by not allowing their kids to go places where they will see these horrible video games. This is not a place where the government or law needs to intervene.
forth ?love if honk then
OK, its time somebody put an end to this inane argument
Yes, if the government is coming after you, you don't stand much of a chance, no matter how many guns you own.
However, if the government suddenly decides to change to fascism, or resort to Tinnamen Square style crackdowns on its citizens well then it has a big problem: 80 million+ freedom-loving gunowners. We don't really have to worry about an oppressive goverment here.
The U.S. system of government is all about checks and balances to prevent abuses. The right of the people to be armed is very much a powerful check against the possibility of opressive government - something countries who have banned their citizens from owning guns are now susceptible to. It would not surprise me to see a semi-fascist state(complete with the loss of any individual rights) with a charismatic leader rise out of the EU. What would the people of Europe do to prevent another Hitler? An armed, organized resistance would be out of the question. Not so here in the U.S.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Since education is the key, would you be opposed to gun safety education in public schools? "This is a gun. If you find one don't touch it, and for the love of pete don't point it at anyone. Now, we'll show a video of what happens to people who get shot." Who could not be in favor of that?
They do this for cars. And I know cars aren't guns, but there are some similarities -- there are a lot of them, daddy might have one, and they are both dangerous if misused.
Sadly, most anti-gun folks recoil in horror at the idea of public education, unless the "education" comes from gun control propaganda. I think it's because they see a *real* education program as acceptance of the fact that guns are part of the culture... they'd rather people be ignorant and afraid than aware and perhaps a bit safer, and lose some ground in their fight.
You're just jealous because YOU can't take it to the hole.
But seriously, those guys will be flipping burgers for a living. It sucks to be in school with them now, but you'll have the last laugh.
Hey, *I* never said "teach fear." You're preaching to the NRA choir here.
Not having kids play cool video games is
having kids feeling uncool, boored, frustrated and easy to have a grip on, obviously.
It`s them having to search for cool alternatives on the web, like how to make H bombs and blow the pentagon or how to hack microsoft.be (again).
It`s them having to see these beautifull all-american documentaries (in technicolor) on tv or in the theatre on how to kill your neighbour in 30 movie shots.
It`s them sneaking around with books that no-on should read, including their own parents at age 16, but hey, they did so anyway.
One wonders what the point is of lawsystems and education if lawyers have even lost grip on the difference between imagination and reality.
I have been trashed with huge quantities of dangerous FPS radiation myself, yet, I wouldn`t ever think of actually shooting anyone. Come to think of it, where could I possible get a gun ? Fuck!.. Must be the shitty strict gun-license policies in my shitty country. Ah well..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Someone set up us the bomb.
I can better see how they might blame the MPAA and RIAA. Movies are far more graphic(it looks a lot more real), and there are an infinite amount of songs that preach violence.
But I still wouldn't blame the MPAA, RIAA, and much less, a gaming company.
I want money just as much as the next guy, but I will settle for doing it the "right" way.
Justin
When I was ages 12-14 I locked myself in my room and played Doom and DoomII all day over the modem with friends. Although I don't agree that it was healthy behavior, I have two points:
* I was a taunted "geek" that played violent games but...
* I've never shot, threatened to shoot, beat up, or even punched someone in my LIFE.
* My parents new what I was doing, and could (should?) have stopped/limited me.
* Some argue that when matured, using such games to take out agression (in moderation) is actually a good thing.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Funny, you ignore our religion and culture: a vengeful, violent biblical God who thinks nothing of wiping people out with plague
Besides the fact that your missing the whole point of Exodus, your logic is flawed. When one understands the nature of God, while not pulling the reality of violence out of context, you will understand that the Bible comunicates a loving God. You don't have to believe that what the Bible says is true, but what it preaches is not that of what you state.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
While I wouldn't consider holding the teachers responsible an absolute, I believe that in some cases the teachers are aware of some of the key factors that lead to these incidents. I believe that bullying and social ostracism are both frequently visible to school authorities (teachers, administrators, etc.) and motivating factors in students acting out violently. It seems to me that knowing other people only as sadistic entities bent on making the shooter's existence a living hell is likely what allows that person to dehumanize his peers enough that he has no qualms against killing them.
