Most Laws Attempting Limits of Violent Videogames Fail 365
circletimessquare writes "Good news for common sense: the New York Times examines the track record of state laws attempting to put additional limits on violent videogames, and finds that the courts have struck almost all of them down as unconstitutional. Especially notable is this gem of a quote, from Judge Richard A. Posner: 'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be -1 Fucking Obvious, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Though, since he's a justice and it is politics, I guess I'd settle for buying him a beer. Or two beers. Really nice beers, too, maybe one of those eastern European deals with the chocolate and nutmeg in it. Whatever tickled his fancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the reasoning behind modding the GGP redundant. (Though I find it rather harsh, myself.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to disagree because the proper end to this sentence is:
To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images is a decision best left up to parents, not the government.
Note that the good judge has gone on about his opinion of to what children should be exposed to and not to whose rights are what. It's this ki
Tough Love (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Correct-Bedtime
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So why the hypocrisy with respect to pornography and other sexual or erotic descriptions.
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Religious institutions. You're much less likely to get excommunicated from your church for beating your wife vs. cheating on her. I never understood the logic myself. Why are we so much more lenient in censoring violence--an act that inflicts pain and can end human lives vs. sex--acts that bring pleasure and can create human life?
acts that bring pleasure, create human life and.. (Score:2)
violence (physical and otherwise) is an inescapable fact of human existence, as is sex. But I think it's a lot easier for a child to understand the basics of the role violence has in our society, versus a child understanding the more complex role of sex in our society. baby steps please.
I do hope that by the time a kid is 12 or so she/he has a healthy understanding of both violence and sex, and hopefully not by personal experience. Violence
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Funny)
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass: sex
Beauty and the Beast: sex
Cinderella: sex, nudity
Little red riding hood: bestiality
The list goes on and on.
Whoah whoah whoah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and while you're still vomiting, check out Tokyo Akazukin [blahsoft.com] for a depraved twist on an old classic.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Messed up, but a valid cautionary story as mentioned in other comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
kids experiment with their own bodies and their peers at a very early age. our society deems it wrong to allow these practices to go one until the child is old enough to understand what consequences sex entails. (which is a pretty logical stand on the issue, really)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not aware of, or interested in, intercourse perhaps, but they do tend to be quite interested in the difference between girls and boys, particularly the ones with siblings. And that, my friend, is still a form of sexual interest, even if not exactly what you mean by "interested in sex".
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's easy for a child to understand that pulling people out of a car and blowing their brains out in Grand Theft Auto means your character is the "Bad Guy". It's quite different for a child to understand why two men and a golden retriever are having sex, even if a child understands what sex is.
I think every video game, comic book, tv show, movie, etc that a kid would be interested in (ie, not bored to tears) has a pretty stark contrast between Good Guys and Bad Guys. Even if it's something like GTA where you have Bads Guys and Worse Guys. Comics, WWF, etc have been going in the direction of dark heros and even bad-is-good.
I always liked episodes of GI Joe where the Joes had to cooperate with Cobra to achieve some common goal. You still knew Cobra was the Bad Guys, but you respected them more for not being mindless in their badness. Although sometimes episodes like that leaves a young child with a lot of questions, but I would assume that he's going to ask someone older about it eventually. (I'm off on a tangent now)
The roles of sex between lovers is perhaps out of the grasp of the younger audience, and the role between carnality and perversion is way beyond the understanding of all but the most mature audience. If children watch porn, especially the hardcore stuff, they are not going to be able to make sense of it. They will eventually try to fit it into their world view, and likely get the facts wrong. I can only hope they would not end up too warped as they got older. Violence on the other hand seems to make sense to kids, because they see and practice violence often in their daily lives. And are taught lessons about violence by their parents regularly (don't hit, don't throw things, etc).
There are a very limited amount of things that a child really needs to know about sexuality. either taught or learned on their own through experience or observation. Mostly it has to do with roles and rules in society. Don't show your privates to other kids. don't touch others. tell an adult if someone touches you. boys are different than girls. and even things such as boys and girls become men and women, and men and women can make babies. (being vague about the mechanism is fine). Even roles between couples seems to make sense to kids. like boyfriend/girlfriend. even if they don't understand the purpose or what goes on between them or what "love(passionate)" is all about.
