Video Game Bill Introduced in North Carolina Senate

February 8, 2007 -
Yesterday, North Carolina State Senator Julia Boseman proposed a video game bill designed to restrict the access of minors to violent video games.

The move was not unexpected. A staffer told GamePolitics recently that Boseman was planning to introduce video game legislation.

The new bill, SB87, adds violent games to an existing North Carolina statute which defines material harmful to minors. Although the bill's language differs somewhat from recent legislative proposals in Utah and Louisiana, it is similar to those efforts in that it seeks to define video game violence in the same terms used to restrict minors' access to pornography.

To that end, Sen. Boseman's legislation would restrict minors' access to games which feature "the realistic visual depiction of serious injury to human beings, actual or virtual; appeal to  a minor's morbid interest in violence; are "patently offensive" to prevailing community standards; and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

The proposed law also requires such games to be displayed in an area not accessible by minors and mandates that retailers must inform consumers about the game rating system

The bill, which applies to arcades as well as game retailers, establishes a variety of misdemeanor offenses for violations of the proposed law. As reported by GamePolitics, Sen. Boseman proposed video game legislation in North Carolina in 2005. That bill passed the Senate, but failed to move in the House.

If passed, SB87 would become law in December.

Comments

@Daniel:

Yes, yes, you've said that several times already. I'm not going to get into asking you why you believe pornography is "evil" (a quality I personally would never ascribe to an inanimate object, but whatever), because that's almost entirely off-topic. (Although you avoided directly answering my last post...)

I would like to ask you, however, what led you to your conclusions about violence. WHY do you think that "real" violence is desensitizing, but "fake" violence is not? And what do you define as "real" violence, anyway, mivies, TV, and the like, or just actual fights?

I think it's all desensitizing, "fake" or otherwise - but only up to a certain age, and in large quantities.

@Daniel:

Making new friends every day, aren't we? Just keep it up.

@EOTD:

Daniel usually doesn't address posts that he doesn't have a good answer for, which is why you don't really ever see him directly responding to other people's points. Instead, he typically just repeats what he's already said before. That, along with his inability to view things except in absolutes, is one of the more frustrating aspects of trying to have a civilized discussion with him. Good luck getting used to it; I gave up weeks ago.

Well, I don't give up very easily, either. :)

@ EOTD

By real violence, I mean real fights in real life. Or shootouts like what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did at Columbine. Killing and hurting real people in the real world is real violence and I don't condone that at all. That's evil and should never happen but, of course, it will continue to happen because that's human nature.

@EOTD:

I see. Well, to give ye an idea what yer in for, I suggest you train for this arduous task by standing in front of a brick wall. Then, ask it random questions for an hour a day. Continue this for three phases of the moon, hoping to elicit a favorable response. When cometh the end of thy labors, return here and put yon skills to the test, and may ye results fare better than mine.

*end Vice City Thor impersonation*

hayabusa75

It seems to me that you are not totally on the side of violent video games. Trying to convince me that they're not always innocent is immpossible. That's like trying to talk to a brick wall you're right about that. What's wrong with what I'm saying? I'm on your side and while I am somewhat redundant, I don't condone violence in real life and I have a lot in common with the people on this website. The point of this website is to say things in favor of controversial video games. Guess what, homie, violent video games are the only ones that are controversial.

I can't remember anybody ever saying anything against a nonviolent video game. The nonviolent ones are not controversial and they don't need defending, homie. When was the last time you heard of anti-game activists complaining about or trying to ban a game that is nonviolent? I don't think that's ever happened, dawg. Only violent and sexual media is controversial, dawg. Did I mention I love to listen to rap music? I am a fan of most things that are controversial. Violent video games are what we're on this site to defend, homie.

Why do I talk about and defend violent video games all the time? Well, *scraching my head* maybe it's because violent media is what's being attacked on Capitol Hill and maybe it's because that's the purpose of this site. What's the matter with you? Defend violent media that's what we're all here for. *scraching my head* JEESE we're here because we want to make our voices heard DAMN IT. Isn't that why we're here? To defend violent media and say that anti-game legislation is unneccesary.

