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
"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.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. -- Attributed to Socrates by Plato
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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."
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!!!
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.
(links ommited)
The People Vs. Common Sense
by jkdove on 10/03/2005
Throughout much of the world today, mass media is prevalent to such a degree that it has become a cultural influence as deep as our languages and ethnic histories. The multifarious mediums through which human beings extend their inner being, their very sense of personal identity, are a teeming tangle of noise in the airwaves along which this "Age of Information" extends its influence into our homes, our minds, and our lives. Since the dawn of the human ability to create media as a means to communicate or simply to visualize the poignant tide of human thought, we have suffered the criticism of our fellow inhabitants within our communities. While endeavoring to bequeath our exclusive equities unto the world, we are often chagrined by remonstrations designed to terminate what many believe to be our God-given right to pursue. Parallel to the advent of society, there have been laws and law makers, empowered by militant services and the citizenry of which they are comprised, created and enforced to impose the will of the commonality. Parallel to that have been those who questioned whether or not those in power are in fact speaking for the commonalty and to what ends.
AND SO IT BEGINS
Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government to protect the well being of its citizens from the cultural influence spawned from the very citizens which it seeks to protect. By the statute of ethical journalism, it should be duly stated that SB-0416 has been enacted to identify, protect against and subsequently prosecute those found in violation of committing willful acts of "dissemination of certain ultra-violent explicit matter to minors" [1]. While it is difficult for many to reasonably argue that the children of this country should be excluded from partaking in adult material, the State of Michigan, or more specifically, Senator Alan Cropsey, has found it necessary to deem these violations liable to civil and criminal penalties. The question is then raised as to why the video game industry has been singled out by both the States of Michigan and Illinois, to the point of spending the taxpayers money to combat an issue which is argued against by experts from both sides of the coin. California may soon become the third state to follow suit, though perhaps the inertia of such a decision is strengthened by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his close ties to the entertainment industry, particularly that of his body of work within the film industry.
The aspects of the Michigan law that are most demonstrative of the commutative nature of the American people are those that hold certain individuals liable under civil and criminal penalties. The question raised among analysts, lawyers, and journalists alike is why the movie theatres of America are not held to the same standards. A statement on the issue by Douglas Lowenstein, President of the Entertainment Software Association, brings to light the very heart of the issue:
"It is illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. How can you treat a video game based on James Bond any different than a book or movie based on the same subject matter?"
The ESA, operating with the full support of the gaming industry, will soon file suit against Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, on the basis that "similar laws were previously found unconstitutional and thrown out in St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Washington State, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees"[2]. Though we can only speculate that the decision to sue Michigan and not Illinois rests on the enactment of civil and criminal penalties, we cannot say for certain that a follow up lawsuit will not follow in the event of the law being overturned. The Governor's and Senator's Office could not be reached for questioning by their own constituents here at GamerGod
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.
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.
I think the parent's point was that often the people who fight against violent games etc which supposedly make children/adults violent are the same people who say America has lost it's 'good old fashioned Christian values'. If the Christian God is setting an example to His followers he's awfully violent at times.
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);
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...
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.
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.
Again, I'm not religous but I find ethics fascinating. Your argument is a common one, and not without merit, but it...
(i) makes the assumption that without organized religion these fundamentalist wouldn't be finding other reasons to kill each other. Using what we know if human nature, I suspect they would.
(ii) ingores any existing benefits chrisian ethics may have on existing practising societies. In other words, if the a moral doctrine says at times to kill and others times to not kill, how do we find out its net effect on the murder rate? Abrahamic religions allow violence in a few corner cases, but the overall very strongly discourages it.
These religions and also secular moral doctrines are tools, they have no conscious. Billions of people use these tools to pass along net beneficial ethics, moral doctrines, ideologies between generations.
Can you justifiably suggest that they abandon this approach because of the few Osama Bin Ladens of the world?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I think the parent's point was that often the people who fight against violent games etc which supposedly make children/adults violent are the same people who say America has lost it's 'good old fashioned Christian values'.
But this is false. Some of the anti-violence crowd, it is true, are indeed the same old "family values" people who've been boycotting Disney since the 1990's over gay rights issues.
There are two completely different groups of people trying to take away your violent games. They may currently be allied against you, but eventually they will turn on each other, as they are still natural enemies.
