Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana Politicos Defend Game Bill
GameDaily reports on comments by LA Senators and politicians defending the Louisiana violent games law. The vigorous defense now has backing from the state's Attorney General, who has vowed to go to the SCOTUS if need be. From the article: "[Assistant Attorney General Burton] Guidry added that the law is 'not going to curtail the free speech of anybody,' but then he used the old 'games are training kids to kill' argument. 'This is more than speech. This is truly training for violence," he said. 'You assume the character of a mass murderer. You go out and kill people as violently as you can because you score more points.'"
I hate all the stupid laws that get proposed and sometimes passed and the attack commercials that we have to endure every election year.
I doubt the law in LA will last any longer then the others.
I hate election years.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
Don't like violent video games? Don't buy them. Don't want your kids to play violent video games? Don't buy them (why is your kid carrying around $60 in cash and alone at the mall, by the way?). Afraid of your kids playing violent games at a friend's house? Check with the friend's parents -- you should be, anyway.
Even if there is a correlation between violent video games and violence, removing the video games is not the answer. There's a correlation between driving cars and car accidents, too, but we don't ban cars. Education and parental involvement is the best solution, even if it is not the most direct or time efficient.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were a Louisiana senator, I'd be more concerned about global warming than violent videogames. The comment about Tom and Jerry in the article is spot on. Since when has America been upset by violence? I have a gut feeling that this is more about the sexual content of these games (hot coffee, prostitutes, etc) than their violent nature. But then again, what do I know. I'm just a student.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
There is no need for a Nanny State, if anything we need more laws making parents responsible for their children.
Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
Yes. We all know the only reason Harris and Klebold killed the poor, innocent Christian girls(nevermind that all accounts of that point to one of the people who wasn't shot) was because they played VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES and listened to VIOLENT MUSIC! Obviously it could have nothing to do with the fact that they were constantly bullied!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Even that is stupid. We already have laws for "Contributing to the delinqency of a minor", which is really the absolute most that should ever be applied to a statute for the enforcement of ESRB age ratings.
It's just political grandstanding.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Wait, you mean, they do!?
Hmm... maybe this isn't as stupid a law as most knee-jerk Slashdotters want to think it is.
Written books with diagrams and pictures aren't like word-of-mouth. They're visual. You don't listen about how a character beats up a hooker - you internally visualize the character and watch them to beat up a hooker with your own hands.
These book-burning laws aren't as ridiculous as most Slashdotters want to believe.
((I *do* hope the moderators pick up on the sarcasm here...))
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
> These laws aren't as ridiculous as most Slashdotters want to believe.
They're pretty ridiculous, I'm afraid. The fact is, the vast majority of people who've beaten up hookers - to use your example - haven't played Grand Theft Auto, and the vast majority of people who've played Grand Theft Auto haven't beaten up hookers. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, the lack of a clear causal link in this case makes the assertions of those supporting this legislation spurious.
John Stewart's comments following Lee Terry's remarks are by far the most cogent I've heard on the subject. The solution to problems involving children is not, by and large, the interference of an impersonal government, but the involvement of a loving parent. Unfortunately, we can't legislate that, so politicos whose goals are more style than substance cast about for unreal solutions to real problems, to present the appearance of solving problems which are momentarily insoluable.
Conservatives are, largely, and especially when religious, generally a group of people with very little interest in any sort of moral or logical consistency. It is there belief that what they say is correct, and that nothing, including prior statements of their own contrary to current positions, both of which they continue to maintain, can make them wrong (you don't generally see this behavior in liberals, though they tend to have their own uniquely weird problems).
To them, it is not the least bit inconsistent to believe:
1. Jesus' teachings of ultra-pacifism.
2. It is a supreme moral duty to kill in the military.
3. They are truly "pro-life".
You see it every day. Faith-based ideology naturally is more concerned with the idea that your faith is strong, even if your position is totally nonsensical. It's more important that you honestly BELIEVE you are right, than that you are actually right.
This is why I can never respect a conservative idealogue. It's not necessarily the idea I object to, but the fact that, by and large, so little of conservative social doctrine anymore is logically consistent. It is too arbitrary, uninformed, and poorly supported, and I cannot, because of that, respect the ideas or motivations of the movement.
That's not paradoxical. In their view, killing in military service is killing for a good cause: to support truth, justice, freedom, and the public estate. The sort of killing they're concerned video games will result in is killing indiscriminately, or killing without just cause.
Look, these people are wrong, and I'm pretty sure most of us agree about that, but trying to draw paradox where none exists ignores the true threat of these people. Only by understanding their logic can you combat them; spurious allegations of contradiction serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
And what about sports? Take american football. Is having kids putting on helmets and slamming into each better than playing a violent video game? You don't control or visualize a character beating up hookers, but you actually...oh wait, you don't.
But it's still more violent.
And then there are all of those future slashdotters. What do they do when the football players join the army and kill people or start asking for tech support? Why, they play violent video games. As you can see, people who play violent video games become harmless, but a little pathetic, a rather sad situation.