We're trying to run down the arguments of anti-game activists. That's our purpose on this site. What's wrong with you? I say that games are not the same as pornography and you practically call me stupid. Of course, you realize that by saying I'm stupid when I say that games aren't the same as pornography, you're, in essence, saying that they are. Do you think that games are the same as pornography?

They are not the same as pornography and you should know that. Pornography is harmful and violent video games aren't. Haven't you also noticed that most of the threads on this website are about video games? Why do you think that is? It maybe because that's the purpose of this site. What games are that legislation pointed at? Violent video games and people post comments because they don't like the legislation. Tell you what go to a quiet place and try to figure out what side you're on.

I think what Daniel is trying to say is that real depictions of violence against people (showing real people on film/T.V/whatever being killed) is wrong not because showing real death in a film or movie causes violence behavior in people watching it but because real people were killed for the purpose of making the film. At least that's what i got from what he said.

@Daniel

"Your either with me or your against me"

That is a very very dangerous attitude. That attitude has caused many problems in the world.

Your very wrong about on violent games. Poke'mon is banned in several countries for promoting Zionism and ensnaring the minds of children, however that may just be that region.

Daniel. Inside your head you twist our arguments into something they are not.



"The point of this website is to say things in favor of controversial video games."

That is one of the stupidest things you have ever said. This is a site for discussion not for "running down" anti gamers with the rest of the choir.

The problem is you cannot look at this issue as anything other then black and white.

Once again please explain how pornography is harmful. I dislike it and have a number of reasons I dislike it, but I do not see how it is harmful.
Please provide proof of this statement.

Maybe this Daniel, we are on the side of caution and moderation.

Continued


We have no Idea what the long term effects of videogames are. There have been no studies that have proven conclusive one way or the other. We cannot say for sure what a life time of games, violent or otherwise, does to a person.

Long term means 20 30 40+ years. Get that through your head.

We also believe in parental rights. Hence why many of us Believe in the ESRB. Something you seem to hate.


This issue cannot be broken into 2 sides. This issue has many factors many of which you chose to ignore.

I also agree with the Sourceress, but I come away differently then Big-K.

Until you are 18 your parents are responsible for guiding you into adulthood. What minors have access to should be controlled by the parents and not the government.
As a minor you have no rights, including freedom of speech, unless your parents allow it (with the exception being if you are threatened with bodily harm). Get over it.
It is the responsibility of your parents to raise you, not the government. I see far to many parents passing the buck to the government trying to restrict something for everyone, while at the same time I see parents again passing the buck to the government saying well there no law against it.

So now we have the government playing Super Nanny, and parents losing the rights to shape their child into an adult. Spank that kids when he says something foal, ground him when he does something wrong and tell the government to F-off when it come to raising your kid and then tell the other parents to mind there own business when they don’t like your methods. God people take some responsibility for your actions. You shouldn’t have put the pecker in the hole if you didn’t want to be a parent and you are responsible for shaping your child into an adult. You are not responsible for raising everyone else’s children, so mind your own business.

Wow, I went on a bit of a rant there, but it’s a parent’s responsibility not the government.


Now about this law I have to disagree with it because once again it treats video games like porn. I don’t see them placing those violent R rated movies in the back room, so why should an M rated game be placed there? Because what is an R rating on movies except, nudity, violence, language, content for 17+? It the exact same thing as an M rating, however games get an M rating a lot easier and people want to treat it like porn.

Ill stick by what I said last time:
“A new system needs to be put into place governing the sales of video games that does NOT treat them like porn. I have no problem restricting the sales of games to minors, but that’s not what they are trying to do. They are trying to make all legitimate M rated game buyers/players submit themselves to the public status of perverts.”

@ Bigman-K

No I don't think that watching violent movies is bad. I have a bunch of them myself. I think that killing people in real life is bad and evil. If a real person in the real world is being killed for real, that's bad. Not violent movies. No one ever dies while making violent movies there's nothing wrong with violent movies. I have absolutely nothing against violent movies where actors are pretending to kill each other.

@ Brokenscope

I'm not saying you're either with me or against me. I'm saying that pornography is bad because I don't believe it's right to look at a naked body that's immoral.

Somebody call Michael Angelo and tell him to put pants on David stat!

