The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: JonoPorter on November 09, 2005, 11:53:05 am



Title: violent computer games
Post by: JonoPorter on November 09, 2005, 11:53:05 am
I’ve been thinking about computer games and the criminal action that are committed in them. Though I don’t blame violent computer games as the sole reason for violence in children it is certainly a factor. Children are highly suggestible (monkey see monkey do) when they see a action performed by a person (virtual or otherwise) they automatically assume it’s an acceptable action unless informed otherwise.  The problem in the 2 sides of this argument is that one side wants to eliminate computer games all together as a result, while the other side wants more and more detailed Gore. I have a compromise that both sides will hate, which I’m told is a sign of a good compromise.

The basic idea is to inform them that criminal actions are a bad thing.
The rough design of the law is as such:

   In a computer games if a character performs an action that would be illegal in real life the player must be informed that the action would be illegal in real life. The message would pop up stating the name of the crime the average sentence for the crime and other thing to drive the fact home. The game must also verify that the player understand the statement before game play can resume. 

The idea is that the sudden interruption of game play would drive home that there are real consequences to action in real life.

Of course there has to be some kind of limit on what laws it tells you about.

A few examples would be stupid are:
In a driving game you drive on double yellow lines “warning you have driven on double yellow lines this illegal, possible punitive measures that would result in real life are a fine and suspension of drivers license”

Another is in a RPG you kill a dear.
“warning you have killed a dear without a license and out of hunting season  this illegal, possible punitive measures that would result in real life are fines.


Good examples are like:
“Warning you have just committed murder in cold blood, this is illegal, possible punitive measures that would result in real life are execution, life in prison, prison time, and so on. Also the person you killed would never come back."
 


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Novus on November 09, 2005, 12:43:28 pm
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler (not to mention more realistic and more fitting to gameplay) to depict the effects ingame? Kill someone in the game, cops start chasing you around, catch you, court decides you should be locked up for life. Game over. The Grand Theft Auto series does this, although it is watered down by having the cops let you go after some money changes hands (and the police's odd lack of tenacity in tracking down criminals).

Besides, what's wrong with the traditional idea of keeping impressionable young kids away from violent games in the first place?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Deus Siddis on November 09, 2005, 04:34:20 pm
This is crazy, what happens when you're playing a game in another universe/time?

"Warning, if this was in real life, on earth of the sol system, in the united states, in the present, you could be charged with murder for extracting someone's soul (and thus subsequently killing them) using a soul sucker (or any similar device), assuming that such a thing was possible, and it could be proven in the court of law."

"Warning, you have shot a Tyranosaurus Rex, which in this game numbers in the hundreds, and thus have killed an endangered species. If this was in real life (and Tyranosaurs were endangered, not extict) you could suffer serious legal penalties."

"Warning, you have just hijacked a tank and are driving it on a city street. Not only is it illegal for civilians to hijack or drive military property on government roadways, but your character was seen drinking heavily in a previous cut-scene and you are now considered driving under the influence, which would have serious consequences in reality. By the way, while you were reading this message, the villian you were fighting killed you and used a nuclear device to completely level the city who's laws you just broke."


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 10, 2005, 07:27:55 am
Uh I disagree.

All games violent should be supervised by parents and should be taught to be wrong by thier parents.Either that or the parent should not allow thier child to play the game.Its not the games fault that the parents dont teach thier kids right from wrong.

Heck i wasnt allowed to watch Batman till i was 12 (and this was the animated series).Even with my parents constantly talkin to me about that stuff.

Thiers a reason GOD gave us parents.Parents were put here to teach us.I dont even believe in much use of Public schools.I understand that some parents need to send thier kids to school cause they cant teach.Example:A single parent needs to go to work,so they cant teach thier kid full time.But they should still talk to thier kids when they both home, bout what the kid learned.

Oh and i talk so strongly about parent involvement cause im Home Schooled.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on November 10, 2005, 12:27:57 pm
Thiers a reason GOD gave us parents...