The other ones are plain old socialists and hippies and other liberals. Violent games are bad because they go against the peace-and-love worldview. These people who want to remove violence from culture and ban guns and ban even remotely violent sports like (American) football... the guns and the football is where they part company with the right wingers.
You see the same two groups opposing porn. One hates it because it's a sin, the other hates it because it's sexist. Never forget or fail to note which one you are arguing against at any particular time.
where there's fish, there's cats
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
I wish I had time to search for a quote, but Socrates also bashes poetry and art for being corrupting forces in a couple dialogues (notably the Republic, IIRC). POETRY. Yes, old people are blaming video games for corrupting the youth. A few short years ago, they were blaming music. Elvis used to be evil. Well, thousands of years ago, they were blaming *poetry*! And not Jack Kerouac poetry, but things like the Illiad. You know, that boring stuff that they make you read in school? Hell, Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth with *philosophy*.
So lets make a holy grail video game full of blood and guts, but with gay crusaders!
Problem solved (heh)
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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.
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.
On the other hand, the youth of Socrates' time were suspicious of Democracy, and after the Peloponnesian War set up a fascist government that attempted to kill remnants of Democracy, as well as anybody who disagreed with their rule. Government head Critias was Socrates' associate and pupil and widely hated by Athenians, and his relation (and the entire movement's relation) to Socrates was probably the reason Socrates was later executed by the state. This relation to a much-hated movement would continue to be held against Socrates, much like (say) Mao's role in the Cultural Revolution would weigh negatively on anybody studying his writings or poetry.
Plato idolized Socrates, and was using the quote to disassosiate Socrates from a reign of terror that everybody hated. Without knowing your history you seem to interpret it as "ah shucks, even Socrates 2500 years ago could be an old codger!" which isn't at all the case, Plato wasn't one to tell gee-whiz anecdotes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
"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.
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.
He used two "?" and you want *more* punctuation ?
So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!
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?
Hitler was not an atheist. He was a Christian. What denomination he was is a matter of debate, but he was a Christian. As an atheist, I am sick of people saying that Hitler was an atheist when he clearly wasn't.
You either don't know much about Hitler, or you don't know much about atheists.
Technoli
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.
You are full of it. If you read his writings, he planned on targeting non-Catholic Christians after dividing and conquering the rest of the religous folks. First the Jews, then Catholics, then other Christians. One of his quotes: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..."
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
Good for Job. How'd that work out for Job's family and the people that loved them?
... Oh. In that case, let me break out my worshipping pants and head on down for some churchin'.
God merely allowed Satan to bring the trials against Job.
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?
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.
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?
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
The other ones are plain old socialists and hippies and other liberals. Violent games are bad because they go against the peace-and-love worldview.
WTF does socialists and liberals have to do with peace-and-love? I think you got your wires crossed...
Most "Socialist and liberal" countries have MUCH more relaxed sex and violence censhorship on entertainment.
Hitler was neither a Christian, nor an Atheist. He believed in Aryanism which is certainly not what Atheists believe - nor is it what Christians believe. His beliefs, the beliefs of the Nazi Party and the Thule Society were very strange and were certainly "religious" in the sense that they had no basis in scientific or historical fact.
I do not think his beliefs are relevent to arguments about Chrisitianity vs. Atheism.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Yeah, and have you not noticed, that's chump change.
Glancing at the Scoreboard and filtering out people who didn't write or use much in the way of books...
3) Adolf Hitler: ~15,000,000, author, Mein Kampf. His 15,000,000 score does not include ~10M German war casualties. (Perhaps he deserves a 25M score for the ~10M Allied war dead.)
2) Josef Stalin: ~20,000,000, ostensibly inspired by Das Kapital. His 20M score also excludes his ~10M Russian war casualties. (And likewise, perhaps Stalin gets a few more million points for German war dead.)
1) Mao Zedong: ~40,000,000, author, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, aka "The Little Red Book". Between famines and purges during the Great Leap Forward, damn near every one of these 40M points was scored from people following the ideology outlined in the book.
According to (Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other, Mao wins the game, just barely edging out Genghis Khan.
> The bible has inspired more deaths than any other book ever written and still does (ever heard of sectarian violence?).