Seriously by that logic a lot of great art needs to be censored.

@Daniel

Sigh! Did you not read my post Daniel. I wasn't refering to depictions of violence in films that are fake but depictions of violence in films that are real. Real people being killed for the purpose of making the film. I was saying you were against depictions of real violence not fake violence in films. O.K.

@Daniel:

"The point of this website is to say things in favor of controversial video games. Guess what, homie, violent video games are the only ones that are controversial."

Let's ask Dennis what he thinks about that, since it's his website. I think you're forgetting games like Leisure Suit Larry and Conker, to name a couple.

"What’s wrong with you? I say that games are not the same as pornography and you practically call me stupid. Of course, you realize that by saying I’m stupid when I say that games aren’t the same as pornography, you’re, in essence, saying that they are. Do you think that games are the same as pornography?"

Do you have dyslexia? I say one thing and your brain turns it into another? I KNOW games do not = porn. I call you stupid because you automatically assume porn is harmful the same way JT assumes games are harmful, and you can't prove it any more than he can. Here, I'll use one of your arguments: I know porn isn't harmful because I've watched it since I was 14 and I've never raped anyone. Are you convinced? It's your argument!

"Tell you what go to a quiet place and try to figure out what side you’re on."

I'm on the side of all the rational clear-headed gamers who know how to analyze issues, examine all sides and make lucid arguments for the sake of the industry. Perhaps in another 20 years when you graduate college you'll have reached a similar level of emotional maturity, but I doubt it.

@ Bigman-K and hayabusa75

Conker's Bad Fur Day is violent. However, you're right about Leisure Suit Larry. Most nonviolent games aren't controversial though. I have never seen a film where people actually get hurt and get killed. What film has actual violence instead of fake violence?

@Daniel:

Yes, but Conker wasn't controversial because of the violence.

"Here, I’ll use one of your arguments: I know porn isn’t harmful because I’ve watched it since I was 14 and I’ve never raped anyone. Are you convinced? It’s your argument!"

What's your answer to this?

Something I should make clear since it was apparently mentioned at some point - not everyone here feels that violent game sales should be unrestricted. I think that the ESRB ratings should be enforced and that some things are inappropriate. But, I also don't want our other liberties to be trampled so we can be a nanny state, and I don't think that entertainment should be denied to the many because the few are unable to consume it responsibly.

As for what's 'morally' correct - I think that if you need to appeal to one's sense of morals on something, you should just stop. People are never going to agree on what's moral or immoral. You can't legislate morality; you can only legislate YOUR morality, and only if it happens to be roughly in line with a majority of the population. I believe that video games are not dangerous and that sex, if practiced responsibly, is not immoral. And I do no one any harm in practicing those beliefs. If, however, the majority feels otherwise, does that mean that what I want doesn't matter?

Also, Conker BFD wasn't overly violent (just cartooney) but extremely crude - there's one boss battle where you have to get rounded and then urinate on enemies, a topless big-breasted sunflower, and the infamous Poo Monster. Its biggest crime (according to its detractors) was in being a game for adults, masquerading as a kiddie game with cute cartoon animals. Which is almost understandable since it was originally for the N64 and came out at the same time as Banjo-Kazooie and DK64, two other platform games with cute mammals.
Controversy tends to follow the money, I imagine. There's a fair number of games that aren't violent but are very inappropriate for the kiddies, but none of them were terribly successful. That, and it'd be hard to make a case for a kid being driven to kill people by a game starring a cartoon squirrel.

@ hayabusa75

Yes, you're right. That is my argument. My only responce is that at church, the priests have repeatedly condemned pornography, but they have never really said anything about violent entertainment. I used to go to a more conservative church and the priest there gave a homily on January 11, 2004 where he said that pornography caused Ted Bundy to go on his killing spree. However, he didn't mention violent media in his homily. However, at that church, I never mentioned that I play violent video games and that I have several violent movies.

They were very conservative and I knew that they were probably against it, which is why I never brought it up. I think that pornography is bad because I'm against it and I have no problem believeing it. However, I am a huge fan of violent media and I will never believe that it causes violence. That's also why I was very upset when I saw that thread where the pope was condemning violent entertainment. I love and respect the Catholic Church, but I have no respect for those comments.

