Slashdot Mirror
The People Vs. Common Sense
Mogg writes "GamerGod.com has a new article up entitled "The People Vs. Common Sense, A Citizen's View at Michigan's SB-0146 Law," commenting on the new Michigan state video game law. "Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??" Very nicely written piece.
"Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and ... representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths?"
Thank God there's nothing like that in the Holy Bible!
my parents didn't let the government raise me. none of my friends' parents let the government raise them. if my parents deemed an R rated movie or M rated game ok for me, regardless of my age, they let me view/play it. if they deemed a PG-13 move or T rated game NOT ok, they didn't.
-- lol pwned
Blaming TV and movies isn't going to get you votes. Almost all polticians are out to appease the voters, not solve problems. Not only do the television and movie industries have huge lobbies, these are two things nearly every parent enjoys themselves. It's much easier to target video games as an evil when no parent understands what it is all about. And when as a politician you have the opportunity to spin your wheels over something and make it look like you are saving the children, you take it or someone else will.
"Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??"
... [just a sec] ... Sorry, my mom just came in my room with my breakfast, I tell her to knock but she just doesn't listen
... anyway back to what I was saying, I've been playing video games religiously for 30 years and it has not affected my social development in the least
I have been an avid video gamer for 30 years and it has not
this matter is being thoroughly handled by a religious site. seems very appropriate.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
You know it's true. Look around you. How many fat, dumb kids do you see around your city now? Way more than ever. The playgrounds are as empty as the kid's heads. Dentists who used to drive Mercedes now drive Ferrari. It's sick and it's all because of the idiotic video games.
Oh, but I wish that meant that they were going after television.
Someone please post a more corporate-friendly link or full text pls? Thx.
"visualize the poignant tide of human thought", "While endeavoring to bequeath our exclusive equities unto the world, we are often chagrined by remonstrations..." It's sad when someone has to turn to looking up every second word in a thesaurus to sound like they have an intelligent arguement.
The band Scatterbrain, aka Ludichrist, had a song called Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom about 15 years back, sounds like they weren't far off...
...
...
...
...
:)
We'll ban that book and T.V. show,
Forget that movie, no you can't go.
Can't sell that record, don't like that song.
We know what's right we know what's wrong.
Can't have abortions, what's yours ain't yours,
Just obey the laws.
Too young to drink, say no to drugs
Bikers wear helmets, cars safety belts
You might hurt yourself.
We're watching out, We're watching out
We're watching out for you...
Well the new right's been at work some time
They ain't so new no more
Can you hear 'em knockin'
Knockin' down your door.
1984 has past, forget about Big Brother,
Welcome to the 90's where the government's your
mother.
They'll tell you - don't do that.
They'll try and tell you - it's for your own good.
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just disappeared
There it is - whoops it's gone!
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
All your rights just disappeared
Everybody stay calm.
Good stuff
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
By creating such a law aren't they making it easier for criminals to claim that video games warped them and as such aren't responsible for their actions?
The entire article is in dire need of an editor. "Nicely written" indeed...for an 15 year old. Myriad spelling mistakes any spellchecker worth a damn should've caught, run on sentences, a writer far too obsessed with his thesaurus, and writing that is obviously intended to sound "important" but ends up sounding "pretentious."
Is this the anti my-video-game-made-me-do-it law?
It seems a popular (wussy) defense used by already whacked-out teenagers who commit unspeakable acts.
Given this law could the states claim no responsibility in such defenses because, hey, we had a law, and then go back to sue the game companies on behalf of the victims?
The next phrases to be taught at Best Buy employee training: Oh, you're buying Doom 4? Great game, can I see some ID please?
Cogito Ergo Sum
No, we have not made absolutely certain.
And we can argue that video games are not really damaging to kids. But can we argue that, if it is, allowing one industry to get away with a crime reason enough to allow another?
Assuming both violent video games and movies are detrimental to the well being of minors, shouldn't society be regulating both, instead of neither?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
In the 80's, it was the PMRC under Tipper Gore that was leading children away from the path of suicide and darkness brought on by music. Easy target, musicians don't tend to contribute as much to political campaigns as Hollywood types. Life was good. Then the "extreme" music of the day became more normal, and all we've got is some warning labels. Aside from Lieberman during the 2000 elections, I don't know of any politicians really speaking out on it these days.
New target possibilities? Lessee... Video games. They're easy. P2P technologies... That has the bonus of getting your Hollywood and corporate buddies to apprieciate you more AND gives you something that doesn't require a lot of money or work on your part. Ain't politics grand?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I can attest to this.
I KNOW i would not be the fat-ass I am today had it not been all those long hours watching pac-man consume every damn energy pellet in existence.
damned greedy, spherical nuisance still haunts my feedings!!!
...written entirely of the people, by the people, and for the people. Now syllogistically speaking, if this statement is true and the law is completely stupid, it must be thought of by stupid people, written by stupid people, and for stupid people. READ THE DAMNED BOX! Would you let your kid play in laundry detergent as a "cleaner" substitute to the filler in his sandbox? Use some common sense you idiots!
Just because little timmy has been coming home soaked to the bone by all the kids at the park with their new waterguns doesn't mean you give your son something better to "even the playing field" with - perhaps a real 357. Why not?
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
The real question to ask is if there actually has been an increase of "depraved sociopaths", or if it is meerly percieved to be so because news coverage now picks out these rare incidents wherever and whenever they happen and sensationalize it and parade it around for weeks to get rating. Scaring people enhances news ratings.
> KILL INTERNET Violent tendencies logged: CIA wiretap initiated
which is totally what she said
Video games? Violence on TV? Of course, we know better. We know who's to blame. Blame Canada!
When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
From TFA:
Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government
The Michigan state government is not the same as "the American government" which would be the label for the Federal government. This is a good example of something that individual states *do* have the ability to regulate even if a lot of us think it's silly. All the people in Michigan who don't like it should direct complaints to their state legislator and not blame a vague "American government". All people who *don't* live in Michigan should direct comments to their respective state legislators insisting that our state should not enact similar.
...piece of proposed (or even passed) anti-video game legislation.
Serioulsy though, like it was mentioned in the article, these politicians are attacking video games because a lot of parents really aren't doing their job, and a lot of parents don't understand video games. By the time that the kids who were young when Nintendo first hit America (people like me) become the normal voting population, politicians will have to target something new because we'll all tell them that it's a load of crap.
In the meantime, I can only hope that enough states hop on the anti-gamer law bandwagon that Jack Thompson can't keep up with all of them. Then in the future, these laws may make it into the halls of www.dumblaws.com, pending we don't become a police state ^_^
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
and from another time
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC).
When you're too old to know what it is to be young, it seems, you'll inevitably subscribe to an orthodoxy that sees children as wild and at risk of being irrevocably corrupted.
Kids are leaky hormone sacs. What you see them up to in public is nothing compared to what they do in private.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Newsflash: there are bad things out there in the world
What (IMO) often seperates children who grow up to "good" and those who do "bad" is how they are guided through events & situations that occur in their lives. If no-one is around to explain what is right, to explain why you should do the "good" thing; how the hell can you expect the children to learn?
These parents who are say too busy working to bring in an income to feed their children and keep a roof over their head. Perhaps they should just take a wage cut, get a job with less hours. Less money correct; less money to just keep spending money on video games with no social interaction. So to offset that lack of money, sell off the expensively large TV, cable and the games console (which AREN'T essential) and spend some actual time with the kids.
But the punch line comes at the end of the article, where the inflated language is dropped. It adds to the effect. If you didn't read all the way to the end, you missed the payoff.
I am not religous person, nor do I think violence in video games is necesarily a problem but the bible bashing is really getting old.
Maybe you can explain why christian ethics directly contribute to the problem? Are you seriously arguing that the violence depicted in the bible may be also encourage violence in readers?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
A new study concludes that parents should parent their ****ing kids!
If you have kids, they're your responsibility, parent them. If you don't want to do that, don't have kids. It's not society's fault if your kid is a mindless twit who's never been brought up correctly.
Stop punishing the rest of us for the faults of dumbasses who can't teach their kids right from wrong. Decent society does not come from rules and restrictions. It comes from doing yer damn job as a parent.
Who is it that has successfully framed this time as an era of high crime? Crime is at a 30 year low.
Just because the media likes to report stories about people doing bad things to other people doesn't mean it is happening more often. Information about far away places is more readily available these days and we are just hearing about it more often because we apparently like to hear about it. They wouldn't report it if it didn't get them higher ratings.
Why don't we just finally admit that this capitalistic, ego-centric, self-obsessed, self-indulgent, greedy culture we have developed is just plain bad for a "social culture" and move on.
The bottom line and results are what drive our decisions on judging individuals (e.g. how many goals our little soccer stars get, how much money your changes saved the company, etc...), not how well we treat people or how much we participate in our own evolution.
Social mannerisms and forethought are not included in the curriculum of any of the schools I attended. Schools used to dedicate entire courses/semesters on "ediquette" and social conduct. When was the last time any of you attended such a course?
Read the posts here, it is evidence enough that we ALL could use some more of this.
Until we start focusing our attention on the REAL problems facing this society, NONE of the other problems (i.e. social empathy, poverty, etc..) will ever be resolved.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Why is that flamebait? Did the Mod actually RTFA? This should have been a +1 Insightful for the benefits it provides those who have not yet read the article.
..basic family values and morals. If the lawmakers here in this country just took 5 minutes to look at this, maybe someone would see the light. Kid's first influence, their first living environments, are all based from their guardians/parants. Now how the parents want to mold their siblings, if they want to get involved at all, is another story. I allow my 2 teenage kids a lot of freedoms, but they were taught, as my sister and I were taught, about good vs evil, right and wrong, things that make good common sense so that my kids can make rational decisions on what's good and bad.
Maybe you can explain why christian ethics directly contribute to the problem?
That is not the point...
If one thinks we should ban violent media to protect children, then we should ban the bible. The hypocrasy of those who would ban games and "unworthy" books while allowing "worthy" books is the point.
Additionally, the bible has been causally related, more often and more demonstrably, to more killings than every video game on the market combined. From the crusades to psychopaths, the bible is often used as justification for violent acts...
no, not at all. it is the evil video games.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Frankly, I do not blame the media owner or employees. Both are too inept. They just chase ratings. The fault lies with human nature, or at least the many people who are overcautious or like being scared.
haha it'll always amaze me that they'll try to ban things like video games which are hardly influential to the youth, but they'll let a fat guy, who's now dead, sing a song saying "Let the bodies hit the floor" i mean lets see.. a kid can easily say, "oh well that almost cartoonish character on my computer or video game console is hardly a role model.. but this guy on MTV, well, he's REAL.. I should be like HIM!".. i'll never understand the people that have too much damn time on their hands, and end up using it to fight for causes like this without thinking about it first.. they should spend that extra time on making sure they're not sounding like morons..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Yes the Bible details acts of evil as a tool such that one can be prepared against it. You'll also notice that God is against such sinning. While Jesus forgives our sin, sin is still a bad thing that we should not do. All of the bad things in the world are attributed to sin. Its hard to understand for many, but,"The wages of sin are death."
