Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut Group Wants Your Violent Videogames — To Destroy Them
DavidGilbert99 writes with this excerpt from IB Times: "The Sandy Hook shooting once again raised the debate about how much power violent videogames wield over teenagers. Following proclamations from the National Rifle Association and the establishment of a study by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the psychological effects of violent games on children, a group in Connecticut is now having its say Southington, a town 30 miles from where the shooting took place, is offering gift tokens in exchange for violent videogames, as well as other violent media such as DVDs or videos. The group, called SouthingtonSOS, said in a statement: 'There is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying.'" And Yes, they plan to destroy the traded-in games. (Note: Beware the obnoxious auto-playing video ad with sound; adjust volume accordingly.)
Will they take all my pirated games?
I'd be willing to give up some of my old titles that I no longer play if they'd give me more value than gamestop...
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
People should play more pinball.
They can have my violent video games when they pry them from my cold dead hands!
Clearly, the only solution is to install a violent videogame playing security guard at the entrance to each school.
Also, they can't seem to figure out how to get the bullets to fit in the clip. That helps too.
Hitler and Stalin both studied to be priests.
The latest shooter went to a Catholic private school.
Prisons are full of Christians.
The most peaceful countries are the least religious.
These are facts.
Parents need to start parenting and teaching their children fiction from reality. If you rely on popular entertainment, the educational system or what passes for news and public discourse to inform your kids, you're ultimately a failure as a parent due to being negligent in your duties. No amount of burying ideas, hiding the taboo, and erasing the purportedly obscene is going to cleanse the system.
Culture is screwed because a large enough portion of the population allows it to be such. Lack of critical thinking can't be fixed by legislation, book burning or other such ill-advised undertakings.
Wake up already.
Please note, ESRB ratings have labels of 17+ for violent video games.
Kids should NOT be playing these games.
1. Create a simple violent video game
2. Buy a large set of cheap DVDs and burn it on them
3. Exchange DVDs for a set of gift tokens
4. Profit!
I'll believe that video games result in violent behaviour the day when someone gets arrested for mass murdering pigs by hurling various birds at them.
"Human knowledge is based on stories and the human brain consists of cognitive machinery necessary to understand, remember and tell stories.[8] Humans are storytelling organisms that both individually and socially, lead storied lives.[9] Stories mirror human thought as humans think in narrative structures and most often remember facts in story form. Facts can be understood as smaller versions of a larger story thus storytelling can supplement analytical thinking. Because storytelling requires auditory and visual senses from listeners, one can learn to organize their mental representation of a story, recognize structure of language and express his/her thoughts.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling
If you agree with the above then it's hard for me to imagine disagreeing with the idea that TV, movies, and video games have poisoned our society.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Violence and realism are what sells these days. Gamers aren't going to go back to playing Pac-Man or Pong. The article doesn't mention what the gift tokens are good for, but if there are no restrictions, I can see people abusing this system and turning in a bunch of crappy old games towards a purchase of GTA V or Borderlands 2.
I was an avid gamer and still do play when I have time. I have played some of the most violent games out there and gibbed (and been gibbed by) many an enemy. However, my gaming experiences have never instilled in me a desire to go into a public place and empty a magazine. I'm sure that many other gamers will feel this way as well. Most sane people have a solid mental distinction between action on an LCD panel and reality.
Bottom line is: Neither guns nor violent games are the root cause of the problem. Proper care of people with serious mental health and/or societal issues is key to solving this.
I'd trust some football-playing hothead who says what's on his mind and cools down minutes after a rage much more than some silent, coddled, brooding nerd-loser who chooses to mass-murder out of anger at their own weakness and defeatism.
The problem is the mental wiring. A nerd-loser isn't wired to like sports, in the same way a jock isn't wired to like Dungeons and Dragons. A jock *enjoys* sports, a nerd-loser doesn't - So it's much harder to get them into it.
After a few rounds of Flower (by thatgamecompany) I know I'm ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
I have long thought attempts to do this kind of thing were stupid and intrusive.
But think, those of you with kids, how many times have you refused your kids desire to watch a program because it is too violent? If you are any kind of parent, then that happens often. Desensitization is a long time practice in the military and kids watching/playing violent shows/games is very similar to the process the military goes through.
I think it's time that this subject is given a hard look. Unfortunately, any solution I can think of (in the five minutes I've been writing this post) would be a big legal mess, running afoul of any number of existing rights and freedoms.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
i really REALLY don't get this obsession with linking violent video games to violent behavior. Take yours truly:
Born in 1980, I played all the big titles: From Wolfenstein, Doom, Solider of Fortune, to whatever latest titles are out (I can't remember what all the Call of Duty flavors are called, but you get the idea). Hell, I even designed Doom and Half-Life levels based on my old high school (shit, don't tell anyone or they'll come after me next!!!)
At some point in my 20s, I joined the Marines for 4 years, so I know how to use a rifle.
Neither before nor after my service have i EVER had violent tendencies that made me go on a shooting spree. I deal with stress every day (Hello IT, working for an international liquor company that needs to be up 24/7) yet I still score normal blood pressure numbers.
I just don't get this obsession. There are always a few nuts. The rest of us are fairly well-adjusted.
Stupid media. Stupid fear-mongering. Stupid people.
done ranting now.
S/F
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
Prohibition started with old biddies moral panicing about alcohol. You sound like an old biddy trying to reframe criticism of their behavior.
After all, they are asking people to voluntarily turn in their video games which people are free to do -- or not. This stands in stark contrast to those who would ban violent video games entirely and who would most likely support video game confiscation and for those who really want to play violent video games, background checks and registration. By requiring registration, it ensures that some newspaper will publish a map as to who owns violent video games or not so that violent video game owner's friends and neighbors may demonize them.
Meanwhile, I'll burn a stack of CD's that I can turn in for a stack of coupons.
It's a kind of coercive social pressure and market manipulation. Buying a copy of Mein Kampf and a portrait of Hitler to hang over your bed was completely "voluntary" too...
The fact that witnesses in Columbine, Aurora, and Colorado have said the shooters were seen bunny hopping around to get from one place to another should suffice.
I'd like to see a video game where you control the fate of disaffected parents. You would navigate your avatars to go vote on things like bicycle helmets, closing mental health care facilities, building new prisons, raising taxes, and giving up/taking away their inalienable rights.
Softcore porn scans and molesting should also obviously be required of your avatar before travel. Also don't even think about making your avatars leave their simulated homes without their virtual papers.
Wait... this isn't a video game I'm describing... is it?
Meant to be Connecticut, not CO.
They'll be prying my copy of Battle Toads from my cold, dead fingers.
Violent crime is sharply down-down-down in the US since it peaked in 1995: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time
Folks might want to check the crime stats before making blanket statements about "increasing" levels of violent crime due to video games or access to computers. The Internet era has turned into the safest era since violent crimes shot up in the mid-70's, and rates of homicides and property crimes are at their lowest point since the 60's.
