Post by: WindyMan on April 10, 2003, 12:10:28 PM
Videogames and violence have always been a hot topic in society, and the mainstream media always seems to uncover some link between social problems and videogames as a whole. Senator Joesph Lieberman from Connecticut is usually seen as public enemy #1 in the eyes of the honest gamer, and he's returned with a new plan.
Sen. Lieberman is looking to pass a bill that would lead to the setting up of a program to study the effects of various forms of media and entertainment, but singled out videogames as the big target. Here's a bit from Cnet's news story:
Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, singled out video games as a particular area of concern and took yet another swing at "Grand Theft Auto III," the mega-selling PlayStation 2 game in which players take on the role of a small-time hoodlum.
Lieberman said in the statement that the game links violence with sex and rewards players for degrading and killing women. "This is sick and indefensible," Lieberman said. "But beyond being offensive to our values, we should know whether this is helping to nurture misogynistic views and behaviors among young boys."
For the whole story, hop over to Cnet's news.com
Post by: The Omen on April 10, 2003, 12:36:58 PM
This dope will not be president , for a variety of reasons, and this is one of them.
Post by: Berto2K on April 10, 2003, 01:05:17 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on April 10, 2003, 01:24:03 PM
Thought #2 - "I hoped that the ratings system had gotten rid of him. Perhaps there's a fault with the ratings system (like stupid retailers selling DOA to 10-year-olds) that needs to be addressed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."
Thought #3 - "...uncover some link between social problems and videogames..." "...Grand Theft Auto III..." "...the game links violence with sex and rewards players for degrading and killing women..." "This is sick and indefensible," Oh great. He's being the morality police. Go take on pornography. Or kids in the schoolyard who swear. Don't go sticking obstructive rules onto my quirky-weird Japanese stuff just because of what Rockstar likes doing.
Thought #4 - "...we should know whether this is helping to nurture misogynistic views and behaviors among young boys..." Ooooh. It's back to the children again. Damn that GTA! How did it get away with an "E" rating? It was supposed to get an "M" to stop this kind of thing from happening! Oh wait. It did get an "M". Young boys aren't supposed to be able to play it, anymore than they're supposed to steal into their Dad's Playboy collection.
Though #5 - Go away Lieberman. Go away Leberman. Go away Lieberman. Damnit! How come don't I have telepathic powers! I blame Earthbound! Putting absurd ideas into my head!
Post by: Black Knight on April 10, 2003, 01:24:54 PM
Post by: SuckLikeAFox on April 10, 2003, 01:27:37 PM
Post by: fiveironalex on April 10, 2003, 01:28:47 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 10, 2003, 01:33:48 PM
Videogames are just one of those things that you can't expect someone like Lieberman to understand because he's too old to have ever been exposed to them. Once the current generation becomes the world's leaders videogames will be largely ignored by politicians.
One thing I always mention when the violence in videogames issue comes up is that a violent person by nature is going to be interested in violent videogames but not everyone who plays violent videogames is a violent person. Protesters have the cause and effect mixed up.
Post by: Rellik on April 10, 2003, 01:34:55 PM
And I guess now you see what it's like to be on this side of a controversy? Oh well... next time I see him, I'll talk to him about it.
Next time I see him...
oh well.Some level-headed person needs to gather together the general sentiment and make it visible, and make it actually make a difference. A hacker, maybe? You know, take over some site... that seems to be the best way. Or you could do something legal like make your own site, but the message is confined by how many visitors you can get. Sending e-mails doesn't help... that gaggle of blitches over at MAVAV don't even answers letters if they don't like them.
Post by: NarmaK on April 10, 2003, 01:35:52 PM
Hah take that liberman i dont even have gta 3 and i want to kill you with a tank, that proves it, no need for a study, its not the games that induce violence its your rinkly ass.
GIVE ME GAMES OR GIVE YOURSELF DEATH
Post by: SuckLikeAFox on April 10, 2003, 01:46:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rellik
Hey, I like Lieberman...
that gaggle of blitches over at MAVAV don't even answers letters if they don't like them.
MAVAV was fake man...