Urgh... Kindly keep your god out of this, if you will.
But overall I agree. If a kid can't tell right from wrong, no amount of silly warnings will help.
If a kid can tell right from wrong, he doesn't need those silly warnings in the first place, does he?
Where the hell do people get the idea, that it's the job of game developers, movie directors and other artists to look after YOUR children? If you don't have enough time to explain such basic things, then you shouldn't have children, it's as simple as that.

I agree with Novus, the only reasonable thing to do this, is to have in game actions have in game consequences. Much more fun, much more realistic. Not to mention, your idea, BioSlayer, would promote violence via frustration. If I had to read a warning everytime I did someting wrong in a game, I'd become so frustrated after few hours of playing that I'd murder every single solitary developer that had anything to do with implementing this "feature".


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 10, 2005, 03:11:28 pm
Amen. If the kid (or adult for that matter) can't figur eout right
from wrong, they shouldn't be using a computer to begin with.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: meep-eep on November 10, 2005, 03:41:12 pm
If a kid can't tell right from wrong, no amount of silly warnings will help.
If a kid can tell right from wrong, he doesn't need those silly warnings in the first place, does he?
Where the hell do people get the idea, that it's the job of game developers, movie directors and other artists to look after YOUR children? If you don't have enough time to explain such basic things, then you shouldn't have children, it's as simple as that.
Only... the fact is that lots of parents who shouldn't have kids do have kids. And can you really count on schools and tv and friends to teach them what they missed? In the USA? I'm not in favour of making the gameplay annoying to teach some kids while patronising the rest, but I'm not so sure anymore that strictly enforced sale restrictions are really such a bad idea. The parent can always decide that the child is prepared for the material and buy the game for him/her.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Lucky on November 10, 2005, 04:08:31 pm
In a computer games if a character performs an action that would be illegal in real life the player must be informed that the action would be illegal in real life. The message would pop up stating the name of the crime the average sentence for the crime and other thing to drive the fact home. The game must also verify that the player understand the statement before game play can resume. 

The idea is that the sudden interruption of game play would drive home that there are real consequences to action in real life.

GTA would be quite impossible to play then. And as D_S pointed out, playing sci-fi such as Star Control would give some freaky warnings.

Quote
Only... the fact is that lots of parents who shouldn't have kids do have kids.

True, but that's the way it's always been.  Unfit parents have been blaming society for a long time now. Rock&Roll, moving pictures, take your pick. In an ideal world,  potential parents would have to take a test before getting a child. But banning violence on TV, or in videogames, or in lyrics isn't going to help children with unfit parents. They'll always find some outlet for their frustration.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: meep-eep on November 10, 2005, 04:43:52 pm
But banning violence on TV, or in videogames, or in lyrics isn't going to help children with unfit parents. They'll always find some outlet for their frustration.
If they'd use video games as an outlet, that would only be a good thing. But if they're using it as inspiration for things that aren't acceptable IRL, and they don't realise they are not acceptable, then you've got a problem.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Lucky on November 10, 2005, 05:35:14 pm
What I meant was to say was, if that outlet isn't there they'll find something else. And that something might not be quite so harmless.

As for inspiration, I don't know. mankind has been pretty good at committing violent atocities so far through history, ith our without much inspiration or encouragement. The problem is, as you yourself stated earlier, that there are a lot of unfit parents out there.  If we fix that problem, all the other ones will go away ;)


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: harth1026 on November 10, 2005, 11:27:50 pm
If you watched the G4 special on violence in video games, there was one guy that mentioned that as the sale of violent games increased, the number of violent crimes decreased nationwide.  If what he says is true, then this data goes against the claim that violent games makes kids more violent.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: JonoPorter on November 11, 2005, 04:21:50 am
I was thinking more along the lines that the person would be informed the first and/or the second time the action was commited, but after that it would be like the "dont ask me this again" dialogs.
And that only the more serious crimes would required this dialog box. I gave the example of dear hunting and driving on double yellow lines as dialogs that should not be implimented.