Readers of the Torah, Bible, and Koran have done some nasty things over the past 4000 years. But they're in the same ballpark as what readers of Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung have wrought. Hell, they're not even warming the bench.
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 know it can be a little aggravating if it's coming from the car next to you, but what exactly do have against rap music? Or are you comparing the antics of our present day musicians to the Crusader Knights?
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.
I don't know whether he was atheist or not, but this quote would seem to suggest it:
"When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..." - Hitler (taken from the GP)
That sounds like an atheist to me, it's a common catchcry, inaccurate though it is. The only other religion it brings to mind is Scientology... I think it's safe to say he wasn't one of that lot.
Yar.
It seems as if youre in Russia, so Ill explain this as I would to someone who just doesnt know (living in a foregn country is about the only valid excuse you have for making such a dumb post).
You said:
Do you even understand what the word liberal means? Or are you completely stupid? Liberalism (social+economic) involves something called Laissez faire.
In ths US, liberal no longer means 'Individual Freedom' at all. If you are under the impression, when you see news reports of people in the US talking shit about the 'Liberals', that it means 'people in favor of individual freedom are being treated badly', youre way off.
Liberals in the US are ~not~ in favor of Laissez Faire (which is pretty much a myth in the US anyway). Liberals in the US are statists, not individualists. They have a collection of morals and values that they want to force everyone to live under as well, and so they have become statists. The US equivelant to 'Liberal' as its used outside the US is 'Libertarian'.
Liberals in the US have a whole big bag of secular religous beliefs they would all like us to live under, just like conservatives have a whole big bag of organized religous beliefs they would like us to live under.
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.
ingores any existing benefits chrisian ethics may have on existing practising societies.
Most stable societies have prohibitions on murder, robbery, and rape. It's not a religious thing.
Can you justifiably suggest that they abandon this approach because of the few Osama Bin Ladens of the world?
I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting we ban the bible (though I'd like it if we abandoned religion). What we're doing is pointing out that the bible fails to meet the standards put forth for video games.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
These people who want to remove violence from culture and ban guns and ban even remotely violent sports like (American) football...
Can I want to ban it because it's boring and always runs over onto shows I want to see?
...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.
This is the point. Hitler may or may not have considered himself a Christian, but many who did followed him and his logic. I would also argue that Christians of many denominations were very embarassed by what their followers did to help the extermination of Jews, homosexuals, jehovahs witness, etc. You can see this by how they try to find the one or two of their denomination that actually stood up to Hitler. They write books, make documentaries, trying to cover up the fact that the vast majority did not live up to their so called higher morality provided by being followers of Christ.
Oh sure, you'd totally see groups of knights reading Chaucer at high volume while they slowly trot by on their pimped out stallions, the front hooves bouncing up and down in an effort to impress.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
The Party was very religious indeed, but their religion bore very little resemblance to any Judeo-Christian faith. It was sort of a mishmash of Eastern religions, ancient Germanic folk stories, with a little H.P. Lovecraft on the side.
Don't confuse the religion(s) of the soldiers and citizens with the religion of the leadership. Neither WW1 nor WW2 were religious conflicts -- which is why I skipped war casualties from the scores of both Hitler and Stalin. Only the genocides, democides, and/or "accidental" famines that can be derived from the implementation of ideologically-motivated economic policy count.
If the current war devolves into a war of attrition, then you may yet be proven right. Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam will likely get into the seven digits, and maybe even eight digits, by the time this is over. The 21st century is still very young, and the 20th century gave all six billion of us some shining examples to work from. Scientists may stand on the shoulders of giants. Politicians stand on the bodies of pygmies. It's all the same.
problem? Are you seriously arguing that the violence depicted in the bible may be also encourage violence in readers?
As much as depicting it on TV, Video games, and other books encourages violence in readers, yes.
It's own history has shown that Christianity doesn't exactly make one less susceptible to suggestion. Of course, if one really NEEDS a study (not that anyone would have the balls) that says "99 out of 100 abortion clinic bombers read the bible..."
Of course, maybe they wanted to stick around here on Sin-central for a few more decades, but FUCK them! God and Satan had a bet to settle!
Job's family gets offed because of some celestial dick-size war, and Job praises God. Apparently "pious" is a synonymn for "doormat."
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