Post by: Perfect Cell on April 10, 2003, 01:47:33 PM
Post by: the_wenzel on April 10, 2003, 01:50:23 PM
Post by: Strell on April 10, 2003, 01:52:33 PM
The best argument people like Leiberman can muster is that "Studies show that when you let a five year old watch violent movies or play violent video games, they immediately begin to act more aggressive and hostile." Yea well, that's great argument in theory, IF WE WERE ALL FIVE YEARS OLD. The only way they could possibly have a point would be to follow several people (hundreds, if not thousands) for their entire lives, and see which ones develop violent tendencies dependent on which media they are exposed to. You'd have to monitor so many different factors - environment, which games are played, family history, any possibly psychological illnesses...etc etc etc, the list goes on and on. In the end, you're left with a bunch of scattered facts and generalizations that ultimately prove nothing.
Yea, I wouldn't be surprised if a kid played GTA, Mortal Kombat, Postal, etc., all his life, if he wouldn't become desensitized to violence. But MAKE him violent? That's a completely different tangent.
Using non-sequiter logic, however, is every politician's ace in the hole, so I'm not surprised to see the same argument being utilized over and over.
Post by: Djunknown on April 10, 2003, 02:22:20 PM
Last I checked, 1st amendment rights have not been suspended. I don't see him talking about Conflict
esert Storm, or Medal of Honor. If its a game about shooting America's enemies, I'll bet no politican is going to gripe. At least he didn't mention Nintendo, or else that'll be one stigma you can't shake.Unless he can prove the ESRB is ineffective, he needs some other issue to tackle. Doesn't he have a war to protest? Oh that's right, its almost over....
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 10, 2003, 02:33:10 PM
Besides of which, he should realise nobody has to make sure there's nothing offensive in videogames- it's our right to say ANYTHING we want- anything less is unconstitutional.
Post by: Perfect Cell on April 10, 2003, 02:52:22 PM
Post by: Orange Soda on April 10, 2003, 03:00:31 PM
http://web.archive.org/web/20001019044619/www.dailyradar.com/news/game_news_5142.html
Make of it what you will. (Slight warning: Takes a while to load.)
Post by: Michael_82 on April 10, 2003, 03:11:28 PM
Post by: D_Man on April 10, 2003, 04:02:28 PM
LIBERMAN, GAMES DON'T MAKE GAMERS VIOLENT, YOU DO!!!!!!
Screw you, joe.
Post by: Illini4 on April 10, 2003, 04:08:03 PM
Being planetgamecube, not many of us need to worry about the type's of games he is talking about. Someone on this site put a link to an interview with Lieberman and he clearly says he doesn't want to ban video games. He clearly wants to make sure that little kids (7 year olds!) can't just walk in to a store and spend the money they have saved up for a year on a game that getting life back is picking up a hooker and doing "things" in your car. I agree with that! He isn't saying they can't put that in the game, he is just saying CHILDREN shouldn't be able to purchase it.
I was in a video game store (nameless) once and these two boys (age 12 MAX!) went to the manager of the store and said "yeah how much will a gamecube and metroid prime cost" the manager looked at them and said "you boys should get an Xbox and Dead to Rights. It is only a little more expensive and there is actually blood in that game, metroid is childish." First of all, trying to get little kids to buy the more expensive system is slimey, but then to make a sales pitch with the only thing being LOTS OF BLOOD is sick! I decided i should make a comment to the salesman and told him if the kid looks like he still beleives in santa, don't push the blood. So he says "I am only selling them what they want." First off, they didn't ask for that game, second off YOU CAN'T SELL THEM THAT GAME! The ESRB is nice, it just needs to be enforced.
Just don't eveybody start screaming for Liebermans head! He isn't trying to take our fun fun games! He is just making sure kids aren't buying BMX XXX without their parents knowing about the game. I am sure many parents don't know that actual breasts are in BMX XXX, and if they did, i am sure many wouldn't want their kids to have it. But if they dont' mind, that is fine too, but as long as they are informed. Liebs is just trying to INFORM!
Post by: Rellik on April 10, 2003, 04:10:09 PM
He has points... although, from our standpoint, it seems like he's being stupid, I think he does have points. If studies show something, then there's some validity to it... think what you want, but there's not just some guy somewhere who makes up these studies.
Why do people not actually listen to what he has to say? Just go to that last link, the Daily Radar's interview with Lieberman. He's probably wrong, but it's good to be concerned, and he is not advocating that video games are bad for you and everyone who plays them must be either juvenile delinquents or screw-ups who failed college because they were too drunk.