Who the fuck modded this as "flamebait"? It's a completely valid and insightful post. I completely agree with you, and if I had mod points right now I'd fix that. (Although I'm not 100% sure about your Muslim facts.)
If you want clinical proof, read "Reviving Ophelia", and then say imagery doesn't have a negative impact on people. Annorexia and bulimia aren't genetic, folks. The same thing happens to boys and men (Susan Faludi, "Stiffed"). I suspect the clinical trials about violence and boys will appear in the next few years, as they take many years to complete and haven't become a hotbutton until recently.
Despite documented evidence, I hoonesly believe conditioning absolutely occurs based on my life experience. It may not cause someone to kill dozens of schoolmates, but I think it definitely occurs.
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
and for our next trick, we'll be suing george lucas for the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger.
http://www.clango.org
What's next?! Are people going to sue Namco because ravers are running around in dark rooms, listening to electronic music, popping pills?
Ever hear of an automobile? Great mass-killing weapon, cheap to own, legal.
Keep in mind that automatic weapons have not been legal in the US since the 1930s. The press does not understand this, however...in particular the British press, who seems to think that Americans can buy a nuclear bomb if they feel like it.
This same "well, the authors did not know about it" excuse is being used to ban free speech on the net. Since the writers of the constitution could not imagine email, that does not count. Next we can go after high-speed presses, then laser printers, then ink jet, then dot-matrix, then typewriters, ball-point pens.....
They are legal with a permit, but you can not get the permit. Therefore, they are functionally illegal.
You show me where someone can buy this special tax stamp.
For the first example, consider a youth growing up, dealing with homosexuality. If they are raised in a community where it is considered a sin and not promoted as a possible lifestyle, then that person may even deny their own feelings, force themselves to live the straight life, and ignore their impulses ("Sex is for procreation, anyway - why should there be any pleasure or desire?").
T.V. and movies would tell the same person that there are places where those feelings are accepted, that all it may take is to move to a different city, and that person may act on this new knowledge. In the eyes of the community, media has harmed the person from having the "good" life, and tempted the person into the lifestyle. Others here may disagree. That's why we have freedom of speech here - we believe the pursuit of happiness is meaningless without alternatives.
The second way is a little more damaging, in my opinion. Sex and violence is the meat and potatos of media - they are exciting, get the blood racing, and sometimes make the audience more engrossed in the story. The CBS version of the Sopranos probably wouldn't be as critically lauded as the HBO version, for instance. However, when this is taken to extremes, all male-female relationships become sex, with the women's figures taken straight out of Playboy, and the more ellicit the sex, the better. There are few representations of less-than-perfect women being sex partners (although the guys get away with looking like Tony Soprano or that King-of-Queens guy), and most sex is framed in one-night-stands or affairs, little of it within a marriage. If a kid was only exposed to these representations, they would get a very skewed image of male-female relationships, what women are desirable, and a very narrow view of the purpose of sex.
Those of us who have been exposed in the real world to a fuller spectrum of humanity (good parents, role models, etc.), recognize the media as entertainment, blowing up the more exciting parts of life to un-lifelike proportions. Those who don't see those alternatives think that the media is telling the whole story, and form their mental landscape around thse stories.
For most of us, Quake, Counter-strike, and the like are just games, diversions that get our heart pumping, but have little relevance in our lives. We may fantacize that we are building skills that may help us if war ever breaks out, and we are practicing amateur squad combat in the streets, but it is just fantasy for us, relegated to a proper role in our psyche.
For some, that have no experience working out problems by talking them out, who see only violence in human relationships, who have the "bad" parents, these are not just games, but they are the alternative. You either get picked on and take it, or you get a gun and get even. There is no middle ground, of going to an administrator or a parent, or working out and dealing with it with a little punching. It's stay quiet, until you get "brave" enough to get a gun.