My worry is that he will make it dogma that violent entertainment is bad and evil just like Pope John Paul II made it dogma that contraception was a serious sin. If he did that, I would have to choose between my religion and my favorite thing in the world and I don't want to have to make that choice, but if it comes to that, I will choose violent entertainment even if it takes me to hell.

In the Catholic Church, there are two kinds of sin. Venial sin and mortal sin. It is believed that venial sins like cussing and doing some small harm like a small lie make the soul sick and in need of confession. Mortal sins are things like using contraception, fornication, adultery, and looking at pornography. If you are in the state of mortal sin, you can't recieve any of the sacraments and if you die in the state of mortal sin you will go to hell and burn for all of eternity. It is also believed that in the Bible where Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom, that means that whatever the pope allows will be allowed in heaven and whatever he forbids on earth, will be forbidden in heaven.

A read in a history book last quarter that Thomas Jefferson once said, "If I could go to heaven but without a political party, I wouldn't go at all." That's the way I feel about violent video games. If they aren't allowed in heaven, I don't want to go. If violent media isn't allowed there, then I don't want to go anyway. I hope the pope doesn't make it a mortal sin to see violent media because that's one thing I'll never give up.

See that's my problem with the Catholic Church, extra biblical garbage. Things such as Jesus giving Peter the keys to heaven are unbiblical as is the whole mortal sin dogma. It's an extra biblical doctrine added by men that's based on works such as the sacrament, another addition to the Gospel I might add. Also the heavy power given to the Pope, himself a mere man goes against the biblical truths.

So really you don't have to worry a bit about mortal sins and other such garbage. A sin is a sin, and according to the Gospels and Letters of the Apostles one confession, that at the time of salvation is all that is needed.

Sorry to go incredibly off topic with my theological ramblings but I just had to get that off my chest.

Parently offensive? 0_o

Jotunheim
not to mention the retooling of proverbs and such from the tora ,sometimes I wish they'd get back to basics instead of spin it into odd vague and thougly exclusive sayings that only build them up and tear everyone else down.

My take on it: A deity worth worshipping isn't going to condemn you for playing violent video games, or for watching pornography, or for being homosexual, or anything - it should be enough that you lived a good life, did no malicious harm to another, and have a clean conscience. The Pope is a man, one of great and devout faith but a man nonetheless and it is not for him to decide where you go after you die. I for one regretted some of my choices in life and no longer stick to my Catholic roots. But, I have grown to accept those decisions and got forgiveness from those I slighted. And I feel that's enough for me to be sent to Hell, then Heaven wouldn't have been much fun anyway - "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints," as the saying goes.

[...] North Carolina legislators have proposed a new bill that will restrict the way in which video games are sold and classified. I use the word “new” loosely because it’s basically the same bill used by several other states last year. Here’s what I don’t understand, you politicians are paying enough attention to other states to take their ideas almost word for word, but not paying attention to the fact that those bills were overturned and ruled unconstitutional in every case. Stop wasting your tax payer’s money. If you need to run someone’s life, try this. [...]

@ Benji:

When God created us, He created us male and female, and "for this reason a man shall depart from his family to be with a woman." Men were meant to be with women, not men with men. Homosexual practice is an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22 demonstrates that God is not pleased with homosexual practice). You claim, then, that God would be unworthy, but this is based on your assertion that homosexuality is moral. On what basis do you claim that homosexuality is a good thing? I could point not only to the Bible as God's Word, but also to nature - homosexual practices has been known to be harmful in contrast to heterosexual practices - as evidence that homosexuality is clearly not in the natural order of all creation. You have to ask yourself first, is your opinion of right and wrong absolute and objective, or is it subjective and biased?

Without an absolute such as God's Word, who are you to judge what is a "good life?" If man alone judged his way into heaven, it wouldn't be heaven anymore, given the fallen state of mankind (I assume that you are aware of this doctrine, given your former Catholic connections).

