China Bans Games That "Glorify Gangsters' Lives" 172
As we discussed in June, China has been working on plans to impose further restrictions on the games that can be sold or publicized within its borders. The Chinese government has now begun implementing those plans, starting with games that involve gangs, saying, "These games encourage people to deceive, loot and kill, and glorify gangsters' lives. It has a bad influence on youngsters." According to a Xinhua news agency, "The ministry ordered its law enforcement bodies to step up oversight and harshly punish those sites that continue to run such games."
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Get off of my fucking lawn.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice way to be completely off-topic. You're criticizing hip-hop, not criminals. Gangsters aren't limited to inner city black youths who wear stockings on their head under a baseball cap, it's any criminal who's in the gang. Some of them even wear suits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gangsters aren't limited to inner city black youths who wear stockings on their head under a baseball cap, it's any criminal who's in the gang. Some of them even wear suits.
Some of them even carry badges.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Troll please, read this Wikipedia entry for gangster [wikipedia.org], tell me whether you see the likes of Bugsy Siegel or of 50 Cent, then STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you hold that view about movies, books, music, and TV Shows that portray gangesters and other such characters in any way, as well?
It's people like you who not only are unable to determine the difference between reality and fiction, but assume that others are similarly impaired and must be 'protected', that are truly the most monsterous threats to real human freedoms.
You disgust me.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you hold that view about movies, books, music, and TV Shows that portray gangesters and other such characters in any way, as well?
No.
It's people like you who not only are unable to determine the difference between reality and fiction, but assume that others are similarly impaired and must be 'protected', that are truly the most monsterous threats to real human freedoms.
Wat?
You disgust me.
Sry D:
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's what most teenagers aspire to. It takes guts to admit that the pretty world view you were raised with just doesn't cut it in the real world, and that you're completely lost. So instead, most teenagers get angry, act like they know everything, lash out, break stuff, smoke chemicals and pretend they think it's a good thing, etc.
Eventually, if they're luc
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, what about us adults who are angry about the state of the world, act like they know everything, smoke chemicals and think it's good thing etc?
I mean, just because I can make it in the world doesn't mean I have to like the reality I see and the dumb apes that inhabit it, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
See the part about maturing and opening your heart. That means you should start to feel some compassion for the dumb apes ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Only pity and exasperation so far I'm afraid. I'd feel compassion if they were less determined to screw themselves and everyone else over.
Glorifying loot and kills (Score:2)
Small Potatoes (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure this will be downmodded by Chinese nationalist trolls, but what the heck -- I'd complain about the injustice of this, but given that China is run by an unelected, authoritarian government, I'd say they have bigger problems there. I realize how China's history of fragmentation and turmoil makes many Chinese believe that authoritarian rule is best for China, but the fact remains that other parts of this planet managed to escape turmoil *and* develop without authoritarianism. I can only hope that some day the Chinese people will see the light.
Elections in China (Score:2)
They do have elections in China. Yes they effectively only have one party, but at the lower levels there can be multiple candidates that citizens can vote to be their representatives.
See: http://www.chinaelections.net/about-us.asp [chinaelections.net]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China [wikipedia.org]
I doubt most of the Chinese people really care that there's only one Party.
Maybe after a while the Chinese voters would be voting for two different factions in the One Party, and most American voters who bother
Re: (Score:2)
> It's clear you don't know what you're talking about because this is true in the US as well.
Only two US states allow prisoners to vote.
Do you even understand the meaning of the word "prisoner"? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prisoner [reference.com]
In practice China strips a lot of prisoners of their political rights (in theory they only get stripped of political rights if they committed certain types of crime - which was what I was trying to say).
Quote: "In Shanghai's Qingpu Prison, 723 prisoners out of 2,700
Re: (Score:2)
Puerto Rico has had several opportunities to become a state. Puerto Ricans as a whole seem to be unwilling to pay more money to federal government in exchange for a couple of electoral votes.
