NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

WouldYouKindly:
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.

Yep, going nuts means a decline in entertainment quantity and quality.

Guess the NRA is quite happy to throw anyone under the bus if it means they can fend off gun control after what happened in Connecticut.

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

Wow, this statement is so wrong on so many levels, NO, it's NOT pornography, not in any way, shape or form, that aside, it's like he assumes the only reason somebody kills a virtual character who doesn't exist is for some sort of sexual release, which is also wrong for several more reasons.

That's strange. Is there a game based off of Two Girls One Cup? Cuase that would be... I don't know.

Splains why I love video games so much then.

Anyhow, I'm gonna go watch a hooker get her guts fucked or something. Whatever qualifies for "the filthiest form of pornography".

geldonyetich:
Guess the NRA is quite happy to throw anyone under the bus if it means they can fend off gun control after what happened in Connecticut.

Pretty much

They're going to keep pointing at anything else so we dun terk ur gurns

I mean, who gives a fuck about the first amendment as long as the second one's safe?

Looks like the NRA looked around the cultural room for something, anything to fling at the public and scream, "it's not guns that kill people it's people, influenced by... er... computer games!"

Sounds like the NRA is just passing the buck to deflect criticism right now. What better way to continue to defend completely excessive weaponry and ease of access then blaming the good old Right-wing bugbear of video games, and how they're corrupting the youth and turning them into psychopathic killers. Going on about violent movies as well just sounds like the scare tactics the Right used back in the 50s about American youth being brainwashed by too much TV.

I mean, I live in the British countryside and my family owns several shotguns and rifles, and I'm proud to support the rural views about the conservation, for instance, against the urban liberals who think they know best, but if the NRA is going to defend its views then it needs to argue its viewpoint rather then trying to act like tragedies like Sandy Hook have got nothing to do with it.

In my mind the main problem is there is an attitude that nothing is wrong with the status quo and any examination of why people are allowed to own automatic rifles and machine guns is unnecessary as: there will always be crazy people doing this kind of thing (yes, but tougher regulations will makes this much less likely to reoccur)/people have a right to self-defense (where in the Constitution?,and why are effectively military weapons needed?)/some other evil effect is OBVIOUSLY why most mass shootings occur i.e. this, deflecting the blame onto something easy to attack.

I mean, factors like: wide availability of powerful weapons, lack of guidelines and restrictions on purchasing, ownership and safe-keeping; a proud history of treating trespassers or burglars as nothing more than vermin to be blown away, over the top paranoia about government restrictions and belief in an inalienable right to bear arms all contribute to an atmosphere of mass killings and a belief that this is a simply natural consequence where nothing needs to be done.

I can say that members of British sporting bodies are uncomfortable associating with elements of the NRA because stuff like this can give THEM a bad reputation when it happens in the news. It leads to media attacks which they are much less able to defend well against considering most people live in urban areas and don't understand fieldsports or country issues.

GunsmithKitten:

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?

To be honest? If my local "puritans" mobilized and decided to ban video games I would just move. That said I don't think there are many places where that would ever be an issue.

Understand that this is a demoracy, not anarchy. Democracy is by definition everyone voting, and whatever gets the most votes is what everyone does. Albiet this is supposed to work on a state by state level, hence the idea of it being "The United States". In the end all of your arguements amount to "OMG, I might not be able to do whatever they heck I want, whenever I want it" that's what rule of law is all about. Order comes at the price of sacrificing individual liberty, the big question is the degree to which you do this.

Handled area by area you wind up with far more people living how they want to, than by sweeping legislation which rapidly becomes a tyranny of the minority, with small groups of people able to force themselves on the rest of society. Whether it's nobility or a special interest group, that's exactly what this country was setting out to get away from.

I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot when you say that your reason for wanting this kind of thing is simply because your afraid you'll wind up going to jail. Your specific arguements aside, if you really think the overwhelming majority of people are against you to the point where that's inevitable, you might want to engage in some self-analysis. The purpose of society is to benefit the majority, not to enable you.

That said, it also comes down to how the founding fathers chose to interpet the rules they created in the street. You really can't lionize principles that don't mean anything close to what you want to claim they do by the interpetation of the men who created them.

Therumancer:

To be honest? If my local "puritans" mobilized and decided to ban video games I would just move. That said I don't think there are many places where that would ever be an issue.

Good luck when you're being charged with possession. I don't think they'll accept "But I was planning to move to somewhere where they were legal!" when you're caught with them.