Sure, it's the parent's fault, because they didn't have a loving home environment that taught the alternatives to violence. Sure, it's the administrators fault, for not stopping bullys and not being approachable. Sure, it's the grand-parents fault for raising the parents so badly. Sure, it's society's fault, for teaching that football players are more valuable than the computer geeks, and that power is everthing, and that guns are a shortcut to power. But isn't it also the media's fault, for going to the extremes, selling violent and anti-social products for their "entertainment" value, not considering if they are using free-speech as a cover, or if they are promoting an alternative that may point to happiness?
I hope the lawsuit loses. Games are usually better than T.V. and movies, in that the situations are obviously not real-life situation. I know Quake is fantasy, but HBO tries to convey that the Sopranos is one flavor of real life. At the same time, I hope the manufacturers question the wisdom of selling this violent entertainment to 13-year-old boys, who have enough hormonal problems to work out, for whom the lines between fantasy and real-life are blurred anyway.
Maybe Jesus loves you, but he sure as hell doesn't love everybody. The actions of his churches are proof.
Just to get my opinion in, but what Jesus wants and what the churches actually do may be two completely different things.
but i'm an Agnostic, so i'm not taking any sides.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
And people like to pretend, probably because they enjoy porn and violence, that it doesn't harm people, but anyone who can seriously believe this is quite frankly mad.
If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it. It's as obvious as anything. It's conditioning. For instance, in Muslim countries women aren't leered at and treated as sex objects, because society conditions them not to. In Western societies, women are objectified through their portrayal as breasts on a stick on TV.
That's how conditioning works, and that's what's happened here. There is no way that violence has no effect. Just as kids exposed to lots of swearing swear more than those in environemnts where swearing is taboo, those exposed to violence are more violent. Anyone who says otherwise is only doing so because they enjoy violence and sex so much.
actually, i agree. if i had a quake shirt, i'd be wearing it. . . why don't they just come up here and sue me. once they get all thatblame spread around, everyone wil be responsible for that stupid shooting.
the ironic part is that society is partly to blame, but who am i to point a finger?
!-- wit --!
The problem with guns is that they have more than one bullet. If they could only be fired once, they would a lot safer and would still serve the purpose of defending someone against agression.
Wow, I can just see this guy trying to figure out this vexing situation:
"Hmmm... principles or 60% of a $5 billion dollar settlement? Principles or 60%?"
Anyone want to place bets on which will win out?
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
What's next... Dungeons & Dragons?
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
25 companies being sued, huh? Did Klebold or Harris even have that many games?
;-)
Quite possibly! In fact, for helping them get up to that amount, I think we should sue the CD-Burner companies! And then the CDR companies! I mean, what do you think the chances are that most of those games were originals?
Seriously, I am actually kinda curious about the number of purchased games vs. copied. I think it'd be kinda funny to limit who can buy these games, but the games that are blamed in these cases always turn out to be copies, so the ban never applied..
My lawsuit, which was also filed on Thursday, is against the creators of Cops, The Practice, Perry Mason, Matlock, NYPD Blues and against John Grisman himself.
Ever since this incident, I cannot enjoy these shows and books as much as I have previously. I must be compensated for this and I tend to take it to the highest courts in the country.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
..I bet he's a Camper.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
As was previously noted, there are some little known facts to that case. Most people simply proclaim that she was stupid and didn't deserve anything. But, just to enrich Salshdot's general populace, let me clarify things for you.
1. The coffee was at 180 degrees (that's in Fahrenheit, I have no idea what it wa sin Celsius or Kelvin, nor do I care). Most other restauraunts served their coffee at 160 degrees. McDonald's increased their temp to make the coffee hotter for the customer when they got to wherever they were going to.
2. She was not driving, and the driver parked the car before she removed the lid.
3. The coffee caused very painful 3rd degree burns to her legs and...uhhh...lap area.
4. The McDonald's lawyers stated that she excaberated the injuries by not jumping out of her bucket seat when the coffee spilt. Of course, the lady was 80+ years old, so the jury saw this as being offensive, inconsiderate, and plain ol' stupid.
5. McDonald's had received numerous complaints about the temp of their coffee before this incident.
6. The jury awarded the verdict, which translated into 1 (or 2, I can't recall exactly) days of McDonald's coffee sales. They did this in order to send a message to McDonald's.