Real vs Fake (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?
I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.
And you drew this conclusion about well over a billion people, based on the actions of how many?
This just in: Politicians suck, everywhere!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?
It's not Real vs Fake. It is about cultural values. All those games and movies tell you that the best thing in a world is to make a quick buck and spend it on chicks, alcohol and cool car. And this has bad influence on youngsters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some examples:
Yes, crime sucks and should be fought, but bad politicians are more far more scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Movies also tell you that Superman is real.
I find your lack of abilitiy to discern the difference between real and fake to be troubling. Do you also believe that everything on the internet is real?
Myself, I trust the youngster over someone like you, every single time, no matter what fictional media they view for entertainment.
Re:Real vs Fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok did you miss the last 40 years of Chinese history??
Dear white middle class westerners,
China is not an Asian version of America, the UK or Australia. It is run by a ruthless totalitarian government and said government is not all benevolent smiles, hugs and teddy bears like western governments are. Yes it's hard to believe if you listen to moral relativists in western countries as they bash on their own governments (which *is* a great deal of fun I admit) but there's a reason one doesn't hear the Chinese in China railing against the Chinese government in any meaningful way (and it's not because they're are doing such a bang up job).
Please keep that in mind when reading any Chinese related news.
Re: (Score:2)
It is run by a ruthless totalitarian government and said government is not all benevolent smiles, hugs and teddy bears like western governments are.
The Chinese are working on a different model, but East and West both deny citizens essential rights in the name of control. The difference is that the West hasn't taken up mass state-sponsored organlegging... yet.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have it quite right. China is often said to operate under an arrangement with its citizens where the state leaves them alone provided they don't push into politics and don't threaten society.
It's bad if you want western political liberties. It's not so bad if you keep out of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
So if a Chinese citizen decides to get hold of one of these banned games the government won't care? I beg to differ.
Not having your government owned housing bulldozed and being forcefully relocated to the other side of the country if you wish to keep a roof over your head at the corrupt whim of some autocrat is a pretty basic freedom to have I'd think.
Being forced at gunpoint to work in factories producing western goods for 10 years because you said or committed a minor infraction that personally upset some
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea of modern China is a mix of things that never happened and things that don't happen anymore.
China's government is rather corrupt, and it is full of nepotism (just like China's private industry). The other things you describe are not accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
there's a reason one doesn't hear the Chinese in China railing against the Chinese government
Because it's hard to talk from underneath a tank tread? Did I win?
Re: (Score:2)
You are right.
The Chinese people tend to have a different view of authoritarian governments, just like they have a different view of strict authoritarian fathers and rulers.
As long as things don't start getting really crappier, "Big Daddy" can watch over them and tell them what to do and what not to do.
Perhaps someone should go do proper anonymous surveys to see how satisfied/dissatisfied the Chinese people are with their Government, and also do the same in other
Re: (Score:2)
So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?
I never knew the Chinese thought so very little of themselves.
You know, I agree with your conclusion but I disagree with your reasoning. You've employed the all too often cited strawman [wikipedia.org].
I don't think that the Chinese government has implicated distrust in the discernment of its people. The common person is adequately capable of drawing distinctions between reality and fantasy. However, the Chinese government understands all too well the depravity of humanity. Their reasoning goes along the lines that what you perceive through the senses effects the nature of your psych
Re: (Score:2)
So, the Chinese government has just stated to the world that they are not confident that their people are capable of discerning the difference between things that are real, and things that are not real?
Repeating the same, stupid fallacy over and over may be enough to convince you, but it doesn't make it more true.
Another possible interpretation could be that the majority of the Chinese people want it this way and that the government simply follows their wishes. It is not impossible - even the most oppressiv
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly correct. Chinese culture, whether in not-free mainland or free Hong Kong or Taiwan, do not look highly on gangster culture (which is often glorified in its movies) and are in fact terrified of negative influences on their youth. Think of the groups of think-of-the-children helicopter parents in the U.S. - it's simply magnified tenfold in Chinese (or generally East Asian) communities.