Persuasion is voluntary and therefore moral and just, no matter whether you agree or disagree. This is pure persuasion as far as I can tell, not harrassment, and certainly not coercion. I don't personally agree with their position, but I don't have to. As a human being who realizes and accepts the solid, obvious line between voluntary association and coercion, I support their right to do this 100%.
Accordingly, the second government gets involved my support will drop to 0%.
Someone needs to set up and publicize an NRA-branded parody site offering a guns-for-games exchange where the site offers free firearms in exchange for violent video games.
Log in or piss off.
Whatever the generation in power didn't grow up with becomes the Bogeyman. In the 60s through the 80s it was that Devil music Rock And Roll. In the 90s it was Rap. Now it's Violent video games. After violent video games I'm sure it'll be something else to blame for the problems in society.
People just have bad memories and think when They Grew Up, it was some golden age. Nope.. no societal problems in the 50s or 60s. No Sirrr-ee.
It's been my experience that when kids can work out tension playing these games they tend to be better off in real life than the kids whose parents won't even let them play cops and robbers, let alone have a toy gun.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
So what of all those children in other Western countries who watch the same movies and TV shows and play the same video games and have nearly the same access to weapons as do Americans, yet they don't go on violent rampages with the frequency of Americans?
IF VIDEO GAMES influenced people then the majority of Facebook users would be farmers by now. MAYBE.. I'm about to blow your mind here.. MAYBE the type of person to do bad things, gravitates to those kinds of video games.. and MAYBE the game doesn't really influence anything
http://www.mafiasecurity.com maf
Maybe the temperature needs to be a bit higher than 451.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Not sure about student athletes, but there was the recent case of Jovan Belcher, a professional football player who killed his girlfriend, drove to the team headquarters, and killed himself in front of his head coach and GM. Also relevant is that the jocks are much more likely to be involved in assaults, rapes, vehicular homicides, and other violent acts other than shooting up a school.
George Carlin had this one right: ""They say it's the quiet ones you have to watch. Yeah, and while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will kill ya!"
I am officially gone from
Feeding into the political frenzy, the most precious Freedoms we have a the Bill of rights. Amendment 1 and 2 seem to be fighting it out recently. This small town is allowed their freedom to peaceful protest and their own opinions. It is when they try to enforce their opinions upon others is when they cross the line and no longer practice free speech and peaceful protest. While I personally don't agree with their linking violence to video games it is their right to this form of protest and opinion sharing. Because it is their opinions. It would be like linking Porn to sex offenders, or Romantic comedy to stalking and obsessive behaviors. I've grown up with the like of Wolfenstein 3D and Doom and the whole lineage. I've never owned a gun, never killed a person, though there have been many times I wanted to, but knowing it is wrong, and that this is real life, made the choice to not do it. That is in the end what these actions are. These violent individuals live sheltered lives as just another nobody. So they decided to end their own life and to be remembered. Since our society puts so much value on the evils, of man, instead of people who've had a positive influence or contribution. These people have made the choice to go out with the biggest, most gruesome killing spree possible. The Movie theater guy, we were lucky to catch him alive. But he planned it for months on end. It wasn't just a random freak out grab a gun and murder. As a point to the above, most people you talk to would know quite a bit about Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Musolini, or several other famously cruel leaders. But most would barely know a thing about Nikoli Tesla, Marconi and so many others who have given us the modern life we live today. So they chose to be in history as evil, because we remember and put a higher price on evil deeds. In closing, we need to change the paradigm of evil remembrance. We need to cherish those who have contributed to society, celebrate these members, not as a footnote, or an honorable mention, but as great contributors to the life we live. Hitler and the rest should be shoved in a closet, to be remembered for their actions so we may learn from history, but not memorialized, and almost celebrated through movies, video games and the likes. Though to be honest, it's far more fun to shoot Nazis in a game than to invent short wave radios.
They're all fucking mentally deranged morons. And since they are against entertainment media (and basically freedom of speech and expression) while apparently the killer wasn't, I conclude that violent video games are not the common correlation here. It's dumbasses. I'd rather see the country rid itself of them, send them away for "disposal," but that will of course never happen.
No, the jocks don't do they actual shooting themselves. But they are likely the ones who bullied the nerd into the rage that triggered the nerd's violent actions, so they are also responsible to some degree.
I played hockey since I was 5, and also played for my high school for a year. But I had to quit - because of all the idiot jocks and their homophobia, misogyny, and general distaste for anything they couldn't understand or was slightly different from them. You should have heard the shit that was talked about in the locker room. Yeah, those dumb louts sure had a firm grip on their emotions all right.
"But this one goes to 11!"
The "or" means it could contribute only to a single one of them and the entire statement would still be true, but totally meaningless. Furthermore, "aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and desensitization" aren't the same as school violence or mass murder.
They are trying to push a political agenda by innuendo and guilt-by-association. Even if these people had a reasonable cause, such deliberate deception is unacceptable.
more boobs plz
Amusingly enough the one thing these people typically find more taboo than violence, is sex.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
All the crappy FPS shooters and worthless ancient violent games that I have filling up my bookcase since 1992, I can give to these guys and I'll get CREDIT that I can use toward some other game that I might actually want??
(No I didn't read TFA, I'm not going to that site, thanks.)
LOL, let the great shovelware crap-pile commence!
-Styopa
Jocks go on to become executives, lawyers, and politicians. Social outcasts might shoot up a movie theater every year or so, but it was jocks who got us into Iraq and caused civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I can destroy any such games myself - eg, while videoing the happy process - without paying any postage.
Not quite. That is ONE definition of coercion. Merriam-Webster defines coercion as-
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to achieve by force or threat
So #2 does not require force or threats, and one can be coerced without threats or physical force.
As a wise man on the internet once said "You don't get to change the meaning to suit your world view."
"But this one goes to 11!"
Game companies like this because it takes traded in games off the market and so they'll sell more new games. This only serves as an inducement to make more violent games.
So, giant failure.
Even bigger failure is that there is no correlation between video games and violence. There are countless studies, but I like this fact: Japan has 0.6% as many gun deaths as the US.* I wonder if they play video games over there?
* 10.2 per 100,000 per year in the US vs 0.07 for Japan according to Wikipedia.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that the recent shooter even played video games at all? I hate these people. Bunch of fucking reactionary idiots. We have these shootings because we've created gun-free target practice zones for anybody who wants to ignore the sign and shoot up the place. There have always been and will always be crazy people willing to kill a lot of innocents. This shit just happens now because we've given them ample opportunity to cause an extreme amount of damage without any hindrance whatsoever.
Interesting correlation to that drop in violent crime...