Handled area by area you wind up with far more people living how they want to, than by sweeping legislation which rapidly becomes a tyranny of the minority, with small groups of people able to force themselves on the rest of society.

So much for sacrificing for order, huh?

That's what amazes me about Communitarians like you; you can speak of freedom one minute, then suddenly cite why it's necessary for any community to make any authoritarian law they want over the people there.

Again, if I get thrown in prison by community laws, it's better than getting thrown in prison somehow by the feds?

I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot when you say that your reason for wanting this kind of thing is simply because your afraid you'll wind up going to jail.

Sir, I'm part of a minority that it was perfectly legal to imprison just for being that minority until 2005. So yea. It is touchy. And I'm quite right to be afraid of incarceration.

Your specific arguements aside, if you really think the overwhelming majority of people are against you to the point where that's inevitable, you might want to engage in some self-analysis. The purpose of society is to benefit the majority, not to enable you.

And if that benefit to the majority involves removing me from society?

No. I'll fight to keep states and communities from having the right to round up homosexuals for imprisonment, state's rights be damned straight to hell. This is my fucking life on the line here. Not yours, MINE.

Lieju:

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?

Well, the issue comes down to what this country is and how it's supposed to be run. Hence the major conflict between Republicans and Democrats. I by the same token can point to the intent of the founding fathers and say that anyone who doesn't want to live as I present should get out and go to a country with a strong central goverment. The US having been founded as "United States" specifically to get away from that. This fight isn't likely to be resolved any time in the near future however, especially not over the internets.

Honestly, I have a feeling we're liable to see a civil war before too long as well, simply because the US has been divided along these lines too closely, for too long. Dubbya got two terms by a hairds breadth, now Obama has gotten two by the same margin. Things have been getting increasingly belligerant and non-functional. Give it a decade or so (it won't happen over the next four years) and one side or the other are going to pull out the guns to save the country. In absolute terms The Republicans would be right given the original principles of the country's founding, but at the same token with nearly half the population being far more federal in their point of view (and in many cases outright socialist) arguements for an entirely new goverment being formed in place of the old one can be made. Something could change, but without a clear majority, this is going to get worse if the deadlock remains.

That said, technically, as the very name of the country says, local and state empowerment are the way things are supposed to work, and one of the central principles the whole nation was founded other. Those who disagree with that are the actual intruders (so to speak) who are trying to change things, and would most appropriatly be expected to go somewhere else due to being disatistified with the basic principles of the country. Not wanting to do this, especially with nowhere else to go (given everyplace nice on the planet is inhabited), this are just going to get nastier.

To answer your questions more accuratly though, there is a degree of common sense involved in this, especially seeing as the states are allied against outside threats. Deciding to dump toxic waste into other people's back yards and such generally isn't going to happen because the favor can also be returned. What's more cases of extreme conflict like that were among the few cases where the federal goverment, acting for all the other states, might be able to intervene. It's not supposed to be acting as a true central authority that lays down the law though, acting mostly to deal with cases where the rare inter-state conflict on that level intrudes on the well being of the other states. Likewise all the states want to be able to trade and so on, so common interest again prevents truely high profile conflicts. Things functioned this way perfectly well for a very long time, and still do to a degree, as the federal goverment is
hardly all powerful, it's just more powerful than it should be.

Therumancer:

To answer your questions more accuratly though, there is a degree of common sense involved in this, especially seeing as the states are allied against outside threats. Deciding to dump toxic waste into other people's back yards and such generally isn't going to happen because the favor can also be returned.

Not necessarily. First of all, not all areas would have the same kind of industry, and geography is different.
For a simple example, let's say there are two towns alongside the river. The ones upstream dump their waste in the river, which then carries it downstream. Even if the other town doesn't have laws against dumping, they can't return the favor by doing the same.
This kind of a thing happens all the time, even on an international scale, and in my opinion, there should be more laws restricting such things. I think you should be held reposnsible for what you do. If your actions only have an effect on your close environment, then it makes sense for the local legistlation to govern it. Similarly, if you only hurt yourself, why involve law at all?
No US state is self-sustained, they have an effect on the rest of the union, and the rest of the planet.
But then again, the welfare of the 1st world is based on taking advantage of the developing countries.

