NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Therumancer:

This is the bottom line and the exact problem. As I said, the NRA is fighting those they should be allied with, as opposed to going after the liberals that are the actual problem facing both video games and gun ownership.

If you think there aren't conservative calls to put the hammer down on video games, if you REALLY THINK THAT, then you aren't near as saavy on modern American politics as you imagine yourself to be. Oh hoooo no.

Case in point...

I can't cope with this level of stupidity. And, seriously, they're citing MORTAL KOMBAT? Are we back in the 90s again? Fucking hell.

FelixG:
Video games share as much responsibility as guns do.

little to none.

Insane idiots will find a way to kill people no matter what you do.

I am just going to check something.

If the guns made little to no difference on the offence, then do they make little to no difference on the defense as well?

I mean the pro gun people will often use the "a young mother saved herself from an attacker with a gun" and give credit to the gun, but when an attacker guns down an innocent credit goes to the attacker.

Draech:

FelixG:
Video games share as much responsibility as guns do.

little to none.

Insane idiots will find a way to kill people no matter what you do.

I am just going to check something.

If the guns made little to no difference on the offence, then do they make little to no difference on the defense as well?

I mean the pro gun people will often use the "a young mother saved herself from an attacker with a gun" and give credit to the gun, but when an attacker guns down an innocent credit goes to the attacker.

I haven't read a lot of those articles, I mostly just look at the headlines chuckle and move onto other stories that require more indepth reading. I would imagine they mostly praise her foresight in carrying a gun to defend herself not along the lines of

"Ohh good Smith & Wesson, Good job defending your owner boy, heres a scooby snack!"

I could be wrong though, but that is down to the writer of the article and I would call that person an idiot too, as the object has no motive of its own, it was the woman who did the deed of killing her attacker, the gun didnt leap to defend her like some loyal pet dog.

FelixG:

Draech:

FelixG:
Video games share as much responsibility as guns do.

little to none.

Insane idiots will find a way to kill people no matter what you do.

I am just going to check something.

If the guns made little to no difference on the offence, then do they make little to no difference on the defense as well?

I mean the pro gun people will often use the "a young mother saved herself from an attacker with a gun" and give credit to the gun, but when an attacker guns down an innocent credit goes to the attacker.

I haven't read a lot of those articles, I mostly just look at the headlines chuckle and move onto other stories that require more indepth reading. I would imagine they mostly praise her foresight in carrying a gun to defend herself not along the lines of

"Ohh good Smith & Wesson, Good job defending your owner boy, heres a scooby snack!"

I could be wrong though, but that is down to the writer of the article and I would call that person an idiot too, as the object has no motive of its own, it was the woman who did the deed of killing her attacker, the gun didnt leap to defend her like some loyal pet dog.

It is essentially the idea that the gun only made a difference on the defense.

It is the message off "Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people. Therefore you cant blame the gun for these murders. However this woman wouldn't have been able to defend herself without a gun! The gun works.".

It is a double standard is what I am getting at. If the gun doesn't get blamed for killings, then you cant have it take credit for the saving.

Draech:

It is essentially the idea that the gun only made a difference on the defense.

It is the message off "Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people. Therefore you cant blame the gun for these murders. However this woman wouldn't have been able to defend herself without a gun! The gun works.".

It is a double standard is what I am getting at. If the gun doesn't get blamed for killings, then you cant have it take credit for the saving.

Sure guns make a difference both on the offence and defense.

The difference being degrees really, you can defend yourself with a knife, a gun, a tazer ect, but still those are just items. I would be fully willing to blame them if they could attack something on their own.

Now on offence, things can be a little different, if the person doesn't consider you a threat, a knife and a gun are just as deadly, but there is a LOT more you can attack with than defend with. If you didnt have a gun? pipe bombs are easy to build and actually more effective at killing people, and cheaper. A little hard to defend yourself with a pipe bomb. The insane person could even just wait till school is starting and run down a ton of them with an SUV as they get off their busses, but that wouldnt be the cars fault.

So I dont blame a knife for maulings when its used against people http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
I dont blame a gun when its used to kill people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
And I dont blame a car when it is used to kill http://www.wafb.com/story/18662289/5-killed-on-their-way-home-from-church-by-suspected-drunk-driver

These things are not malicious they dont crave human blood. They are tools even if people dont like this fact. It is not the items fault that some idiots like to give them credit where none is due.

