Blame the video game

MadsL wrote: »

Eminem surely.

Look how he affects the wimmins.

Bitches be trippin yo!!

Ban video games. If Hitler didn't have access to them then who knows how different the world could have been.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Seriously?

Why do you not question movies in this post then. I have been horrified by things I've seen in movies more than games in my lifetime, but as a responsible adult I take it for what it is, a form of entertainment and/or an art form.

If an adult is easily influenced by a game, the problem is not the game, it's deeper than that.

What pisses me off is the parenting. Oh it's a computer game, it's obviously meant for kids, despite the big red 18 certification on it! Or the fact the average age of gamers is late 20s to early 30s.

They should release a game where people raise their kids to be law abiding respectable members if society to solve all the worlds problems, oh wait....

So there should be no point in media where you say ok thats enough ?
Thats kind of a 'yes' or 'no' question.
If you say 'yes theres a point where we have to draw the line' then where is it and who gets to say.
If you say 'no' then .... no way you big spa you're a mentalist.

@ Local-womanizer

As I said in my very first sentence in my very first post on this thread -

"I dont really have a side on this debate, for certain parenting is to blame in these types of situations. "


Movies can be questioned in exactly the same way I've referred to games - thats the point - there's either a time where censorship comes in or there isn't.
If there isn't then anything goes - Use your imagination and Im sure you'll see that censorship is a necessity.

Where is that line drawn and who gets to say, is our decision and we will reap the consequences rightly or wrongly.



"If an adult is easily influenced by a game, the problem is not the game, it's deeper than that".

Thats why I said "its their business not mine". They are their own responsibility.
But, separately, you will be influenced by what you (and they) watch/read or play, like it or not.


"I didn't say there should be no line there that shouldn't be crossed"
- I didn't say that you did.

Theres a big difference between movies in the third person and first person view video games. Even movies are indeed censored (for what its worth), we see that a standard is set, someone set that standard for reason that people will watch and will be influenced and our society will change - whether that should or should not be.

Should we HAVE to pander to the nutters - NO
But SHOULD we - Id say after a point 'yes' if its for our own good.
We're the ones who may have or not have 1 additional nutter, our choice.

"The video game industry is the fastest growing entertainment industry in the world, millions play video games everyday, yet they don't go out and beat hookers to death in an alleyway. Mainly because they are of normal mental state and know the difference between a hobby and real life"

I never said they do or that they as people are anyones responsibility other than their own, or that we should cater to the unstable small percentage who will act out.
(no more than we should restrict ourselves to pillow covered 1 litre cars because of boy racers)

I've said that they (nutters or unstable people capable of becoming nutters due to 20 hours game play a week ) DO exist.

What we should let their tiny minds view repeatedly is something to question - because we will, rightly or wrongly, be affected.

Definitely others are not our responsibility or fault, however, we shape our society with decisions like censorship. Agree or disagree you will get corresponding results - thats a reality, x will lead to y.

A widely distributed first person view game showing exactly how to make a fertilizer bomb or plan a rape will lead to a result.

Your fault? - no. A result of our decisions on censorship - Yes.

Choose as you will.

"Bad parenting is to blame here, simple as"
- Which is what I said in my very first sentence

Duggy747 wrote: »

What evidence leads you to believe that the gaming industry will mass produce a game that uses tools to teach a person how to rape, let alone articulately and realistically show them how to construct a bomb (of which can be easily be self taught on the internet)?

No developer, publisher, retailer would help release such a game. It would be a commercial suicide and have their name smeared by the gaming community as well as the public and media.

None. You either didn't read or didn't comprehend the comment.

Duggy747 wrote: »

Oh I comprehended your hyperbolic comment about influence, alright. You imply a "nutter" who would play a game that depicts rape or building a fertilizer bomb will "lead to a result".

Right?

If widely distributed it will lead to such incidents yes.

Elbaston wrote: »

If widely distributed it will lead to such incidents yes.

What makes you believe that?

