Pfft. Only poor people like rap music. Who cares if it causes them to have more babies? They're f**ked anyway.
"Killer game burnings" today in Germany
- Thread starter Polychron
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
There's something you missed, then. I like games that are imaginative, that still bring some innovation. Gore or no gore, from the early days until UT3. This is something I discuss with the ones close to me. It's not my fault that today's top games don't bring nothing new AND feature violence amongst other things to compensate for their lack of inspiration. What's in common between Bioshock, UT, Portal and Mirror's Edge? It's creativity, not gore. Regardless of having some gore and violence, are fun, have rich environments and gameplay.
You are the one that quoted me and made single line comments. I don't see how you can accuse me to dismiss valid points, when you made none, didn't bother to elaborate and make any kind of effort on the previous post.
About other people's points: I'm very sorry if I have an hard time to completely see, believe and agree with them the way they are presented! Without any doubt. If they were bullet proof, there wouldn't be a discussion about banning games in the first place. We wouldn't be here. You wouldn't have the prospect of a ban, not only in German but all the EU, China and other parts of the world. What's YOUR justification for this?
Ok, if you are so worried, here it goes again:
Ok, where do I say that I want them banned? What I have against the games is their lack of quality, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If they get the boot because they are violent (which is the topic of this thread), I don't really care. I hope it's clear now
Trolling was what you had in mind when you wrote the previous post.
Last edited:
Let me preface this by telling you you completely missed Agent 5's point. He wasn't posting one-liners to agree or disagree with you, but because he pointed out the hypocrisy in your posts, which he quoted above his one-liners. This has clearly swooshed over your head so here you go, now you know.
Regardless of what you are saying now, you argued for the ban because the violence could have played a part in the killing sprees.
Now you realize you aren't getting anywhere with that because numerous people, all more knowledgeable on the subject than you are, called you out on your bs and suddenly - you're not for the ban because of violence anymore but because those games suck anyway and they are dominating the market?
Now you are about to lose your second argument and you are helping to bring yourself down by explicitly listing recent games you enjoyed and you admit where valuable additions to the catalogue of games (i.e. they don't all suck). And your perception of FPS games flooding the market has been proven wrong as well.
So what's next now that this little diversion has failed? What will your real reason for supporting the ban have been now?
I mean, I'm just asking because I'm curious, not because it has any relevance to the topic anymore. We basically all agreed that violent games don't have anything to do with the killing sprees - you just fake-disagreed at first because you didn't like the games personally. Now that we know that (
) the topic's over, but I'd still like to hear the next episode in "Benfica's entanglement".
You're not getting out of this like this.
Regardless of what you are saying now, you argued for the ban because the violence could have played a part in the killing sprees.
Now you realize you aren't getting anywhere with that because numerous people, all more knowledgeable on the subject than you are, called you out on your bs and suddenly - you're not for the ban because of violence anymore but because those games suck anyway and they are dominating the market?
Now you are about to lose your second argument and you are helping to bring yourself down by explicitly listing recent games you enjoyed and you admit where valuable additions to the catalogue of games (i.e. they don't all suck). And your perception of FPS games flooding the market has been proven wrong as well.
So what's next now that this little diversion has failed? What will your real reason for supporting the ban have been now?
I mean, I'm just asking because I'm curious, not because it has any relevance to the topic anymore. We basically all agreed that violent games don't have anything to do with the killing sprees - you just fake-disagreed at first because you didn't like the games personally. Now that we know that (
) the topic's over, but I'd still like to hear the next episode in "Benfica's entanglement".No, xMurphyx. I don't have to get out of anything and Agent 5 didn't point out hypocrisy. At most he proved that my views of the subject did in fact changed and evolved throughout these days( after reading a few articles). That I lost focus and that I replied to things that I should have ignored.
I tried to bring points and ideas that go against what the majority thinks, because you don't gain anything if everybody says the same or thinks alike. I don't feel a big need to defend them and I'll surely stop now. You are the PC gamers, not me. You are the ones that are at risk of getting your games banned one by one here and there. Good luck!
I tried to bring points and ideas that go against what the majority thinks, because you don't gain anything if everybody says the same or thinks alike. I don't feel a big need to defend them and I'll surely stop now. You are the PC gamers, not me. You are the ones that are at risk of getting your games banned one by one here and there. Good luck!
So the actual reason why you argued FOR the ban was because no one can seriously be FOR a ban, but you gotta have someone play the devil's advocate, even if it's someone who doesn't care?
The actual explanation is a bit of a letdown, I gotta admit, but that you had another "real" reason up your sleeve at all is pretty funny.
The actual explanation is a bit of a letdown, I gotta admit, but that you had another "real" reason up your sleeve at all is pretty funny.