The Chinese government is simply enacting a populist policy. It's hard for Westerners to understand that a good number
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese take virtue ethics very seriously.
Personally, I think that plot in most games is window dressing; it doesn't really seem to matter much. Story plots seem to be a lot more potent than game plots. A story's plot can change the world, be it *Uncle Tom's Cabin*, *Mein Kampf*, or the latest political conspiracy theory of your choice. I doubt we'll ever see a computer game that will have that kind of propaganda power.
I'm not entirely sure why there is a disparity between games and stories, but I t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! The Chinese government has, stupid as they are, chosen to conservatively follow the lead of social psychology textbooks (e.g. David Myers "Social Psychology") about how we get influenced by video games, rather than random posters on Slashdot.
Now, it may be that the textbook in question is wrong (it's a major one in the field, but the only one I've read that cover this particular topic) - but if you're experimenting with a billion people, it is a relatively sane choice to say "We'll remove the freedom
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I knew that when China banned Death Note.
Although in that case, I think it might have been government bureacrats having a hard time distinguishing fantasy from reality!
Good (2) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, cause it worked so well the last time a few Chinese peasants tried to revolt by gumming up the army's tanks' treads with their corpses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cause it worked so well the last time a few Chinese peasants tried to revolt by gumming up the army's tanks' treads with their corpses.
Sort of brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Chinks in the armor" doesn't it?
.
.
.
.
Disclaimer: The word "chink" is in the summary tags - nobody complained/mentioned it yet. If you find it racist then feel free to type some vitriol or mod this down. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't peasants who were massacred at Tiananmen Square, it was students. Many from affluent backgrounds.
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than being stuffed in a concentration camp because you didn't toe the party line, and being force fed through a tube down your nose, and stored in a cell that isn't quite big enough in any dimension for you to stretch out fully, just so you'll eventually break down and sign the document admitting your guilt, so they can finally "legally" execute you.
Like they do in China.
Law as a side-effect of the one-child policy? (Score:2, Interesting)
This law possibly shows that while China isn't a representative democracy, it is being overly influenced by the will of the older generation as a result of the one-child policy. In all societies, those in power (whether that's economical, political and/or other) makes the rules. And these particular laws are possibly meant to appease the older generation, less familiar with computer games (or adversely affected by these laws).
But not only does the older generation have the status/power/money in China (as i
Re: (Score:2)
In particular, it'd be interesting to see the societal effects of the one-child policy both now and as it ends and compare it with the rise of the baby boomer generation post-WII.
Technically, the result of decades of one-child policy is that as long as this policy remains in effect, there will not be a baby-boom generation, unlike the united states and europe where older people of the WW2 generation suddenly found themselves overrun with teenagers who didn't care for Bing Crosby and wanted to see those hippies from Liverpool and the satanic hip gyrations of Elvis Presley. Until the older generation leaves through attrition, the new generation will find themselves hopelessly overnumb
Bullies in the playground (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh* Gorram governments.
When I was a kid, politics was this big boring thing that all the grown ups with moustaches and beards went on and on about.
Now that I'm older, it's a hell of a lot more like a pissing contest, with each country trying to introduce more asinine laws and control each and every moment of their citizens lives. Hell, it's almost like a black comedy.
I'd laugh at the whole thing, but some of the shit that the governments of the world do in our name really scare me. Eventually enough people are going to come to their senses and fight back.
That's it for my rant. Mod me up, mod me down, ignore me, but I felt I had to get my 2c in.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe that the Chinese government, the government of a country about 10 years away from becoming a superpower really gives a shit what anyone else thinks about it?
They don't play inane western "pissing match" games. They just get on with owning half of the worlds factories, governments and natural resources while stepping on the throat of anybody in their population that doesn't like them.