Now, to address the points I originally opted to post about, violent games and pornography, these claims raised interesting thoughts for me that I felt obligated to write about. Biblically, there is nothing wrong with playing violent video games, as they are fantasy. Ergo, reading Harry Potter is not an erratic practice, as it is fantasy. If you understand that it is fantasy and nothing more than that, I don't see any biblical reason you can't play such games. There is nothing in the Bible against fictional depiction of violence. It may be discouraged (for obvious reasons), but it is not condemned.

The problem with pornography, however, is that it arouses lust; you are looking upon a woman (or man, depending on your gender and orientation). This, Jesus Christ pointed out, is a sin. Can you honestly, in good conscience, say you are not aroused to lust by pornography?

With these thoughts out of the way and now addressing the general reader of this post, I would like to emphasize however, that we should not concern ourselves with trying to maintain a perfect life by human efforts - this is impossible given our current, fallen nature. When God created us, we lived in perfection, but we screwed it up. We screwed our chance up, and we erected a wall between God and us - we cannot form a relationship with God with sin staring us in the face. We are all responsible for our actions, but know this - God aspired to help us out of our own hole, by sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross as an once-and-for-all sacrifice to atone for what we have done, and to clean us so that we can once again enter into Sanctuary - relationship with God. "Believe in Jesus Christ, and confess that God raised Him in three days and you shall be saved."

@ Soga

To respond to part of your post, On what basis do YOU, Soga claim that homosexuality is a bad thing? Harmfull to society even? Not of the natural order?

I personally am not homosexual but I AM a christian,
I have a few friends that are Homosexual (male and female).

Because of that I know that being Homosexual is not something you "do" it's something that you ARE or aren't.

Lots of fantastic art, books and inventions were made by homosexual people like Leonardo da Vinci.
Sounds like adding usefull things to society to me...


And the natural order?
I did not believe it at first, but there ARE homosexual animals that make usefull contributions to their social group, try looking up the Bonobo chimps if you dón't believe me.


And concering the bible: I don't want to step on anyones toes, but if you compare bibles through the ages you'll notice slight discrepancies creeping in from version to version due to translation and "modernisation".

The latest "modern" translation of the bible here in the Netherlands feels like almost reading a different book from the previous version, since they chose their words carefully to downplay some of the more violent parts.

A friend of mine is a Vicar and an Theologist and he pointed this out to me a little while ago.


To conclude:
Maybe the bible once was the absolute word of god, but since we humans have been tinkering with it for centuries I personally can no longer believe that it has not been "modified" to some degree.

There are still things of value in there, but please THINK about what your reading.

And thus I end my rant...

@The gaming Dutch:

I know about the bonobos, but did you know that what they do isn't really homosexual, but rather a manner of communicating - sometimes to communicate reconcilation, as wikipedia would put it? Even so, it is questionable as to how physically - biologically - healthy these mannerisms might be for the bonobos, given the fallen nature of creation. Psychologically, sex - regardless of genders involved - obviously would reduce stress, apparently. Another thing to ask is whether these bonobos inherited these mannerisms by means of degeneration. But this is not about the bonobos, this is about the human approach to homosexual mannerisms; to me, it would seem that even if one were wired to harbor feelings for the same sex, it is -how you cope with it- that determines whether you are in sin. You argue that homosexuality is what you "are," but having struggled with it myself, I KNOW homosexuality is more of a choice. I KNOW what having non-straight sexual orientation is like, and it isn't something that "can't be helped." However, you would mind to read about the existence of ex-gays (http://exodus.to/content/blogcategory/20/149/). If homosexuality was as part of who you were, arguably a reference to the speculated gay gene, ex-gays theoretically should not exist. Like these people, I seeked God's help to remove me from that lifestyle, and the results are positive. It is apparent then, that you have a choice - you can choose to remain in such a lifestyle, or to put your life in God's hands.

It's true that gay people contribute useful things to society, but did I ever say, explicitly or implicitly, that they didn't? I am arguing that homosexual offense is immoral in the eyes of God. God did NOT intend for a man to lie with another man. I am not saying that homosexual people themselves are useless to society. Nowhere in my post do I even imply that.

And to your assertions about the Bible, there are Bible translators that translate using the OLDEST, MOST RELIABLE manuscripts of the Bible. If you work backwards, you will notice that changes are for the major part, very minimal and hardly substantial to distort the Bible.