No. I posted some personal views, I lost focus sometimes, I overreacted. But yes, you could say that often I tried to come up with everything I could remember that goes against people's convictions and current mindset. That I made an effort to see from multiple angles. But if what comes out on top is associating "me" with "ban" then screw all this.xMurphyx said:So the actual reason why you argued FOR the ban was because no one can seriously be FOR a ban, but you gotta have someone play the devil's advocate, even if it's someone who doesn't care?
The actual explanation is a bit of a letdown, I gotta admit, but that you had another "real" reason up your sleeve at all is pretty funny.
I predict that once they run out of things to blame their problems on, it will come full circle on the Jews again and they will have to be killed.
Ignoring most of the rest of this thread from that post onwards, I feel obliged to once again come out of lurking, just to state the following:
Your first argument was already blatantly fallacious in comparing showing porn to kids or allowing retailers to sell dangerous products (I'll assume you mean dangerous like in Lawn Darts or a flimsy ladder).
I'll analyze what's happening here for you:
1) Kid shoots up school.
2) Media make it a huge story, which HAS been proven to provoke follow-ups. Maybe we should ban the news?
3) Anti-game lobby rallies upset parents to push their agenda on banning violent "killer games".
4) These games have never been proven to cause school shootings, despite plenty of research. Also, they're meant for ADULTS, not KIDS!
5) You defend people wanting to ban stuff that lies within other people's freedom to enjoy, because you don't care for those things, totally ignoring the fact that other people do like it.
Your excuse is that you feel sorry for the people. You imply they somehow have some kind of unpenetrable moral armor forged from the tears shed over their lost ones and the bleeding hearts of Germany.
Well guess what? THEY DON'T! Just because they're sad and afraid, doesn't mean that suddenly the burden of proof lies with the accused. That's lynching! Lynching other people's freedoms!
You have just failed Tolerancy 101: "I stand up for your freedom and you stand up for mine."
Let's talk about me for a sec: I don't like the Islam and that's an understatement. Yet I don't vote for Geert Wilders, because I respect my fellow countrymen's freedom and I will protest should his party get voted into the government and should he try to ban the Koran.
- datsylel out -
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, **** this.
Then let's look at this:
The strenght of the consumer rights protections forces the producers to also present proof that their product is completely safe. Even if one would consider that they don't have the burden of proof, how about bringing them to the table and prove that there's nothing to worry about? Since they are the ones that will lose the most, they would very interested to end this once and for all.
These people that are requesting ban, they are talking about it because they don't see better and you do! However, since you do then tell me what's your solution? When I'm asking this, I'm NOT saying "ok, in a short notice you didn't manage to come up with something better, therefore you should accept it"! Because the game producers have the most to lose, I'd really like to hear what they have to say. Instead of choosing any of these 2 extreme perspectives
You shouldn't have because I admitted that I didn't sleep well and something worse happened. But do what you want.datsylel89 said:
Oh, was it? Can't violent fps, porn or even alcohol have the same restrictions? Aren't the retailers a good place to regulate? To ensure that kids don't have access and YOU still do. Do you want a mid term solution or what you're afraid that is going to happen: no access at all?datsylel89 said:
I'm stating a fact. This is happening, except that maybe "biased" has nothing to do with it.
Yes, that's correct.
But here is where I stopped discussing strictly what happened. There's more to it, because like you, I don't believe that a single isolated episode is a reason to even think about something extreme as banning. There's absolutely no proof, but there's an worldwide discussion about it, not this isolated incident. But you are free to ignore it these events, in fact do whatever you want.
They are meant for adults, however they are being advocated even for kids! Not in this case, but yes, that is being mentioned
I defend their right to want to ban. Can't you see that this is different from "I, me, wanting that adult content to be banned?" Like everyone else I don't want them to be successful, but I respect their right to state a wish!
No. My justification is that they have the right to take the iniciative to act, to start a petition. There's already another petition with the opposite goal to prevent any attempt to ban, which is equally valid.
Then let's look at this:
Sorry, I'll rephrase it according to what I have in mind today: "don't you guys try to restrict what you consider unnaceptable?" I've read also that elsewhere some organizations are lobbying violent fps for children.Benfica said:
Yes, there must be some evidence. But if you invoke freedom without looking at anything else, here's your alternative: giving up of your consumer rights and protection. Get shafted and then be the one that has to do all the uphill battle against someone that have a department full of lawyers! If you want this alternative, find the party that defends your thesis.
The strenght of the consumer rights protections forces the producers to also present proof that their product is completely safe. Even if one would consider that they don't have the burden of proof, how about bringing them to the table and prove that there's nothing to worry about? Since they are the ones that will lose the most, they would very interested to end this once and for all.