Thiers a reason GOD gave us parents...
But overall I agree. If a kid can't tell right from wrong, no amount of silly warnings will help.
God gave moses the ten commandments (twice) so we can know what is right and what is wrong.
Which from my point of view makes me think God thinks we need to be told what is right and what is wrong.



Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 11, 2005, 04:26:51 am
Ok ivan ure right i try not to shove my faith down people's throats,i'd just make thier hearts harder for when a man whoes stronger in the bible comes,im still learnin my Bible.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Lucky on November 11, 2005, 03:12:56 pm
I was thinking more along the lines that the person would be informed the first and/or the second time the action was commited, but after that it would be like the "dont ask me this again" dialogs.
And that only the more serious crimes would required this dialog box. I gave the example of dear hunting and driving on double yellow lines as dialogs that should not be implimented.

This still leaves out any  unrealistic games, such as SC2. Unless you want TIE Fighter to pause and tell you that in real life killing freedom fighters for an oppressive regime is a crime.

Quote
God gave moses the ten commandments (twice) so we can know what is right and what is wrong.
Which from my point of view makes me think God thinks we need to be told what is right and what is wrong.

True, but none of those included "Thou shalt not play violent games". Are we to take it that God approves of violent games then?

Quote
Ok ivan ure right i try not to shove my faith down people's throats,i'd just make thier hearts harder for when a man whoes stronger in the bible comes,im still learnin my Bible

I'm not sure saying "That's why god gave us parents" is actually shoving your faith down someones throat. We don't even know which faith you belong to.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 12, 2005, 05:18:27 am
Good point buy hey he brung it up so im just trying to stay outa discussion of it.Ive been in too many forums where my faith got me in trouble and ive only gotten other people cold hearted about GOD.Cause im only 14 and i dont know all of my Bible yet.Ive only started to really study it just last year,Before 13 i was a fool :-[.

So for now while i study,I try to keep outa confrontation.But i will not hesitate to defend my faith.Oh and im protestant.If u want more specific i'm mostly pentacostal.But i dont follow religion rules.Only rules i follow is from my Bible and whatever people it says i should obey.Example:honor thy father and mother.So i obey thier rules too


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 12, 2005, 01:32:23 pm
Following the rules from the Bible only...and those it tells you
to follow, wouldnt' that make you non-denominational?
The Bible has some very interesting stories and some
very good points. I would also like to point out that
it was written a long time ago for a people who
lived in a very different culture. Because of that, I
think one should be careful how closely one applies
Biblical lessons to modern society.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 12, 2005, 08:33:42 pm
Which is why i said MOSTLY Pentacostal (keyword mostly).I went very descriptive thier that i dont follow religous view only my Bible.That im not totally Pentacostal.

And about what the Bible applies.The Bible will always apply.It doesnt matter if weve advanced.U gotta remember that God is omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent.When he had people write this stuff.He already saw what we do now days and what we have now days.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Arne on November 13, 2005, 12:02:59 pm
My Lord, the Only True Lord, Odin, approves of violent games. In fact, people with high scores in Commando Libya gets a special seat at his table in Valhalla, maybe even a lapdance by a Valkyrie.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster probably also approves of violent games, a long as they involve noodle-like appendages and a pirate or two.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn on the other hand might not... BUT you'll probably find a proponent in the Purple Oyster!

    "For I did see my unworthiness in Her sight, for I was a sinner, destined forever to spend existence in the presence of the unholy Purple Oyster; Waxing his shell and massaging his most wretched and slimy feet. For, lo, the Purple Oyster doth truly have feet, and the legs thereof, and the toes thereof, giving him dominion over all the clams of the seas, and allowing him to go unto the children of men, and tempt them unto destruction.
    -- The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded (Partial), Chapter One, Verses 9 to 11"


(I take that last part about destruction as an approval of violent videogames.)


Edit, Oh, by the way, There's plenty of hard proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn really does exist, for example there's this photo:












...and this one is pretty good too!














...and I can't help showing this one cuz it's kinda funny and cute!
















