Tolerance and Video Games

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 29 Jul 2004 14:58

I don't support bans on violent video games.

Same argument I made for censorship of cable "humor", that being. . .

I PAID $300 for my PS and forked out $55 for an adult game. I bought access to the morbid, offensive, violent, adult content. I don't need to be censored, and neither does the industry.
There are two steps that involve the exchange of money for goods before any child can gain access to this violent content, the system and the game. I suggest before parents blame violent crimes on games, they take responsibility and quit buying the damn adult games for little billy.

I haven't harmed anyone yet, but take away my methods of frustration relief and I very well may.

I too have been gaming since pong, of course I had the advanced pong that support two players and three different "games".

ninja · Post by **ninja** » 29 Jul 2004 16:27

Yeah thats such bull shit. As has already been said its either kids to young getting there hands on the games (blame the parents buying them or older siblings etc), psychos or ppl looking for excuses for doing that shit. Its the parents that should have raised them to know whats right and wrong. A kid goes out and kills someone because of a game is crap. He/she knows or should know you cant go around doing that.

Man they banned ManHunt in NZ (first game banned here I think) and Gta San andreas is gonna be censored. I pre-ordered the game though and will get the UK uncut version

Not that they really cut much out.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 29 Jul 2004 16:47

I think the alcohol analogy is weak, because video games (while offering an alternate realm of reality) do not interact directly with the body and the mind in an altering manner. (Assuming you were infering an alcoholic beverage by "adult" beverage)

But beyond that I definitely agree with you. Censorship takes away profit from gamers and game companies both. It's an empty publicity stunt.

marc · Post by **marc** » 29 Jul 2004 17:41

OK, here is my input. The kid who killed the 14 year old boy, his parents are to blame. Not the video game, not the movies, not TV, not the internet, his parents. Why ? Because the parents haven't done their job as parents and taught the kid right from wrong. Say the parents had taught the kid right from wrong, and he still killed the 14 year old boy. Well, then, he has a mental disorder, that's all. If it were because of the video game, I think there would have been hundreds and thousands of more deaths.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 29 Jul 2004 17:57

I disagree with that too. You can't blame everything on the parents. Maybe in this case, *MAYBE*. But the media obviously didn't give us any info on how his parents raised him. (I mean, come on, the media is pretty biased against video games nowadays) Besides, at that age, he could have rejected all of the good moral values his parents had instilled in him and then gone and done the same thing, with or without the video game. Why try to blame anyone? Do you think that's going to fix the situation in the future? Each family is an individual case... blaming parents overall does nothing good. If your purpose of blaming parents is to pinpoint who to try to work with on solving a problem, then fine. But if it's just an excuse... or if it turns out to be another moment to preach "Don't ever spank your kids or tell them they're not good at something... make them think they are perfect and build up their self esteem." I'm sorry but that technique sucks. I don't know who to blame, but I don't think it matters. If blaming someone would help fix the problem, then maybe it would help, but I see it only causing new problems. That's just the way I feel.

EDIT: Wow what a horrible ramble. I apologize. I have a lot of stuff on my mind and nothing seems to be working correctly tonight (I shoved a straw in my eye trying to drink a glass of water because I thought there wasn't a straw in it when I picked it up.)

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jul 2004 07:07

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 30 Jul 2004 07:16

FlexThis wrote:I only used the alcohol analogy to make the point that the media and the FCC go around fining and banning things for random one time instances, when alcohol alone does way more damage directly and indirectly (an innocent bystander gets run over by a drunk driver) and where is that ban?

Haha no man I totally agree with that. That's what I was trying to say, in a round about way. I definitely agree that alcoholic beverages would be much higher-up on my ban list than video games.

My point was that I think that adults should be able to define reality while "under the influence" of games, whereas while drunk, it is much more difficult to perform the same task. Make sense?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Jul 2004 12:42

GTA: "Vice City" is the best. Although I recommend NOT getting behind the wheel of an automobile immediately after playing the game for hours.