There. Now that you have all the facts, you're free to distort them at will.
Back in the fall I wrote a little piece for my school paper, but they turned it down. It raises good points about if we are going to blame people of school violence and shootings, why just stop with games and music... why not blame more wholesome things? I wrote this as a person who knows this subject in depth, I was once told by one of my principals that "out of all the disgruntled white males I know Brendan, you would probably be the most likely I know to go into a school shooting." He didn't mean that in a joking way, he was dead serious. He was right. I was the most likely to do it for many reasons. Wanna know why I didn't? Cause I knew that if I did it would solve nothing, and even then, I had no desire to do such a thing. Video games don't take that idea away, only thing that can is you. You need to learn it for yourself. Anyway, if you want an interesting read check this article I wrote out, I think you might like it. Place the Blame by Brendan Grant I don't know about you, but I've had enough. I've had enough of the blame, the finger pointing, and the accusations, when it comes to the school shootings that have occurred over the last few years. Like with any major event where not all facts are known, everyone has their opinions of who is to blame, and what drove those people to do what they did. These theories range from the blame of the students parents, all the way to pointing the finger at things like video games and violence on television. Like with any ruling class, they will demonize those things that witch they do not understand, agree with or associate with. How many 50 year olds who spend any real time playing a 'violent' video game like Doom, or listen to 'satanic' music like Marilyn Manson. Not many, their primary users are more of a youthful group, so naturally, we get blamed. That blame doesn't just come into play with things like school shootings, but that is all I am going to explore today. What else could be to blame? Many say that what could be blamed has been, music, media, video games, and society, what else could be left? Think back to when you were growing up, did you ever play Cowboys and Indians, or the more current Cops and Robbers? Where you would stick your pointer finger out like the barrel of a gun, point it at someone and say BANG you're dead! Why hasn't someone blamed this wholesome childhood activity, on no, they are just kids being kids they say. That's exactly what teachers and parents say when kids in school complain about being made fun of or harassed by others at the school. It is those same harassed students that are the ones who bring the gun to schools generally, because they feel that they need that defense since no one else is willing/able to fix it. Look at the TV shows that many of our generation grew up on, should they be blame free? In GI Joe the 'good guys' would fight the 'bad guys', not just with words, but with guns and bombs. We never saw anyone die, but we knew what was happening, almost a Hitchcock style of it. In Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the turtles would fight the evil forces of Shredder, many of these battles would be against the Foot Soldiers, robots that could fight using the martial arts. It was rare when the turtles would leave a single one standing, granted they weren't human, but they looked human enough. Who is to say that such stimuli doesn't desensitize us to violence, you don't need to see gallons of blood on the movie screen when you are 17 years old to do it do you? Enough about TV, who saw the Homecoming parade recently? One of the bands had 2 girls holding white mock up rifles and were twirling them in the air, doing tricks with them. I wonder how many kids saw them, rather then having a deep respect for the power of the gun, and a slight fear of that power (as is healthy). In stead a child should easily be looking at them as nothing more then play things. That play thing idea, re enforced with other signals that they might have gotten growing up from watching GI Joe shooting the forces of Cobra. Who is to say that all of these signs that were programmed into us as we grow up aren't as much to blame for school violence as Doom or Marilyn Manson is. Maybe they are all to blame, maybe not. But I personally am getting so sick of the powers that be blaming those things that they don't understand or in some cases aren't a part of. What's next, placing the blame on religion, ethic background, or even sex? That raises a question, in some schools, trench coats have been ban for fear of that school having their own Trench Coat Mafia, has anyone realized that all of the school shooters have been male, why haven't they ban all men in schools, after all, we are the only ones have gone in shooting. In the end, placing blame on such stereotypical groups wont help, it's like saying all Nazi's were like Hitler, that all Priests molest little boys, or that all politicians lie. Some out of any group do bad things, but is it really fair to blame the group as a whole?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
As for your logic, surely you are just trolling.