(bbhhh)


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Lucky on November 13, 2005, 05:45:02 pm
My Lord, the Only True Lord, Odin, approves of violent games. In fact, people with high scores in Commando Libya gets a special seat at his table in Valhalla, maybe even a lapdance by a Valkyrie.

Odin has no depth perception.  He might excel in old 2D-games, but modern 3D challenges are far beyond him. Kind of fitting, as his days of glory are long gone as well.

Quote
And about what the Bible applies.The Bible will always apply.It doesnt matter if weve advanced.U gotta remember that God is omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent.When he had people write this stuff.He already saw what we do now days and what we have now days.

Quote
True, but none of those included "Thou shalt not play violent games". Are we to take it that God approves of violent games then?

So I take it you are of the opinion that God is either neutral, or in favour of violent games then?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 14, 2005, 03:01:24 am
Im guessing that comment is towards Bioslayers Moses comment.bBut just in case.

No.In fact all i was saying about god (well in the earlier part anyways.)Is that parents are supposed to teach us kids right from wrong and teach us wisdom.

I havnt found any verses reffering to violent role play.So im guessing that it isnt much of a subject to God.Im still guessing when i say that,that God doesnt care if we play violent games.As long as we do the violence in real life against actual people.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 14, 2005, 03:03:19 am
Sorry for double posting guys.I foregot to say something.

Sorry Ivan for breaking my promise of keeping my God out of this.But I just felt it neccesary.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on November 14, 2005, 07:36:33 pm
Sorry for double posting guys.I foregot to say something.

Sorry Ivan for breaking my promise of keeping my God out of this.But I just felt it neccesary.

Oh, don't you worry about me,l have nothing against discussing god or the bible specifiaclly, I just don't like it when people try to use their holy texts as an argument in a discussion on a different topic.
You just have to keep in mind that saying thigs like "this is wrong because the Bible says so" or "God wanted us to do such and such" will give you different reactions from people who have different beliefs.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 14, 2005, 09:32:30 pm
I relize this


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 15, 2005, 03:02:56 pm
And about what the Bible applies.The Bible will always apply.It doesnt matter if weve advanced.U gotta remember that God is omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent.

So when Jesus said his teachings were for the people of Isreal only,
we should keep that in mind. The rest of us can go on about
our business, with or without violent video games.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Lucky on November 15, 2005, 06:52:40 pm
Jesus teachings, yes. Congratulations, you may now start living according to the Old Testament smart-aleck.

Going back in the actual topic direction, seeing as we were briefly talking about parents that are unfit. Can you consider having a child to be a human right? Is it something that everyone has a right to, or would it be possible that somehow limit the privilege of parenting to those who have taken some sort of test? I realise that this is impossible in practice, but in theory, do you believe conceiving is a human right?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 15, 2005, 11:29:11 pm
Umm Zeep Eeep could u tell me what verse,Jesus says his teaching our only for the people of israel?

Now about Lucky's question.Hmm thats a toughy.I have two arguements that keep fightin eachother in my head and both pretty good.But with my thinking ive come to the the conclusion that yes it is a right.

Life is givin from God.So who are we to choose who gets to have a child.Thats God's decision alone.So anybody who is given a child from God,has a right to have that child and raise it.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 16, 2005, 01:34:32 am
Umm Zeep Eeep could u tell me what verse,Jesus says his teaching our only for the people of israel?

Matthew Chapter 15 verse 24.
I believe this also occures in Luke.

As for whether people have the right to have children, I'll
go with "no". So often people have parenting ideas which
conflict with what we call human rights. People who
cannot properly care for a child should  not be able
to have them. Ideally, for the good of the whole, I think
reverseable sterilization at birth is in order.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 16, 2005, 05:24:03 am
But he answered and said,"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24

Translation:He's was NOT sent here just for israel's sake


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 16, 2005, 02:49:31 pm
But he answered and said,"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24

Translation:He's was NOT sent here just for israel's sake

English isn't your first language, is it? That's okay, quick lesson here.