Wayne LaPierre asks of violent media. "Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?"

Mr. LaPierre, if you think THAT'S the "filthiest form of pornography," you sir, have obviously never been on the internet

I've played video games since I was 6 (1996) and I've never killed anyone. John Wayne Gacy killed people and never played video games. Ergo, using the same logic as these anti-video game lobbies, the LACK of video games drives people to kill.

On a serious note: if parents have a problem with their kids playing violent video games, maybe they shouldn't BUY the video games, BUY the systems the games are played on, or ALLOW their kids to play the games in THEIR house. Since when have parents been unable to tell their kids what to do?

This is funny, because I liken the NRA to incest.

I play a lot of video games. I watch quite a bit of porn. I'm not about to go fuckballs insane and try to kill a bunch of people. Why? Because I can separate fantasy from reality, like 99% of the other people who watch porn and play video games.

FelixG:

Draech:

It is essentially the idea that the gun only made a difference on the defense.

It is the message off "Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people. Therefore you cant blame the gun for these murders. However this woman wouldn't have been able to defend herself without a gun! The gun works.".

It is a double standard is what I am getting at. If the gun doesn't get blamed for killings, then you cant have it take credit for the saving.

Sure guns make a difference both on the offence and defense.

The difference being degrees really, you can defend yourself with a knife, a gun, a tazer ect, but still those are just items. I would be fully willing to blame them if they could attack something on their own.

Now on offence, things can be a little different, if the person doesn't consider you a threat, a knife and a gun are just as deadly, but there is a LOT more you can attack with than defend with. If you didnt have a gun? pipe bombs are easy to build and actually more effective at killing people, and cheaper. A little hard to defend yourself with a pipe bomb. The insane person could even just wait till school is starting and run down a ton of them with an SUV as they get off their busses, but that wouldnt be the cars fault.

So I dont blame a knife for maulings when its used against people http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
I dont blame a gun when its used to kill people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
And I dont blame a car when it is used to kill http://www.wafb.com/story/18662289/5-killed-on-their-way-home-from-church-by-suspected-drunk-driver

These things are not malicious they dont crave human blood. They are tools even if people dont like this fact. It is not the items fault that some idiots like to give them credit where none is due.

It was just on the double standard.

One you are not saying, I just wanted your opinion on it.

We are moving into completely different territory when we are going on about the deadliness of other object. A discussion that is a lot more painted by my person opinion.

Watching all the dramallama revolving these guys almost makes me happy to be in Britain for once.

Blablahb:

aattss:
I don't think banning guns is good, but I think that banning freedom of speech is a horrible idea.

Then you're going to love their next trick. The gun ownership supporters want someone deported from the US for using Freedom of Speech:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31-400-112219264.html

Apparently they're quite selective about which parts of the constitution are important to them and which ones aren't.

No!

No no no no no no no no!!!

You keep him! We don't want him back! He's your problem now!

ravenshrike:

Loop Stricken:
The NRA would appear to be very silly people indeed.
...but then I'm English and, as far as I've been told, am utterly unqualified to talk about guns whatsoever.

Less about guns, and more about anything involving crime whatsoever. There's a problem when people are regularly charged with a crime when defending themselves in their own home, no matter the implement used. That happens quite a lot in the UK.

As for LaPierre's statement, it's no more nonsensical than all the calls for more gun control.

"Regularly", you what now? You can be charged for using "excessive force", but I'd hope that'd be the case in any civilised society, you can't just go around killing people, even if they have broken into your home.

Hey NRA you can keep pointing fingers at Video Games by calling them porn but you can't fool me. This isn't about video games. It's about semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public. NRA, enough with the blame game we are sick of playing it.

GunsmithKitten:

Therumancer:

This is the bottom line and the exact problem. As I said, the NRA is fighting those they should be allied with, as opposed to going after the liberals that are the actual problem facing both video games and gun ownership.

If you think there aren't conservative calls to put the hammer down on video games, if you REALLY THINK THAT, then you aren't near as saavy on modern American politics as you imagine yourself to be. Oh hoooo no.