I am so sick and tired of everybody whining about being a victim. The only people responsible for Columbine were the two shooters who are now dead. Grieve and get the hell over it! But no, we have ot drag it out ruin as many lives as possible, and provide lawers with millions in fees. Sure - some idiot KNOWs the brakes on a dump truck are defective but sends it out on the road cause he's lazy - that's liable. BUt suing someone because they SHOULD have known something was going to happen is a joke. I'm a parent - you think you know all that your kids do, but you don't and never will!
Columbine was terrible - but it is swinging the lawsuit pendalum even further.
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
These Columbine parents are marching off to "Blame Canada!" when they should be looking in the mirror... The blame rests with the parents who created those two animals, AND with the community that allowed a school like that to exist off their taxes...
For one thing, they sent their kids off to a Government school. That in and of itself it child abuse to me.
Not only that, but the Columbine administration was irresponsible enough to allow two kids the unsupervised OPPORTUNITY to plant bombs all OVER the campus! That is extreme negligence, but typical.
Certainly the ones MOST to blame are the parents of the two murderers. They were "shocked" that their kids did such a thing... I'm sure they WERE shocked, as they probably didn't spend even 2 hours a week with them.
I doubt they knew ANYTHING about the monsters they raised. The seem to me to have been the type of parents who put having the second BMW and "we have lives too, not just children" above the ULTIMATE responsibility in society: raising YOUR children.
And now, just like the song "Blame Canada!" from the South Park movie, the parents are marching off to blame anyone but themselves. And I have a feeling that the courts (which are political these days) will humor them. After all, no politician ever got re-elected (or no Federal Judge ever got greased on the corporate lecture circuit) by proclaiming that the parents they represent are lousy.
The fact is, the Baby Boomers were lousy parents, and Gen X is doing an even worse job. They are ducking out of the reposnibility to raise the children THEY CREATED into responsible citizens. They are leaving their kids to be raised by TV, movies, thug rap, video games, the Internet and are not at ALL shy about proclaiming that the rights of OTHERS be infringed to censor said babysitters FOR them. Why? Because THEY can't be bothered to...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"While you do certainly make a point on cigarettes, I still hold my position that cigarette lawsuits had more to do with lawyers' wallets than it did with smokers' health"
Money is ALL it had to do with. A greedy government (which nets in tax revenue over THREE TIMES what a tobacco company does in profit on a pack of cigarettes) and greedy lawyers (the same, since the government IS lawyers) exploited tobacco users (who are paying for ALL of it, thus victimizing the victims) to line their pockets.
In all that mess, NOT ONE GOVERNMENT LAWYER tried to get this "deadly" product banned. Why, that can't happen, the government is too addicted to tobacco taxes!
This suit would be much the same thing... They won't try to get violent video games banned (after all there is that inconvienient first amendment), they just want the cash.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
All of us who game should go to work wtith a giant Quake symbol on to warn our co-workers that at any second we might become afraid of standing next to a barrell.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Obvious Suits
id for creating Doom
publishing companies for distributing it
Wal-Mart for selling it (you know they're evil)
Suits they forgot
the freshman who created our school's map (if you didn't have one, you still thought about it)
my brothers and I for playing it
Dell computer for selling us our terrorist training equipment
Finally, the electric company...
without their non-restricted, non-supervised, constant flow of electrons, we could never have trained on our computer, influenced others to play violent games, grow the Doom and Quake empires, force the Columbine shooters to join, plot their strategy, put guns in their hands, and push them out the door.
the family of injured student Evan Todd had their lawyer fire off a letter to the co-creator of the game "Doom" - a favorite of Harris and Klebold - asking that he stop selling adult games to kids.
The Sanders' suit... claims that if not for violent games and other media images - in particular, a school massacre scene from the movie "The Basketball Diaries" - the rampage by Harris and Klebold wouldn't have happened.
This type of horrific violence can only be achieved through a combination of this violent game and this violent movie. I beg of you, if you have seen this movie, do not play the game. Likewise, if you have played Doom, I urge you to stay far away from this movie.
And any idiot can see thay are attacking one small, ambiguous component of this complicated tangle of culpability simply because they gots the money. The families pushing these lawsuits should be ashamed of themselves for their naked attempt to capitalize on a personal tragedy.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
In school, I remember reading this terribly bloody book and wondering why parents wouldn't stop it. It was full of treachery and death, and gave me nightmares for weeks. Maybe you've heard of it, it's called "King Lear."