I think the fear is that children almost always understand that games like GTA are fantasy, that it is not "normal" to go around murdering people. I believe this is because children have experience with violence, and understand what a normal amount of violence is. If a kid is playing a game, playing "make believe", seeing a cartoon/film or hearing/reading a story, a child is going to have to decide if it is "pretend" or if it is real. Harry Potter is live action (and i think zapping people with spells is violent), with convincing special effects, but all but a few children realize that it is a work of fiction. remember, there is a dramatic difference between a child who prefers to act out "make believe" fantasies, and a child that does not know the difference between fantasy and reality.
But a kid doesn't not have experience with intercourse, so pornography, which is almost 100% fantasy. may not be recognized as fantasy by a child. A child might not realize that two guys banging a woman with giant breast implants is not "normal". And that it represents a mature fantasy, and that the entire image/film is staged precisely to depict a fantasy for the viewer.
There is nothing wrong with sex, intercourse, and sexuality. But I think many of us question the ability of a child to distinguish between sexual fantasy and sexual reality. Therefor I disagree that it is hypocrisy to restrict the flow of adult sexual content, while allowing children to be exposed to violence. (of course there are limits to this too, I don't think I would show a 1st grader Hellraiser or anything like that)
Re: (Score:2)
-Hans Reiser, respected linux kernel hacker
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The judge is right violence is part of man and children and culture.
The legislatures are right that society has a responsibility to protect it's children
from what is likely harmful to them at given stages of development.
The problem the judge has is that there is nothing wrong with protecting children from almost all violent imagery up till the age of 18.
The problem the legislatures have is that it is a PARENTS responsibility to _SPEND
Jack Thompson...... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Judge Posner can't take your call, Mr. Thompson. He's playing the leaked copy of Manhunt 2."
Re:Jack Thompson......Quixotic! (Score:5, Insightful)
which is a flat-out perfect description of Jack Thompson:
Re: (Score:2)
Then, I want to sit in the court room and try not to laugh each time he, or anyone else says the title....
Yet they keep trying (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the balance of power between the legislators and the judges requires that there is no penalty. The congressmen represent us : they discuss the issue, do their best to make up their mind and vote. They should not be punished for being wrong. No more than you and I should be punished for voting for the 'wrong' candidate on election day.
Re:Yet they keep trying (Score:4, Interesting)
Penalty???
You are kidding.
People don't want non-foolish politicians or lawmakers; they want people in power that they can feel superior to. How do you think George W Bush got in power in the first place?
People don't want to feel inferior! So they vote for the idiots!
Duh!
Re: (Score:2)
you're thinking about it the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
no. all around you, every day, is someone, somwhere, in some form or another, thinking it is a good idea to limit your freedoms. in fact, the worst sort of enemy are those who do this, thinking they are actually helping you (as many of the well-meaning but deluded legislators intend)
so when a little ray of light, like this story of universal failure on the front of limiting violent videogames breaks, then you should celebrate. don't be despondent
you'll need to celebrate. because tomorrow is another day, and tomorrow, some well-meaning but stupid legislator will cry "think of the children!" yet again. and again. and again
and you must go to battle yet again to protect your freedom. it's never easy. it's never over
and that's another important point: the people who pass these laws are not the minions of emperor palpatine, establishing the beachhead for the rise of fascism across the globe. they are in fact mostly well-meaning people, but are just deluded on the facts. you have to know your enemy to defeat him, and to give in to paranoid fantasies about evil operators of the illuminati finessing and manipulating the system in service of some dark agenda: no, you've been watching to many bad hollywood movies. don't attribute to evil that which is obviously the work of stupidity. and even worse, WELL MEANING stupidity. their heart is in the right place, but their mind is it. when we cry "won't somebody think of the children!" it's a simpson's punchline, and we all laugh. but for some people, "won't somebody think of the children!" is an earnest heartfelt honest to goodness cry of desperation and call to arms to fight to protect children
from what? well i'm not going to argue their stupidity here. that's not my point here. my point here is to simply demonstrate to you that the fight is not easy, and it's not a fight against evil. it's a fight against stupidity. and the fight never ends, and the fight is never easy
know the REAL nature of your enemy, roll up your sleeves, and get to work. it's the price you pay for your freedom: constant vigilance. the fight is never easy, the fight is never over
Re: (Score:2)
you suffer from the problem i described (Score:2)
"those people" are mostly isolated stupid fools
sure, it's not as sexy as the plotlines of most hollywood movies, but my understanding as opposed to your understanding has the useful side benefit of being reality
and if you are going to beat your enemy, you have to know the true nature of your enemy
you don't
Re: (Score:2)
jack thompson is a lunatic (Score:2)
so he is a dangerous lunatic
and so i hope in your mocking words above you weren't dismissing him from your concern
It's part of the "culture war" (Score:2)
It's worse than that. In Posner's words they're deliberately ATTEMPTING to "deform" the children and "leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."