If you read and understand the Bible, you'll want to live your life like Jesus. You learn that God watches everything you do and helps you out if you're an honest person who does good. If you know God, you can't help but love him.
The above comment was brought to you by CrazyJim1...
Much like the MPAA ratings, the ERSB ratings were put into place to arm the parents with the tools they would need to protect their children from inadvertently partaking in games that should rightly be marketed and sold to adults. Until the Illinois law went into effect, the public appeared to manage rearing their children just fine on their own. Law makers such as Senator Alan Cropsey, given the amount of thought, time, and taxpayer money that has gone into enacting laws that allow for punitive repercussions, have gone to great lengths to insinuate that parents have indeed failed their children by allowing them to do as little as glimpse at the packaging in which violent video games are sold. Is it that those parents are not doing their part, or that the ERSB has failed to properly warn parents about products which are appropriate for their children?
In a word, Yes. I've always felt that parenting should be active instead of passive. Children don't learn right and wrong from TV, music, or video games, but from parents. It's too bad that good parenting has been lost on this generation.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
From the phrase "Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government..." I was turned off by the lack of journalistic professionalism.
Rhetoric is for propaganda, not news. Get your facts straight before you start "reporting." Oh, and uh... look up Federalism while you're at it.
You can't go buy a video game that depicts extreme violence without Mommy standing there if you are under 18.
What's the problem? Yes, I know you waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnt it bad, real bad like. But Mommy and Daddy have decided you shouldn't be able to get it without us saying OK.
I hope you can understand that.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Ok, I have to chime in here. I have two teenage boys, one of which will play video games 23/7 (and hour in for the bathroom) if we were to allow it. Also, without very strict guidance, they would play ANYTHING they could get their hands on. The have friends (many whose parants let them buy and play any game they want. Their explanation, "it's only a game", without even looking at the content. Two of those boys are turning into little criminals becuase they have no concept of the consequences of thier actions. This scenario is becoming more common throughout this country. Two working parents and no supervision on kids with video games. The main difference between movies and the games is that the movies are viewed once or twice and that's it. The games are viewed for hours and days at a time so there is more concetrated effect on the minds of the players. Until parents can "get a clue" and have common sense about this, that leaves no other option but for the government to step in. I am not advocating the government as any solution to social problems (it never is) but it allways seems to fill the void when there is no other solution. Just my 2 cents worth.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
So, banning and restricting access is supposed to protect our children? Great, except that like alcohol and drugs, kids will get a hold of what they want to, especially without parental guidance. Yet another law will not protect children from irresponsible or careless parents. It's like banning sex education in the hopes that the teen pregancy rate goes down - all it does is increase the incidence of STDs.
Incidentally, video games have become more violent, and pornography is easier to access than ever. Perhaps this is a release of the violent or preverted urges, and as a result violent crime is at its lowest rate ever. Sure it's become more sensational, but the statistics don't lie. In terms of sexual crimes, the reporting rate is better than what it was, and the numbers across most western nations are still lower than ever. (Source: DOJ )
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 416
AN ACT to amend 1978 PA 33, entitled "An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter to minors; to provide penalties; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts," by amending the title and sections 1, 2, and 4 (MCL 722.671, 722.672, and 722.674), section 1 as amended by 2003 PA 192, and by adding section 12a, part II, and a heading for part I.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
TITLE
An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to provide penalties and sanctions; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
PART I (snipped off-topic legislation)
PART II
ULTRA-VIOLENT EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES
Sec. 15. In light of section 51 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963, which directs that "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.", and after hearing from expert witnesses and law enforcement officials, considering the testimony of expert witnesses before other legislative bodies, and reviewing dozens of studies and metastudies of hundreds of studies, the legislature finds all of the following:
(a) Published research overwhelmingly finds that ultra-violent explicit video games are harmful to minors because minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games are consistently more likely to exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior and have feelings of aggression.
(b) Spokespersons for not less than 6 major national health associations have concluded and testified that after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the studies "point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children", concluding that the effects of media violence on minors "are measurable and long-lasting".
(c) Law enforcement officers testified that recent statewide targeted enforcement efforts reveal that minors are capable of purchasing, and do purchase, ultra-violent explicit video games.
(d) Law enforcement officers testified about cases of minors acting out ultra-violent explicit video game behaviors by victimizing other citizens.
(e) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in safeguarding both the physical and psychological well-being of minors.
(f) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior from manifesting itself in minors.
(g) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in directly and substantially alleviating the real-life harms perpetrated by minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games.
Sec. 16. As used in this part:
(a) "Computer" means any connected, directly interoperable or interactive device, equipment, or facility that uses a computer program or other instructions to perform specific operations including logical, arithmetic, or memory functions with or on computer data or a computer program and that can store, retrieve, alter, or communicate the results of the operations to a person, computer program, computer, computer system, or
There's a lot of debate concerning the effect, if any, that violence in entertainment has on todays youth. It's a hot topic, certainly. After all, children are indeed the future.
Violence is everywhere. Television, movies, video games, comic books... and as many have pointed out, the natural and healthy act of sex is far more vilified. It doesn't make sense to me, but then not much does.
Do people learn violence from these sources? Wll, let's flip the question around. Do children learn good values such as sharing and cooperation from programs like Sesame Street? Do they learn lessons on family from such venerable shows as Little House on the Prairie?
If you believe that children have the capability of learning positive lessons from the media, then you cannot simultaneously believe that they are incapable of absorbing the negative ones. It's a huge contradiction, and it simply can't be right.
Children are sponges, as any parent can certainly confirm. They are constantly absorbing everything around them. There is NO way that a child can't be picking up the poison with the sugar.
The media is unlikely to change because adults - including me - want those violent programs. We like our fringe entertainment. Shows like CSI are popular for a reason. Likewise, video game companies are unlikely to change. The majority of video game purchases are made by people over eighteen, and again we like our combat simulations, crime wave games, and other adult titles.
So what can parents do? Well, for starters, they could turn on the content filters that have been included on new televisions for a number of years... but the best choice is to simply pay attention and stay involved with their children. I'm not a parent. I'm only a concerned citizen, so I know that's easy for me to say.
When I was a kid I don't recall reading about students shooting other students or teachers. Metal detectors in schools was a something that existed in the roughest of places in the United States. But the news these days scares me. I'm genuinely worried about what our children are learning.
We'd damn well better teach them compassion, because they will run the seniors homes that we will one day inhabit.
Taken from my blog, September 14. Yes, it's only partially on topic - I did read the FA.
They need to care. They need to actually Parent. It is not the government's fault your child is screwed up. It is most certainly something the parent could have mitigated with either a good soft hand, a good cry, or a firm hand. One solution is not ok all the time, or even for all children at the same time, but all should be in the repotoire. stupid parents bring up stupid children.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
I admit this law is a vague law, but it's a good law. Let's be honest with ourselves. GTA shouldn't be bought by kids. I'd have written the law to be 18 but there's a point when we have to realize that many parents don't give shit about their kids, and they allow them to buy these games. If there's a game a kid can't buy the parents will likely take notice and think about the game making a better decision. They might find out why the game is considered violent and decide if their kid can handle it.
When doom came out I was 14, I handled it well, there were others though that couldn't. The amount that couldn't handle it was very few, but there are those who just can't deal with this stuff. (Yes they might be mentally disturbed, maybe metally retarded, or perhaps just not mature yet. There's other reasons too.) But I think any law that requires a parent to actively consider giving a child a game that might be detremental (notice MIGHT) isn't a bad thing, it might actually help.
It needs to be a civil or criminal matter and that seems to refute what this law is. The problem is if it's just a 20 dollar fine, people will continue to do it. Look at minors and cigerettes. I don't think they are going to jail every guy in a game store who makes a mistake, but gamestores need to be held as responsable as anyone else. Does it take that much longer to take out a wallet and show id? I mean you have the wallet out for your money anyways, I take my ID out with my credit card automatically because the signature on the back was rubbed off. It's not hard at all.
Just to note, I'm not saying these games are bad, I'm not saying GTA ever should have got AO rating for code not native to the game, but at the same time GTA with a M rating shouldn't be easy to get for kids, just the same as cigarettes and R-rated movies should be restricted for them. Perhaps saying that it's easy for them to see this in R-rated movies means that those laws might need to be toughened a bit.
But that's just to say that's my opinion.
Wow, the error page gives sufficient information to hack their website
So... the gamer became a criminal and the outdoorsman became a model citizen. However, his story suggests no more proof then saying boy A became a criminal because he likes Doritos and boy B became a model citizen because he prefered Fritos Corn Chips.
Did he not stop and think that perhaps boy A became a criminal because he lived in a state of continual social solitude while boy B flourished because he interacted with people, the environment and his world? I'm sure I could pull some studies out of my ass to show a stronger correlation of my theory than of his.
Seriously though, you have encompassed in a few short paragraphs a very large population and their growing problems. Good post.
"Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths?? Kids don't read books, hell adults don't read books. Also 2c on the whole thing about gov't raising our children...if parents aren't going to do it who will? Watch this video for a prime example.
I was a depraved sociopath long before video games made it cool. I once killed a man for a dollar. Okay, well it wasn't a dollar it was a quarter. And it wasn't a man it was a coke machine. And I didn't kill it but I did kick it very hard. Ignore the details, same story either way.
"The have friends (many whose parants let them buy and play any game they want. Their explanation, "it's only a game", without even looking at the content. Two of those boys are turning into little criminals becuase they have no concept of the consequences of thier actions."
Let me just make it clear, that the "no concept of the consequences of thier[their] actions" statement is a product of their "parants[parents] let[letting] them buy and play any game they want" and NOT of the games they play. The children learn from the example of: their friends' (your boys) parents limit their actions, but their (the little criminals) parents do not hold them to that standard - thus they are above rebuke. If there are no limits then the concept of consequences never forms. Limits imply consequences.
Two working parents and no supervision on kids with video games
This next statement thus reinforces the cause. THE LACK OF PARENTAL structure. If you want to be charitable, try engaging the little criminals in some thought process about the nature of the games they play versus reality. The Man Jesus knows I hate when people lecture someone else's kids, but hey - it might just save you from a stolen DVD player!