Case in point...

ANY movement right now has followers on both sides of the fence, especially when it's a popular boogie man. I wasn't going into a complete political analysis of the entire thing. The ring leaders for this one happen to be liberals, who are after tighter goverment control and reigning in the right to free speech. Attacks on so called "hate speech", video games, movies, and other things accross the board are done as all it takes is a few precedents in one arena to let them get their fingers into the entire thing.

The opposition to these kinds of things tends to be heavily republican, while the ring leaders of the assaults tend to be people like Hillary Clinton (who was insturmental in the whole "Hot Coffee" incident). It's not that Republican leaders publically go on about their sex and violence and loving the subject matter, but largely due to being against federal power. Especially seeing as they realize that if the goverment can start regulating something as trivial as video games, they could begin working their way up to trying to do things like limit religious speech (which has already been an issue) and similar things. Many Republicans support some of the arguements againast video games, but doesn't believe that federal regulation is right, but might push for state or town regulation if it came to that. Most Republicans however tend to take a very "basic" point of view in terms of the freedom of speech and believe the goverment, no matter how well intentioned, should not be able to touch these rights. This is a philsophy that seeps
into everything from freedom of speech, to the right to bear arms. Of course to be honest this also tends to come down to "the right to be an asshole" which can make it unpopular when it comes to certain issues.

There is a reason why the country is so divided. I'm sure you'll have your arguements and links as to why "The Republicans are da Evil" and why anything I point out in response would be "debunked" or "wrong" to the point where I won't even bother in these forusm. The point is that with the way the sides break down, The Republicans are more on "our" side as video gamers than the Democrats are, even a lot of the ones who speak agains video games themselves.

At the end of the day both major parties/philsophies aren't exactly good for the people, as they both have huge down sides. I have a mixed bag of political philsophies, but tend to mostly go right wing as I feel it's the better side for everyone on most practical matters even if it doesn;t tell people what they want to hear too often.

Therumancer:

Many Republicans support some of the arguements againast video games, but doesn't believe that federal regulation is right, but might push for state or town regulation if it came to that.

Ah, the wonderful hypocrisy of "if it's not the federals persecuting you, it's okay!"

I'm sure you'll have your arguements and links as to why "The Republicans are da Evil" and why anything I point out in response would be "debunked" or "wrong" to the point where I won't even bother in these forusm.

No more evil than the Democrats.

The point is that with the way the sides break down, The Republicans are more on "our" side as video gamers than the Democrats are, even a lot of the ones who speak agains video games themselves.

You did notice who Glen Beck, a right wing talking head, was Yes Man'ing all the way to Jack Thompson, right?

I dont' think Thompsons on the side of video gamers.....

At the end of the day both major parties/philsophies aren't exactly good for the people, as they both have huge down sides. I have a mixed bag of political philsophies, but tend to mostly go right wing as I feel it's the better side for everyone on most practical matters even if it doesn;t tell people what they want to hear too often.

Better side for most. Yea, not for me, as it would land me in prison. If you wonder what I'm talking about, go look up the court case Lawrence Vs. Texas.

Or maybe because you're not as often the target of their moral finger wagging....

Ugh...why does the biggest voice for the right to own firearms have to be so stupid at times?

Where the hell is the representation for us who just want a pistol for home defense and enjoy going to the firing range with friends?

You know when somebody says something so stupid that so many counter-arguments, in their haste to present themselves, all get stuck like 20 different people trying to leave through the same door at the same time leaving you open-mouthed and fuming in a stunned silence.

That.

while I do love filthy pornography AND video games, i fail to see the link between the two.
OT: Do people really still listen to the NRA? Even recently they wanted to prevent gun violence by giving more guns to people.

GunsmithKitten:

Therumancer:

Many Republicans support some of the arguements againast video games, but doesn't believe that federal regulation is right, but might push for state or town regulation if it came to that.

Ah, the wonderful hypocrisy of "if it's not the federals persecuting you, it's okay!"

I'm sure you'll have your arguements and links as to why "The Republicans are da Evil" and why anything I point out in response would be "debunked" or "wrong" to the point where I won't even bother in these forusm.

No more evil than the Democrats.