It's part of the "culture war". A conscious (if misguided) attempt by the "progressives" to raise non-violent children by insulating them from knowledge of violence and too
Thank you very much (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No 'arguably' about it. Certainly in older versions, the witch only caught on to what Rapunzel had been up to once the naive young girl asked something along the lines of 'why don't my clothes fit right any more?' Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship priorities are in this order (in North America anyways):
1) Nudity
2) Language
3) Violence
That's right, it's worse for a kid to see a breast, than it is to hear the word fuck, than it is to see a violent murder. Ratings systems allow children access to #3 much sooner than #2, and then finally #1 once you're an adult.
Scary system where we'd rather our children see murders than hear words or see other people as they are born.
But this is the choir here, I do realize th
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh... They will hear you and starve my 2 month old while making her listen to eminem.
Re:Thank you very much (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about sex? I'm not talking love, I'm talking pure, lustful, sex. What about double, or even triple penetration? What about people having sex with animals? We're all just animals anyway, right? And so what if that woman wants a combined three feet of throbbing man love in her? I mean, she's got that Right, to choose to do that, hasn't she? How about gay sex?
While I agree that the nude body is nothing to be ashamed of or censor, and I understand that you didn't say you think I should turn to a public channel and be able to see a gang-bang in progress, I think we must draw the line somewhere as a society.
Is that line drawn at soft-core pornography? Or before? Is it drawn whenever the nudity is involved in a sexual act? What if it is just posing in a sexy way?
I'm genuinely curious what you think about this.
Re:Thank you very much (Score:5, Insightful)
And here's another thing to remember, kids have about as much trouble finding porn as they do finding booze; which is to say they don't have much trouble at all. It would be better to expect kids are going to see nasty things, and to give them some bearings early on so that they are prepared. In North America, we're a pack of cowardly prudes, so afraid of talking about sex that the best we can do is to have somebody come into the classroom and answer all the awkward but important questions the kids have. Even there, paranoid uber-Christian types (you know, the ones that want to cover up Justice and Liberty) won't let their kids near that, so their kids are completely ignorant of the nuances of human sexuality.
I'll tell you what is perverse. It's our stick-in-the-mud, Fundie-paranoia anti-sex culture which makes the more twisted forms of pornography so desirable. By creating this taboo around human sexuality, we have produced a schizophrenic, fetishistic society.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, consider this - the man-on-man rape scene in Pulp Fiction is OK on public TV (I know, because I've seen it there), because they didn't actually show any nudity. That's the problem with "drawing the line" - the actual line you're looking for is impossible to draw. That's why we have the irrational censorship laws that we have today - we censor the few things we can actually define fairly specifically. OTOH, while Pulp Fiction is perfectly legal to show, you'll probably see in on TBS after 8:00 PM, n
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, allowing government to continually tighten the noose around our necks, to allow them to censor more and more, and eventually to allow the extinction of free speech, is the direction we're going, and I can say confidently that this is much worse than a child seeing pornography of ANY kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that the nude body is nothing to be ashamed of or censor, and I understand that you didn't say you think I should turn to a public channel and be able to see a gang-bang in progress, I think we must draw the line somewhere as a society.