Leaded gas, known to mess with development, was banned in 1978. Roughly 20 years later, about the time it takes for a new born to fully mature, violent crime begins to suddenly drop.
Not saying it's the cause, but it might be a factor.
When's the last time you saw somebody who was a student athlete shoot up a school or movie theater?
Sports are charged with testosterone, true, but they also teach people how to lose gracefully and that losing is a part of life. I'd trust some football-playing hothead who says what's on his mind and cools down minutes after a rage much more than some silent, coddled, brooding nerd-loser who chooses to mass-murder out of anger at their own weakness and defeatism.
So in short, you accuse athletes of being bullies and brutes, but it turns out that the dumb louts actually manage their emotions better than you do.
-- Ethanol-fueled
No, student athletes don't shoot up movie theaters, they just rape girls and brag about it to their friends. Then the school community covers it up for them because in redneck America highschool football "stars" are the darlings of town.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Simply responded to the statement in TFS that violent crime is increasing in the US. In fact, violent crime, property crime, and homicide have all dramatically decreased since they peaked in America in the 70's. Us fraud examiners pay attention to criminology stats.
In this case it was the fact that his mother took him to the firing range and he had a better understanding of the weapons he had than some joe schmo who just picked it up from the store or stole it from someones house and went on a spree. If you look at the history of these events more often than not the primary weapon of choice will jam and a secondary less effective weapon will start to be used. The pistol was only used to kill himself here. No amount of COD is going to teach you how maintain to reduce jamming, or in the event it does, how to clear it in a timely manner. The games may or may not have had an affect on him psychologically, but the mother is the one who taught him to be an effective killer.
We also know that increasing the drinking age is a big factor. Most violent crimes are committed by young males aged 17-25, and a huge percentage of violent crimes are associated with alcohol use. Alcohol + high-testosterone is obviously a recipe for a fight in many cases. If you recall, the drinking ages started increasing rapidly from 18 years old to 21 in the early 1980's as part of a nationwide reform.
I think this is a phenomenon we see again and again in the modern world; We deprive a natural system of natural random shocks it had in its ancestral environment and it does not build the strength it needs to sustain heavier shocks when they come. Plenty of literature on this- consider the Hygiene Hypothesis, Financial Fragility, The body's need for exercise, Forest Fire Management (killing small fires make the biggest fires bigger), Epidemiology, etc. Every psychological conflict is swept under the carpet under the pretense of etiquette, morality and so-called civilized behaviour. We need some conflict! We need some Volatility and Randomness in Life!
I think there is a very important insight here, made by Nassim Taleb amongst others. Its easier to manage the Fragility (or Anti-Fragility) then it is to predict specific time and place of blowup events. There is something terribly wrong with the way we approach sciences in the domains of Complex Systems as if its Particle Physics. Its time for a new scientific revolution - where we move from Know What to .
And anyone using "video-game induced crime" figures are just manipulating data to cherry pick the results they desire. It's not bashing video games I have a problem with, it is manipulating data to achieve the pre-determined results they had decided long before they even considered any of the actual data. Junk science and non-scientific studies are the problem here. There is no such thing as "video game related crime" - there has never been any actual scientific studies by a non-biased research group that prove any link that I have seen. If you know of one, please provide a citation.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I will just point out that I've been through this before with the scares in the 1980's around "Dungeons and Dragons". Which was considered then a clearly dangerous game - after all, children who liked to pretend that they lived as heroes in a violent universe killing monsters would clearly grow up to be violent maniacs. As we now know, D&D is mostly dangerous in terms of "if you let it slip that you like D&D, the jocks will beat you up." and the theories that D&D would teach the children to be violent have been (largely) refuted.
-Peter
I don't blame them for thinking as such, but that's because they are desperately in need of doing something to somehow make sense of the terrible tragedy of Newtown. But taking away violent video games will not solve the problem. Heck, define violences to begin with? some of the old disney and warner bros cartoons at some point were deemed to violent to be on TV. No, the solution isn't avoidance of violence, but rather, guidance. Educate our kids what is fiction and what is reality. Nobody wants to admit it, but when we leave our kids to their own device, at the expense of monitoring their activities, spending time with them, etc.. well, we are to blame. Also, I know, single parent families, yes, they exist, but you the parent are still the boss.. Be creative, allow them access when you can supervise. If you can't educate your kid(s), then stop making kids. But last thing you need is to try and curb violence via gaming. Teach kids right from wrong, give them an outlet to vent their frustrations and educate them. Not easy, nope, but, that's the solution. Violence is out there and that's the truth. You don't shield your kids if you love them, you prepare them for life. You make them want peace. But you don't hide the violence, because whenever it will hit them, if they aren't ready, the horrors of it will make it that much worse.
the solid, obvious line between voluntary association and coercion
Apparently, this line between voluntary mind control and coercive mind control is not obvious to everyone. For example, on which side do religious movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses fall, especially considering their practice of shunning those who have left their religion?
Will they be happy if I send them 300 copies of Planetside2? There's a lot of shooting in that one.
1) Collect Chuck Norris/Charlton Heston DVDs from yard sales
2) Collect gift tokens for said DVDs
3) Profit!
The student athlete would be protected by the community, after all he is a good kid who made a few mistakes, besides he just could make it into the big leagues. While the straight A student caught with Aspirin is kicked out of school because he worthless druggy. We need more Baby Ruths not Einsteins.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I do not know why they expanded their quest beyond video games. There is not a single piece of classical literature or film that is not filled with violence. They teach Shakespeare in school as early as high school and that is filled with arguably more than the average CoD game.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I would recommend reading "On Killing" by Lt. Colonel Grossmen. I think there is a disconnect between the violence we see and the reality of actual violence.
In the beginning of the book he makes on interesting point. I would ask how many of you have ever really killed an animal for food? We did some on the farm, but mostly I witnessed the result of coyote attacks on our sheep. Later, between my eight and ninth grade year, I worked putting in a large scale freezer unit for a rural meat packing plant. The reality and the gravity of being around actual slaughter brings about a sense of revulsion and guilt. It is not something done lightly. I threw up the first time I shot a bird when I was a kid and that put me off hunting for a long while.
I haven't finished the book yet, and there are parts that I am unsure about, but regardless, it's worth the effort to read.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
I wonder how many tokens I'd get for my copy of Bible Adventures.
Will they be using guns to destroy the violent media?
Beating up people in little rooms, if you do it for a good reason you do it for a bad one.
There is evidence that violent video games make violent people more violent, but on average, makes people less violent.
Who cares about the average, when a corner case proves out point!
Presuming that an open-source violent video game exists
Xonotic anyone?
At age 25 you don't really get a say in what your son does. I'm not sure what gives you the idea that you do.
Violence and realism are what sells these days
Tell that to the developers of VVVVVV and Minecraft.
However, my gaming experiences have never instilled in me a desire to go into a public place and empty a magazine.