The point is that with the way the sides break down, The Republicans are more on "our" side as video gamers than the Democrats are, even a lot of the ones who speak agains video games themselves.

You did notice who Glen Beck, a right wing talking head, was Yes Man'ing all the way to Jack Thompson, right?

I dont' think Thompsons on the side of video gamers.....

At the end of the day both major parties/philsophies aren't exactly good for the people, as they both have huge down sides. I have a mixed bag of political philsophies, but tend to mostly go right wing as I feel it's the better side for everyone on most practical matters even if it doesn;t tell people what they want to hear too often.

Better side for most. Yea, not for me, as it would land me in prison. If you wonder what I'm talking about, go look up the court case Lawrence Vs. Texas.

Or maybe because you're not as often the target of their moral finger wagging....

The moral finger wagging goes both ways though, and I find the politically correct BS from the left wing just as annoying. That's just universal though.

As I said, the issue has gone bi-partisan with leaders on both sides playing "kick the dog" with video games, it's the current boogey man for a reason. That said it's the left wing that has been using it for serious attempts at censorship and free speech. Jack Thomson is something of a joke, and he did things the wrong way. Consider the Hillary Clinton set out to do it, and she won, the whole "Hot Coffee" thing and forcing Rockstar to back down was one of the biggest victories against free speech there is. Jack likes to file motions and talk a lot of crap, but he's mostly harmless, not so for the left wing efforts who are far more serious about it.

As far as the rest goes, let me explain the key differance in Democratic Vs. Republican philsophy when you get past the specific issues and all of the bullshit.

Democrats (as pointed out) believe in an all powerful federal goverment that can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and get up your business any time it wants. States and towns becoming irrelevent, and sweeping nation-wide legislation and policy making being the norm.

Republicans believe in state and local power being the focus of the USA, with a weak federal goverment that exists largely to fight wars and deal with international politics, while the states and towns pretty much tend to their own affairs.

As time has gone on, and the federal goverment has gotten bigger and more powerful, even hardline Republicans have been forced to fight largely on a federal level. That said if we ever did see a long period of Republican domination you'd probably see the Federal goverment gradually deconstucted down to a shadow of what it is now, as unlikely as that happens to be.

I personally believe that people have the right to decide what happens in their own back yard, and are the best ones at choosing what they want to do. 99% of the social issues out there are things that should be resolved on an area by area basis, based on what the majority of people in the areas want. Your typical citizen can do a lot more to influance his town council, than Washington DC. What the majority of people want in each area, is what they do, and of course on a local level that can change as the attitudes of the people do. Done properly this means people are likely to wind up entering communities with those who happen to be like minded. It would take a real train wreck of a person to not fit in anywhere, and really that in of itself shows the person as the problem in the unlikely event that it was to happen.

To be honest with you, I could really give a flying leap if some town decides to ban video games locally or whatever. If that's what the people there want, more power to them and their ignorance, that's part of being in a free country. Just don't bother the people in the next town over, which is usually not a problem when it comes to this kind of thing.

To me 90% of the problem is that the Federal Goverment shouldn't be involved in issues like this, setting policies on things like media and what should be acceptable, or not acceptable, or whatever else. That's for the people themselves to decide. We're The United States, not The American Empire, each state is supposed to be pretty autonomous and largely made up of collections of fairly autonomous towns, bouroughs, etc... Pretty much any issue you can think of is better handled at a state or local level, as well as allowing differant groups to do differant things so they don't wind up needing to come to blows over it. 99% of the big issues, are big issues because of attempts to introduce sweeping legislature that will force everyone to follow ad accept it.

No system is perfect, but I tend to agree more with that way of thinking (there are pros and cons to both ideas), so I wind up going with the Republicans a lot more than the Democrats. To me, these kinds of issues don't belong on a federal stage to begin with.

I also think the playing field being too big for these kinds of issues are why we see crap like this with the NRA vs. the games industry. The NRA exists largely to operate on a federal level. The video game industry is fighting for the kinds of regulatory issues (ratings, etc..) that should never have been under federal purview to begin with. Both represent a threat to those looking for more govermental and less private power, a federal goverment that both wants to disarm the population, and also be able to make sweeping rulings about what kind of media people can and cannot choose to consume throughout the entire country. Both are fighting differant sides of the same thing, but right now the NRA in seeking to defend itself is trying to deflect criticism onto a popular boogie man that's basically fighting on a level it should never have been engaging at. I think the NRA is very much involved in "kick the outsider" as much as anything.