Doesn't it annoy anyone that nobody is really listening to what he has to say? Don't be so defensive... it's not like he's accusing you of anything, and you don't have to lash out at him.
Post by: Kyosho on April 10, 2003, 04:53:52 PM
This one time, this guy who clearly looks like he's over 16 wants to buy Mortal Kombat Annhilation. So I'm ringing him up, and all of a sudden the woman behind him who actually was his mother asked, "are you going to check his ID? You're suppose to check him if he's underage. It's against the law if you dont and you can get arrested." I responded with "i didnt know that." Keep in mind the lines were somewhat long but she was making a big scene. She started lecturing about how the sales associates should be responsible for kids buying violent games and such. So jokingly, i responded, "ok is it ok for your son to purchase this game." And she smiled and said, "yes" and lectured me some more about morals and such.
The instant she walked out of the store, a lot of customers behind her were just trash talking about her. I personally feel it is the parent's responsibility to take an active role in their child's life if they dont want them to play a violent game. Personally, I have been watching Rated R movies since I was little and playing violent games. It really depends on how you're raised. If a parent has to blame a sales associate for their kid's development, then they are a bad parent.
As for buying games w/o the parents knowing, I use to do a lot of stuff w/o my parents knowing illegally and legally. If the parents are really offended by it, they need to get in on a kid's life, and really participate in it. Fortunately, my parents took everything like a grain of salt, and just told me what is bad and what is not. It's ok to try, but not get caught up in it.
Post by: LOP Posse on April 10, 2003, 04:58:18 PM
Post by: The Caucasian Cubist on April 10, 2003, 05:18:42 PM
Y'all don't find anything wrong with an 8-year-old beating an old lady to death than chuckling, "Huhu, that's cool?" C'mon, people, you're freaks.
In conclusion, I'm right, you're wrong, resistance is futile, so just shut up.
Post by: Scyth3r on April 10, 2003, 05:30:30 PM
However, I do believe there is somethign wrong w/ 10 year olds or so playing games like GTA. However, I do believe Lieberman is pointing the finger at the wrong direction. It should be pointing at parents first for being so god damn stupid to buy their child such violent video games.
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 10, 2003, 05:49:19 PM
It's not that easy- even IF the study shows that violent games do not make kids violent, they'll twist whatever facts they have to prove that it DOES. The Heart and Lung Association did the same thing with second hand smoking- in actuality, second hand smoke does pretty much diddly squat to someone beyond making them gag, but the Heart and Lung Association twisted the facts to make it SEEM like second hand smoke kills so they'd get notoriety.
And *notoriety* is the reason I don't think we should give a rat's ass about what Lieberman is trying to say because it's all politics- I'm not saying he doesn't believe what he's pushing for, but the only reason he's pushing for it is to gain the votes of all the "concerned" (read: smothering) parents out there who don't want their child to experience the world. I thought some of you would've realized the way American politics work by now. The FACT is that violent videogames won't make a mentally healthy person go out and kill someone, or even hurt someone. If they are influenced to murder another human being after playing a game like Grand Theft Auto then they are most likely criminally insane and shouldn't have been playing the game in the first place. I'm tired of people trying to find a scapegoat for their child's actions. Whatever they do they decided to do- a videogame didn't decide for them. If the parents are really concerned that their kid shouldn't be playing a certain kind of game, they should a) use the ESRB rating system (it's their for a reason, people), b) monitor what their kid is watching in case they don't agree with the rating, and c) stop trying to change society to meet their own messed up kid's needs. You don't think GTA's a good game? Well more power to you, but it hardly needs to be banned. Hell, it had an M rating and by law shouldn't have been sold to anyone under 17- what more do you people WANT? Anything beyond that would infringe on our most sacred freedom of expression. Do videogames affect people? Most likely, but only in small ways- getting aggravated when you're losing a game or getting beaten by someone else. Will a videogame make you actually hurt someone? Not unless you had it in you to begin with. He may claim it was the videogame that brought it out, but it was the KID who made the decision to go out and hurt people. Don't try to weasel out of it and blame that on videogames. I think Lieberman's study will be a complete and utter waste of money- until perfectly sane people in mass droves start killing people, THEN maybe he'll have a case, but I've been a gamer since I was 3 and have never had a violent moment, nor have any gamers I know. His case simply does not hold water and is only in the light because he wants votes he'll never get anyway (maybe he should join an independent party- at least their the number of votes he'll get will *seem* like a lot). I'm really surprised that some gamers actually BELIEVE him. Some of you are a lot more gullible than I thought. Stop following the shepherd and start forming your own path.