Why? Drawing a line is such an difficult and imperfect process, how about we just decide that changing the channel to another one is sufficient?
Just because extreme-porn is there doesn't mean you or anyone else must watch it. After all, its been about a decade since the introduction of the v-chip, it isn't like the tools to avoid extreme-porn are some theoretical voodoo magic, almost ever tv in use today has got the tools built in.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we must draw the line somewhere as a society.
Yes, and it's an arbitrary line.
Why sex? Why not, say, eating? Quite a lot of people have eating habits that are more disgusting than at least most porn.
Or why is it borderline-acceptable if a man whips out his piece to piss, but not to jerk off?
We can kiss in public, but not fuck. Some cultures on this earth don't tolerate public kissing.
Why is the male upper body ok, and the female not? While we're at it, I personally think hairy fat bellies to be a much worse sight than nice breasts.
Speaking of which, w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole point of the post was where should the line be drawn. To end the discussion over a perceived slight is ridiculous.
Besides, IF the poster does view gay sex as more offensive than everything else and you disagree, shouldn't you argue that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe a nice chianti and some fava beans
Re:Thank you very much (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps violent video games are the solution (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a graph that's been floating around that tracks violent crime rates and maps them against the release dates of various "watershed" violent video games. While correlation does not equal causation, it's certainly intriguing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. ~Gregg Easterbrook
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth. ~Author Unknown
He uses
More complaints. (Score:2)
I don't trust that graph one jot -- and no-one else on /. should either: Mortal Kombat is older than Doom, and every geek knows it.
HAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watcha talking 'bout Willis? This, [disastercenter.com] says murders in the USA peaked in 1993 at 24,530 and then has been on the decline ever since. (Along with almost every other Stat.)
Although waiting 5 days to buy a gun usually rules them out as last minute stocking fillers for the family at Christmas time.
Re: (Score:2)
1994 (the first year of the big drop) was also the year that the move to shall-issue CCW [wikipedia.org] ({permit for} Concealed Carry of Weapons) took a big jump forward, with a number of states passing such laws and a large number of potential victims starting to carry guns legally.
Push for a constitutional amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were smart enough to think ahead to precisely this kind of self-servering demagoguery and put in some rather difficult amendment formulas to stave off most of the frivilous demands for altering the Constitution. If they couldn't get a gay marriage ban amendment through, what makes you think they cou
Re: (Score:2)
The segment of "VIOLENCE BAD: THINK OF THE CHILDREN" plus the segment of "dont really give a shit but sounds like a good idea" would could end up a solid majority, as opposed to the case of "We dont want to be seen as stupid bigots" versus "We are stupid bigots".
Especially given enough hype.
Just too bad the the subjects themselves had to go and fuck up the experiment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
should read "laws against fail" (Score:2, Interesting)
Laws which ignore the reality that a given banned activity/item/passtime has widespread public popularity always fail.
What's really scary though is no government since the 30's has had the guts to stand up, admit they were wrong, and repeal such a law.
Prohibition failed.
Drug laws have failed.
anti-downloading laws have failed.
speeding and racing laws are and always have been in a continued state of failure.
Laws prohibiting X age group from obtaining Y product are ret
Denizens of hell, break out your winter coats... (Score:3)
This has got to be the most insightful and intelligent thing I've ever heard a person of political or judiciary status say.
Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible. Some parents give their child birthday money or allowance or whatever and let them buy whatever they want. This child that plays Postal2 who thinks that whacking people with a shovel is OK, is not going to beat himself up. He's going to go after my child! Now I can't stop this kid from playing Postal2, and I wouldn't if I could, but I would like to at least know that his parents are aware of what he is playing. I like the idea that the parents have to go to the store with their kid and see what game they are purchasing. I would hope that they would ask their kid, "Johnny? Why do I have to show ID for you to have this game?" If the parent still wants to buy it, great! That's their choice. They are mature enough to make it. A 10-yr old child is not!
