Good post. I made a similar one touting education as the weapon to use over censorship. And not only do I believe your assessment is true, but I would think it's important to tally up all the video games sold since... let's take 1985, PAC-MAN I guess COULD be considered violent because he ate ghosts, but technology really didn't start displaying people and blood until the first NES came out. Since about 200 million video games were sold in 2004 alone, it might be safe to assume at least that many in violent ones have been sold since 1985.
So, if we are to generously assume then over 200 million people have played violent video games, I think it would be important to discover how many violent crimes, since 1985, have been motivated by them. Lets assume 1,000. No, let's just say 10,000 just to be safe. That means your child has a.00005% chance of being a victim of a violent crime motivated from a video game. I'm sure putting your child in your car provides a far greater danger to his/her life.
Now I for one value every human life - even if 1 death is motivated by a violent video game, that's a serious problem. Now for all of you that support this bill, take into consideration the followin: Your tax dollars are going to be paid, probably in the hundreds of thousands, and effecting millions eventually, to censor video games from minors because the risk of them being fatally in danger from them are.00005%. But we are going to continue to support, and protect, industries and practices that put your childen in far greater risk of death or injury - like driving autos, flying in planes, buying your kids a skateboard or bicycle, allowing them to participate in sports...
Please understand, I don't support banning transporation at all. But nor do I believe violent video games should be banned. Because LIFE itself is a risk, and to grow and learn, risk of injury and death is everywhere - it CAN'T BE AVOIDED! The most proven way to avoid death or injury is to learn what causes it, and then let the individual decide how they should protect themselves best. I hope this post has made sense to most...
I played "violent" video games all my life. What it taught me, along with public television, was violence doesn't hurt anyone when acted out in fantasy, but don't even think about it in real life. I don't believe censorship of this kind is really the most effective way to shield children from danger. Would most people agree censorship leads to ignorance? Wouldn't proper education also make for a more effective tool to curb violence, negating the need for censorship? And did this senator cite any evidence where violent video games led to more violent crimes being commited, vs. other motivations for violent crimes (such as drugs, sex, diagreements, disrespect, etc.)? And will this censorship be applied to the US militaries own efforts for developing violent video games? After all, our modern military effectivly teaches children that violence can be ok and fun, if it's for what you believe is self-defense. I believe more information would be needed to make an informed decision as to whether or not censorship of video games is going to be the most effective tool to protect children from violence. And I would like to challenge anyone reading this that's in favor of this law to explain why censorship is more effective and truthful than education, with examples and detail, and not from words you heard on FOX news. I personally believe censorship is not the most effective method, because it takes one to know one - and I'm sure congress never played any of them.
Would you then object to a makeup and skanky womens clothes to be rated, and restrict who can buy them by age? Would you object to not being allowed to buy lipstick unless your over 16? After all, makeup and skanky clothes are used primarily for sexual purposes. And jealousy from sex leads to violence. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet more people are hurt from violent crimes motivated from makeup and skanky clothes than from video games. Hmmm... since we can't take the responsibility to protect our kids ourselves, perhaps we should give the federal government extended authority, beyond protecting liberty, to protect our kids for us. I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm sure you'll now support a law to put ratings on womens clothing and makeup. Thanks for the great idea!
If our government was instituted to protect the life, liberty, and property - considering our privacy can be considered property - then I would like the Bush administration to provide concrete examples of how passing out this information protects us. Everyone who buys into "Terrorism" as the excuse must have a very limited thinking span... that term alone is far too vague, and this reader can not correlate with any terrorist scenarios where these records would be of assistance. After all, we can't even protect our borders! (Well, that turned out to be an order for those paying attention). Who can provide concrete examples how turning over these millions of records will protect the American people? It appears there's more to gain for the white house, by giving them the ability to better protect themselves, am I wrong?
If our government was instituted to protect the life, liberty, and property - considering our privacy can be considered property - then I would like the Bush administration to provide concrete examples of how passing out this information protects us. Everyone who buys into "Terrorism" as the excuse must have a very limited thinking span... that term alone is far too vague, and this reader can not correlate with any terrorist scenarios where these records would be of assistace. After all, we can't even protect our borders! (Well, that turned out to be an order for those paying attention). Who can provide concrete examples how turning over these millions of records will protect the American people? It appears there's more to gain for the white house, by giving them the ability to better protect themselves, am I wrong?
If our government was instituted to protect the life, liberty, and property - and out privacy can be considered property - then I would like the Bush administration to provide concrete examples of how passing out this information protects us. Everyone who buys into "Terrorism" as the excuse must have a very limited thinking span... that term alons is far too vague, and this reader can not correlate with any terrorist scenarios where these records would be of assistace. After all, we can't even protect our borders! (Well, that turned out to be an order for those paying attention). Who can provide concrete examples how turning over these millions of records will protect the American people? It appears there's more to gain for the white house, by giving them the ability to better protect themselves, am I wrong?
Fear is in the mind. Most people that talk about being scared to walk the streets, in my experience, never had a problem themselves. It's manufactured controlled insanity, spread by mass media and then word of mouth, that gives the impression everyone in the USA isn't safe. You obviously bought into it too. Consider thinking critically, there's a whole world out there.
Uh....right to travel, sure. But the airlines are not owned or operated by you.
When our government gives billions of our tax dollars to support *their* business, well, the people kinda own it too.
The airports did not make the decision for the safety measures, the federal government did. It was not a business decision.