As opposed to going into a private place and filling a magazine?
I recommend they (and all of us):
1. promote awareness of the suffering and needs of others, and
2. promote compassion, kindness, consideration, gratitude and charity,
3. promote awareness of own behavior, the outcomes of our own actions.
"Sow A Compassionate Thought, Reap A Compassionate World
Sow A Compassionate Thought, Reap A Compassionate Action;
Sow A Compassionate Action, Reap A Compassionate Habit;
Sow A Compassionate Habit, Reap A Compassionate Example;
Sow A Compassionate Example, Reap A Compassionate World."
~Randall D.
The authors of Freakonomics raised a correlation with abortion legalization after Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
The most likely answer is that there is no single cause for the reduction in crime, but my bet would be in some cultural influence, not anything related to the physical environment.
Belonging to gangs stopped being "cool".
Let's just stop being uptight about either of them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Old biddies and their moral panics cause more problems than anything old biddies panic over.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
also wrestler Chris Benoit
In any case, the NRA argument is ridiculous; the FBI already did a study, and found
violent writings (books, blog posts, etc) and movies have more influence on youth than video games
as sales of video games have gone up, youth violent crime has gone down (as one shoots exponentially up, the other goes exponentially down)
Other countries have violent video games, why don't they have school shootings? My guess is the media doesn't go into a hype about the killer like they do in America, giving the bastard 15 minutes of post-mortem fame.
The problem we as a culture are getting too afraid of everything! Thus making things worse.
When faced with fear the natural instinct is Fight or Flight.
Flight creates Lazy Bums who leech off of others take drugs to escape life and never accomplish anything in life aka the Republican favorite target to cut social security.
Fight creates people who are violent and will kill others and end up in trouble. The Democrats favorite target to create new regulations.
For most social situations neither natural response to fear is appropriate nor will help anything. So the fear lingers.
Causing problems like, Obesity, Addictive behaviors, joining groups who offer easy fixes to complex problems (Political, Religious, Social...) who are more often than not radical in their behavior.
Video Games are just a type of escapism, not the cause of fear, but a temporary reprieve from it. So people who live in a lot of Fear may tend to gravitate towards addictive level of video games.
Many of the more successful people recognize their fear and work to fix it (the self made man)_, or live in a world that stuff to fear has been isolated (born from a wealthy family). But a lot of us is pounded with so much stuff to be afraid of.
I have seen Slashdot Posts like, I want to start a business but I am Afraid of Software Patents. There is no point in trying to make my own cell phone, it will never sell. I don't want to waste my money to get a degree... There are many factors that create fear and our culture has changed as to support fear as the correct response to many problems.
Oh know some guy says by some insane logic the world will end, Will I hide in a bunker, or go out killing a bunch of children to save them the fate of what could be worse. Or not fear the comment, and either go back and rationally figure out his logic is insane, or at least bravely go on with life like normal and go whatever happens happens, Ill deal with the problem later.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Will they destroy violent books next?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Have gnu, will travel.
If 30 second spots had no effect on anyone then they would not exist. Think about that for a minute. Now if short spots can have an emotional effect on you or affect your perception of a product or service, how can any of you say that violent video games and movies have zero effect on the perceptions of adults towards violence let alone an impressionable child. Movies and computer games can alter how we perceive violence and sexual content. We become desensitized to it and disconnected from our humanity and how we view other human beings.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
They want the worst of the worst off the street, huh? Fine. They can have my copy of Passion of the Christ, and America's Army.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Disco still SUCKS!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
video games has been the new rock and roll for the past 20 years. The video game generation is just finally becoming old enough to run for office and win. Until the previous generation gets replaced it will be a scapegoat for all the modern problems of the world while ignoring the more obvious but difficult to fix issues. The main issue is that the older generation can't live up to their failures of fixing problems that have existed since the dawn of time, shifts the blame on things they don't understand that they deem subversive, then circle jerks each other trying to be a hero that provides a solution that fails in almost every way, then they jump over themselves trying to out do themselves.
The problems are clear: mental health issues have taken a huge backseat and that needs to be addresses. Fear of guns is out of control when banning weapons leads to more violence. Social inequality and income disparity leads to crime. School systems are broken, jails are broken, justice is broken. Fear rules our world now, media plays into this for ratings and we spend so much on pointless junk instead of the things we really need (both personal and on the government side of things). No one is fixing anything.
This is my hometown, and I gotta say...I'm rather ashamed. I thought the town in general was more forward-thinking than that. Though I do agree with this point, at least:
Polygon also spoke with Joe Erardi, Southington School superintendent and a member of SouthingtonSOS:
"There are youngsters who appear to be consumed with violent video games," Erardi said. "I'm not certain if that's a good thing. If this encourages one courageous conversation with a parent and their child, then it's a success. We're suggesting that for parents who have a child or children who play violent video games, to first of all view the games. We're asking parents to better understand what their child is doing. Have a conversation about next steps."
I'm all for parents to be involved with what their kids are doing, especially videogames. They should better understand what their kids are into, and be there to tell them, "No, this game is not appropriate for you right now, but I'm happy to let you play it when you're older." The thing is, you don't need to have a drive where M-rated games are turned in in order to have these conversations. I have them with my eight-year-old son already. I explain things to him, and give him appropriate games to play as an alternative. Problem solved.
In good speaking, should not the mind of the speaker know the truth of the matter about which he is to speak? - Plato
Also in most first world countries it is much harder to get access to firearms, especially if you are mentally disturbed. Anders Behring Breivik certainly had no shortage of media coverage.
I read the internet for the articles.
Those who do not want to give up their violent games are under no obligation to do so.
Yes... and no. If your friends are collecting up all their kids' games and handing them over, you're likely to do it too.
Of course, these games have an M rating, and so shouldn't be in kids' hands to begin with -- I think this says something in itself.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest his 25 year old son lives in his basement.
coerce (k-ûrs) tr.v. coerced, coercing, coerces
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
Also, you appear to think 'threats' is refering solely to physical threats. It is entirely possible for people's social status to be 'threatened', you nimrod. (Sadly not your social status, as you're an AC.)
Everyone isn't an idiot read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion#Social
And, on top of all that, you and the other AC don't appear to know what 'persuasion' is. Hint: Coercing someone into something IS (usually) 'persuading' them. Persuasion is anything a person does aimed at causing another person to behave differently than they would without the persuasion, which can be anything from politely asking them, to bribing them, to beating them senseless and telling them the beatings will continue if they keep behaving the old way.