While the article made some good points, its attempt to lend itself credibility by adopting a scholarly - or at least educated - writing style falls flat.
The grammatical and usage errors (affect vs. effect), as well as awkward sentence construction, undercut the article's impact in much the same way that work boots undercut the attempt at a professional appearance of a janitor in a suit.
When ever I see comments on this law and similar laws I see tow main arguments used.
1) The concept of "violence is bad for the kids".
2) We don't need the law because we have ESRB ratings.
I can't argue 1 as I'm not psychologist. I can discuss 2.
Everyone compares the ESRB rating to that MPAA ratings. In theory this is a valid argument. The problem is the ESRB rating is not enforced at sale. If a 9yo walks into Best Buy he can and will walk out with GTA or DOOM and nobody would stop him.
I see no problem saying that stores should enforce the ESRB [M] rating. If you read the actual law that's all this does it says that stores can not sell mature rated games to children under 17yo.
Whats the problem with that?
Everyone goes off on their rant about how the parents should raise their kids. Fine, but that comes across as a bit of a kneejerk reaction in this case. Doesn't a law that forces the buying decision for certain games to pass through the parents enhance this? What exactly is to be gained by NOT making parents have to be involved in such purchases? I'm still looking for a clear explanation as to why games with R rated content should not be treated like R rated films and books?
Kids are inevitably born, and a minimum-wage, immigrant nanny is hired, or the kid is shipped off to daycare, where he/she learns questionable value and is largely emotionally devoid of the individual attention he/she needs and deserves. But mom and dad, still working 8 - 10 hour days, only have to deal with Junior for a few hours a day, so they don't notice that Junior is starting to resent them. Feeling guilty, they buy him whatever he wants (after all, they're still "rich" enough to do so). Junior wants a cell phone. "It'll let us reach him wherever he is," the parents reason, and buy him the phone. Junior wants a car. "It'll free us from having to shuttle him around all the time," reason the parents. Junior wants GTA3. "It'll keep him out of our hair for a few hours a day," say the parents.
Then let the damned kid suffer... he turns into a whining brat prone to bursts of anger and will fail miserably in life unless he becomes a lawyer or a politician.
I'm fed up of seeing "society" in general legislating because people want everything and have no penalties for not wanting them. Both parents WANT to work (different to need), but they don't provide decent child-care... why the hell does that effect me and my wife when we've decided that one of us (her) will stay at home while I work. Do we get tax-breaks and child-care subsidies? Do we hell as like, we get legislation designed to ensure that the selfish people out there don't suffer the consequences of their actions.
If you both want to go out to work that is fine by me, just don't think it stops being YOUR job to look after YOUR kids.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
is that the politicians are basically telling us that nothing is ever going to change (the current Republican agenda). That both parents are going to have to work 80 hour weeks to support a family forever. That we are never going to have it easier so we can spend more time with our children. And because of this they have to police our children for us.
When I was a little kid, the carnage at one point in the Wrath of Kahn was so upsetting to me that I told my Dad I needed to leave.
There's a simple solution sitting in front of everyone's face, but I guess gamer's think it's to harsh and the government thinks it's to light.
We have this great thing called the ESRB. They rate games. They do a pretty fair job too. So tell me, what's the problem? If it says M or AO, kids shouldn't have it. That's the idea, so I don't see the conflict...if the government feels they need to better enforce this, than they just pass a law that says "minors can't buy M or AO games. If you sell a minor a M or AO game, your in deep-s#%$." That's all. No more, no less. There ya go.
Any gamer who would complain about a law that cut and dry is most likely just a 12-yr old whining because he can't buy GTA (and if you ARE a whining 12-yr old, that proves you don't have the maturity to think on an adult-level and thus shouldn't be playing the game regardless).
Any government official/lawyer/Jack "Hot Coffee" Thompson who has a problem with a law like that needs to just shove it in his pipehole, because going beyond that is encroaching upon 1st-amendment rights. The government has the right to regulate the sale of adult-material to minors, but it does NOT have the right to choose what people do for entertainment.
Minors can't get into R-movies, why is it so hard to keep M-games out of their hands? The games industry doesn't need MORE regulation, is just needs EQUAL regulation...
If we should let such examples pass as actually nice (kill all the men, take the wives... but ONLY if they don't surrender) BECAUSE they are forward-thinking **for their times**, and not as the utterly abhorrent attitude we judge it to be today, that means that the stuff in the Bible is not absolute, but must be judged within the perspective of their times.
...
One can't help wondering what has been obsoleted, what hasn't, how outdated stuff should be adapted to today's circumstances, who does the apraising / adapting
If that were software, we would say it's time for a complete rewrite.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Statistically, there is no difference between good things happening to "good" people and good things happening to "bad" people.
Nor is there a difference between bad things happening to "good"/"bad" people.
So, how does a religion explain why a "good" family can be killed by a "bad" person when "god" is all powerful and loving and so on and so forth? Which results in the process you've noted.
As a Michigan resident being of legal age I am only annoyed but I hear the cry of the minors "There's always the Internet".
Where did this quote come from? I'm being a bit picky (and off-topic) here, but I would guess Plato did not "complain about the youth of the day," but rather wrote a character is one of his dialogues (plays) complaining about the youth, and perhaps sarcastically. My guess is that this might be a translation of something Socrates said in the Republic, and misattributed to Plato himself.
Ok.. When will this needless crap end? I'm dead serious! . Parents need to actively police there children, tell them what is right and wrong. Let them play violent video games and watch violent movies makes them bad parents. The Government has better things to do then protect the children from something there parents shouldn't have giving them in the first place. I would never let my under 15 youth play Violent games.. I can play grand theft auto but he can't.. When he gets to college he can explore that.. Parents need to step up and get with the show. Kids need parents.. To teach them right from wrong.. Not video games. Sit down with your children and teach them - It does a world of good.. Oh tell them that Smoke is BAD!
"Kids have played videogames and smoked joints while both parents were away working since the big business 80s. Somehow I missed the huge jump in, what, suburban thuggery?"
Yes, you did miss it. However, if you're curious, just read up on how kids in K-12 act and are treated. Go visit a middle school and watch how the kids act. I see this in varying degrees every time I visit a school. You can see it in college now, too; I remember how different I thought my fellow students acted compared to what I thought was normal.
Also, I do believe, in fact, that a neighborhood where all the children have a parent that stays at home would have less crime. Well, I believe it, as long as the parents are responsible and respect other people.
Some children will end up being responsible and respectable people without supervision and guidance. Many children will not, though. While I agree that correlation is not causation, there is a lot of correlation with various parts of society that have changed over the last fifty years. The problem is not isolated to middle-class suburbs.
In general, a child will learn more, faster, if they have support at home. They will take on many of the parent's values to use a basis for their own. They will have constant exposure to those values, and if the parent's values repect, the child will be more respectful. If there is no parent, then the child learns everything on their own. That isn't bad by itself, but it means there isn't anyone to tell them when what they are doing is "wrong".
Look at children from broken homes... you will notice a trend that many children of divorced parents do not get along so well as children from a stable family. There is a tendancy for considerable social problems. They have more problems in schools, they have problem with relationships, etc. Not exactly the same topic as what you were commenting on, but similar.
Just because it is how we've been doing it doesn't make it automatically fine. Not having a parent around is not as good as having a parent around. If a child *can* have a parent stay home, they will be better off for it. It's just that as time went on, parents outwardly became more concerned with themselves than with their children. Seriously, if both parents want a career, they shouldn't be having children; it's unhealthy for those children. If you have to both work to afford your lifestyle, then why would you bring the huge additional expense of having a child? The parents that don't care have children that don't care.
I mean standards are fine, as long as they are rational but when one group determines you can shoot a character in the face as long as no nipples and penises were observed because arousal is the devil's portal then you're not enforcing STANDARDS, you're enforcing your own particular MORES.
BTW all my kids play GTA and all of them are religious school tutors.
If you're talking about the book of Job in that last bit, you should know that it wasn't God who brought the trials against Job... God merely allowed Satan to bring the trials against Job. Satan was basically all "God, if I do this this and this to Job, he'll curse you!" God was like "We'll see. Go ahead." And in the end Job came through and didn't curse God, and God blessed him for it. For those who haven't, the book of Job is a good read, between all the ramblings of his friends (that stuffs a bit hard to get through).
Yep, I'm 42, and I've seen it play out pretty much this way many, many times. I was a left-winger when I was 25. Now, I call myself a moderate conservative. Things change as you get older. I now understand why the "Leave it to Beaver" version of the American Dream is not entirely ridiculous. Assuming dad (or mom) makes enough bank so that the spouse can be at home with junior and muffy, that is . . . .
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Government imposition is becoming increasingly more prevelant in our society. "We must protect the children..." is cited in most or all of the cases. Well, I realize that this has been said 99,000 times alerady, but I repeat: WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?
Children need to be governed and protected by their parents, not the Government! In most cases you will find that the root of the problem are the parent(s), sure, there are genetic dispositions that might make someone more succeptable to commiting violent acts, but for the most part, the way they deal and react in every situation is learned at a very early age and age where most kids are not playing video games. Unfortunately, the kids are thrown into daycare and the parents are too busy working late so then can pay off their $40,000 SUV. So, realy parenting is out of the question..
Where are the parents when these kids are playing the games? The kids are in front of their baby sitter, a video game or the television!
Enter the Governement..."We'll take it from here"
Parents! Pay attention to your kids! spend some time with them instead of shuffling them off to soccer, ballet, etc... and spend some time with them. What a simple concept!
It's not my fault!
What a common theme on our society, I got a question, if it's not your fault, than whose is it?
"It's your fault, or his fault, or her fault, or their fault!"
Enter some government official with an agenda ready to make hasty decisions and judgements about a situation without completely understanding it. "I dont' care whose fault it is, your both wrong"
The problem and the blame and the responsibility needs to be the parents and it is not the Governements job to raise our children.
Poor Video Game Developers...yeah, right!
Here is where I will more than likely get slammed, citing; "You can't be on both sides of the fence", well, yes I can.
There are some real crap video games out there! Grand Theft Auto is Useless. I've played it, I am a gamer, it is completely unecessary killing and violence and everything else rolled into a first person experience. Children should never be allowed near this kind of crap, however,it it not the Governments' job to decide this, it is the PARENTS.