Of course as I mentioned before, I also think half the problem is the NRA is far too defensive here. It's trying to deflect criticism away from itself by presenting something else as being more dangerous. In reality the NRA should be going a bit more offensive, and less politically correct, pretty much coming out and saying "you know, we defend the right to have guns specifically because we need guns to kill people, specifically people like idiots in washington that attack free speech rights and try and disarm the populance. The whole point of being armed is so nobody will be defenseless before this crap". Not politically correct at all, but it gets right to the point of things, and is totally accurate.

Therumancer:

As I said, the issue has gone bi-partisan with leaders on both sides playing "kick the dog" with video games, it's the current boogey man for a reason. That said it's the left wing that has been using it for serious attempts at censorship and free speech. Jack Thomson is something of a joke, and he did things the wrong way. Consider the Hillary Clinton set out to do it, and she won, the whole "Hot Coffee" thing and forcing Rockstar to back down was one of the biggest victories against free speech there is. Jack likes to file motions and talk a lot of crap, but he's mostly harmless, not so for the left wing efforts who are far more serious about it.

You know, I had no issue with rejecting the Hildebeast's crap on the topic without running to the arms of the GOP....

Democrats (as pointed out) believe in an all powerful federal goverment that can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and get up your business any time it wants. States and towns becoming irrelevent, and sweeping nation-wide legislation and policy making being the norm.

Republicans believe in state and local power being the focus of the USA, with a weak federal goverment that exists largely to fight wars and deal with international politics, while the states and towns pretty much tend to their own affairs.

Yes, yes, I know this dichotomy, lord knows the Ron Paulites sung it's praises up and down. I see first hand what happens when states and towns get more power; they put the screws to minorities like me. Good god almighty, they still want to enforce Sunday blue laws for goodness sake...

I personally believe that people have the right to decide what happens in their own back yard, and are the best ones at choosing what they want to do. 99% of the social issues out there are things that should be resolved on an area by area basis, based on what the majority of people in the areas want.

Yea, we tried that with civil rights. Didn't work so well.

What the majority of people want in each area, is what they do, and of course on a local level that can change as the attitudes of the people do. Done properly this means people are likely to wind up entering communities with those who happen to be like minded.

Which does me fuck all if my community decides to start rounding up homosexuals. Somehow, I dont' think they'll accept my plea of "c'mon, just let me move to somewhere where sodomy is legal!"

To be honest with you, I could really give a flying leap if some town decides to ban video games locally or whatever.

Yep, you're one of them. It's not tyranny unless it's the feds doing it.

If that's what the people there want, more power to them and their ignorance, that's part of being in a free country.

Because freedom means the ability to take it away. Whut?

To me 90% of the problem is that the Federal Goverment shouldn't be involved in issues like this, setting policies on things like media and what should be acceptable, or not acceptable, or whatever else. That's for the people themselves to decide. We're The United States, not The American Empire, each state is supposed to be pretty autonomous and largely made up of collections of fairly autonomous towns, bouroughs, etc... Pretty much any issue you can think of is better handled at a state or local level, as well as allowing differant groups to do differant things so they don't wind up needing to come to blows over it. 99% of the big issues, are big issues because of attempts to introduce sweeping legislature that will force everyone to follow ad accept it.

Again, call me biased because that sort of thinkgin lead to laws that would imprison me, but fuck all that when it comes to social issues. No state should be allowed to put the screws to minorities. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

No system is perfect, but I tend to agree more with that way of thinking (there are pros and cons to both ideas), so I wind up going with the Republicans a lot more than the Democrats. To me, these kinds of issues don't belong on a federal stage to begin with.

I can't help but wonder how you'll react if your own town decided to do that. You going to sing the same tune if your local puritans decide to mobilize and ban video games, eh?

See, this is hilarious. The NRA probably don't delve extremely deep into the internet.

Trust me NRA. You have no concept of "the filthiest form of pornography".