Post by: The Omen on April 10, 2003, 07:23:17 PM
P.S. -I'm fairly certain when people say they wish he would croak already, they're not actually wishing death upon him. Its just to get a point accross at how annoyed most people are with this petty attempt at reform.
Post by: rpglover on April 11, 2003, 07:21:54 AM
but i still do not think that videogame violence is leading to violence in people. i think lieberman is trying to find another scapegoat to why violence happens in society and he can point to videogames- mostly because the most popular ones (gta 3/ vice city) are not only making the most money and selling the most, they are also some of the most violent ones. but as others have said, the "M" rating is there on the boxes of the games for a reason- to show that you should be at this age to buy this game as the stuff in it could be innapropiate for younger players. i do not have a problem with them trying to enforce the law, but i dont think that videogames are the reason for the violence and be all end all to it. i have many "M" rated games but i am not a violent person, i dont kill anyone- it is just human for us all to find someone to blame- look at the adam and eve story for example.... i dont think that videogame violence encourages others to become more violent but i do believe people love to blame someone or something else than just come out and say that i did it and it was wrong and it was all my fault. maybe when that happens then society can become a little better but right now i just dont see it happening.
Post by: Ninja X on April 11, 2003, 08:12:53 AM
I'm still astonished on why Lieberman won't go after movies or music, more popular forms of entertainment than video games. He's just one of those pricks after popularity, and he is going to degrade video games in order to do it. Fucker...why don't you concentrate on issues such as poverty or crime?
Post by: LOP Posse on April 11, 2003, 08:16:12 AM
So you conducted your own research? What was your sample size? (oh wait it was just one) What was your control group (oh wait you don't even know what a control group is). Your own experiences are in know way proof applicable to all of Society.
I likewise am skeptical of Lieberman's study (Even though he will try to have a large enough smaple group, and a control group) With an issue like this it is much to dificult to single out one issue with youth over a long period of time because of all the factors of ethics that would come into place in trying to control every aspect of the study subject's life. The most that could be claimed is that the study showed that there was a correlation between violence and video games. As every research scientist will tell you, correlation does not equal causation.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 11, 2003, 10:04:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ninja X
Fucker...why don't you concentrate on issues such as poverty or crime?
Keep spewing stuff like that and you will be banned. Looks like we've got another word that needs to be added to the list.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 11, 2003, 10:15:04 AM
Lieberman's stance is not unique or uninformed. In fact Yu Suzuki and Miyamoto-san both expressed similar concerns during their seminar at DICE.
I personally have known teenagers who have made chilling comments like "Wouldn't it be cool if I just went crazy and started killing people like in GTA," fantasizing over the possibilities. Common sense should lead you to believe that if you make life-like violence attractive and rewarding, it will increase violence in our communities. Yes, there should be more parental involvement, but unless you want the government micro-managing your family, it's not an easy goal to acheive.
I still have to look closer at all of Lieberman's statements before I can say whether I agree or disagree, but I do think that ratings should be enforced and that game creators should be more responsible with the kind of content they put out.
Post by: The Omen on April 11, 2003, 12:48:26 PM
Quote
I personally have known teenagers who have made chilling comments like "Wouldn't it be cool if I just went crazy and started killing people like in GTA," fantasizing over the possibilities.
Bloodworth, did it ever occur to you that the kid has other problems and is just using GTA as another outlet? There are millions of kids with deep rooted emotional problems who will enjoy carnage in EVERY aspect of their life. What if these teenagers watched the war coverage and said, 'wouldn't it be cool if we could shoot up people with rocket propelled grenades?' . Point being, it's not the war coverage thats making him think in those violent terms, it's just another outlet for their own inbedded violence. Do teens today care less than the previous generation about life? Sure, but that gets worse with every generation. Even before Video games. Its the fragmented family that is making these children walk around without a care in the world. Increasing isolation is a cause as well. Columbine is another example of video games and music being scapegoats. In my opinion, those kids had deep emotional problems, but we don't want to look deeper, we just go at face value. It's ridiculous that some people actually believe that entertainment CAUSES violence. It may lessen the emotional impact of violence, but it doesn't CAUSE violence. I think these mediums are often OUTLETS for their violent behavior, not the reason they exude this behavior. Why doesn't Lieberman take a stand on the real issue? Because there is no publicity in dealing with it.