"I am not sent" -- note the negative. He's not sent.
"But unto the lost sheep....." -- The "but" here (a negative), means about the
same as "except".

When you put two negative together, they make a positive. Hense
it might be re-translated as, "I am sent here to the lost sheep of Israel, exclusively."

Also...
Quote
U gotta remember that God is omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent

The Biblical God is not, actually, omniscient and omnipresent. This
is well demonstrated in Genesis during God's questioning of
Adam in, I believe, chapter three.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Lucky on November 16, 2005, 03:09:37 pm

Now about Lucky's question.Hmm thats a toughy.I have two arguements that keep fightin eachother in my head and both pretty good.But with my thinking ive come to the the conclusion that yes it is a right.

Life is givin from God.So who are we to choose who gets to have a child.Thats God's decision alone.So anybody who is given a child from God,has a right to have that child and raise it.

That's Gods decision? And here I thought that was the desicion of those getting the kid. You know, those gettign in the sack, or signing up for fertilization treatment or wahtever. The way you're putting it, if I stop someone from having a child, that's also God's decision and completely alright. I'm not talking divine rights here, but human rights.

Quote
Ideally, for the good of the whole, I think
reverseable sterilization at birth is in order.

I agree, even though the statement feels a little fascist. Because that brings us right up to, who decides if someone else is allowed a child, and how.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Deus Siddis on November 16, 2005, 10:28:56 pm
"People who cannot properly care for a child should not be able to have them. Ideally, for the good of the whole, I think reverseable sterilization at birth is in order."

Whoa. I thought the one child policy (which was terminated in 2002) was the only good idea the People's Republic of China has ever come up with, from my personal moral standpoint. But this is getting a little out there. Some people get to decide if other people should be allowed to have surgery to repair their reproductive systems, which were artificially shut down by the state, using some technique which will undoubtedly cause some long term health issues.

I mean, your not saying "don't have more than one kid, because we have too many people on the planet" or "if you want to become a citizen of this nation, you have to be sterilized first". You are saying "I am a morally superior godlike entity who will TELL you if you are worthy to have kids, under any circumstances I, or the current government deems fit."

I'd like to ask the supporters of this idea, who the hell gets to decide who is fit or not? What are the criteria for immediate sterilization? Religion? Affirmative Action? Family Political Voting History? Looks? Academics?

What if a child is born without the sterilization and grows up? Do you hunt him down? What if he resists you and doesn't want to go under your knife, do you shoot him?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 17, 2005, 12:24:03 am
I didn't say it was a perfect idea. However, let's keep something else in
mind here. Some people, many actually, in Canada _request_
sterilization and are turned down. Why? Because the government, state
and moral majority claim that it's wrong...unless the person is
over thirty, has multiple children and is married.
This is completely rediculous. A person with more than one
child, with the right to vote can't opt for volentary sterilization?

As a result, and partly due to poor planning and/or poor birth control,
we have a LOT of unwanted children running around. Now, if the
state feels they can deny us the right to sterilzation, I fail to see
what is so wrong about turning it around and saying a person
must meet certain requirements before having a child.

Perhaps, say, the same requirements for adoption are in order.
No, I'm not saying we should hunt down non-sterilizes or even
that it's an excellent idea. But testing people to see if they
are emotionally stable, passably intelligent and don't have a recent history
of violence sounds like a nice thing to do for the sake of the next
generation.

Keep in mind, the government can already take away a child from a mother
at birth, if it deems she is unable to raise the child. This just cuts out
the pregnancy part.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Deus Siddis on November 17, 2005, 03:43:35 am
But you still have a fight over what can be considered sterilization worthy. Also, do you just wipe out the disk drives of women or men or both?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 17, 2005, 02:10:34 pm
Men only.
Why? Because it's faster, less painful, less intrusive and
fewer things to go wrong. Also, if you don't have fertile men, you
don't have pregnant women. Yes yes, there could be
immigration factors, but for the most part, a men-only solution
would work.