Of course, these laws do not prevent any adult from purchasing these games. And when I say violent video games, I'm not talking about Mortal Kombat. I don't care about impossible, cartoon violence. No kid is going to do the Sub-Zero kill move on my daughter! I'm talking about Postal2 and games that are violent for the purpose of being violent. Games where the point is violence over game play.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That child has a severe problem in distinguishing fiction from fact, she should be under the care of a psychologist, perhaps confined to a mental hospital. What if this child reads the Bible and starts thinking it's OK for a teenage girl to become pregnant by her father, as in Genesis 19,33?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, I don't care about Mortal Kombat. Impossible cartoon violence doesn't bother me. As to horror movies, those get rated R. I don't know of a theater that will let a 10-yr old in to see Hostel without a parent. Theaters are pretty good about self regulating. Game Sto
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You mean that all those studies that show that children of wife beaters are more likely to grow up to be wife beaters were wrong?
TFA made the comparison that it's similar to prohibiting minors for buying cigarettes. Prohibiting minors from buying cigarettes makes sense because cigarettes have been proven to be detrimental to one's health. But lacking evidence of negative effects of
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You mean that all those studies that show that children of wife beaters are more likely to grow up to be wife beaters were wrong?
Hmmm . . . so you think that the GP quote questioning the causal relashionship between video game violence and real-life violence is somehow ignoring a proven causal relationship between real-life violence and real-life violence? I'd like to hear (or
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think a five-year-old can tell the difference between video-game violence and real-life violence? Kids pick up and repeat words that they hear, do you think actions are somehow different? Have you ever seen two ten
Re: (Score:2)
None of which showed people getting hurt, per se.
There have been plenty of studies - mainly on suicide rates - which show that people have a very strong fiction vs. reality filter. Fiction does not affect you. Reality can make some people want to mimic it - it gives them permission.
WWF and Jackass blur
Re: (Score:2)
There have been plenty of studies - mainly on suicide rates - which show that people have a very strong fiction vs. reality filter. Fiction does not affect you. Reality can make some people want to mimic it - it gives them permission.
A 13-yr-old? Sure. No problem telling the difference between reality and fiction. A 5-yr-old telling the difference between Mario or Mortal Kombat and real life? Again, no problem. However, games of today look and "feel" muc
Getting old. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Insightful)
Hurrah! I've been saying for years that the obsession with nerf-coating the world was a Bad Thing. The best way for the masses to learn due caution is for a few to serve as a negative example, not to round every corner and pad every edge.
This is true psychologically, too. Sex and violence is part of the human creature. Pretending it's not "for the children", the children who will eventually inherit this mess, does a disservice to us all for exactly the reason stated - they will be unequipped when it's their turn. Nevermind the bozos making these stupid laws - find me one among them who didn't flip through a playboy and play cops and robbers as a child him/herself. These things are desirable, perhaps even required, for a well-balanced adult to form. We all grew up watching GIJoe shoot at everybody and Sam Malone hit on everything in a skirt. We had monkeybars on asphalt, BB guns, steel sliding boards with exposed bolts and pinch points. We never had those ridiculous bike helmets and elbow pads. There were scuffed elbows and scraped knees, maybe even a broken arm or two, but seriously, how many of the kids you went to school with were maimed or killed on the playground?
So go, kids, run and play! Climb trees. Jump from the swingsets. Play dodgeball. Play doctor. Explore the world around you, it belongs to you, too, after all.
Off with their helmets! Lawn darts for everybody! Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
It's because the laws ARE unconstitutional. (Score:2)
Instead a solid law that someone wants to pass should focus on the retail clerks, but most of the laws being passed around target the producer and
new plan (Score:3, Interesting)
Just have to make sure that Romeo and/or Juliet die before they...well we can't go there can we
Meanwhile back to adding the Big Bad Wolf mod to my architectural drafting program...at least that one is still safe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps we should be banning the Bible from childrens' hands, with its incest, murder, mass-murder and degradation of humans, it's surely every bit as repugnant as some of the video games that are out there.