I do believe that kids are getting their hands on games they shouldn't, but to blame games is to easy. Search for the deeper problems in an individual.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 11, 2003, 01:30:21 PM
Post by: TheGlueBubble on April 11, 2003, 05:07:08 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 11, 2003, 05:43:47 PM
Post by: Ninja X on April 12, 2003, 09:43:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BloodworthQuote
Originally posted by: Ninja X
Fucker...why don't you concentrate on issues such as poverty or crime?
Keep spewing stuff like that and you will be banned. Looks like we've got another word that needs to be added to the list.
Sorry about that, then.
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 12, 2003, 09:55:28 AM
Sure it's not scientific research, but you HAVE to give SOME credibility to people who have lived all their lives playing violent games and don't have an ounce of violence in them. If Lieberman's right, we should all be out there shooting people. But why aren't we? Because only people who are insane to begin with actually follow through with it. If THAT'S not common sense, then Lieberman has no right to even think about opressing our hobby.
"I personally have known teenagers who have made chilling comments like "Wouldn't it be cool if I just went crazy and started killing people like in GTA," fantasizing over the possibilities. Common sense should lead you to believe that if you make life-like violence attractive and rewarding, it will increase violence in our communities. Yes, there should be more parental involvement, but unless you want the government micro-managing your family, it's not an easy goal to acheive. "
First of all, do you actually think these teenagers would go through with it? I say "I"ll kill you!" as a joke many times a day, but I would never actually DO it. I have problems even hurting insects, much less actually taking the life of a fellow human being. If you think these kids WILL actually kill someone, well they're most likely criminally insane and shouldn't have been playing the game in the first place. It's not the GAME'S fault that a kid goes out and shoots someone, it's the KIDS fault- he's the one that made the decision to reenact that videogame. Why don't we blame the kid? You want to know why? Because we have this BS view of kids that they're innocent little angels and anything they do is the fault of socity and outside "influences" rather than the kids own deranged mind. If a kid is inspired to repeat what he saw in a game, he shouldn't have been playing games in the first place. His parents or guardians should've monitored what he played and how he reacted to what he played and made the right actions to inhibit violent behavior. If they didn't, again, THAT'S NOT THE GAME'S FAULT. When are people going to learn that humans have free will- whatever we do we chose to do on our own. I'm not saying a game will never influence someone to kill someone else, just that it will NEVER happen to a perfectly sane individual who was brought up to differentiate between fact and fiction. We shouldn't be conforming videogames to meet the lowest common denominator, the lowest common denominator shouldn't be playing videogames. Lieberman's case holds absolutely no water, is a complete and utter waste of tax payers' money (which could go toward important things, like health care, the national debt, the war- almost anything's better), and only exists for two reasons- One, because neglectful and smothering parents don't want to admit their kids are crazy if they kill people, and so Lieberman can get votes from said people (which is pointless anyway because we ALL know he won't even win the Democratic primary). Frankly, I'm surprised ANYONE believe Leiberman's bull$#!t.
Post by: ArmchairAthlete on April 12, 2003, 12:52:00 PM
I don't recall any particular mission in GTA3 that was all about "degrading and killing women". Sure there are hookers (just like in real life!), but it's your decision if you're gonna kill em & take back your cash not that it even matters.
"But beyond being offensive to our values"
Whose values? Certaintly not mine. Does this moron think he can force *HIS* values on everyone?
Somebody should snipe this arsehole, thank god him and the "guy who invented the internet" lost the election. People like this make me furious >_<.
The video game industry is probably too huge by now for them to mess with at least.
Post by: The Caucasian Cubist on April 13, 2003, 08:35:40 AM
And to the person who said something to the extent that the other people were just joking, they dont really want him to die, I still disagree. Iti s still showing these people are immoralized and desensitized to murder and can't think of any good comeback besides some creative form of "Die, lieberman, go to hell."