As to who would be baby-making worthy, I think I just answered that.
If the state would take the baby away from the parent(s) immediately
post-birth then don't let 'em make the child to begin with.  Granted,
that still leaves a lot of unfortunate room open for poor
parents, but ideally those laws would toughen too.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 22, 2005, 08:42:53 am
But he answered and said,"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24

Translation:He's was NOT sent here just for israel's sake

English isn't your first language, is it? That's okay, quick lesson here.

"I am not sent" -- note the negative. He's not sent.
"But unto the lost sheep....." -- The "but" here (a negative), means about the
same as "except".

When you put two negative together, they make a positive. Hense
it might be re-translated as, "I am sent here to the lost sheep of Israel, exclusively."

Also...

Umm no.The But is not a negative in this case.Its sekecting the israelites.So its more like it means "just".Heres proof look at why Jesus sais this here ill say it for u.But go ahead and check ure Bibles to see if im tellin the truth.

It starts at Matthew 15:21.
21-Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22-And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23-But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24-But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25-Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26-But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27-And she said, Truth,Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters table.
28-Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Thier u see even though she wasnt israelite Jesus healed her daughter anyways. And if thats not enough.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Keyword in that is "Whosoever".Last time I checked WHOSOEVER did not mean Israelites.

Quote
U gotta remember that God is omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent

The Biblical God is not, actually, omniscient and omnipresent. This
is well demonstrated in Genesis during God's questioning of
Adam in, I believe, chapter three.

Umm i dont know bout that one in fact thats a question of debate for another thread,ill study on that later mabey tommorow its late right now.

Ok now about what the current sterilization question. Well I say if ure so worried about over population. Then just make fornication and adultery illegal.That will lower baby count by about %25 (And thats the low estimate).
And it will drastically slow if not completely STOP the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.And punishment can be 5 years and sterilization.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: JonoPorter on November 22, 2005, 10:26:50 am
Good job Nathanael.  :D

Quoting the bible out of context is one of those things that just irks me when people do it.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Arne on November 22, 2005, 02:19:25 pm
...on the other hand it's not very difficult to quote something that's purposefully vague and open to interpretation in whatever context that suits your fancy.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Nathanael on November 22, 2005, 05:24:41 pm
Darn it.I foregot to preview it.Sorry guys. Umm the bottom qoute is supposed to end after the line.

"Adam in, I believe, chapter three."

And again im really sorry.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Death 999 on November 22, 2005, 07:57:03 pm
Well, she had to practically drag it out of him...

What's this, where he says that bread isn't for dogs... so basically he just said that non-jews are like dogs.

Wow. Nice hole you've got there.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: harth1026 on November 23, 2005, 02:23:49 pm
I thought this article was interesting.  I don't care much for 50 Cent or his music, but he does believe in parental responsibilities.  Although I don't think his game would be the one I would choose for my kids...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140323.html


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on November 27, 2005, 12:11:26 am
Saddly I've heard the Canadian government is trying to keep
50 Cent from touring in our country. The idea is he is too dangerous
and his message too violent. So, yes, we'll show his music
videos and sell his games, but we don't actually want him here.

It's so sad the way this country lets its government cenor its
people. I'm not a fan of 50 Cent, but I respect his right to
get up in front of people who are willing to pay to listen
to him and say whatever the heck he wants.
It's not like he's forcing people to hear his music,
people have to put down money for it and go to
the concert.

Yet another sign that our government has its reactionary
head up its arse.


Title: bullshit
Post by: pur3_xt4c on December 20, 2005, 08:17:55 am
 >:( >:( >:(this is a load of bullshit! im 12 and i grew up playing abandonware versions of leisure suite larry, the gta series, doom and freelance and according to these posts im likely to go into space and start shootingtrade lanes and become a lane hacker. its bullshit >:( >:( >:( >:(


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Mr._Jiggles on December 22, 2005, 10:16:46 pm
hey im back and read this all.