Hell, the US secretary of state has already bowed down to China desperate for China to continue buying
Re: (Score:2)
That's absolutely true. We sold our dominance for next quarter's numbers. We sold it to get money for private economic clubs (commonly called "shareholders"). Their desires trumped both economic and technological security.
.
The clubs haven't done so well lately either. Worse to come, I'm afraid.
Why think for yourself? (Score:2)
When you can have the government think for you? Oh, wait, you don't want me to type that in? You don't want me to type this in either? Then what should I type in?
Organized troublemakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They've had no problems oppressing organized groups of exercisers, organized groups of students, organized groups of monks, even organized groups of athletes.
I think it's the "organized group" part they have the problem with.
It's over for some games (Score:2)
This is terrible news for the upcoming Gangsta Skeleton: Democracy City MMORPG.
China has reached the 1930s! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles" as follows:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Industry guidelines != law
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
TV Tropes [tvtropes.org]
People might get ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
if they consume entertainment that glorifies gansters, e.g. this quote from the 1949 Jimmy Cagney Movie White Heat:
Free to Choose Otherwise Is to my Credit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's to my credit then that I choose not to partake of Guns that glorify criminality. I'm glad I live in a country that has no such wholesale banning of such material, and would hope that people would--of their own free will--avoid such influences on their own. It is a weak mind that has to depend on brutality for entertainment, but I'd rather that the weak minds have that option than to have it mandated otherwise. In a way by banning it, the people themselves never get to build the character to avoid such
Response (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Down with undemocratic Monarchies!
Viva la Mushroom Kingdom Revolution!
Gangsterism is public harassment by individuals (Score:2)
The real problem (Score:2)
The real problem is that nobody can make an offer to China that they can't refuse...they'll just steal your offer and sell the knockoffs for half price.
I agree, to an extent (Score:2)
I mentally compared the character Claude from GTA 3, with Carl Johnson from San Andreas.
To me, Carl wasn't fundamentally a bad guy, but was someone in a number of very bad situations, and was also a product of his environment. He doesn't do anywhere near as many cold-blooded or anonymous assassination missions, and when he is sent on a few, it begins to push him towards a nervous breakdown, because he has a conscience. He is also depicted as one of the only characters in the game who is strongly anti-drug
One other thing about China (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop slamming the Chinese government as thugs and criminals, you hypocrites, when in other articles you turn around and rabidly support Richard Stallman on the other.
You can't have it both ways; Communism either is a bad thing, or it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you've just typified exactly the kind of thinking that's gotten us into this mess.
.
Communism, socialism, capitalism. These aren't booleans. Most western democracies (including us) have mixed systems of capitalist and government sponsored organizations (e.g. the public library, your grandma's social security, food and drug regulatory agencies, rural electrification, the highway system, the military, the monetary system, and so on.)
.
Neither capitalism nor socialism are magic fairies that solve all proble
I'm sorta with them on this one. (Score:2)
Gangsters are dangerous, whether they belong to the crips, bloods, hell's angels, goldman sachs, the white house or a lobbying group.
.
Of course, in the USA, we have the right of free association and free speech. I'm honestly conflicted on this one. I favor these rights at a gut level.
But these rights are killing us too. Slowly. What to do?
"Oh the Horror, the Horror" (Score:2)
Cultural differences (Score:2)
I love seeing people getting worked up over stuff like this. Comments about totalitarian governments and censorship get tossed around and righteous anger runs hot. Well, someone please explain to me how this is any different from the shitstorm in the US over Janet Jackson's tit being shown at the Superbowl. In both cases we the government stepping in and doing something to "protect the children." The FCC came down hard and renewed their fight against "indecency." So while the banning of ganster games se
Confucius would support the Chinese government. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if cigarette taxes are the reason to still allow cigarettes in Sweden, for example. I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.
The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the angry-smokers factor is also a big one.
But that's enought off-topic, baning videogames is pretty stupid and useless.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's enought off-topic, baning videogames is pretty stupid and useless.