And then there was the idiot who I believe had the post right before this one, who said something about "just cuz there are hookers in the game (just like in real life!) doesnt mean the game intends to degrade and [something, I forget] women. The people don't HAVE to take the hooker and then kill her, so shut up Joe!" Man you are just stupid. It isnt bad enough that the hooker is there and it is possible to have sex with her then kill her? Whatever you think, the game is encouraging you to have sex with her then killl her, or else it wouldn't be programmed into the game. And then you are all [the same guy, not you-all; as in y'all] like, "He houldn't try to impose *HIS* views on others." Not true. Simmer down. Heaven forbid he try to implant the thought in others that being serviced by a hooker then killing her is wrong; The JERK! This is what America is all about. he can say what he thinks all he wants, and try to spread his views; that is what you and I are doing right now, so don't be hypocritical.
Post by: The Caucasian Cubist on April 13, 2003, 08:44:25 AM
I'm sure he has kids or has bserved the influence of video games on kids he knows, and even if he doesn't it is fine for him to do what he's doing; more power to him.
OH man and you said " "But beyond being offensive to our values" Whose values? Certaintly not mine. " That's not against your values? What are your values? Murder and rape are ok? Do you stand up for anything, man? I think it is a pretty common value that killing people on the streets and having sex with hookers is wrong.
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 13, 2003, 09:45:54 AM
I HAVE let him speak and he has absolutely NOTHING to say that actually means anything. Honestly, why are you giving him credit? It's all politics.
"And to the person who said something to the extent that the other people were just joking, they dont really want him to die, I still disagree. Iti s still showing these people are immoralized and desensitized to murder and can't think of any good comeback besides some creative form of "Die, lieberman, go to hell.""
Ohh, so now we can't joke? Is that it? If we make a joking comment, we're suddennly immoral? Sure maybe people can think fo better things to say, but you're just a mindless sheep if you think videogames caused that. Some people just aren't that creative- get over it. You want a good insult ofr Lieberman? Okay, the man is a completely insane lunatic who obviously can't accept the fact that people are responsilbe for their own actions, NOT movies or books or games. Maybe he can't come to that realization because he's a politician, but the man's story holds NO water whatsoever. Anyone who claims it does obviously hasn't listened to him like they say we should.
"Man you are just stupid. It isnt bad enough that the hooker is there and it is possible to have sex with her then kill her? Whatever you think, the game is encouraging you to have sex with her then killl her, or else it wouldn't be programmed into the game."
You're just as stupid! We have this little thing in America called freedom of expression. What Lieberman is trying to do is restrict our 1st ammendment, which is nothing less than unconstitutional. Sure, maybe GTA IS degrading to women, but where's the law that says we have to be politically correct? Because there are hookers in the game we shoudl BAN it? If you ask me, that's unpatriotic. If you don't think that's right, DON'T PLAY THE GAME. Why that escapes Lieberman escapes me, but nobody's forcing anyone to play GTA.
And I do agree we'd be better off without Lieberman- it's people like HIM that make American politics such a joke.
"And then you are all [the same guy, not you-all; as in y'all] like, "He houldn't try to impose *HIS* views on others." Not true. Simmer down. Heaven forbid he try to implant the thought in others that being serviced by a hooker then killing her is wrong; The JERK! This is what America is all about. he can say what he thinks all he wants, and try to spread his views; that is what you and I are doing right now, so don't be hypocritical."
Excuse me, but it seems you're a bit took quick to call him a jerk. So if Lieberman has the right to express his thoughts, why can't the man you just quoted several times? YOU'RE the hypocrite if you don't think he should be able to say what he thinks.
And Lieberman ISN'T just spouting out crap. Listen to this very carefully- HE'S SPENDING TAXPAYERS' MONEY RESEARCHING SOMETHING THAT WE ALL KNOW IS UTTERLY POINTLESS. And when he's twisted the results of that research to show games make people kill, he's going to try to get games like GTA banned, which, as I've said innumerous times, IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. I don't CARE if he doesn't like the game- he doesn't have to play it- but he shouldn't ruin it for all of us who DO like the game. THAT is a little beyond expressing his opinion. If he just expressed his opinion that videogames cause violence, I wouldn't care- I'd disagree, but I wouldn't care. But the FACT of the matter is that he's trying to conform the videogame industry to what HE thinks it should be like, and anyone claiming that's okay is obviously insane themselves.