Now, not _all_ coercion is persuasion. Coercion can also be actual physical force making them do that thing, and that's no longer 'persuasion'. So for example, kidnapping someone and physically imprisoning in a locked room them is not 'persuading' them to not be somewhere else. But other than kidnapping, most physical force to make people do things is in form of 'I will continue to injury you until you sign this check.' (Persuasion), not 'I will puppet your arms to make you sign this check'. (Not persuasion, and also doesn't work)
And there's even a lot of persuasion in kidnapping...almost no one is imprisoned somewhere they couldn't eventually escape if left alone and given enough time. (I mean, people can break through normal walls in less than hour.) However, they have have been persuaded not to try to escape by threats of the kidnappers.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't care if people criticize video games - I'm opposed to people demonizing video games, when the facts seem to say otherwise. In regards to video game related crime, from http://www.theeca.com/video_games_violence website:
Incidentally, something like 2 days later a guy kills a couple of firemen with the same gun (a Bushmaster .223) and the guy is obviously not a video game player, but we won't mention that anywhere. Another guy shoots up a shopping mall and also is not known to be a video game player, so no talk of what caused his craziness. Suddenly the media hears "the shooter is a video game player" and Jesus is on the fucking cross and video games are to blame.
The blaming game in the U.S, and it usually starts with women blaming things. First it was literature, than alcohol and pot, than comics, than movies/tv, and now video games. What's next? Why not blame our hands which does the killing so have them cut off, why not our legs which takes us to places where we commit the killings so cut those off, why not our eyes which we use to choose a victim and than kill them so have eyes gouged out, finally why not our brains which is the consciousness or soul of the body which causes the pains and miseries in this world so scoop everybody's brains out of the skull.
People can't come to realization that some people on this planet are a bunch of fucking psychotic assholes, period.
Do you have some sort of reference for this statement? You can torture most guns these days and they will happily continue to fire thousands of rounds for you. Now if you use some crappy, under powered ammo (or home load incorrectly), and you have a semi-auto you could experience what they call an FTE (failure to eject), but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, so feel free to take with with a grain of salt, but here is the story of how I became desensitized to real-world violence.
It starts, but not ends, with violent video games. As a teen, I can't even count the number of heads I ripped off and hearts I tore out in Mortal Kombat, nor the number of aliens or Nazis I killed in Doom and Wolfenstein 3D. Several years after I started playing these violent games, my Dad started coming home from work earlier and putting on the evening news while my family ate dinner. Despite all of the violent video games I had been playing, I was horrified at the graphic scenes that were being described as my family and I attempted to enjoy our meal. Tales of people being stabbed more than a hundred times, parents murdering their spouses and children before turning a gun on themselves, and children killed in the crossfire of gang shootouts were told on a daily basis by a pair of attractive news anchors. Despite all of my years of video game violence, the accounts delivered by the evening news were by far the most horrific and violent things I have experienced in my life (and I am fortunate that for me, these are just the accounts and that I was not the actual victim).
However, after a while of hearing the same horror stories night after night, I remember one evening in which a husband had killed his wife and children. I also remember my mom's reaction of horror, yet I was so jaded that I found myself saying, "big deal, this sort of thing happens every night." I immediately felt shame at what I had said and I realized that that moment was the most desensitized to violence I have ever been and it had nothing to do with the video games I had been playing. So if people feel the need to ban something because they hold the irrational fear that it makes children and teenagers desensitized to violence, start with the evening news. Either that, or realize that we are a species with members who have still not transcended past our urge to force our own turmoil onto an innocent group of people. Horrible things happen and in some cases, such as the shootings in Connecticut, we will never understand why they happen, but banning violent video games or music or movies would not have changed a single thing about the situation. For once, let's blame the assailant and not the assailant's hobbies.
I have to question the neutrality of any article that includes something like this line: Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of strippers.
Really? Do they? And is the author trying to make a point about the violence of games in some sort of actual scientific manner, or is just trying to convince people games are 'bad' so threw in a line about strippers, which has nothing at all to do with violence?
And then there's this hilarious paragraph, speaking of climate change deniers: One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of scientific theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little meaning and are seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially one that has been tested in other contexts, those facts become more understandable and convincing.
Yeah, those empirical facts have no meaning at all! They only have meaning once we've invented a theories and forced the facts into it.
Please note this isn't some Wikipedia article about the scientific method, this is a scientific paper that is attempting to explain why other scientists who take issue with their 'empirical facts' should be ignored.
Pro-tip: If a 'scientist' starts explaining how the scientific method doesn't 'really' work very well for whatever they are researching...THEY ARE A CRANK.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If only they had tried rocket jumping, all of this could have been avoided.
My only hope is they will destroy them in a non-violent manner.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Leaded gas, known to mess with development, was banned in 1978. Roughly 20 years later, about the time it takes for a new born to fully mature, violent crime begins to suddenly drop.
No, it's the lack of pirates. That's why crime is down and global warming is up.
Also http://boingboing.net/2013/01/01/correlation-between-autism-dia.html
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Old biddies have a right to political views, too, you know.
When I read this submission the first thing that came to my mind was "Hey it's the 21st century version of burning knowledge and media!" in comparison to how books were burned in germany in the 20th century when hitler was in power. And it may not even stop at books and media this time around it may go a lot further.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Wow, umm this is beyond ridiculous. If violent video games cause people to act violently then by reason fantasy video games should cause people to fall into a pure fantasy world. You never hear about kids on fantasy sprees or kids who think they can jump and destroy bricks that give coins. The only real fact is that violent people are violent from birth, a video game does not cause violence. Some of the most evil and violent and outrageous people in history never had video games and yet caused acts like the holocaust or mass killing or rapes, now if video games cause violence when why does violence exist in the first place.
I do think that kids are schooled in violence pretty young these days. Even if there's no blood, there's always a battle, or conflict, and we're conditioned from a very young age to cheer when the good guy kills the bad guy. Gun violence is but a small part of the problem that our culture faces as a result of entertainment forms being so ensconced in the need for a decisive ending. We all know that if the good guy merely catches the bad guy, then he's going to come back and cause a lot more damage later--so the best way to solve the problem is to kill the bad guy. There's almost a relief when the show kills off the bad guy who keeps coming back, often from the brink of death. Nowadays some of the most popular channels on youtube are simply shoot-out scenes, one after another, of the most action packed sections of movies... with splatterfest special effects and no access control on the content or consideration on who's watching what.
Never been a fan of banning much of anything, but when you mix that with guns and perhaps a little mental illness to boot...
I do wonder what if there were some regulation on gun owners to prove they didn't consumer a certain quota of such media, and prove a certain level of civic responsibility through firearms training and gun care...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Are you an idiot?
Sorry, that was rhetorical, obviously you are.
Being sullen and withdrawn is not being a nerd, it's a sign of mental illness; espcially if it is a change in personality; which often seems to be the case.
Being social inept and smart is being a nerd.
How does Charles Starkweather fit into your little stupid idea? Charles Whitman?
Jocks are bullies and brute, and becasue of that they are allowed to be at the top. When something is wrong, there is a bunch of people that will help them, becasue god forbid a football game suffer.