Jesus Christ, you see worse violence in any hallway in any school in america than you do in your average FPS -- in fact, FPS games (in part because of graphic gibbing and horrible deaths) are much less realistic. Nobody thinks that the goofy characters from Quake 3 are real...and no player (no matter how hard they get smacked) I've ever played with, from ages 8 to 30, has ever taken violent steps against somebody they played. In fact, I've seen more friendly faces and handshakes after a good and bloody round of CtF than I have after any of the "cultural awareness" or "it's okay to be different" rallies I've been to.
It's easy to say "violent images make a child violent," in a clockwork orange solution to the problem at hand. But it isn't the truth -- violent images alone are no different from non-violent images. A kid who gets worked up over a round of Quake is a kid who would get worked up over a round of touch football, and it has little if nothing to do with the media at hand. Sure, violence desensitizes people, but in a good way: it dillutes the illusory cloud of invulnerability that surrounds a teenager's perception.
This is a whole lot of scapegoating and reactivity -- no reason has gone into the arguments that violent video games cause violence. If anything in media causes violence, it's not the hideous but obviously fake images from video games -- it's the real looking but totally fake actions of professional wrestling. Now, I know that you wrestling losers are going to protest, but come on -- how many of you can honestly say you've never thrown a hold on somebody emulating what you've seen on TV? I used to dread Fridays in middle school, when kids would come in, fresh from Thursday's wrestling matches and ready to try them on anybody who won't fight back. Conceptually speaking, the anarchistic human violence of pro wrestling will always be more dangerous than computer violence. After all, Quake without the killing is just Laser Arena, and Laser Arena is just 3d tag or 3d hockey. Wrestling without the stories (and no, the weak stories and character setups do not and should not justify the violence they portray -- having another man kiss yout skanky show wife shouldn't give you the right to hit him over the back with a chair) is thoughtless mayhem, and if they hadn't gone through years of training to learn how to get hit with chairs and thrown around we'd see a bunch of dead and hurt men after Smackdown.
These anti-violence naysayers want to get into the violence encouraged in other sports, more legitimate ones like football or hockey, because that doesn't make any sense...there are millions of idiots in this country who love to wag fingers at the gaming industry but shy away the second you accuse their precious bloodsports of any wrongdoing. "They encourage teamwork"...right...like the teams of lacrosse idiots who used to beat us across the back with their titanium sticks in gym back in high school because we would talk about discordianism or particle physics. I say that CTF encourages teamwork...football encourages muscles over thought, and a type of follow-the-leader conformity essential to a sport that relies on plays. Football players are, essentially, robots -- they follow orders, run up against the other side, and are expected to work on a strictly stimulus-response reaction sceme. And I think this is the reason these pundits are up in arms -- football teaches violence while at the same time it purports to teach discipline (though those who support this have never dealt with these sports heroes outside of the arena). Video games, especially violent FPS style games, teach nothing that is apparent to the pundits. But it's apparent to the gamers -- we learn problems solving, how to scheme and how to assess our opponents because the field in an FPS is level -- nobody is stronger than anybody else. And when the level is upset, FPS players have ways of levelling it again -- team up against the guy with the armor or the guy with the tank. FPS games teach thought in ways that no outside activity can, and what these pundits need to understand is that there is more than one way to teach it.
My final thought is this: when a child who has been taunted incessantly kills his taunters, why do we blame video games and his parents? Why do we place no blame at all on the deceased, who hurt the child so much that the child saw no recourse but to strike back with extreme force? The media has a position that the victim shouldn't be blamed unless they match a certain pattern of vileness(husband of a battered wife, a rapist father, a blackmailer). Well, what could be more vile than verbally attacking an adolescent? It's the most fragile time of life, and to put someone down during this period when they're so unsure of themselves is probably the most damaging thing you can do to them psychologically. Let's contrast here...surely, the blame of any incident should be on the catalyst of the incident as well as the reactive entity. Don't blame the powderkeg and let the spark go untainted.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Just what parents who don't raise their kids right do. Point the fingers elsewhere to cast blame, yet they'll deny that they are likely to be the cause of the problem.