Senator Dinosaur
Lastly, I will make this short and to the point' People over the age of 40 should not be able to make or propose ANY legislation that involves technology! More often than not, they do not understand it, they don't understand the implications, and they are incapable of making an educated decision, so they apply their old school, antiquated ideals and sometimes, bring innovation to a screeching halt.
When they kill us, they're sinning heathens.
... don't define the action as "good" or "bad" ... define the actors.
The critical point is
A "good" man is NOT one who does not kill.
A "good" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (as long as the rest of the winning society believes the same).
A "psychotic" man is one who believes in "god" and kills according to his belief as to whom "god" wants killed (but the rest of the winning society does not believe the same).
A "bad" man is one who refuses to kill as "god" dictates OR who kills the "good" people because he is fighting for the wrong "god".
Witness wars and executions for real world examples of the above.
The big difference for me lies in whether one regards morality as being inherent to things or not. Either actions are morally right and wrong owing to inherent qualities that make them so, or they're morally right or wrong because an external authority figure has decreed them to be so from above.
The latter position is essentially authoritarian; it's an argument from (God's) strength, not one about inherent justice or morality. The all-powerful God has said X is good and Y is bad, and our role is to follow orders, not to use our consciences to try to figure things out.
As a result of taking that stance, religious movements like American "fundamentalism" wind up talking a lot more about authority -- God's authority, which they claim for themselves based on interpretation of the Bible -- than they do about morality. My Southern Baptist relations' church sermons aren't about the struggle to figure out what's right and wrong, they're essentially about obedience and fulfilling a sort of contract for eternal life they think they have with God. I've sat through them, squirming.
The results can seem pretty arbitrary as they lurch around, can't they? One never knows what odd target their righteousness will light upon next. Will it be single mothers? But then the authority they claim is essentially arbitrary too. It's based on arbitrary force.
Of course, since this is exactly what you do when you adopt a Christian moral code, a Christian studying the Bible will naturally take away a completely different lesson than a non-believer.
It really isn't true that all Christians take the Bible in the way you're suggesting. Christianity is a big place. Every "book" religion has this tension about fundamentalist readings of the text, too.
Somehow my Southern Baptist relations have made Jesus into a figure shutting out everyone not in their congregation; they actually manage to have periodic schismatic breaks within their tiny, small town congregation. (The most recent one was about the role of women. Ugh.) My parents' Northern Baptist church couldn't be more antithetical to that narrow vision, and the sermons and forums there are truly about trying to be morally awake and alive. Both Christian.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If you're looking to dismiss people of faith as simple-minded peons who have no understanding of logic and who rapidly embrace hypocrisy, then your understanding of that verse is sufficient.
It's true that the King James Version of the english Bible translates that passage "Thou shalt not kill" but the NIV, NKJV, NASB and others translate that passage "Thou shalt not murder."
There's a distinct difference between murder and killing. God ordered the Israelites to kill the people in the promosed land because they rejected God and did what was evil. There was no hope of their turning to doing what was right, and God knew that the only outcome of leaving them alive would be to draw many of the Israelites away from God.
You don't have to agree with what God ordered them to do, but there's no direct contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and God's orders to His people.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
...Most politicians are trying to convince parents that younger children (5-12) will start commiting crimes if teenagers are doing the same thing when they play the same games. The problem with this is that it makes parents see teens as not mature enough to play the games, instead of just going after those 12 and under.
Error Occurred While Processing Request
/var/www/gamergod.com/global_functions/general_fun ctions.cfm: line 334 /var/www/gamergod.com/wwwroot/Application.cfm: line 6 /var/www/gamergod.com/global_functions/general_fun ctions.cfm: line 334 /var/www/gamergod.com/wwwroot/Application.cfm: line 6
.runFunction(/var/www/gamergod.com/global_function s/general_functions.cfm:334) at cfApplication2ecfm1891766923.runPage(/var/www/game rgod.com/wwwroot/Application.cfm:6) at cfgeneral_functions2ecfm274442543$funcSESSIONSTART .runFunction(/var/www/gamergod.com/global_function s/general_functions.cfm:334) at cfApplication2ecfm1891766923.runPage(/var/www/game rgod.com/wwwroot/Application.cfm:6)
.runFunction(/var/www/gamergod.com/global_function s/general_functions.cfm:334) :338)
Error Executing Database Query.
Invalid argument value: Duplicate entry 'B6E14B' for key 1
The error occurred in
Called from
Called from
Called from
332 : ) VALUES (
333 : 0,
334 : '#cookie.gg_uid#',
335 : NOW(),
336 : '0000-00-00 00:00:00'
SQL INSERT INTO access ( user_id, access_gg_uid, access_last_hit, access_login ) VALUES ( 0, 'B6E14BDA-BE5F-0B36-120F549FC42280D3', NOW(), '0000-00-00 00:00:00' );
DATASOURCE ggm
VENDORERRORCODE 1062
SQLSTATE S1009
Please try the following:
* Check the ColdFusion documentation to verify that you are using the correct syntax.
* Search the Knowledge Base to find a solution to your problem.
Browser Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7
Remote Address 63.108.254.74
Referrer http://slashdot.org/
Date/Time 03-Oct-05 07:27 AM
Stack Trace
at cfgeneral_functions2ecfm274442543$funcSESSIONSTART
java.sql.SQLException: Invalid argument value: Duplicate entry 'B6E14B' for key 1
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.MysqlIO.sendCommand(Unknown Source)
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.MysqlIO.sqlQueryDirect(Unknown Source)
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.MysqlIO.sqlQuery(Unknown Source)
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.Connection.execSQL(Unknown Source)
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.Connection.execSQL(Unknown Source)
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.Statement.execute(Unknown Source)
at org.gjt.mm.mysql.jdbc2.Statement.execute(Unknown Source)
at coldfusion.server.j2ee.sql.JRunStatement.execute(J RunStatement.java:212)
at coldfusion.sql.Executive.executeQuery(Executive.ja va:974)
at coldfusion.sql.Executive.executeQuery(Executive.ja va:886)
at coldfusion.sql.SqlImpl.execute(SqlImpl.java:229)
at coldfusion.tagext.sql.QueryTag.doEndTag(QueryTag.j ava:447)
at cfgeneral_functions2ecfm274442543$funcSESSIONSTART
at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod.invoke(UDFMethod.java
at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod$ArgumentCollectionFil ter.invoke(UDFMethod.java:250)
at coldfusion.filter.FunctionAccessFilter.invoke(Func tionAccessFilter.java:53)
at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod.runFilterChain(UDFMet hod.java:203)
at coldfusion.runtime.UDFMethod.invoke(UDFMethod.java
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
It sounds like the author is one of the people who wouldn't be able to get his hands on any M-rated games anymore.
"Christians" have, over the ages, held slaves, killed innocent people via "witch trials", and even gone to war with other "christians".
In order to be defined as "christian", what is the core belief(s) that distinguishes one from a non-"christian"?
about a troubled guy in a disfunctional family who kept playing GTA. One day, this guy decided to rob something, and the police caught him on the spot. He took one officer's gun to try to cuff him and run away, but the officer began yelling, and the guy shot him because he got scared.
The point in the article was that the "shooting officers" was an automatic response, something he had learned by playing GTA.
And this makes me think that we've been tackling the violent videogame issue from the wrong viewpoint: It's not that certain videogames make us violent - violence is something we learn at home, but that we are more prone to repeat the actions learned in videogames, when we become violent. This is, learned behavior from the videogames. This contrasts with movies,books and TV, where we are only spectators and no automatic-actions (such as shooting someone) are learned.
And it makes sense now: Home/Family learned violence + Videogame-learned violent actions = dangerous person.
In other words, it means that videogames such as GTA, which portray realistic violence (against fictional violence like "Street Fighter II") can turn an already violent person into a potential murderer.
Opinions anyone?
One of the largest problems I see in agnostics and atheists today is the failure to grasp the simple truth that life is not a particularly desirable state. It some how fails to penetrate their skulls that when you believe in heaven, the Earth doesn't look that great in comparison. I often hear things along the lines of, "Why would a merciful God let a baby die?" In actuality, the question ought to be, "If God is merciful why doesn't he kill the rest of us." Life sucks, the Earth sucks, and people suck. Dying and going to heaven is not a punishment.
Where you will, no doubt, jump to next is along the lines of the efficacy of suicide. The answer to that, of course, is no less faith than anything else. Living is actually a sacrifice you continually perform to give others a chance to find true life, albeit life after death.
If you don't believe it, that's fine, but it's not inconsistent.
Never confuse volume with power.
You did find a nit to pick in my post, but I don't belive you have demolished my point.
The hypocrasy is still intact, but to illustrate it I must ask you to consider a hypothetical.
Would a violent game based on biblical stories be subjected to such a harsh reception as our current crop of violent games? If you think it would, I have a bridge I would like to sell you...
But possibly running on incomplete data. While crime in the US has been decreasing for decades, the incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980. A lot of the increase is due to violent crime, too: even after taking victimless crimes out of the equation, it looks like the "criminality rate" has been skyrocketing. And for a discussion of changing American culture, I think the percentage of criminals is more important than the rate at which they're successful. How many of our people can we lock up? How many should we?
Of course, getting back the current discussion, trying to blame this on video games is ridiculous. The rise in criminality predates Pong, and the current era of ultra-realistic games doesn't see to have affected the trends at all.
I wonder how sex relates to violence. Aren't these to completely different things? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. ;)
"Christians" have, over the ages, held slaves, killed innocent people via "witch trials", and even gone to war with other "christians".
In order to be defined as "christian", what is the core belief(s) that distinguishes one from a non-"christian"?
Well, I don't think "Jesus Christ was a divine presence on earth" would be too far from the mark.
I'd never claim to speak for the Christian world, though. A whole lot of that world has long since denied my belonging to it anyway -- including my own relations, who sent haranguing (and intended to be SORT of proselytizing) e-mails to me before my Grandma's funeral last month.
(Not that I'm completely outside the lines for them. I'm not some poor gay man who's facing their efforts at correction, or anything. I just think there's no "faith" of proper humility that isn't essentially a "strong" agnostic's stance: we aren't divine, we can't directly know the divine, but we can use conscience and a measure of faith to try to find our way.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The issue is not violence or sex, I believe both have their place....to me, the issue is "degradation & abuse"
I believe sex is a wonderful thing shared between people who love each other. Even in terms of pleasure shared amongst friends or consenting casual acquaintances for the more liberal thinking.
Nor am I an absolute pacifist, I believe violence should be avoided when possible and used as a last resort. But I believe there are times when one must be violent; when one must defend themselves against the school playground bully. I believe there are times one must be violent to protect the weak from abuse.