Elbaston wrote: »

What makes me believe that if a widely distributed video game containing exact instructions on how to build bombs would lead to at least 1 bomb related death by someone making use of instructions contained in the game ?

lol.

Really, you should apply to The Daily Mail for the potential sensationalism you've got going on there.

I if was 8 again and found a gun i would pull the trigger to see what happens, any 8 year old would be curious and craves new experiences. when i was around 8 i tried whiskey, cut the holes in the arms of our couch, stuck a knife in the press door use it as a throwing knife and stuck my sisters hair clip into the power socket, just to see what would happen.

Was the problem i gone hands on dangerous things(and hair clips) or i was watching Tom & Jerry or The Road Runner.

@ KevOC


Now allow me to pick apart your comment in a similar manner.
Except I wont get it completely wrong or corrupt what youve said.
Nor will I have a confirmation bias or assume incorrectly that you're "swinging for" a side.

You:
Hmmm. You open by saying;

"I dont really have a side on this debate".
But you finish your first post with;

"Right or wrong, their business or mine, people get influenced by what they view. So where to stop it ?"


You: Straight off the bat this pulls you off the fence. If you're calling for more strict censoring of video games then it's pretty clear which side you're swinging for.


Me: How is this taking a side in a debate. I never have called for more or less or the same level of censorship on games in this thread.

People DO indeed get influenced willingly or unwillingly by what they view - especially in the case of repeatedly viewing something.

Theres an entire marketing and advertising industry built around it.
Thats a fact and Im presenting it as only that - not a moral argument. A practical fact.


You:
This next part is where you kinda catch yourself out. I've put the main parts in bold to highlight the lack of consistency. You start by saying;

"Should we HAVE to pander to the nutters - NO
But SHOULD we - Id say after a point 'yes' if its for our own good"


Me: This is where you again make a painfully obvious error.
Its a simple question based on moral reason versus practical reason.

Should we HAVE to -> this indicates a moral question for our society.
SHOULD we -> this indicates a practical question of the consequences for our society.

You (quoting me) :


"We're the ones who may have or not have 1 additional nutter, our choice"

You:
The above sentence gives the impression that you believe we should cater to those in society who are more easily influenced by fictional entertainment mediums. Then, in response to someone saying that the vast majority of gamers don't act out scenes from the games they play, you slip and say;


Me: I believe there will be practical evident results rightly or wrongly. I dont believe we SHOULD HAVE to cater to cater to those people.
I also believe that by changing the level of censorship you shape your own society.


It seems to me that some people are having difficulty separating the moral question from the practical.



You (quoting me).

"I never said they do or that they as people are anyones responsibility other than their own, or that we should cater to the unstable small percentage who will act out.
(no more than we should restrict ourselves to pillow covered 1 litre cars because of boy racers)".


You: So now you don't think we should "pander to the nutters"? I'm confused. And your very next line;


Me: No we shouldn't HAVE to. Might it be in our interest - yes. I think I've made this abundantly clear at this point.



Quote:
What we should let their tiny minds view repeatedly is something to question - because we will, rightly or wrongly, be affected.



You:
The only thing you haven't U-turned on was your very first line. You don't have any side on this debate. You have both sides. Go figure out where you stand and come back to us when you're ready to make some comments you're willing to stand over.

Me:
I haven't U-turned at a single point.
Its your inability to separate a moral question such as

'should I censor, and if so at what point'
from
'what will the effects of the chosen level of censorship be'.


You either call for censorship or you don't.

If you don't then as I said before use your imagination as to what that infers.
If you remain with that conviction go check yourself in, or go have someone whats smart n' stuff done explainify it to you.

If you do call for censorship (which we do) then where is the line drawn. And who gets to say.
What are the practical results of our decisions ? Are modern games moving a bit too far?

- Imho (as anyone with half a brain could have understood from my first point) we've gone beyond the gruesome cartoon violence of pulling off heads or freezing opponents from the third person view, and are now edging towards first person views of more realistic violence. If you go further down that road the consequences will reflect the level of censorship - thats a practical fact no fcking "swinging for a side".