I've seen some shit...

Seriously though...go fuck yourself NRA. I'd make a serious, thorough argument as to why they're wrong, but I know damn well nobody's gonna listen. I've practically given up by this point, it doesn't matter what we do, if every videogamer were to donate to the funeral funds of those affected by sandy hook, if every videogamer turned up and yelled abuse, the media's response would be the damn same, more pointed fingers at things that have no certain link to it.

"Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?"

Oh really... and what about targets at gun ranges being shaped like the human body?

Fucking hypocrites.

Fuck you NRA. I though we had a agreement here, I support your rights if you support mine.

What a way to go, you go to the dark side and find a scape goat, and not just any scape goat you decide to be a Hypocrite and attack gaming. And you go and say its filthy porn? Well when you accidentally hit a pal with friendly fire in a video game, your pal re-spawns, they me piss at you but they get over it. In real life friendly fire means your pal is aline no longer.

Really this is a low ball tactic, honestly I should not be surprised since the NRA also attacked TV, Movies and books in the past.

Guns don't kill people, fictional guns kill people. That is the NRA's statement dumbed down to sentence. Yeah I know most Americans are pretty stupid and agree with them but seriously guys? Nobody's ever been killed by a non-existent gun.

Gizmo1990:
I just watched his statment on the news, the BBC, who are (mostly) unbiased were taking the piss out of this guy and shaking their head at the all the stupid coming from him. How can anyone buy this crap? Seriously please tell me that most Americans do not buy this. Most of the Americans I have talked to on The Escapist have been cool, you guys don't buy this right?

I don't think most of us buy this, but I wouldn't put it beyond a lot of people. Considering how stupid people,(at least where I live in America), can be, I wouldn't be surprised if this was something that caught on; at least for a little bit.

Americans, why have you been letting these guys go outside so much lately? I heard them mentioned on Irish news for the first time last week, and they aren't wasting any time trying to embarrass their country even more than WBC. Armed guards in every school, honestly... "The ONLY thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!" I can't see this going uphill from here.

Therumancer:

I personally believe that people have the right to decide what happens in their own back yard, and are the best ones at choosing what they want to do. 99% of the social issues out there are things that should be resolved on an area by area basis, based on what the majority of people in the areas want. Your typical citizen can do a lot more to influance his town council, than Washington DC. What the majority of people want in each area, is what they do, and of course on a local level that can change as the attitudes of the people do. Done properly this means people are likely to wind up entering communities with those who happen to be like minded. It would take a real train wreck of a person to not fit in anywhere, and really that in of itself shows the person as the problem in the unlikely event that it was to happen.

To be honest with you, I could really give a flying leap if some town decides to ban video games locally or whatever. If that's what the people there want, more power to them and their ignorance, that's part of being in a free country. Just don't bother the people in the next town over, which is usually not a problem when it comes to this kind of thing.

To me 90% of the problem is that the Federal Goverment shouldn't be involved in issues like this, setting policies on things like media and what should be acceptable, or not acceptable, or whatever else. That's for the people themselves to decide. We're The United States, not The American Empire, each state is supposed to be pretty autonomous and largely made up of collections of fairly autonomous towns, bouroughs, etc... Pretty much any issue you can think of is better handled at a state or local level, as well as allowing differant groups to do differant things so they don't wind up needing to come to blows over it. 99% of the big issues, are big issues because of attempts to introduce sweeping legislature that will force everyone to follow ad accept it.

But having a federal government also makes it possible for people and products to easily move between the states and different areas, and companies to work on different states as well. If those different areas would have different legistlation, you'd need to restrict people's ability to move, or your laws would be useless.

And how about things that have far-reaching consequences? "It's totally legal in our town to dump toxic waste on this area, after it leaks to your area, it's your problem."

I do agree that a lot of issues should be tackled on a more local level, but not most legal issues.

And people aren't going to move easily another area that suits more to their needs, they have family and friends, and especially children aren't going to just leave their families and move to area that is more friendly to their sexual orientation or whatever.

If you're not happy with how the US is run, why don't you move to a country that more suits to your needs?

Their citing Mortal Kombat gave me some vivid flashbacks to the 90's.