Post by: The Caucasian Cubist on April 13, 2003, 02:59:10 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 13, 2003, 04:07:47 PM
You're obviously blind- sure, maybe he actually believes what he's saying, but you HAVE to admit the only reason he's making it such an issue, when it ISN'T an issue (gamers killing people isn't an epidemic), is to get votes from concerned and smothering parents. That's just the way politics work, sad as it is. I'm glad he's conerned for kids, but there's a difference between "concerned" and "smothering". Teaching your kid to drive safely is one thing, but not letting them drive at all for fear of their well being is smothering.
"Next, I think that the games do have an affect on people; But there's not much I can do to convince you, and likewise you can't convince me otherwise, so I won't go down that alley right now."
Well it's obvious games affect people- I may get aggrivated at a hard game, etc, but I'm not going to KILL or HURT people, and that's what Lieberman is claiming. Maybe if I had a mental disorder, but like I've been saying, people who are mental shouldn't play games and it's not the developers fault if they flip out.
"Furthermore, I don't think you understood my part about the guy. I was calling Liberman a jerk sarcastically in that line, not the guy. I am not a hypocrite."
I'm sorry for misreading that- my mistake.
"I can't believe how ridiculous this is. just because he doesn't agree with you, he is turning American politics into a joke?"
Jesus Christ- you must be mental yourself, or at least missed the day they taught you how to read in first grade. I DIDN'T say he was the reason American politics is a joke because he disagrees- don't put words into my mouth. I SAID, if you had read my post, that people like him make American politics a joke because he's trying to restrict and ban games simply because he thinks they're demorilizing or because they make kids go out and kill people and he's wasting money and time acting like it's an issue (I've already named several things that would deserve much more of his attention, especially if by some crazy chance he actually became president).
"No, no, no. Is he spending taxpayer's money? I honestly don't know, but I doubt it. link me if it's true."
Last I checked researches instigated BY the government use GOVERNMENT money, which is made by TAXING American citizens. I don't need a link to prove that and if you had any common sense you would've realized it.
"And it's definitely not pointless. You're just stupid."
What a great defense- it's not pointless becase I'm stupid? Name me how many people killed or seriously injured other people while reenacting a videogame? I fail to see how it's not PAINFULLY obvious that videogames do not make perfectly sane people kill. Tell me, have you ever had the urge to kill someone after playing a game? And I mean REALLY kill someone, not just say so in a rage? Do you know ANY gamers who have killed or mgiht have killed someone because of a videogame? If so, please tell me because I MIGHT consider labeling this study one step above irrelevant.
"if what he says doesn't mean anything, why are we having such a heated debate?"
Because I'm a loser message board junkie and Electronics Boutique doesn't have Burnout 2 in yet.
Aside from that, I'm having such a heated debate because I'd LIKE to see a soul saved from the bottomless depths of his infinite bull$#!t."And about the anti-constitution stuff; The constitution gets broken all the time. One example is how it is now legal to murder babies."
I REALLY don't want to get into an abortion debate, but up until 4 or so months before birth, a "baby" can be classified as nothing more than goo. I think it's bad that women get abortions- putting your baby up for adoption is a much MUCH better choice- and am vehemently opposed to abortion if the baby stands even a small chance of surviving outside the womb, but otherwise they're really just a collection of cells with no consciousness whatsoever. I don't think abortions are right, since those collections of cells do BECOME human beings, but it's not murder in my humble opinion.
And in any case, how does one alleged unconstitutional act make another one okay? So in your eyes, since it's legal to "murder babies", that makes it perfectly fine to ban videogames, music, books, even movies? That's an odd logic you have there.
Post by: The Caucasian Cubist on April 14, 2003, 09:42:12 AM
Now I'm just going to stop arguing. it's not worth it. let's be friends. Don't worry, be happy. So on.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 14, 2003, 09:59:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
Somebody should snipe this arsehole
Gone.
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 14, 2003, 11:28:27 AM
Post by: The Caucasian Cubist on April 14, 2003, 03:26:41 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 14, 2003, 03:31:02 PM
That said, I did have a bit of an adrenaline rush after posting my last big post. I really get into stuff like this.