Think of the children! Stop Shakespeare! (Score:2)
Ok, now, have you understood it? Teh horrorz! Crime, murder, schemes and machinations, teenagers driven to insanity (Hamlet) or to suicide (Romeo and Juliet), and don't get me started on MacBeth and the themes of witchcraft, plotting for a coup d'etat and mass murder!
Save our children! Ban Shakespeare!
Why should games be any different than movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
My six-year-old daughter asked me recently about what the police do to bad guys that they catch, and what to the bad guys do to get in trouble. Knowing that it wouldn't show her anything too bad, I turned on 'Cops' and let her watch an episode of that. I told her that it seems that is probably more of what police officers have to deal with, but of course there are days where the bad people are "a lot badder". She seemed to understand, and immediately asked if that's why they carry guns. She then made a comment about some of the games that she has seen me play, and asked me if I have ever shot anyone. I replied no, I've never even pointed a gun at anyone. She replied again with "I've seen you shoot people in the games that you play, but I know that's not real, so its a lot different than doing it for real."
As bad as it sounds, she even cheered me one while watching me play Resident Evil 4 on my Wii. (Silent kid, I didn't hear her sneak up behind me) and she also was able to discern what is real and what is not.
People are saying that games with excessive violence shouldn't be able to be sold to minors. As much as I hate censorship and govermental control, I think there is some merit to this. I wouldn't want my daughter when she is 11 or something to be able to go buy some movie like "The Hills Have Eyes" without me knowing, and I'd feel the same way about video games. Until I know for sure that she can handle things, I will continue to prescreen what she watches and what she plays, but as a parent I feel it is MY choice, not the government's.
Re:Violent Video Game Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Well fuck Jesus and God, bring on the tranny porn and show images of Jesus getting shit on. Amen brother, and pass the Bible so I can urinate on it!
Now, it's quite possible I'm going to get modded down, but that's fine, as this is a private site. But neither you, the Reverend Billy Graham or even God Almighty have any right in a free country that honors liberty telling me what I can say, or what movies I can watch or what video games I play. You are perfectly free to not partake of it, and keep it out of the hands of your children, but what you aren't free to do is to shove your standards on other people.
Re: (Score:2)
As to civilized discourse, there's nothing civilized about trying to force your own beliefs on to other people. The Founding Fathers knew that. They knew of the kind of religious demagogue who would invoke God at every turn to bypass ha
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of any of that, I don't have to believe in your god. I have the right not only to not believe in it, but to mock it, ignore it's alleged proclamations and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People have long had a fixation with death, and with the means by which it can be accomplished. It's hardly new, nor is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Romans used to dig going to the arena and watching the bloodsports, often involving the killing of animals. Now we can sit here and pass judgement on them [...], but the fact is that Rome flourished as a society even with this [...].
Rome flourished as an imperial power because of this. By dehumanising their enemies, making the the torture of their prisoners into a form of communal entertainment, they made the population complicit in the brutal regime that they imposed on conquered lands. In the amphithea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Boxing your siblings in the ears is violence too, does playing GTA make you more likely to beat your brother with a stick? because I watched so many of my friends do just that back when the Colecovision was the best video game technology. You could argue it was because WWF was big back then, but I suspect if you go back before WWF you'd hear the same old stories of violence between kids. (just a guess)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hey are immersive. They compel the gamer to become better, more effective, at completing the game's objectives. If those objectives are relentlessly violent, they what you have on your hands is a simulator that's explicitly designed to strengthen violent antisocial tendencies in the playing audience.
To be a simulator you have to actually simulate an activity. I shoot handguns competitively and can tell you with much certainty that games will not make people better shooters. Ever. Never ever. The behavior rewarded in videogames is tactically unsound and will get you killed if you tried to apply those theories in a real firefight. Factor in adrenalin in real life and you have some pretty bad shooting.
AS far as physical violence goes, you have to quit believing what you see in video games and movies and