I would like to say any person who takes video games, television programs, movies, or reading material so seriously that they actually would go hijack a tank, blow up a building, run down pedestrians, and beat a prostitute, they need to be blugeoned  to death with sharp block of parmesaen cheese. It is not the industries job to inform us about the law within our entertainment. Just the fact the politicians and parents blame violence on television and video games is irresponsable. If you don't want your children exposed to violence then don't. Don't go bitch about it when you bought your child GTA: SA and sue Rockstar because you saw your child beat up a prostitute.  God, the fact that these bitchy peace hippies want to sensor violence, sex, and swearing is unbelivable since they are normal actions that humans use many times during their lives. In Europe a game called "Faruinheit" -excuse my spelling error- was released in europe with a sex scence in it between two people, and it was rated M. Nothing was shown in it except an ass and some breasts. Yet here in a America, we couldn't help it. The country the starts wars, still executes people and calls itself civilized, and has a horrible leader, still wanted to censor the sex scence out and the american version was called "The Indigo Prophetcy". Wow whoever here belives in this kind out censorship in videogames and movies, please meet me at  Mt. Saint Helens in *washington*  :P , ill give you a little push and thenn you won't have to worry about censoring every thing you can get your bitchy little hands on. CHRIST JESUS I WILL CASTRAT ANYBODY WHO BELIVES IN THAT BULLSHIT!  >:(



Warm Regards, Mr. Jiggles

Have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukka, or a Happy Holiday.


PS: Fuck you Hilary Clinton!



PSS: My 4 year old brother plays Half Life for PS2, and he blows up aliens, marines, security guards, and innocent scienctists and yet he is a fine person who kicks other kids asses at preschool if they violate him.

PSSS: Go suck a dick Censorship fundamentalists!


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: harth1026 on December 23, 2005, 12:41:19 pm
And Merry Fuck-You-Hilary-Clinton to you too.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: meep-eep on December 23, 2005, 06:20:10 pm
CHRIST JESUS I WILL CASTRAT ANYBODY WHO BELIVES IN THAT BULLSHIT!  >:(
A little violent, you? What have you been playing recently?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Deus Siddis on December 24, 2005, 02:23:23 am
Nah, it isn't video games-- he's probably just getting into the spirit of the season.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on December 24, 2005, 02:27:04 am
> Wow whoever here belives in this kind out censorship in videogames and
> movies, please meet me at  Mt. Saint Helens in California,

I thought Mt. St. Helens was in Washington state.



Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Mr._Jiggles on December 26, 2005, 07:38:06 pm
oops my bad for mt. st helens, and yes i play the most violent games ever.


i hate hilary clinton because she is one of the most worst censorship democrats ever, i expected the kind of censorship she wants form the republicans but not her.

Happy Kwanza day.

Celebrate your african culture  :P


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Burb on January 19, 2006, 02:11:40 am
Quote
Umm no.The But is not a negative in this case.Its sekecting the israelites.So its more like it means "just".Heres proof look at why Jesus sais this here ill say it for u.But go ahead and check ure Bibles to see if im tellin the truth.

No, it's a negative.

NIV:  24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Quote
Ok now about what the current sterilization question. Well I say if ure so worried about over population. Then just make fornication and adultery illegal.That will lower baby count by about %25 (And thats the low estimate).
And it will drastically slow if not completely STOP the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.And punishment can be 5 years and sterilization.

Insane. Please try to be more practical.

 Violation of personal rights. There is already precedent that this is unconstitutional... In Texas they had outlawed gay sex in a person's private home, and it was repealed. And obviously, having sex in public places is illegal anyway.

Besides, states make laws about marriage etc which I ASSUME means that they make the laws about adultery, so even if it was possible to outlaw it, it would be virtually impossible to get all states to outlaw it.

Sterilization is not a temporary thing. You can't sterilize somebody for an arbitrary amount of time. With use of drugs, this would be possible, but would be insanely expensive. Even the idea of punishing people by forcing them to undergo surgery and be that way for 5 years is pretty extreme.