Anyone else? good fucking luck.
" but they also teach people how to lose gracefully and that losing is a part of life. "
HAHAHA. Not in any sport I have seen. Ever go to a middle school football game and listen to the parent of the loosing team? nothing gracefull there. The winning team? nope.
".. but it turns out that the dumb louts actually manage their emotions better than you do."
yelling, cursing, and lashing out at the weak is better control of emotions now?
You're attitude is exactly what is wrong with this conversation. You are applying a piss ass belief as away to explain everything away, when in fact it's far more complex then that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They also don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
o it isn't, and I protest the word loser in the sentence.
"he problem is the mental wiring..."
please sight the peer reviewed neurological paper the shows that.
Nerd doesn't equal DnD; DnD doesn't equal nerd.
And there is no correlation between DnD and school rampage killings. I mean, the press loves to spread that lie, but it simply isn't true.
When someone become despondent, they need correct health care.
DnD is a social activity. Just so you know.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The problem is the mental wiring. A nerd-loser isn't wired to like sports, in the same way a jock isn't wired to like Dungeons and Dragons. A jock *enjoys* sports, a nerd-loser doesn't - So it's much harder to get them into it.
I laugh. I really do. It's not "wired to like sports" or "wired to like pen and paper games". I can get my jock friends to play Paranoia easy. I can get my jock friends to play Dungeons and Dragons if I have them play a campaign where they compete against each other and my antagonist. I can't get them to play Dungeons and Dragons when I don't have them compete against the antagonist. I'm possibly a nerd-loser. I like sports. I like the strategy that is involved with professional football regarding clock and time management, and deciding on whether to run or pass to try to get the 1st down.
It has nothing to do with whether something is A or B. It has everything to do with how A or B is presented and viewed by the subject. If you present D&D to a jock in a way they connect with, they will play it, if they have fun. You might have to "bro it up" or do some other unusual angles to make it work, but it will work.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I would like to point out the:
A) it wasn't just old biddies
B) It worked. It accomplished the goal it set out to. Reduce domestic abuse and crime.
Domestic Abuse all but disappeared, violent crime dropped significantly.
I would also like to point out the prohibition meant the media(Newspapers) lost a lot of advertising money.
Please don't reply with a comparison to other substances; that's irrelevant.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My evidence is experience and empirical. A typical Bushmaster AR 15 , which while looks mean is a pretty cheap gun, freshly taken out of the box is not going to shoot thousands of rounds without issues. They need to be broken in, maintained, and gotten used to. I've seen plenty of people show up at the range with their brand new NRA hats and take out their shiny new black rifle, typically an AR 15 of some sort, try to pop off 15 rounds as fast as they can only to get 6 off. Or if it does work sit there scratching their heads wondering why they missed with every single shot. Malfunctions are quite common, for some definition of common which is arguable, for those who don't really know what they are doing and haven't taken care of things properly. All i'm saying is there is more to being proficient than possessing a gun, and video games don't help any.
Actually there is strong evidence that that is a factor.
Other factors seem to include:
Home video games and computers. This has cause a drop in the amount of 16-21 year olds doing crime out of boredom.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Will they accept my copy of the Bible?
Touche', sir. Well played. Very well played.
The NRA is full of memeber who ahve no wish to actual confront this issue.
With respect to firearms you have things absolutely backwards. Unlike with video games, the NRA is well informed and has the facts on their side regarding firearms.
... and a serious look at the that data about gun control. Something they stop wanting about 15 years ago when the data very clearly shows a decrease in killing when guns are severly restricted.
You are mistaken. The data actually shows no correlation. There are regions in the US with severe restrictions where the murder rate is low and there are regions with lax firearms regulations where the murder rate is low. Its not the presence or absence of firearms itself that leads to a low murder rate, there are some other factors that do so. More likely it has something to do with education and poverty. Lets look at Switzerland where many households have real assault rifles (fully automatic), high capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition in their home. One difference between the Swiss and the US is that the Swiss did receive proper training and keep the weapon and ammunition locked up.
.22 calibre, basically anything with a full or partial copper jacket. The NRA helped rewrite the legislation so it applied only to the teflon coated ammunition notorious for penetrating body armor. Again naive gun control types got all hysterical over plastic guns and drafted legislation to outlaw everything without some number of ounces of steel. The problem here is that many firearms that are perfectly detectable in metal detectors are using metal alloys that are not technically steel. The NRA helped rewrite this legislation so that it only banned firearms that were not detectable in the metal detectors of the day.
You want more real data? Hunting related accidents dropped dramatically after hunter safety classes became required in the US in order to get a hunting license. Anyone who has had such a class can testify that the majority of the class is basic firearms safety. 1/3 of firearms deaths are accidents. Many of these deaths could probably be prevented by requiring firearms owners to take a safety class before they get their first gun, much like hunters are required to take their safety class before they get their first license.
As far as the NRA goes with respect to reasonable legislation. They have helped write some. When naive gun control types got all hysterical over cop-killer bullets these folks drafted legislation that would outlaw all ammunition with some sort of coating. This would have outlawed nearly all ammunition over
Similarly the "assault weapon" bans are also largely hysteria. There is no difference in capability between the so called "assault weapons" and normal semiauto hunting rifles. Both fire the same ammunition and when a hunting magazine (5 round max) is inserted into the "assault weapon" it fire no more rounds and no faster than the hunting rifle. On the flip side when a military magazine (say 30 round capacity) is put into the hunting rifle it has the same capability as the "assault weapon" with such a magazine. The only differences between the "assault weapon" and the semiauto hunting rifle are cosmetic, appearance not function.
NRA members and many firearms owners understand this. That is why the last time an "assault weapon" ban was passed firearms owning republicans, democrats and independents who had no interest in buying an "assault weapon" threw out many of the politicians who voted for the ban. They rightfully feared that their regular semiauto hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns were in danger of being banned next. It happened in various European countries. The original "assault weapon" ban legislation in the US specifically listed certain firearms designs that did not include regular hunting and sporting firearms but this legislation also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury (oversees Alcohol Tobacco
Current data support the theory that dispondant people with mental issue are drawn to video games, not created by them.
If true, removing video games removes a potential red flag when a child becomes despondent and mentally starts to internalize frustration and anger.
If you have a child whose personality shifts that much, it's a cause to be concerned.
If you child is being bullied, and you do not know about it, I would say you are failing as a parent.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"nearly the same access to weapons as do Americans, "
what western country is that?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I instantly thought about what movies I have on DVD. I have very few but one I own is Apocalypto. It's extremely violent and there is killing and butchery on a massive scale but not a single gun exists in the movie.
How would they approach that?
First: The argument is Violent video games, however I will address you specific point:
Take a look at all the home gardens and 'organic' farming that has popped up over the last 5 years. So there is your correlation right there~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are 3 types of gun-owners imo.