Don't blame the airlines, we've allowed ourselves to become dependent on them. If enough people want the security measures allowed, protest the airports and learn to live a lifestyle where your not dependent on them. Simple enough.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if we are to generously assume then over 200 million people have played violent video games, I think it would be important to discover how many violent crimes, since 1985, have been motivated by them. Lets assume 1,000. No, let's just say 10,000 just to be safe. That means your child has a .00005% chance of being a victim of a violent crime motivated from a video game. I'm sure putting your child in your car provides a far greater danger to his/her life.
Now I for one value every human life - even if 1 death is motivated by a violent video game, that's a serious problem. Now for all of you that support this bill, take into consideration the followin: Your tax dollars are going to be paid, probably in the hundreds of thousands, and effecting millions eventually, to censor video games from minors because the risk of them being fatally in danger from them are .00005%. But we are going to continue to support, and protect, industries and practices that put your childen in far greater risk of death or injury - like driving autos, flying in planes, buying your kids a skateboard or bicycle, allowing them to participate in sports...
Please understand, I don't support banning transporation at all. But nor do I believe violent video games should be banned. Because LIFE itself is a risk, and to grow and learn, risk of injury and death is everywhere - it CAN'T BE AVOIDED! The most proven way to avoid death or injury is to learn what causes it, and then let the individual decide how they should protect themselves best. I hope this post has made sense to most...
I played "violent" video games all my life. What it taught me, along with public television, was violence doesn't hurt anyone when acted out in fantasy, but don't even think about it in real life. I don't believe censorship of this kind is really the most effective way to shield children from danger. Would most people agree censorship leads to ignorance? Wouldn't proper education also make for a more effective tool to curb violence, negating the need for censorship? And did this senator cite any evidence where violent video games led to more violent crimes being commited, vs. other motivations for violent crimes (such as drugs, sex, diagreements, disrespect, etc.)? And will this censorship be applied to the US militaries own efforts for developing violent video games? After all, our modern military effectivly teaches children that violence can be ok and fun, if it's for what you believe is self-defense. I believe more information would be needed to make an informed decision as to whether or not censorship of video games is going to be the most effective tool to protect children from violence. And I would like to challenge anyone reading this that's in favor of this law to explain why censorship is more effective and truthful than education, with examples and detail, and not from words you heard on FOX news. I personally believe censorship is not the most effective method, because it takes one to know one - and I'm sure congress never played any of them.
Would you then object to a makeup and skanky womens clothes to be rated, and restrict who can buy them by age? Would you object to not being allowed to buy lipstick unless your over 16? After all, makeup and skanky clothes are used primarily for sexual purposes. And jealousy from sex leads to violence. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet more people are hurt from violent crimes motivated from makeup and skanky clothes than from video games. Hmmm... since we can't take the responsibility to protect our kids ourselves, perhaps we should give the federal government extended authority, beyond protecting liberty, to protect our kids for us. I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm sure you'll now support a law to put ratings on womens clothing and makeup. Thanks for the great idea!
If our government was instituted to protect the life, liberty, and property - considering our privacy can be considered property - then I would like the Bush administration to provide concrete examples of how passing out this information protects us. Everyone who buys into "Terrorism" as the excuse must have a very limited thinking span... that term alone is far too vague, and this reader can not correlate with any terrorist scenarios where these records would be of assistance. After all, we can't even protect our borders! (Well, that turned out to be an order for those paying attention). Who can provide concrete examples how turning over these millions of records will protect the American people? It appears there's more to gain for the white house, by giving them the ability to better protect themselves, am I wrong?
If our government was instituted to protect the life, liberty, and property - considering our privacy can be considered property - then I would like the Bush administration to provide concrete examples of how passing out this information protects us. Everyone who buys into "Terrorism" as the excuse must have a very limited thinking span... that term alone is far too vague, and this reader can not correlate with any terrorist scenarios where these records would be of assistace. After all, we can't even protect our borders! (Well, that turned out to be an order for those paying attention). Who can provide concrete examples how turning over these millions of records will protect the American people? It appears there's more to gain for the white house, by giving them the ability to better protect themselves, am I wrong?
If our government was instituted to protect the life, liberty, and property - and out privacy can be considered property - then I would like the Bush administration to provide concrete examples of how passing out this information protects us. Everyone who buys into "Terrorism" as the excuse must have a very limited thinking span... that term alons is far too vague, and this reader can not correlate with any terrorist scenarios where these records would be of assistace. After all, we can't even protect our borders! (Well, that turned out to be an order for those paying attention). Who can provide concrete examples how turning over these millions of records will protect the American people? It appears there's more to gain for the white house, by giving them the ability to better protect themselves, am I wrong?
Fear is in the mind. Most people that talk about being scared to walk the streets, in my experience, never had a problem themselves. It's manufactured controlled insanity, spread by mass media and then word of mouth, that gives the impression everyone in the USA isn't safe. You obviously bought into it too. Consider thinking critically, there's a whole world out there.
Uh....right to travel, sure. But the airlines are not owned or operated by you. When our government gives billions of our tax dollars to support *their* business, well, the people kinda own it too. The airports did not make the decision for the safety measures, the federal government did. It was not a business decision. Don't blame the airlines, we've allowed ourselves to become dependent on them. If enough people want the security measures allowed, protest the airports and learn to live a lifestyle where your not dependent on them. Simple enough.