I'm all for it. But only if they start showing porn instead of action movies, too.
*BZZZT* Wrong answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, last I've seen an actual study of healthcare costs, the smokers and the obese actually pay for everyone else's healthcare. Yeah, they get sick earlier, but that's actually the point. They die quicker than they'd get to use their contribution to healthcare, and in many cases to the pension fund too.
Smokers get some cancer, get some chemotherapy or radiotherapy for months or a couple of years tops, then they die. End of expense, and it wasn't even the most expensive medication to start with.
They and the obese, occasionally get a heart attack or stroke, a lot just die right there. End of story, no medical expenses.
Etc.
And an obese smoker, now that's someone who really gets shafted out of their contribution to that universal healthcare and is paying a pension contribution for nothing.
The ones who actually cost healthcare a lot more money than they contributed, are those who live until 90 years old, and were on expensive anti-Alzheimer's medication or the like ever since they were 65.
So please spare me the BS pretense that you somehow subsidize those. They're the ones who subsidize you. And it already is a non-existent moral ground to complain about society's money going to them, when really nobody else actually gives them a buck. But it's already surrealistic to complain about paying money for them, when actually it's them paying your medical cares. Have a bit of decency, will ya?
Re: (Score:2)
My father, who is a doctor, says you are plain wrong and that the costs to society from treating these patients is far higher than the tax income. As a layman I cannot judge who is right or wrong, but I urge everyone to take the parent post with a grain of salt or at least a [citation needed].
So, you base that on a personal opinion? (Score:5, Informative)
So, your father is a doctor and somehow he's a bigger authority than those actually paying for those treatments?
The link has already been provided by an AC above, but for whoever can't be arsed to copy and paste into the browser, here it is as actual link http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
To recap, from the article itself:
And that's just the costs. The smokers and the obese are simply cheaper. Even without the other factors, repeat after me, an obese smoker costs less than a thin and healthy person.
It doesn't even yet include the pension contributions (which someone who dies earlier will benefit less from), money given to the government in tobacco taxes and VAT (without smokers, to get the same services from the government you might have to pay more in taxes), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If the costs were the only thing that matter then you would have a valid point. However, amount of work that is contributed by someone should also be taken into account. If a healthy skinny person lives 10 years longer than a smoker, how much does that person contribute to society?
To put it more plainly, a person who costs $417,000 in health care but contributes $200,000 more over the course of their life is more desirable than the smoker who costs $326,000.
Re: (Score:2)
But do they? A lot in the difference in costs is past the retirement age. If you're telling me that someone sitting on his porch yelling at kids to get off his lawn is actually contributing hundreds of thousands to society, I'll have to ask: in what way? Or since a cost that was mentioned were anti-dementia drugs in the old age, how/what do you figure someone with MS or Alzheimer's contributes to society?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing to kill them or anything. But at least let's stop pretending that
Kinda obvious actually (Score:3, Insightful)
In countries where there's a significant health care system (either the NHS style or subsidies), smokers cost less than healthy people (especially when you factor in the tobacco taxes).
The facts are a healthy person WILL eventually die. Go look at the pie chart showing what people die of. You can only adjust the size of the slices in the pie, you cannot avoid the death.
If people live a healthy lifestyle, it's far less
Re: (Score:2)
>The facts are a healthy person WILL eventually die.
You're a quitter, you know that. I, personally, plan on living forever.
Fine so fa9A&%M:JD&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. That makes sense. I thought I had heard of tobacco and alcohol being net losses for Sweden, but maybe I heard wrong or was lied to. Thanks for correcting me.
"So please spare me the BS pretense that you somehow subsidize those."
There's no BS pretense here. I just said what I heard. I didn't mean to imply anything. I'm a smoker who lives off wellfare. I have nothing against "lower class leeches" such as myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I must apologize in any case. My tone was out of line and the assumption was unwarranted.