A violent game like DOOM caused little issue for me. Shooting monstrous demonic creatures....no problem. Shooting each other in a gladiator style arena. Still not much problem. Not much reality there.
But there is a big difference between such and a game which exemplifies, even glorifies, the rape/killing or other abuse of prostitutes. That degrades women as objects. That outlines a fundamental philosophy that stealing/killing is acceptable.
I do not have children, but when I do, I want to instill in them that sex is a good thing...but to enjoy it wisely. That violence is a last resort but that there are times you need to raise your fists. Likewise, I do not want my son to be abusing & degrading women. I want him to be the type to respect women. I want him to be the type of guy who refrains from violence, but at the same time would be willing to use it to prevent some scum from being violent and degrading to a woman or anyone for that matter.
The issue, is "right vs. wrong" "good vs. evil" sure it get's grey sometimes. But how often is "rape" a grey issue? or mass genocide? or racism?
There is a difference between playing a character in a game such as a cop stopping violent criminals with violence, or even a vigilante who does such to protect more innoncent individuals than say "playing" the perpetrator. Sure "Wolfenstein" was violent with lots of gruesome death. But you were killing NAZI's and their evil creations.
So, no, I don't want my children (which I do not have) playing a game that displays such behaviors....not until their sense of morality and right vs. wrong has matured. Likewise, I don't even really want other children to play such. If I have a daughter, then no, I don't think I'd be too keen on a game that had kids "rampaging" a school shooting classmates and raping girls in the school bathroom. I'd be afraid of what influence that might have on a teenage boy and what risk that could pose to my daughter. Now, I don't think we're at a level were such a game would be tolerated by society. But it does pose the question of where does one or where should one draw the line?
I think most parents bringing up such issues are not concerned about their children, (as they're probably not letting them play GTA) but are more concerned about their children encountering children influenced by such games - and being harmed.
Now, is there conclusive proof of an association of violence. No...but it does not mean we should wait till there might be.
So my point in this....I don't know if there should be a law. But IMHO, would it really be wrong to list certain games as Mature and denote that such require the purchaser to be 18+ ??? This was commonly accepted for film.
The following is just my personal opinion:
General Audience (means content acceptable for all)
Teen (denotes violence, guns, deathmatch, etc.)
Mature (denotes strong sexual content, immoral violence, illegal acts (ie: drug usage - not powerup mushrooms but use of real life drugs), essentially, anything that is portrayed in a virtual environment of our modern day society which is illegal & felonious to the extreme. (ie: driving very fast would not be listed but driving drunk would, murder, rape, etc)
All of this is to say "there is a difference" between say a game called "8mm" in which a character plays a detective (a.k.a. Nicholus
Both quotes are from a text file I've kept for some time. I'll try to get a source.
I've read Plato and the neoPlatonists (especially Plotinus) but can't recall a source for the quotes. Having read The Republic I've little doubt Plato would have spoken in the quoted terms. The ideas he set out in The Repulic in terms of the training and power of the Guardians seems to me to jive with someone who would see any impropriety as unacceptable; but, it's worth keeping in mind, that he was an aristocrat who saw the destruction of his kind's power base. That he seems to have adopted the "ideals" of Sparta as the underpinnings for his Utopia is suggestive of someone who subscribes to power as a sort of "Dieu et mon Droit" principle. Personally I find his views repugnant the more so for having read K. Popper's Open Society and It's Enemies
You're right in thinking the odds on favourite would be his having put the words into one of his quasi fictional characters. B. Russell characterizes Plato as, above all, a writer of inventive genius.
cheers
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
How is their approach any different from what you've stated?I don't know about others, but I do understand it. It just makes no sense to me. Again, statistically, there is no difference between "good" and "bad" things happening to "good" and "bad" people while they're alive.
Your belief is that this is "god's" will and that Heaven is so much better and lasts so much longer.
Now, take a look at the religious beliefs of most suicide bombers. Hmmmm, they have very similar beliefs. They go straight to Heaven for all eternity.
Now, if you really believe what you say you believe, then those suicide bombers are doing "good" things by sending people to Heaven, even if they're going to Hell for their beliefs.
Go ahead and say that. Say that you support suicide bombers killing "good" people because those "good" people are better off in Heaven now.
It's one thing to discuss it in the abstract, it's an entirely different thing to state, publicly, that you support killing innocent men, women and children.
By your definition, Satan would be a Christian.But when you start talking "conscience" and "faith" then you get into the realm of psychosis. Is murdering innocent children "good" as long as you have "faith" that you're doing God's Will and a clear conscience?
The guy purposely infuses his sentences with as many mono-syllabic words as he can. I don't call that well written--Just pompous.
The problem with being too intellectual is that your points usually get lost on those who should be hearing it the most.
I'm not suggesting dumbing down to the point of using leet speak, gangsta lingo and that sort of nonsense. It's entirely possible to write intelligently while still being "accessible".
Not to make a big issue, but Plato is an amazingly witty and sarcastic writer, and his "views" are very unclear. Divining Plato's beliefs from the statements of his characters is pretty unreliable-- particularly when that character is Socrates, who is known to be purposefully misleading. There are plenty of reasons to believe Plato was against the "ideal utopia" as described in the Republic.
"...However, neither of them want to work, being new-age, enlightened folks. "Why should I automatically have to stay home? This is 2005, for cryin' out loud," says the woman. "...Eventually, they get divorced. Junior plays GTA4 with his buddies in his basement while his parents are at work, and they laugh every time they run over a hooker. Then they go out under the deck behind the house and smoke a joint. Mom and Dad won't be home for hours anyway.
Welcome to 2005."
What kind of mutant baby has a gestation and growth period such that the parents argue about who has to quite a job just as she swells up, pops it out, hires and imigrant, and you know, everything else that leads to the spawn smoking pot and giggling about his own entertainment within a 12 month period?
It certainly would explain the people who enjoy that mindlessly stupid game -- they are a race of POD PEOPLE sent to DECAY SOCIETY!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I can't access the site because my employer has something called "Surf Control" that blocks certain sites, and presumably it is blocking this one because it is a gaming site. Admittedly, discussing censorship isn't exactly what I am paid to do, but it seems Orwellian to block an article about censorship because it has to do with games. "Surf Control" doesn't have any problems with employees reading CNN, Yahoo, or Slashdot for that matter.
Or, perhaps the rise and fall of civilizations is a cyclic process, and not a one-way increase that began some time in the prehistoric past and will end with the death of the last civilization.
Pleeaase. Those of you discussing religion from either point of view haven't a clue about what you are talking about because you have NO historical basis on which to make these statements. For those of you who are anti-religion, perhaps you should read some of the Roman histories (Tacitus or Caesar, or some of the earlier stuff), or perhaps Gregory of Tours "History of the Franks", or perhaps something about Alexander the Great and his dad. ---and nobody has mentioned money (which I might suggest is the real 'god' of the majority of those who rant here. Hmmm.)
After all, any amount of pain on Earth would surely be worth an eternity in Heaven, right?If it were "very coherent, and straight forward" then how could people get "so confused about it"?
That doesn't make sense. If something is simple, there is no confusion. Confusion only comes from complexity.And if someone does NOT believe that they are "bad" by you definition, then it is okay for you to do anything (up to murder) to convince them that they ARE "bad" and that they need to accept YOUR religion so they can live in Heaven.
Yes, Christianity was used to justify slavery and even beating slaves. And by your current definition, those would be "good" Christians (even though they were "bad" people with regard to sin).No, "the rest" is all about what is allowable to be done to the non-Christians to get them into Heaven.
welcome our new god-fearing overlords.
"Criminal" crimes have also changed a LOT since the 1980s. Yelling at your wife could get you arrested for "verbal abuse" (lowering self-esteem) and sending a kid to bed without dinner could be argued as "child abuse" (intentional starvation). Throw in a bunch of new anti-sexist laws, anti-child abuse laws, and anti-homosexual/racial hate crime laws (all "crimes" that were previously ignored) and crime skyrockets.
Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??
Actually, we have. There are certain "books" and "movies" that I can only seem to find at my local "Taboo Video" adult superstore.
BBH
It makes no sense whatsoever to claim organized religon (in this case, Christianity) is responsible for more deaths than secular religon (in this case Communism). They are both still religons.
Communism sits on a platform of such secular religous beliefs as the blank slate, the noble savage, and the rediculously still-prevalant belief of such a thing as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts (Stalin was big on that one). As to the first two, they have long since been empirically demonstrated to be false...as to the last, there has never been any empirical evidence of such a thing.
Religon is believing in anything that cannot be empirically demonstrated to exist. You can worship no god and still be very religous, like many of the Left in the US.
Evil Grinn is pretty much correct; the choice we have in the US right now is the Right and their religous views based on organized religon, and the Left with their views based on secular religon.
Either way, sane people in the US are fucked.
Well, there is something to be said about that too. The Rockefeller laws in New York State and similar laws in other states which created mandatory sentencing for drug offences have done a good part of the job of filling our prisons.
First time offenders can get put away for years for small drug possessions. The laws were created so that real criminals couldn't keep escaping conviction, but in addition a lot of people who could have had their involvement with drugs dealt with by treatment were instead put away for a very long time.
When China places restrictions on gamers, they are this horribly oppressive communist regime. When the U.S. places restrictions, it's for the love of our children...
Awesome!
I read all 10 morals and still have not found the part that says: "make up your own and insert here -> -".
Oh well, I guess I'll get my games at the porn store. I like taking care of two things at a time anyway.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
There's so little to go on concerning the true character of Socrates. AFAIK there's Plato and Xenophon. I can't remember reading Aristophanes The Clouds wherein Socrates was caricatured.
Burnet (as I read in Russell's History of Wester Philosophy) wrote: 'Xenophon's defense of Socrates is too successful. He would never have been put to death if he had been like that.' Personally I like the bit on Socrates attributed to the prosecution: Socrates is an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven; and making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others. The, perhaps apocryphal, report that near death he asked a friend to pay a debt owed, a cock to Asclepius, is cool, as such a debt was paid when the debtor recovered from an illness.
I think Plato did history a disservice in his fictional representation of Socrates. Given you're posts I think you're better read in terms of Plato than I am (not a difficult feat);) so I'll defer to your characterization. I can't immediately recall the Classical Greek concept of history but I seem to remember their concept of history was radically different than ours.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Thankfully, the pretentious writing slacks off after the first two paragraphs or so. It would be nice if people would bother to learn that:
...and cut it out with the pretentious writing. You're not fooling anyone when your writing is chock-full of grammatical and spelling errors -- even if you try to throw in a fistful of PSAT words.