Everybody should keep guessing what the problem is without having to do any research, that way the blame-tag can't fester on any one thing for too long. I say we blame porn, because... I mean, isn't porn the porniest porn of all the possible porns?

MikeWehner:
NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

Well, that dude must have lead a pretty sheltered life. Perhaps he doesn't have access to the same porn as the rest of us.

Daaaah Whoosh:
Well, pornography never killed anyone. But someone owning too many guns just got a bunch of people killed. I still blame the guy who did it, not the games he played or the guns that were readily available to him.

Porn kinda has killed a few people, actually. Not just in the obvious "take lots of drugs to get past the shallowness of your existence" way, but in the "occasional outbreak of incurable and fatal STI" way and the "business run by sketchy people with inequitable labour standards" way too...

Oh man NRA is really in a hot spot now aren't they? Pulling out all the stops and blaming video games, er, no wait they do that all time. Maybe the NRA should stop to trying make scapegoats and accept responsibility and look into gun laws. oh no wait it's illegal to do research into gun control in america. (not even joking)

FargoDog:
So instead of advocating exposing children to guns and violence in a controlled, rational virtual space, the NRA would rather expose them to real guns and potentially real violence every single day they walk into school?

Seriously, this is a few steps away from advocating children take weapons into the classroom for 'protection'. It's absolute fucking insanity.

Well folks in the NRA seem to think having a gun makes you safer even though I'm not aware of data supporting that.

Last I knew you were more likely to be injured or killed in an altercation if you are armed. I believe it has something to do with the unearned confidence that firearms give people.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Their citing Mortal Kombat gave me some vivid flashbacks to the 90's.

Everybody should keep guessing what the problem is without having to do any research, that way the blame-tag can't fester on any one thing for too long. I say we blame porn, because... I mean, isn't porn the porniest porn of all the possible porns?

I was heavily bullied in school and found fantastic outlets in video games. Goldeneye may have single handedly stopped me in Junior High from stabbing someone in school. I genuinely mean that.

So I dunno, I appreciate games and have found an inverse relationship with them and my own personal levels of violence. The more of them I play the more of a hippie I become. I'm 26 now and honestly if given the oppurtunity I'd always choose to be kind to someone over being mean, I've turned into Bob Ross (not quite but it is a personal goal).

sportsguy831:
Guns don't kill people, fictional guns kill people. That is the NRA's statement dumbed down to sentence. Yeah I know most Americans are pretty stupid and agree with them but seriously guys? Nobody's ever been killed by a non-existent gun.

I know you are just being hyperbolic but the vast majority of Americans are as intelligent as the vast majority of people in general. Intelligence in populations is a bell curve. We just happen to extrapolate the lower ends of the curve on either side as if they were the majorities depending on our geopolitical points of view or geographical location.

Are games pornographic?

All games are puzzles that the player is asked to solve. Solving those puzzles is rewarded in some form or other. Sometimes that reward can be pornographic in nature. I doubt anyone would argue against the fact that Dead or Alive Volleyball isn't pornographic as progress is driven with the promise of sexual material. But what about shooters like Call of Duty which rewards progress with violent visuals. These aren't created with the direct intent of sexual arousal but they are 'exploitive', both in the nature of the reward and the role the player is placed in. Games are not pornographic per say, but they are "base".

The adversarial nature of games is often used to drive the narrative, often resulting in games which are an extended dialogs of violence. This also means that players are often put into the roles of well intentioned, ruthless protagonists, anti-heroes and even villains. Spec Ops: The Line points this out in its underlying commentary, but the trend goes beyond the genera it depicts. There are examples that fall outside the spectrum, but the majority lacks diversity. That's fine to an extent. Escapism is a natural part of being human. So long as it is moderated, it is harmless to indulge in. Shooting a virtual man is no different from shooting a gun at a range. But at the end of the day, when a man decides to murder another man, it is not the tool that he uses, neither the training he was given; rather it is the sum of all his experiences combined. With that in mind it is at least worth considering all the factors that could lead to a tragedy without a bias stance.

The NRA post fails the bias test. It's defensive and ill-conceived. The same could be said for the eye-rolling, dismissive report here on the Escapist however.

I am also into filthy pornography, but I much prefer Dark Souls, which is superior.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here