Quote
The Biblical God is not, actually, omniscient and omnipresent. This
is well demonstrated in Genesis during God's questioning of
Adam in, I believe, chapter three.

The questioning is more of a formality, it seems. Also, it appears that God might be giving Adam the chance to sort things out by talking; free will might also play a factor in that God does not always act upon his omniscience and gives people a choice. Anyway, I haven't really studied the matter at all, but this is in no way a simple proof that God is not omniscient and omnipresent. Quite a lot of the beginning of Genesis seems to be symbolic regardless.

Quote
Parents were put here to teach us.I dont even believe in much use of Public schools

umm, wtf? Where did you get that from the Bible? Getting trained workers and updated information in textbooks is bad? Without public schools, and children learning from their father, you get people stuck in the family trade. Without real education this kid is going to be stuck a janitor the rest of his life, and his children after him unless he marries a well educated woman to bring them up. You get old wives tales, like, oh I don't know, having sex standing up makes a woman less likely to get pregnant (because sperm would mostly flow out) while in reality the sperm can swim up anyway.

Are you in support of ignorance and regression of advances in science? If otherwise, I strongly suggest you revise your opinion.

Quote
But they should still talk to thier kids when they both home, bout what the kid learned.

Of course. Parents should be involved with their kids' lives.

Quote
Oh and i talk so strongly about parent involvement cause im Home Schooled.

Besides the fact that your parents do not know nearly all of the subjects taught in school (advanced calculus? trig? world/american history? economics? phsyics? chemistry? biology?) and that just because they're your parents doesn't mean they're good teachers, public schools are still good for kids. Being homeschooled can often isolate children; yes, they might play with neighbors, but some are never able to. Being exposed to society helps children learn necessary skills for dealing with people and make oneself be more likable. After all, parents can't shelter children forever, as eventually they'll die. Or, more likely, the kid goes to college and gets a job.

Yeah, I know that many homeschooled parents know what they're doing and those kids can turn out to be much better than others. In many public schools, bullying is a problem too, so there's no ideal. But in my opinion, home schooling < public schools. I mean, come on.

I think I'm just rambling. yeah.

And this thread is several weeks old, but I just had to respond (especially cos I have nothing to do right now). And since this forum is half dead, it was still on the front page, so nobody can accuse me of bumping.  ;D


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on January 19, 2006, 02:33:33 am
>> Sterilization is not a temporary thing. You can't sterilize
>> somebody for an arbitrary amount of time.

Yes, you can. The process is actually quite common. Of
course, I'm talking about _effectively_ sterilizing a person,
not stoping the production of eggs/sperm. Vasectomies
and tubal occlusion are not only common, but they
are both reversable.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Burb on January 19, 2006, 06:10:25 am
Oh. I don't really know anything about it, so thanks for clearing that up.

Still seems a little invasive to force surgery upon someone for one drunk, lustful night.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Draxas on January 19, 2006, 07:14:56 am
I was always under the impression that sterilization reversal after those procedures was pretty much "do your best to repair the damage, and hope the body can take care of regrowing the rest." In other words, not terribly effective most of the time, which in essence, made them irreversible.

Suffice to say though, I'm not on the up and up about the latest in surgical sterilization procedures. Have I got outdated info?


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on January 19, 2006, 01:42:23 pm
First, let me clear something up. My parents had
a lot of wild, drunken nights before they managed
to have me. Kidding...kidding.

For the most part, steriziling someone these days
is reversable. There are the odd cases where the
tissue doesn't grow back properly, but
this is usually in older people. The general
rule of thumb, for men anyway, is if
you want a reversal, do it in the first
five years or so. After nine or ten, it's
less likely to work.

Now, that's info from a few years ago, improvements
to the process (and the reversal) are happening all the time.

There are other ways too, if, for some reason, the
reversal doesn't work. Transfering eggs or sperm via
surgory is also an option.


Title: Re: violent computer games
Post by: Draxas on January 19, 2006, 04:11:33 pm
A *very* expensive option. IVF and similar procedures will run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Regardless, I guess my info is pretty badly out of date.