1. Media is the plural form of medium.
2. Effect and affect are not interchangeable.
3. Use spell check! How hard is this?
4.
What happens in state law foreshadow what may happen in the federal government. Think about every major federal law or admendment. Once one state does it other states start thinking about it, which is already happening if you RTFA. Once it cathes on in the majority of the states, then its considered for a federal law. What we need to do know is think about it and be prepared when it hits your state. Ideals are like plagues, good or bad you need to know how to handle it.
Reads ominously like a post from someone who has actually read O. Spengler's Decline of the West. I own a copy, very old, but I've never been able to read it (it's not as inacessible as Joyces' Finnegan's Wake but it's "all Greek to me"). The only comparable experience, in terms of flurid prose, I've had was reading H. Bergson.
I read and liked A. Toynbee but I just can't see that an idea such as you've suggested could ever be substatiated or refuted.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I think it comes down to this:
:)
What is wrong? What is right? Is anything right?
In American culture, the only two things that are understood to be right for all people at all times are these:
1. All truth is relative. Therefore: Don't force your beliefs on others - sometimes interpreted as "don't express your beliefs around me, you kook!"
2. The individual's right to pursuit of happiness is the only sacred thing.
On what do you base your opinion that it's "wrong to kill people because of their beliefs?"
Some things are absolutely true. Physiologically speaking, electrocution (within certain parameters) will defintely kill you. Mathematically speaking, 2+2=4 all day long. For some reason it seems hard for many people to accept that certain things are absolutely true with respect to morality.
If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive? If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms? If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?
I'm interested to hear your response.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Well, if you notice, I keep referring to Socrates as a "character". There was a real guy, of course, but we don't really have much of anything about the real guy. All we have are some contemporaries who've written Socrates into plays as a fictional character (Aristophanes, Plato). Their characterizations of Socrates are different, which leads us, then, to admit that we can speak of Plato's character "Socrates" and Aristophanes character "Socrates", but as you say, we know so very little about the historical Socrates. We also don't have anything in the way of Plato writing "I think this..." or "I think that...", but only dialogues which were, essentially, plays.
So really, I'm only talking here about Plato's character Socrates, who is known to be a bit of a trickster. In fact, a good tip for reading Plato, I think, is whenever Socrates states repeatedly that something is impossible and can't be taken seriously, it's probably the most true thing in the dialogue. However, that's my interpretation from some study, and there are plenty of others who'd disagree.
Is it "good" to torture someone who doesn't believe what you believe so that he might start believing what you believe?
If it is "simple" then you can give a "simple" yes/no answer to that.
If it is not "simple" then you will not be able to do so.
I predict that you will not be able to do so.
You are confusing "simple" with "simplistic".
I believe the author was paid by the syllable.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
This video prompts the following feelings:
A) This thing should be an entire topic on its own.
B) This mother should be
1) Instantly yanking the power cord on this thing adan stuffing it in a locked cabinet
2) Slapping this child about the head and upper body with an open hand
3) Grounding hiim in his room with zero to do but read and fold laundry
4) Sending him to military school next chance there is for enrollment
C) I hate this kid.
1) I'll lay 7/5 that he's in Jail inside of 10 years.
2) Hes really bad a playing whatever he's playing
s'wut i sed.
This article is so self-serving that it really doesn't deserve being commented upon except to point out the obvious- it's lack of cogent information. IOW, What a crock!
It seems like observation of past civilizations would be a good place to start. But, I'd first want to see a more formal statement of exactly what the idea in question is. A formal hypothesis could be refuted by finding a counterexample. As far as substantiating it goes, the best we can hope for is to have a hypothesis that fits all of the known facts.
Christians generally consider the Bible to be accurate (read infallible) in the original languages and original manuscripts. What I read in the English Bible translations is not infallible. Please don't confuse this with corruption. Most teachings from the Bible are amazingly clear. When they are not, then it's time to do a little homework.
Specifically, it's been a few hundred years since the KJV was translated. Has English changed much since the 1600's? Also, do you speak more than one language? While it is my primary language, I am barely passable in English, and speak no other languages. I've studied a little French, some Spanish, and have started to investigate Greek and Hebrew.
I admittedly know little about linguistics, but this much I *do* know. Translation from one language and culture to another is difficult. For example, idioms infrequently fail to make sense to people from other cultures. In addition, subject-verb order matters in some languages, and does not in others. There's LOTS of complexity.
As a result, translators agree on a basic set of rules for translation, but then there is some divergence. The divergence comes from whether the translation will maintain individual words or whole thoughts - word for word, or thought for thought. When there is some question about the meaning of a particular passage, scholars will look to multiple translations, as well as to commentaries from theologians to help provide insight into the meaning of the passage. (There's a whole field of study known as hermeneutics that focuses on biblical interpretation.)
This is frequently the case in many fields. On its face something may appear to be contradictory, but when more is understood about the matter, the contradiction disappears. Interestingly, I found this quote on the 'infidels.org' site: "Science is, after all, a very complex and nuanced affair that can only be truly understood with wide experience and deep thought."
I would submit to you that while the basic premise of Christianity is so simple that a toddler can grasp it, there are depths of theological study that can only be plumbed through a lifetime of thought. Your 'change the premise' assertion seems to me to be more the former than the latter.
Make sense?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
...on prime time NBC last night (Sunday October 2nd) I saw a bag of severed body parts including a clearly visable severed arm fall out of the back of a van and roll across the ground.
And why is that okay yet showing a pink dot on a female chest is prohibited when showing the same pink dot on a male chest is okay?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The kill/murder distinciton is typical Xtian semantics. Why don't Xtians face up to the fact that you interpret your book however you want to, reality and morality be damned?
Bottom line- religon is used to either confirm or deny, at the owners whim, the ultimate morality code: the human conscience.
We were born with this beautiful instrument and you xtians insist on your confusing tome.
Sorry, but your logic cannot be followed.
Capitalistic NOT EQUAL Capitalism
Capitalistic -> derivation of capitalizing -> "To turn something to one's advantage; benefit: capitalize on an opponent's error."
?Question? To Capitalize on "something", what is that something? Need... ok, fine.
So you are advocating capitalizing on someone else's need? Yes, your argument in favor of captalism is strong indeed...
Nonetheless, I am not arguing AGAINST Capitalism.
I am arguing AGAINST the principles (or lack of) being instilled in our children (as I live in a society of Capitalists) on the part of the government/institutions/parents of my nation.
I am arguing AGAINST the lack of concern of your fellow man
I am arguing AGAINST the 75 hour work week while the child sits in front of sponge bob, hoping that mommy or daddy remembers to bring him home his Mcdonalds dinner tonight.
I am arguing AGAINST teaching our children to "win at all costs" vs. win or lose with dignity.
I am arguing FOR teaching our children to respect their elders, their peers, pretty much everyone.
I am arguing FOR PARENTS teaching their children right from wrong, ethics, responsibility, humility, grace, and honor.
I am arguing AGAINST blaming someone else for YOUR problems.
I am arguing FOR the elevation of the individual from a mere gatherer to a more enlighted being, capable of hearing, listening, and understanding the views of others, without taking up arms when they disagree.
I am arguing AGAINST hot-headed, short-tempered, ill-informed meat heads who spout off whenever provided the opportunity, without consideration or concern of who they may offend.
If you disagree with any of these concepts, feel free. These are OPINIONS, MY OPINIONS, and I am welcomed to them, just as you are welcome to yours.
Never did I say anything about the merits or failings of any particular socio-economic system. But since you brought it up....
Yes, most social governments that exist today are corrupt, so there are few good examples. But speaking idealistically, and in the absense of corruption, a communal society would kick a capitalistic one's ass.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to even imagine such an Utopia at our current evolutionary stage. "Things" drive us, not thoughts.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
True story. Knew this family that is Morman. Had their kid, 14, go to Bible class every weekday at 6am. Church most all day Sunday. Do yard work Saturday. No internet, no cable TV. That is the background. The result. This kid craved violent military wacko movies. Got magazines like Soldier of Fortune, etc.. My conclusion. He was bored. Oh incidentally his old man bought him a rifle and taught him how to shoot. My point. Video games and the internet had nothing to do with this poor child's craving for excitement. And one way or another they will find it. If not gaming, maybe on the street? Oh, incidentally, last I heard this kid has turned out ok. Far as I know he hasnt killed anybody yet. As for these organizations lobbying against "depraved" videos/games, wouldnt be surprised if they have only a few active members.
You know, I am sick and tired of this drivel. There is always some deusche bag trying to ban this or that. "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children." FUCK YOU! I have been playing video games for 20 years. I'm 28 years old this month. I STILL play GTA 3, and a host of other games that are extremely violent/sexual/anti-conservative-view. I have NEVER killed another person, senselessly beat someone (although I have beaten a couple of people out of self defense), never ran over a pedestrian (1500 style points!), nor have I ever banged a hooker or done drugs (well, I've smoked pot like 4 times my whole life, twice in college, once at a funeral gathering for a big pot head, and once with my ex wife). I watch all sorts of gory, dirty, horrific movies. I've seen everything that shock sites can dish out, and some stuff that you can't get anymore (ahh, the good old days of Compuserve/America Online 2.0/BBS/FTP). I've seen it all. Been there done that. Been around the block MANY times.
Yeah, I'm only 28, but I've lived in 15 states, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and spent a short stint in England. I've witnessed a murder, at least a dozen gang shootings/driveby's/beat downs, been through 2 riots, and survived a tornado, an earthquake, AND a serious accident involving a three-wheel ATV and a barbed wire fence.
I've seen the infamous Unknown Russian Soldier video, several mafia-style execution videos, various executions of other styles, suicides, wrecks, etc. I've read everything from Crowley to King, and I am NOT a violent person. I do NOT use drugs. I do NOT have the urge to shoot someone with a rail gun. I do NOT "smack my bitch up".
I apologize for the rant and the apparrent attempt at bragging. I am simply trying to make the statement that the media doesn't have jack shit to do with a persons lifestyle/perspective/actions, unless that person is already fucked up in the head enough to allow persuasion of that inconsequential amount to take them over. I was raised by an abusive, alcoholic father, but I don't even drink alcohol. I never once hit a woman (well, once in self defense), nor am I abusive mentally or socially to them. My mother taught me the difference between right and wrong, and how to think for myself. She is still my best friend to this day (and no, I'm not a basement dweller. I have my own home, thank you very much).