1. Hunters. I am not worried about them. I've confronted armed hunters in the woods. They have actually killed and eaten living things and understand death.
2. Video-gamers. They point and click and pretend-kill things. I am not worried about them even if they own a gun because real life shooting is not anything like gaming. (I suspect most don't own a gun at all which is why I don't count them in this list)
3. Sport shooters who frequent ranges. These assholes scare the shit out of me. They have never killed anything at all so aren't actually familiar with the destructive capability of their weapon. In addition, they are intimately trained in its use and they _like_ to shoot.
4. Scared citizens who buy a gun for protection. These guys aren't too bad but do cause most of the gun destruction in the US, either simply by having a gun int he house to make it easy for suicide and accident or by having it in reach of some angry guy whose girlfriend just broke up with him and now he's gonna make her pay along with anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity.
As far as the NRA proposal, if we suggested putting an armed guard at every single school in Afghanistan, would that be a sign we are winning the war there or losing it?
They seem to only teach the mild Shakespeare in high school. Really how many of you were turned off on Shakespere because of Romeo and Juliet or a Midsummer Night's Dream. Once I got past those and had an intro to Shakespeare class in college it was much better as I wasn't looking for hidden meaning and over analyzing it I found it to be enjoyable. As my college professor pointed out 'Here is a metaphor for you "He ploughed her and she cropped"' on the first day of class since he didn't want the class to be like the high school English class everyone hated. No hidden meaning or deep thought there. Most classical literature is filled with sex and violence and you are correct in that it is usually much more explicate than a video game. For example I suggest reading:
One thousand and one nights
Beowulf
The Divine Comedy
Roman/Greek Mythology
Oedipus
Gilgamesh
The Canterbury Tales
The Iliad
The Odyssey
Shakespeare you weren't forced to read in high school
Time to offend someone
In fact, young men (age 17-24) play a lot of video games, and at the same time young men (age 17-24) have ALWAYS committed most of the violent acts in a society. It's a function of testosterone fueled aggressive emotions, and in Western culture it is particularly exacerbated by high levels of alcohol and drug abuse. Take away the booze and drugs from younger men, and you will find that the video games and heavy metal music and gore movies and other factors probably wouldn't have much effect at all. And keep in mind, in Western culture prescription drugs are also abused with tremendous frequency (in some cases even more frequently than popular illegal drugs), and those can have a profound effect on inciting violence. So we aren't just talking about abuse of illegal drugs.
They'll pry that digital download from my cold, dead hands...
-Bob-
Legal drinking age, rate of alcohol consumption, and crime statistics have been widely studied, and the correlation is very clear. Here is one article of many, many which support this point: http://people.ucsc.edu/~cdobkin/Papers/Alcohol_Crime.htm.
Now that Slashdot crowd has been hoisted upon their own petard over the CT shooting. The fanatics are certain that they're going to get the Second Amendment and have now started on the First.
We told you so. We told you so. We told you so.
You know, somehow, "I told you so" just doesn't quite say it.
I find that hard to believe. Most kids these days don't read. Some Athletes reading comprehension is very low. Look at Dexter Manley, got a 4 year degee and couldn't even read. How did he get through 12 years of schooling and 4 years of college. I can understand high school teachers passing him for his football gifts, but how did he get through elementary school without being able to read.
It's hard to get weapons in the the US as well if you are a felon or mentally disturbed. Both of the recent mass shooting suspects got their weapons from friends or family members. The fire fighter killer actually was at the store with a friend, who knew he was a felon, and they bought the weapons for him. Even the Columbine kids got their weapons from their parents.
Did they no-scope people with anti-material rifles while doing that?
They only kill lots of people if you are good at them. If not, you just bitch about hacks.
That's what I've observed in my own neighborhood.
I'm okay with violence and nudity. The only thing I hate is that they're often used as the replacement for an actual story.
Unless I was exploring specific themes, I'd take it as a particular point of pride if I could make a movie without either one. After all, few people are exposed to real violence, and most people only wish they were exposed to frequent sex as depicted in even the briefest of depictions in the media.
Of course, the reason that either are put in is to usually to increase appeal for studio executives that always want a sure thing.
So maybe make the gun's owner responsible for what happens with his firearms? If you own a gun it is your responsibility to keep it locked up safely and out of other people's hands. If your gun is stolen then you must report it to the police. If you have too many guns stolen, then the police might investigate you as well (selling the guns out the back door and reporting them stolen). If you buy or sell a gun at a gun show, then you have to submit a transfer of ownership to the government the same way you do with a car.
This might not have stopped the kindergarten shooting, but it might convince people to keep their firearms secured better, especially if they think that they could be liable for what their mentally disturbed teenager does with them.
I read the internet for the articles.
Persuasion via honest means is voluntary and therefore morally permissible, but not necessarily morally praiseworthy. Whether it is just depends on the end goal of the persuasion.
If I were to attempt to persuade you that all people of a certain ethnic background should be killed, that would be free speech and legally permissible, and it would be unethical for you to use force to silence me. But to label my speech "moral and just" would be an error. And it would be entirely rational, moral, and just for people to be concerned about my speech, to express their opposition to it, and be vigilant that it did not progress to action.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I think they burn better. Most books can't fit into my DVD burner.
Yes... not much critical thinking skills at all.
They want to buy used videogame and destroy it, taking it off the market. For good.
Now, the customer of that game is forced to buy, at full price and royalties to author, another full licensed version, instead of buying the recycled one, from which only the reseller, not the author, profits.
This maximizes the profit for the author of the despised works.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
APA!? arn't those the same assholes that at one time also preached that "homosexuality as a mental disorder"
Right up until 1979. Which is actually kind of progressive when you put it in context with things like Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Soldiers being trained for battle in WWI used bullseye targets to practice on, and when it came to real war confrontations, the soldiers were less prone to fire at an enemy soldier. After WWI, the U.S. Army started using more realistic human-type targets for training, and soldiers afterwards were more prone to not hesitate to shoot another human being, they were desensitized. Now I'm not claiming anything about any recent gun events here. I am saying that these very realistic games of today DO contribute to someone being de-humanized IF they are not well-rounded, mature individuals to start with.
Now, the customer of that game is forced to buy, at full price and royalties to author, another full licensed version, instead of buying the recycled one, from which only the reseller, not the author, profits.
How much are they giving per game? Because if it works like some gun-buybacks, you'll get people bringing in old copies of Daikatana and using the resulting certificates to buy the latest call of duty...
I've seen it multiple times - a gunnie will collect 'scrap metal' guns worth maybe $20 for the metal in them, then go to Chicago for a gun buyback and get $100 gift certificates for them. Most of the guns don't even work, or would be unsafe to fire if they did. They then proceed to buy a nice NEW gun for their collection.