Politicians blame video games because it's easy, and they are lazy.

They can't confront the true causes of violence, because it may not be PC.

-n

p.s.

When does the new GTA come out?

Where can I get one of those blue, Acapulco shirts that the "hero" of Vice City wears?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Jul 2004 12:54

Also, these games fill a void in military training that our society lacks.

The U.S. army uses games for training and recruitment.

Others across the world are putting their 10-year old boys through obstacle courses, AK-47 maintenance lessons, explosive construction, and practice beheading hostages in front of a camera.

We can't maintain readiness unless our youth knows squad tactics and how to use/maintain weapons.

Games could and should encourage basic firearm safety, when not blowing everything up.

-n

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jul 2004 13:11

lightningbolt · Post by **lightningbolt** » 30 Jul 2004 13:37

Here my two cent:

I think it's bullshit. I am 14 and I play GTA and I would never take out a gun and blow someones head off. Because I know that it's not REAL. That the whole point. I know in the gernal public (and morally) that you can't go around highjacking cars and run over people. People need to take respoablity for teaching their kids morals and stuff that you just can't do.

If, we ban video games, whats next? Britney Spears because she a "sex: smybol? Eminem beacuse he cuss and is voilating little Johnny ears? CSI since people die? Barney because people think he gay? Barbies because the preach a un-healthy body image? Personally, I hate censorship. I think it's fucked up the goverment censor what I "should" see and what is "bad" for me.

As for the 14 year old. I think we are making to much of a rash desicon when we balme the parnets. Like Bigdirtyfoot said, He could have ingored what his parnets tought him. And it not like Manhunt agve him the weapon and showed him blow by blow how to kill his frined.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 30 Jul 2004 13:42

There's a conflict that arises though:

"I'd rather know the truth than be happy." ~Osker (My favorite band.)

A lot of people don't know what the government already censors that is for our "safety," yet would probably agree with it. There is limited access to certain things that the government has access to. The question is, would you rather know the truth or be happy? And I've had the last 4 years thinking about that question, and I still couldn't tell you. For me, it depends on the situation. It is not an all-encompasing concept for me.

I don't think we should be putting 10 year-olds through combat training. That seems mindless and how is fighting for peace any difference than fucking for virginity? However, this only my opinion.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jul 2004 14:30

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 30 Jul 2004 15:36

I think that kid could've most likely done the same thing with the uncensored news.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jul 2004 15:54

Krafty · Post by **Krafty** » 30 Jul 2004 17:43

FlexThis wrote:Or Power Rangers. Those guys are violent as hell.

Hahaha...that's hilarious!

ninja · Post by **ninja** » 30 Jul 2004 22:04

I think they banned power ranges here (for a while) when it originally came out because some moron kid kicked his leg through a window

420FootBager · Post by **420FootBager** » 31 Jul 2004 09:05

The whole thing is rediculess in my opinion. Overall violence among children has significantly decressed. I currently attend high school, I have already spent to years in my school and have seen only two fights one of which was a cat fight. I have seen NO fights in the niegboorhood. As a matter of fact I have stood up to 5 or 6 a-holes my self and each of them backed down before fighting....... Talking too older people it is clear that violence has decreased over the years. There were school yard fights every day when my father was young and even a full scale riot!!

Violence is part or human nature we will never be completly complacent and peaceful and there will always be a few nuts around willing to shoot up the place.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 31 Jul 2004 10:14

No, this game shouldn't be banned. If the kid was so influenced by the game, fuck him. Treat him as an adult and lock him up for murder. Enough pussyfooting around the subject. Lock the kid up and make him an example. Fuck him. Then maybe some parents will see that, "Hey, this game may influence my kid in a bad way... Let's try to find an alternative." But I doubt it... Parents don't parent like they should. Maybe we should do some sort of example on the TV, the almighty babysitter.

Sorry for being bitter here. In cases like this, I say show by example. If the kid still does it, make him an example too.