The whole point of this post is that outside influences are just that: influences. They don't make up your mind for you, nor are they responsible for your actions. If they were, I'd have more murders under my belt than all of Christianity's history. Now THERE is a truly BAD influence. Religion has been far more of a danger than any video game or book or song in the history of mankind. If you want to make a difference, get rid of religion. I know I'm better off without it.
That said, my last comment is this : STOP STIFLING INNOVATION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH/CHOICE/LIFE!!!!!!
Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.
Pretentious! Thank you! I couldn't think of the right word to describe a student's essay I read recently, but that hits the nail on the head. Pretentious writing really annoys me.
So, if someone does not follow the guidelines set forth by Jesus Christ, are they still followers of Jesus Christ (aka "Christians")?
Think about that before you answer it.
What is more damaging to children, mercury or violent video games? I would say mercury because parents can do very little to counteract it and it has proven negative effects. Our current government works to attack video games and tries to remove restraints on mercury released by power plants. What famous politician began his political career because he was angry that toxic chemicals were regulated? Answer now, don't DeLay!
Guess which industries give money to politicians? Attacks on video games may be some form of extortion. Contribute to my campaign or I will regulate at you! Republicans, notorious for their anti-regulation stance are also notorious for a pro-regulation attitude towards Hollywood. Why? Could one factor be that Hollywood gives more to Democrats than Republicans?
Politicians support the people who support them. Strangely a vote isn't as important as a big check in terms of support...
Does this mean these games will be outlawed in Michigan, or just that you'll have to show your driver's license? Or that they're going to rate them stricter?
www.linuxpenguin.net
Guys, guys...I think I can clear this up. The OP was probably talking about Steven Hitler, not Adolf Hitler. Case closed.
If Michigan's unusually high number of criminal sociopaths starts going down after a while (I guess we'd have to wait a good 20 years to notice a difference).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The ESRB rating "M" (Mature) means that retailers should not sell the game to anyone under the age of 17. It means parents should *not* buy it and give it to their 14-year old. It is similar to an "R" rating at the movies.
The only stiffer rating is "AO" (Adults Only) which is similar to an "NC-17" rating. Most retailers follow the lead of Walmart and refuse to even stock AO titles.
The "Hot Coffee" controversy led to the version of GTA:SA that was on shelves being re-classified from "M" to "AO". All the existing copies were recalled and Rockstar later intended to re-release the game with the sex-minigame content removed so that it could be rated "M" again.
Bottom line: Any parent who lets a kid under 17 play GTA:SA without carefully checking into it first is IRRESPONSIBLE. Games rated "M" are NOT FOR KIDS. I play GTA:SA myself and think its a great game for various reasons, but I would never let my kids play it (if I had any). Not unless they were old enough and mature enough in my opinion, to see a movie like "Sin City".
Of course, I tend to disagree with a number of your points above, but we are in violent agreement about the understanding of and implementation of what Christ taught.
A couple of points worth discussion - sadly I only have time for one right now:
most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong
A study of this topic is in order to appreciate exactly what Christ taught - more than can reasonbly be covered here, but following your example, I'll quote Christ
Jesus did not say that the Old Testament was wrong. Largely he said that the religious types of his day (and prior) had missed the point - focused more on appearing righteous than actually being righteous. Much more to be said, but I've got to run right now...
With respect to my having to teach others morality, the question is "what evidence do you have that the flying spaghetti monster - or whatever diety you have in mind - produced the document you claim provides his authority?"
I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.
How does your theoretical document fare when these ideas are considered?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I am not surprized by these video game laws at all. Aren't there laws making it illegal to sell booze and porn to minors? Aren't there laws that prohibit letting 14-year-olds into X-rated movies? As a matter of fact, aren't they still prohibited from entering R-rated moves by themselves?
With this Michigan law, a parent can still decide that a violent game is okay for their kids and give it to them, same as he or she can take the kids to an R-rated movie. And even still, a kid will find all the violent games (s)he need online (be it freeware or pirated games). Same as the kids now find access to the pornography and R-rated movies they aren't supposed to know about.
It's a fairly simple concept (sticking to Christian dogma).
... in which case the kind, loving, just God damns people he created and he place in an environment where they would not hear of his love or his son ...
#1. Either the only way to get into Heaven is to follow the "Christian" way
#2. or being "Christian" is not the only way to get into Heaven.
So if #1, then god is one sadistic bastard. Since god is obviously NOT a sadistic bastard (he is love and joy and life) then #2 must be the Truth.
But if #2 is the Truth, what are the statistics for non-Christians getting into Heaven? Is there a higher percentage of Native Americans pre-1500's in Heaven than pre-1500 Christians?
#2a. Are we wrecking those people's chances at an eternity of bliss because we're converting them? #2b. Or are we increasing the statistical likelyhood that they'll end up in Heaven?
At which point, the "Christians" usually cut and run. Native peoples are not really "people" like we're people. They're just walking, talking, 3-dimensional game counters. You get points if you "save" them, but they didn't really exist before you booted up the game. When the game isn't on, they go back in the box.
Just in case you've ever wondered just how much is a metric buttload, Jason over at Brainthought created a converter just for this!
http://www.brainthought.com/ambat/loadtometric/
Reminds me of those terrible "introductory paragraphs" people would write in high school and somehow wind up getting an A from the teacher who was impressed with such pretentiousness.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
The more this stuff gets trolled in the press, the more imbeciles will believe the lies. Video games don't create sociopaths any more than movies or music do. Everyone glorifies their ideals in the art they create. If the game/movie/music is written by a chemically imbalanced mama's boy with an inner passion for genocide.. welll.. DUH!
What's the real reason the powers-that-be are going after the games ? There has to be some cash incentive in it. Movies have to go through lengthy and stringent rating procedures, presumably at considerable cost. Music is tightly controlled by the big cheeses around the RIAA. Video games are still somewhat deregulated and open-marketed. Maybe that's the problem.
By legislating all games out of existence over violence, only the big corporations with enough money to buy out the law will have the privilege of releasing violent and/or sexually charged games.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Killing? Yes
Pillaging? Yes
Raping? No. I know of no instance where God commanded someone to rape anyone.
Sin (lack of doing what is completely and entirely right) must be punished. God's mercy causes Him to defer punishment, but His justice demands that sin be punished.
While He is benevolent, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
I'm curious: Is it your assertion that it is wrong for God to say that killing and taking the goods of those killed is ok?
On what do you base that assertion?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Simple fact is there are only two way a person can become very rich in a life time without inheriting wealth.
1. Invent something new that lot of people want, most of the real inventors don't become rich since very few patent their ideas or product! People who patent their ideas mostly don't come up with big ideas that will make them very rich!
2. Steal from others legally, this is called doing business!
Profit = Selling price - Buying price
To be rich you have to buy cheap and sell high, this could be a product or services. When you buy something at low price and then sell it at high price it is stealing the wealth of the buyer. Same is true when you employ someone at low cost and then sell the resulting product or service at high price it is stealing the work of the employ. This is why Jesus said, a rich person going to heaven is like a camel passing through eye of a needle.
Next time when you hear a rich Business man talks about ethical business practice, he is the biggest liar of them all!
Wonder why Bills Gates is Billionaire?
What he does is simple, he is a software publisher! What does that mean? all laws applicable to software publishing are those applicable to other publishing industry like Books. But there is a big difference Bill "does not pay any royalty" to software Authors (when will software nerds wake up?), for each copy sold, where as book publisher pays royalty to the Author for each copy sold!
If royalties are not paid to authors then "Copyright Laws" are not applicable to software publishing! If the publisher does not pay the authors for each copy sold then why should we pay publisher for each copy?
The actual writing style is quite poor. When there's a simple and direct way to say something, that's the best way to say it. There are times when precise distinctions or special nuances are calling for the use of highly specialized $3 words, but I didn't notice any in the article.
I admit that there are some people who naturally write like pedants. I even confess that I am one of them. However, I know better and make the effort to tone it down in normal circumstances--and especially when I am writing in a "public" forum where I expect many people might read it. The author of that particular article is most likely a pseudo-intellectual who simply doesn't know better, or someone who is excessively fond of playing games with a thesaurus.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Apparently you think I'm trying to represent not only all of Christianity but also Satan? Sorry, I can't describe Satan's belief system in the manner you suggest.
But when you start talking "conscience" and "faith" then you get into the realm of psychosis. Is murdering innocent children "good" as long as you have "faith" that you're doing God's Will and a clear conscience?
For what little it's worth, I have the same problem with what you're talking about: "faith" is not in some way a wellspring of natural and total obedience to the will of God, and does not in any way trump or "clear" or obsolete one's conscience. The way authoritarian religions attempt to make religious doctrine into marching orders disturbs me. It leads to people's consciences being bent over ideological forges. I personally would describe that as "evil." Inherently so.
That's hardly a problem specific to Christianity, though.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Really, I'm not looking to split hairs with you, but I fear that you may misunderstand something significant about the Christian understanding of scriptures.
You said The Old Testament's main focus is punnishing evildoers
The fundamental Christian understanding of this is exactly the opposite of this point of view. The most basic understanding of the Christian faith is this:
God created the universe, including one man and one woman who had direct personal relationship with their perfect creator. They were standing on the precipice - created in such a way that they had complete volitional will to choose whether or not to obey God and maintain relationship with Him.
As the story goes, they chose to seek to please themselves rather than to please and honor God's commands. As a result, they were no longer sinless, and were unable to enjoy the relationship that they had previously enjoyed with God.
God could have destroyed them immediately, but showed mercy and compassion toward them. They were unable to completely make up for what they had done. It was in fact, impossible to restore them to theire previous purity. This in some ways is like the pollution of a large icy glass of pure water when a single drop of gasoline is added.
(Of course, in this scientifically enlightened age when we have access to gasoline, we also have access to filtration technology, but what can I say? Every analogy is a bad analogy at some point)
To get back on point, the issue of restoration of purity and relationship with God is the fundamental message of the Old and New testaments. God's will is progressively revealed to mankind over the centuries. The Old testament tells many stories of people who honored God in their lives - some doing better jobs than others - but ultimately all of those who found God's favor did it not through their deeds, but through faith that God's mercy and forgiveness were possible.
The schism between God's perfect mercy, grace, forgiveness, and yet His perfect justice was reconciled when God Himself came from Heaven to earth in the form of a person - Jesus Christ. Christ's death satisfied the requirement for punishment of the sin, and opened the door to intimate relationship with God again. His resurrection demonstrated that the God I worship is more powerful than death itself, and offers hope.
Those who lived before Christ was on earth looked to God's promise of salvation for people of faith. Those who live after Christ have the same hope, just more information than those of the Old testament days.