- profits.com
Maybe I should sue record companies for making me think violent thoughts. Shit I could just go out shoot a few people, then my family could have a class action lawsuit against record companies, television companies, movie companies, newspapers, gun companies, bullet companies, clothing companies for creating the camoflauge I used.
I think i'll register www.lets-capitalize-on-a-tragedy-and-sue-for-mega
Encryption Saves the Day
360 degrees of Karma
No shit sherlock its still the same thesis... Same rules apply
360 degrees of Karma
This lawsuit is frivolous. There is enough said about it above.
I feel for the victim's parents, but do they really think it's the fault of the video companies. What frightens me most is that, the parents in my beloved country (USA) do not like to take responsibility for their children. It is a shame that morality (of any sorts) is not taught at home. If it is being taught, then I think most parents are not doing to good of a job.
I watch yesterday, as 2 kids (about 7 years old) fought over a ball. Where, at the end, it came to blows. I mumbled to myself "good job in raising a kid", and then I proceeded to laugh. My daughter asked (as only a 4 year old can) me why. I said, "Violence leads to someone getting hurt". And explained to her what I felt is right and wrong. Later on she was playing, and one of the 2 kids got into my daughters face, I quickly looked to see her reactions. A look of fear and courage crossed her face. I walked over to the father of the kid. Made mentioned of the situation, he ignored my comment. At that point my daughter put the ball down, walked over to me and said my quote above. I laughed and then she copied my laughed. And as we were laughing together I realized that my daughter just shamed the guy. Which made me laugh louder.
Later on my daughter was playing again when the same kid tried to take her shovel. I again mentioned it to the father. He looked at me and said, "Do you got a problem?", I told him to watch his child and see what was going on. The kid took her shovel. My daughter stood up, walked over to me, and said in tears what had happened. Did the father do anything, No. I told my daughter to go over there and get her shovel back. She went back and with a rage of hell started to yell at the kid, every parent in the playground noticed, that is when he yelled at his son to give back the shovel.
I guess my point is that my daughter had to shame them into submission. Why couldn't the father of the boy be more responsible? Yes I am protective. That?s something I'm ok with. I'm also willing to teach my child what is right and wrong.
When parents start to take blame, then the USA will be on the right track again.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
1. You can spend 17 years letting "your little mistake" turn into a disaffected, cold-blooded maniac killer (hint: this doesn't require video games); or,
2. You can pop your head in his room for five minutes a month and say "Whatcha up to, sport? You're not jacking off? Too bad. That's all I had when I was a kid. Nope. Not even an Atari. What're you playing? 'Nazi Zombie Quake-Engine Columbine Guns Of Doom'? Cool. Look at the blood. Hey! Was that an eyeball? You know this is just a game, right? No biggie. Just annealing your spin-glass a little. Ciao, big guy." Then you can go back to your Bud and your fishin' show and grinding your teeth over the way the shop-lead gets on your ass about losing tools in peoples' oilpans.
The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. And being embarassed in front of your own sprog is nothing compared to explaining his history-making crime to the world.
--Blair
Next they'll be sueing the trenchcoat manufacturers too, instead of the parents of the wackos like they should be.
However, I do also agree that the purchase of video games and similar media should be restricted by age group. The problem isn't so much that I need help as a parent, but is instead related to the failure of other parents. If my son goes to a school where even 10% of the parents have no interest in what their kids do (and believe me, the numbers are much worse than that), then my kid has a one in ten chance of bumping into somebody that may cause him harm.
Other than that, I take full responsibility for the actions of my child.
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Even before science back up the claims of harm from smoking, it was a common fact that smoking was not good for you.
Common, except for the tobacco companies, who frequently trotted out their own experts to point out there was no proof that smoking caused $DISEASE. When it could be shown that the officers of the company knew that this was false, they became liable.
If Miller, Coors or Budweiser ran an ad saying "Have an extra beer before you drive home. There's no proof it'll make you crash" they'd be similarly liable.
--
Yes, the nick is flamebait