I didn't fail anything dude. I'll stand up for your freedom anyday. I don't support the outcome that they are asking, but I stand up for their freedom of speech, assembly and start a petition. And besides freedom, I defend the ones that I consider more vulnerable. I'm not going to change!
Yes, but wouldn't you do anything about it, if Islam was the predominant religion in the Netherlands? If you were convinced that Islamic radicalism hurted someone close to you, would you seat on your ass? Isn't it acceptable to request an explanation from a Muslim leader?
These people that are requesting ban, they are talking about it because they don't see better and you do! However, since you do then tell me what's your solution? When I'm asking this, I'm NOT saying "ok, in a short notice you didn't manage to come up with something better, therefore you should accept it"! Because the game producers have the most to lose, I'd really like to hear what they have to say. Instead of choosing any of these 2 extreme perspectives
Last edited:
The people we're talking about want a BAN, even for adults. I'm all for stricter laws around selling R rated games to minors, but that's not what these parents are protesting for.
Just because more people choose the same scapegoat, doesn't necessarily mean it's more likely to be guilty, if numerous investigations have proven these claims false.
Then they should protest for a change in the laws around commercials for violent games, not for a total ban.
Oh sure, they can say whatever they want, that's their good right.
You however, make various (false) claims that most FPS suck anyway and that they make up almost all of today's offer in games. That may even be considered just an opinion, but don't use it as an argument, please.
It gives people ideas like that you're actually pro ban...
Oh they all have the right to petition and we have the right to debunk their retarded claims that would infringe upon other people's freedom. They can petition whatever they like! What they petition in this case, however, should never evolve past a petition.
I don't try to restrict what I consider unacceptable, if there's no proof it does actual harm, as I would just be infringing upon other people's freedom. Else the Toppers or Frans Bauer would already been out of business. Also, link please?
I don't have to. This product doesn't cause physical harm beyond RSI and epileptic fits (though you might consider banning the Wii, lol) and the psychological harm would only surface in school shootings, where the culprits already had severe mental issues. Also, consecutive research showing no evidence games make people violent lead me to believe it has been somewhat proven they DON'T.
Except they aren't the more vulnerable ones. They're sad, scared and naturally make people feel sorry for them. Meanwhile, they're the tools of a repressi ve government that doesn't want to face the facts and do something about the actual problem.
Ah, but that's a whole different story. Turning to Islamic radicalism already warrants a visit by the AIVD, because it preaches hate and violence (IRL), which is forbidden by law.
Also, the Sharia doesn't respect my freedom, so I don't have to be tolerant towards muslims if they actually start turning this country into Iran. I've never heard of game developers pushing homosexuals off rooftops or stoning raped girls to death for adultery.
My solution? Well, what people have been saying for years:
Solve the bullying problem, give guidance to loners and people that fail at school. Train teachers to recognize and act upon mental illness in their students. Give proper psychiatric help to those that need it. Make sure someone with a mental illness doesn't have easy access to firearms. Don't make a media circus out of school shootings.
Nice link, not just for Benefica:
I would go ahead and say: allow concealed carry of firearms by all above age 21 of good mental health with no criminal record, so they could stop a school shooter dead in his tracks, but that'd just cause a huge ****storm (just ignore this part).
Last edited by a moderator:
So you've been reading Jack Thompson's bullsh#¤, haven't you?!
NOWHERE are people - who are against this parent group's excessive ban-demands (which btw seeks to fully ban ALL games they can deem 'violent') - saying games shouldn't be rated, or should be GIVEN to kids.
We're simply not buying into the bulls"%# that a game somehow had more to do with a kid shooting up his ex and school, than the fact that the kid had SERIOUS mental and social issues - issues which had been REPEATEDLY IGNORED by his parents - and a downright unhealthy dosage of loaded weaponry stashed upside his head.
ESPECIALLY when said bullsh%# is being spewn in order for them to use THEIR freedom of speech to trample on OUR freedom of choice!
They are allowed freedom and we are not? Why the selectionism??
I mean, sheesh.
There are rating systems, and then there's PARENTING!
Guess which one failed last time in Germany, and in every case of school shootings in the past, well.. Too many years..
I'll give you a hint: It wasn't the rating systems!
Last edited:
"every time I score a headshot on Killzone 2, I feel one step closer to enlightenment."
NICE
Edit: Oh wait the monk didn't actually say that. Damn.
Last edited:
pdf's about EU perspective on children protection:
A programme for child protection on the Internet
protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games
Start from http://europa.eu/index_en.htm and you'll be able to find more material.
About defending violent games for children: http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2004/07/64101
A programme for child protection on the Internet
protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games
Start from http://europa.eu/index_en.htm and you'll be able to find more material.
About defending violent games for children: http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2004/07/64101
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Califor...ruled_unconstitutional_by_US_Court_of_Appeals