Also, WRT your comment about the Bible as it relates to science, it is most assuredly not a science textbook. There are many different forms of literary expression in the Bible - narrative, poetry, allegory, etc. The parts that are narrative can be evaluated with respect to external events, and as time passes more and more archeological discoveries are found that support what the Bible says happened in that part of the world during that timeframe.
Evolution offers no real answers about origins of the universe in general, or of life in particular. Intelligent Design is a theory that suggests the possiblity of a designer. I would think that this kind of idea is acceptable within scientific circles, but apparently it is not...
Preservation over time has to do with whether what Christians believe today is consistent with what was taught initially by those who knew Christ while he was on this planet.
Sorry for this tome!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
this post explains it better than I can hope to.
As a Christian, I don't claim to know everything, and in fact I was unfamiliar with that portion of the Bible. If this topic is of particular interest to you, I am willing to do some study to get a fuller understanding of that passage, and will be happy to try to condense an explanation to slashdot length. Please let me know.
Isn't he supposed to be forgiving as well?
That depends. God has lots of qualities - some of which appear to be in conflict with others. For example,
God is just - meaning that He must have justice - real, complete justice.
This means that sin *must* be punished.
God through Christ took my punishment for me, in the same way that I might pay a fine for one of my children when they are found guilty. (Of course, I might let them pay their own debts, too - but that's another issue.)
Since someone paid the price for my sin, God's need for justice is satisfied. When I stand before God guilty of my sin, my advocate (Jesus Christ) will effectively have the judge look at the price Christ already paid, and I won't have to be punished.
Does this help clarify what Christians believe?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
By your stated definition (belief being the only requirement for a "Christian"), Satan would be a "Christian".Are you saying that following Christ's teaching can be contrary to what your conscience tells you is "right" or "good"?
I can see that in the Old Testament, but Jesus' teachings weren't there.
Does that mean that, in certain circumstances, you can find yourself morally opposed to Jesus? The guy who died to forgive your sins? The guy who suffered so that you could have an eternity in Heaven?
Can a "Christian" be morally opposed to the teachings of Christ, the Son of God?
If Christ taught that torture was wrong, that would be a teaching of Christ.
If someone follows the teachings of Christ, and knows Christ, then s/he is a "Christian".
If someone does not follow the teachings of Christ, but knows Christ, is s/he still a "Christian"? If so, then "Christian" would also apply to Satan.
If not, then how many of Christ's teachings can you ignore and still be a "Christian"?
The answer is easy, once you understand your own religion. Only those who do not understand will have a problem and get upset.
I again make no attempt to put words in the mouth or mind of Satan. If you're specifically talking about Matthew 4, I don't actually see that Satan is described as "believing" anything. But that's beside the point, as I'm a) hardly a Biblical literalist and b) not here to score points, as you seem to be.
Nor am I attempting to speak for all Christianity -- though you're very earnestly working to somehow corner me into committing myself to that. I don't personally think there is a coherent set of criteria that could be listed in the way you're wanting, not for any of the "book religions," though that's really what the books seem to be attempting. In that sense I think the great book religions have failed to deliver on what they promised.
The prating admonition to read my Bible more is just a sort of rhetorical throat clearing, better suited to the sort of trolling "I scored a point!" arguments that people have all day long on boards like this. I've never myself up as the oracular source of wisdom on all criteria that constitute Christian belief. Are you trying to catch me in a hypocrisy I have no inclination to commit, or what? If that's all you're about, let it go.
Are you saying that following Christ's teaching can be contrary to what your conscience tells you is "right" or "good"?
I am saying, very simply and to return to my original post, that "right" and "good" are inherent to certain actions and moral choices -- and that it is fundamentally a mistake and a grievous one to think that rightness and goodness derive from any authority figure. Things are not right or good because God or Jesus said they were. I think that's essentially a front for worldly figures who want to speak with God's authority.
To give you another example, I find most Christian doctrine surrounding the idea that "good works" can't earn a spot in heaven deeply troubling. In order to find a place for good works in their theology, fundamentalists emphasize that any good work is really just an expression of obedience to God's will. For them the crucial point is the obedience, not the morality of a given choice. I think that's exactly backward. Trying to follow that sort of moral code is only going to bend one's conscience to obedience to the wrong authorities here on earth. It doesn't provide the simplicity it claims to provide, either, because...
...I certainly, to answer at least one of your (falsely reductive) "can a Christian disagree morally with Jesus?" questions, think that there are many situations in life for which the Bible doesn't give us anything like clear moral instruction. A morality in which obedience to divine will (as expressed in the Bible) is the only real moral principle doesn't do much to prepare me for the moral questions that go with working for a large modern multinational corporation, for example. I don't find moral instruction, or even consolation, in the Bible -- not for those questions.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If that statement offends you, then "Christian" does mean something to you, "in and of itself".Nope. Why don't you stop trying to guess what I really mean and just answer the question?Which is a tangent to the original question, but leads to the question of "So what is the requirement for being "saved"?"
Suppose there's some guy who likes raping and killing little girls. Is he "saved"?
If not, then how do you justify that with your statement that even horrible people leading horrible lives can be "saved"?
If so, then what is the final difference between someone leading a holy and pious life dedicated to aiding others and a guy who like to rape little girls and flay them alive?
Do they both get the same Heaven and the same amount of time (eternity) in it?
Would it be "moral" to support a god who grants eternal joy to a guy who rapes children?
If so, what exactly does "moral" mean?
I take it you cannot read? It's in the Bible. Or are you just opposed to reading the Bible?
So, what you're telling me is that Satan, the Angel of the Morning, known as Lucifer who was at the Hand of God would go to the personal effort of offering some kid all the cities of the world if that kid would worship him ... but would not know that kid was the Son of God.
Your defense is pure sophistry.
You can try to avoid the question all you want, but by your definition, Satan is a true Christian.
Oh spare me the martyr play. You are not the Christ. Get down off that cross.
Ummmm, the Bible? Have you heard of it? The New Testament if just filled with the teachings of this guy called "Jesus". Maybe you should try reading it sometime?
Or do you believe that if you lived your life as Jesus lived his that you would not be a "Christian".
Oops. Sorry, I forgot that even Satan qualifies as a "Christian" by your definition.
Given that, why is it so easy to score points off of you? The answers are already there in your Bible. All you have to do is read it.
Here, start at James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Hmmmm, it seems that Jesus taught a little bit differently than you believe.
Imagine that. A "Christian" who speaks the opposite of what the Christ taught and what is clearly written in the Bible. Will wonders never cease.
Uhhhhhh, this is a BASIC precept of the teachings of Jesus. You might want to look up that word "precept".
Is not God an "authority figure"?
Would he not be THE "authority figure"?
Again, that's covered in your Bible.
So you ARE stating that a "moral" choice can be contrary to the teachings of God/Jesus. Fascinating.
Yet on many occasions, Jesus specifically mentioned "good works" without mentioning faith as being required to be "saved". Check around, you can find them easily.
Other passages mention only faith.
But that's not surprising given your background.No, if your earlier statement is correct, my statement cannot be inaccurate.
I guess they don't teach "logic" at that Sunday School you go to, eh?I'm sure that you'd like for that to be factual, but it isn't.
It's only people like you who want it to encompass anything and everyone who feel that it should be that way.
"Christianity" has the problem of only ONE real Christian and millions upon millions of people who will live their lives as they want and still claim to be "Christians".
When pressed for a definition of what a "Christian" is
#1. Includes your self and your actions
#2. Does not include individuals such as Satan or mass murders.
Which makes it damn amusing to watch you twist and turn and try to wriggle around the simple facts.Which would include Satan.
Great, you've managed to include the epitome of Sin in your definition.And so you've included the worst of the child rapers & murderers as being worthy of your "Heaven".
Oh, maybe you just aren't familiar with what Jesus said to his disciples on this matter?
James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
In fact, you should read through that entire section (and later, read the entire Bible). Feel free to learn something about what Jesus said rather than what you wish he had said.
Whether it is commonly accepted or not does not matter because, as you said, there is no definition of "Christian".
So, by your belief and your religion, Satan is also a "Christian". But I'm sure that you won't see the problem in that concept.First of all, that is "debate" not "logic".
Secondly, unfortunately for you, those terms are defined, with examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Seems you're wrong, again and again and again. This "definition" thing really kicks your ass, doesn't it?Anyone is allowed to call themselves anything they want to.
Whether they fit the definition is another matter.
You want to talk about "saved" and your requirements for that? I can do that, too.So, Native Americans prior to the 1500's are not "saved" because they are not aware of Jesus?
Your concept of "god" must include the concept of "asshole" for damning people who didn't have a chance of hearing about Jesus.
Fascinating.But he could.It's not "joy". I'm wondering how anyone can support a god who rewards child molesters with eternal joy.
Why does Jesus love child molesters (in your religion)?
Does Jesus think that that is what children are for (in your religion)?Strange, Matthew 5:28 seems to read
Maybe your Bible is broken and that is why you're confused about this?So, are you saying that James was making up his own rules?
You do not accept that James was divinely inspired when he wrote those words and that those words are the words of God/Jesus?
Or maybe you don't believe that Jesus taught that lesson to James?
You seem to be implying that Jesus did not state that concept.
That's a typical Hegelian view. I'd argue that the rise and fall of civilizations is not cyclic; if anything one could argue that it's chaotic.
The 'alternative' being a linear progression is a straw man; even the slightest glance at history shows this is not the case. In Europe, for instance, there were the ancient Greeks and Romans, or 'classical' culture; they were more technologically advanced than the Europeans after the fall of Rome, or even late in the Roman empire. The ancient Egyptians managed some pretty major engineering with the pyramids; I doubt that 8th-century AD Europeans could have done the same. Likewise, society in different parts of Asia hasn't been a linear increase throughout recorded history. I would be greatly surprised to learn of any part of the world where it has been.
I've spoken of technological progress; I would argue that 'moral' progress is also not consistantly (or cyclically!) increasing. This is, of course, much harder to objectively measure, and you'll find more good-faith disagreement on measures of moral 'progress' than on technological.
History doesn't repeat itself; nor is it entirely unique in every aspect of every event. It's neither a line nor a spiral.
I imagine that I know quite a few people over 40 who know far more about technology than you do. The problem is not the age of the people making these decisions, it's their lack of knowledge. These two issues are not necessarily related, and where they are related, it seems that being too young is more a problem than being too old. (Youth tends to correlate quite highly with a lack of understanding what you do not know.) The bigger problem is that the people making the decisions typically have law degrees, and are very unlikely to have spent any time trying to understand the technology.
Whippersnapper. :P
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?