It's just that I've heard the "I can tell them to stop because it's my money" argument before, about everything from smoking to abortions, that I am a bit irked by it by now.
But of course it doesn't justify my lashing out at innocents. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, light smoker here.
Smokers pay 11 billion pounds a year in taxes in the UK. They cost the health service around 5 billion. We're subsidising you to the tune of 6 billion pounds a year.
STFU now.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you provide your sources for that statement? I have always been told it was the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Tobacco revenues in excise duty and VAT
BBC article from last year quoting a cost of around 3 billion to the NHS from a study by ASH, the anti-smoking group
BBC article from last month claiming the figure had been underestimated previously and is now 5 billion [bbc.co.uk]
There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension et
Re: (Score:2)
Screwed up my tags in that last one, let's try this again:
Tobacco revenues in excise duty and VAT [the-tma.org.uk]
BBC article from last year quoting a cost of around 3 billion to the NHS from a study by ASH, the anti-smoking group [bbc.co.uk]
BBC article from last month claiming the figure had been underestimated previously and is now 5 billion [bbc.co.uk]
There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack th
Re: (Score:2)
Very well, these figures are rather convincing, at least for the UK. Thank you for clearing this up.
In the future I would recommend to add these sources to the post immediately with all of these benefits:
1) Higher karma for you
2) Better accessible information for everyone (esp. because of point 1)
3) Saves space of slashdot, because we don't need to argue back and forth
But you most likely figured that out already :)
PS: I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing. And sorry for everyone elses post which I
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't bother to post my references originally because these are pretty widely known facts, at least in the UK. It only really seems to be the USA where there is this phobia of "paying for the other guy" where the myth continues and is often used to back up the "keep medicine private" argument.
I realise I'm making a big assumption about your nationality here.
Also, I've never really bothered about karma here on /.
Re: (Score:2)
My nationality is actually danish, nevertheless I had never heard of these sort of numbers being published before (and so easily comparable). Not that I didn't think these numbers could be found, I just never happened to find them myself.
Re: (Score:2)
You're imagining wrong: As smokers are often to die earlier than non-smokers (heart diseases, cancer, less lung capacity), the costs at the last stage of someone's life are less. In a typical universal-healthcare-system, the last stages of someone's life is where the most costs are incurred.
So smoking actually -saves- money there.
Sorry, I can't be arsed to Google the (Dutch) research that ha
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if cigarette taxes are the reason to still allow cigarettes in Sweden, for example. I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.
The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.
People who smoke tend to die earlier but after retirement. That is exactly (financially) when the government+healthcare wants you to die. I'm not a smoker, but I actually believe that banning smoking would cause the average cost/person of health care to rise as people live longer and incur more TOTAL costs. Do I have facts and figures no, but we're just talking here right?
Re: (Score:2)
In hopes that one of those cigarettes will kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that these sorts of games "kill you", "kill other people" and are "genocide machines"? Aside from your moronic argument that harmful things ought to be against the law (McDonalds, anyone?), what are you trying to prove here? Th
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? Total logic fail. Why is it hypocritical to say that something is bad and then not make it against the law? Is it hypocritical for the government to tell us that we need to eat better without outlawing McDonalds a
Re: (Score:2)
Nice -- logic fail and grammar fail, all in one short comment!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarettes are consumed by everyone, particularly the powerful. Video games are played by a few, particularly the young.
If they government bans cigarettes, they become the enemy. If the government bans video games, they will be seen by most as a protector.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so don't call it "genocide". What do you call something that is deliberately pushed that is known to kill hundreds of thousands of a given species every year?
And when major tobacco exporting country `US` threatens major auto export country `JP` that if `JP` takes steps to reduce their tobacco consumption, then `US` will retaliate by limiting the import of cars from `JP`, knowing that this will cause the premature death of hundreds of thousands of `JP` citizens, I'd call that genocide. If it's for greed
Re: (Score:2)