I don't read AC A human right
Nearly every state changed their drinking age in the 1980's due to The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which withheld federal highway funds from states that did not set their drinking age at 21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#Americas.
It turns out it's exceedingly difficult to kill another person through a computer monitor ....
As someone who has played more than one CoD game, about the only thing that CoD makes me want to do run back out there and shoot more people in-game in new and interesting ways with new weapons. I also like to keep score and do achievements. I am well aware that none of that translates in to real life shooting. I also knew that when playing games when I was a teen, long ago.
There are people out there who are just broken, and anything could set them off. That's the problem. It is entirely possible that someone could decide to do a "video game murder spree", but honestly, that's nothing more than either following the media and seeing the attention that would get, or simply wanting to shoot someone and seeing that particular setting as something to replicate to make it unique.
I've learned to instinctively take headshots,
Sorry, why would this make someone more proficient in a real world firefight?
For example I suggest reading:
One thousand and one nights
Do you recommend a version of that? I tried getting through the Sir Richard Burton version and eventually choked on all the racism. Wasn't really sure if it was coming from the original sources or from Burton.
But just remember, "prone to violence" or not, they are still far more likely to commit a violent crime while boozed up. These stats don't lie, no matter which direction you view them from.
Interesting!
You could start with "When to Withdraw Fellowship" and "How to Treat a Disfellowshipped Person" from the Watchtower publication Keep Yourselves in God's Love, which is the second study book that new JWs are led through. JWs are supposed to "quit mixing in company" and "never [...] say a greeting" to anyone who 1. has been baptized into the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, 2. has been disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the Congregation, and 3. does not live in the same household.--1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11.
is instituting a new violent video game buyback program. You turn in your violent video games for shells.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
encourages people to adopt lots of cats. how healthy can that be ?
Nullius in verba
See my reply to "Mr. Whirly" above. We are talking specifically about individual rights in this thread, and whether the practice violates individual rights. That is precisely why the distinction between voluntary association and coercion was brought up.
Uh, no, you can pretend this thread was about whatever you want, but in reality, here is the order of events:
1. Someone said this was entirely 'voluntary', by which they meant it wasn't a law.
2. A post responded to them by pointing out that just because something is voluntary under the law does not mean it isn't (or can't become) coercive via society
3. You then demonstrated you had no idea what the hell 'coercive social pressure' meant.
4. I point out you do not know what 'coercion' means.
5. You attempt to claim what this discussion is _really_ about is...uh, the first comment made.
I can see why, after your rather epic failure, you'd try to get the conversation on something else. The problem is, the second post, the one you replied to, was, indeed, on topic. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that, while this may not be any sort of 'law', 'law' is not the only thing that can infringe on people's freedoms, both to create art and to consume art that others have created. That is a completely appropriate follow-up comment.
It's you who went off topic, apparently taking exception to the idea that anything not demanded by law might still, nevertheless, be a bad idea.(1) But, as you were unable to come up with an actual reason to object to this idea, you grammar nazi-ed your way into stupidity.
1) I'm going to take a wild guess here: libertarian, right?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It's hilarious that some people look down on DnD but they thoroughly enjoy their fantasy football leagues. hmmmmm.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
I think you might have misunderstood what I said, because that wasn't a reply to it. I asked you what you imagine (and it is your imagination) gives you the right to dictate what your son (hypothetical or not) does at age 25?
I would like to point out the: A) it wasn't just old biddies B) It worked. It accomplished the goal it set out to. Reduce domestic abuse and crime. Domestic Abuse all but disappeared, violent crime dropped significantly.
I would also like to point out the prohibition meant the media(Newspapers) lost a lot of advertising money.
Please don't reply with a comparison to other substances; that's irrelevant.
You are ignoring the horrific negative effects of prohibition, such as NASCAR.
I'd still do it.
Because I love him.
He'd be understandably upset, I'd be too. And he'd get 'em back after a time. By then, he hopefully would have come around a bit into seeing why I did that. Call it 'tough love'. Then there'd be an oppurtunity for more conversation on having 'balance' in all parts of his life. Once certain that he understood these concepts, I'd show him where his games are, probably play them with him. Probably get outplayed by the little whipper-snapper too.
My point is, too much of anything is no good for you. You can o.d. on drugs, alcohol, even too much air or water can kill a person. You got to have balance in life, or it may turn to obsession. That can lead to 'dark thoughts', they can lead to 'dark actions'. People can 'allow' themselves to go insane, by allowing an obsession to get out of hand. Then there might be another horrible news story that didn't have to happen. I hope this explains my reasoning to you.
"A man's got to know his limitations" - Clint Eastwood in 'Dirty Harry'
In my original post I said "unless" he had the maturity level needed to handle it. Subjective to the individual. And it only takes 'one' insane person with a weapon to do an awful lot of harm nowadays. Peace out, bro. :-)
Parenting doesn't end when the kid reaches the legal age of 18, it's a lifetime job.
I'll assume you meant to write 15. It's the only way your comments make any sense at all. Unless you're just having some fun posting like this, which is fine too.
No, I meant 25. Not everyone's "fully cooked", maturity-wise, just because they're legal age. From bad or no real parenting maybe.
The one I have is this one but that is only the first volume (there are 4) and my biggest beef is that it is paper back and not very durable. It seems that there are a number various translations of varying quality and embellishment and as I don't have a copy of the original and would not be able to read it anyway I can't really compare the various translations to the original. At the time when I got my set it was the only one I could find as Amazon didn't exist and you had to buy stuff from the store. It has been a long while since I last read it (probably close to 15 years) but I don't remember it being overly racist.
Time to offend someone
No, I meant 25. Not everyone's "fully cooked", maturity-wise, just because they're legal age. From bad or no real parenting maybe.
So... you're saying you're a bad parent? It's your theoretical 25 year old son that you wouldn't let play Vice City after all.
No wonder the AC called you insane.
A 'theoretical' bad parent, thank you very much. I don't have any kids..., that I know of anyway. I also see a new story on /. right now, about a real dad worried his grown son is too obsessed with video gaming. I do believe that proves up my points here. Have a nice day, and don't forget to tip your waitress!
Oh yes. Lets get rid of the video games and kids can go back to running around the woods with home-made slingshots and flame throwers, like the good ol' days.
Burton was, while widely travelled, still a firm believer in the racial superiority of white Europeans. It wouldn't be surprising if I was running into embellishments by Burton.
Sure, if by "loophole" you meant actual dictionary definition and by "scouring" you meant taking 2 seconds to type the word into the Merriam-Webster search engine.
I guess the real question is "Why am I even bothering to respond to someone who thinks dictionary definitions are"loopholes" if they don't agree with them, and someone who thinks the only context to a statement is their own?"
"But this one goes to 11!"
You're not endorsing their political cause.
You're taking advantage of them.
Go ahead take the money from them, the fewer resources they have to advance their agenda the less success they'll have.