Therumancer:

What's more cases of extreme conflict like that were among the few cases where the federal goverment, acting for all the other states, might be able to intervene. It's not supposed to be acting as a true central authority that lays down the law though, acting mostly to deal with cases where the rare inter-state conflict on that level intrudes on the well being of the other states. Likewise all the states want to be able to trade and so on, so common interest again prevents truely high profile conflicts. Things functioned this way perfectly well for a very long time, and still do to a degree, as the federal goverment is
hardly all powerful, it's just more powerful than it should be.

The founding fathers also founded the country that had slavery and where the majority of the population had no right to vote.
What people who lived on a different time wanted is a poor reason to do anything.
They lived in a different kind of country with far different technology.
For example, is there at this time a risk that the British have too much influence and need to be driven away with guns?

As for your prediction of civil war, I think it depends on whether there will be an outside threat. If there is, I think it's far more likely they will stick together.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! The same people who brings the weapons to the murder's hand is now pointing his triggering finger to a culture that have nothing to do with this tragedy?

other than Mortal Combat (nature of being an arcade where M-rated game on an easy access of a under age player), other titles are NOT a valid argument, because they are rated and NOT FOR KIDS TO PLAY!~ if (and we all know that it's NOT) a kid played GTA, and go bananas the next day and gun down people, we SHOULD ask WHY/HOW HE OBTAIN THAT GUN? and HOW DID HE GET TO PLAY A M-RATED GAME? and not asking WHY IS THIS M-Rated game made? (fantasy, as if game hypnoses people to turn them in to murdering zombies)

Sorry for the kids, sorry for the parents that the media cares for the murder and HIS household, HIS life style, HIS affairs, then the victims' families and friends... seeing your friend get shot to death right before your very eyes, as a minor... the trauma they will carry through their lives... they will never live their lives the same way anymore... we should start a found raiser or something for them...

gravian:
a proud history of treating trespassers or burglars as nothing more than vermin to be blown away

Actually, I'm quite proud we have that outlook.

One too many times where tresspassers and burglars rape or torture the families within homes has made us, you know, less than sympathetic to the poor oppressed burglars of the world.

GunsmithKitten:

gravian:
a proud history of treating trespassers or burglars as nothing more than vermin to be blown away

Actually, I'm quite proud we have that outlook.

One too many times where tresspassers and burglars rape or torture the families within homes has made us, you know, less than sympathetic to the poor oppressed burglars of the world.

And yet people wonder why gun massacres keep on happening... Must be the video games desensitizing the youth and making them think of bullies and people who threaten you as nothing more than the evil baddies who need to be shot because that's the only language they understand. What else could it be, in a country with such a heavily regulated death penalty, where it can take years for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and with such high regard internationally for basic human dignity and rights?

I've got a question for you. About how far would I have to go onto your property before I become just a bug, something to be mindlessly squashed? About three feet? Six? Because it seems to me that no matter what they look like any intruders to you obviously aren't really human, and they obviously don't deserve the right to a fair trail by jury like anyone else. I mean, what gives you the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner, to dispense whatever so-called justice as you see fit on your property, even if the intruders aren't threatening anyone or even running away? Shooting in self-defense, yes, I can understand that. But not coldly shooting someone running away, with zero threat to you or anyone.

gravian:

I've got a question for you. About how far would I have to go onto your property before I become just a bug, something to be mindlessly squashed? About three feet? Six?

Not a matter of distance.

You come onto my property without invitation especially by breaking in, you will be facing a firearm and you'll be told to stand down. If you do, all you have to do is be on the ground and stay still until the police come to collect you. Hell, I'll even allow you to retreat if you want.

If after being told to do so, you still come at me, then you become a bug.

Because it seems to me that no matter what they look like any intruders to you obviously aren't really human, and they obviously don't deserve the right to a fair trail by jury like anyone else.

That's because of the many times when people like Manson didn't give the inhabitants of the home a fair trial by jury.

I mean, what gives you the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner, to dispense whatever so-called justice as you see fit on your property, even if the intruders aren't threatening anyone or even running away?

=I already said if you want a chance to retreat, you'll get it. You can run, and I'll call the crime janitors in the hopes you get picked up. But if after being told to stand down you continue to break in or to attack me, then the shooting begins.

Were I to shoot you in the back when you were no longer a threat, I would be charged with murder and I would deserve it.

ITT: People who use the NRA to represent all Americans, and discuss why America is the worst country in the world. Rather than, you know, looking at the NRA as a group that is about as representative of the average American as PETA.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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
Register for a free account here