I have put thought as well as prayer into these posts, and I hope this discussion bears blessings for these who partake of it.

@ Daniel
Venial sins you can say a quick prayer for forgiveness, but you should do penance. But you can still receive the sacraments.
Mortal sins you MUST confess and do penance and you are not allowed to receive sacraments until you do.
---
Paraphrasing from Galieo "The bible is absolute and perfect, but our translations of it are not" Throughout the centuries the bible has been translated to make it more understandable for people. There are still bibles made that are (more or less) one-to-one translations of the original Latin/Greek bible, but is is very difficult to understand.
Also when interpreting the bible you must understand what words meant when they were written.
Example (non bibilical context)
the word 'gay' meant Happy, cheerful. That was a few decades ago. Today it has become to mean Homosexuality.

I end with a quote from Jesus, Matthew 16:23
"...You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

@ Jer

The problem is that, in my religion, they teach that if a person dies in the state of mortal sin, that person will go straight to hell. If the Pope says that seeing violent media is a mortal sin and makes it dogma, then that means that if I continue to see violent media, I will go to hell. I will therefore have to choose between my religion and salvation and my entertainment, that I will never let go of no matter what. That will be a tough situation.

I don't want it to come down to that. If it does, I'm screwed and I'm going to hell to burn for all eternity. That is why I was very upset when I heard the Pope condemn violent media. I hope he doesn't make it dogma.

I don't claim that homosexuality is a GOOD thing - from a physiological and a reproductive standpoint it's not - but from a moral standpoint I don't see the harm in it.
Of course, the problem is that we as humans seem to have a notoriously hard time agreeing on a single moral code. You'd think after millenia of experience we might have figured it out, but lately society seems to be more and more divided on the issue. Hence my creed that one should live how one wants as long as in doing so one does not wrong another or interfere with another's ability to live how he/she would want. So, you don't push your bible in my face, and I don't tell you about how wrong it is to push your bible into another's face - a practice I've always found despicable. You should find your faith by introspection, not by having evangelists try to recruit you.

As for what it means to 'live a good life' or to have done one's penance - such a decision is not one that you arrive to lightly. I for one have thought a great deal on the matter as it applies to myself and have sought forgiveness from myself and those I have wronged; at this point I can say I haven't lived badly but at the same time have not done much good, either. The world has given me much and I have offered very little in return, but that process of giving back is the work of most of one's lifetime. Until then I would not say I have lived a good life - just a not bad one. I say it's worth thinking about what you think of your life - as that is what matters - but at the same time to consider the full weight of your life's actions. Being at peace with oneself is not a conclusion one arrives at quickly, easily, or without some very painful doubts.

@Daniel
You come off to me as someone who does not practice catholicism, and has not read up on it for some time.

I think you should re-read what the pope said and be more open minded. You seem too focused on the negative singular point to be able to see what he is truly saying.

@ Jer

I go to church every weekend and I know what the Pope said. He said that violent media that glorifies violence in the name of entertainment is a perversion. That's what he said. I don't read the Bible on my own that's true, but I know that what the Pope makes dogma is law and can't be changed. If he makes it dogma, I'm screwed. I know what he said and it was against violent video games. He is against violent media and may make it dogma.

How do I sound like a person who doesn't practice Catholicism? I know what he said perfectly. Another problem is he's German and right now, Germans are against violent media completely because they blame it for what that crazy madman did. He was calling violent media a perversion didn't you get that? He said it is a perversion. Why is it that everything I ever say here is always wrong? I know he called it a perversion.

So you (only) like violent games [just] because it is violent?

@ Jer

There are other things I like too, but that is the main thing I look for. However, the Pope said it was a PERVERSION. Don't believe me? Look back at that thread. It's not too far.

so you DO like violent games for the sake of Violence?

Again, how do you define a good life via introspection? What about Islamic terrorists? They think they're doing something good by killing thousands of people. Does that mean they're living a good life? The problem is that if you define moral matters introspectively, you have only gone so far as to define what you THINK what is moral, leaving out the question of whether it IS moral or not. Why do we put murderers in prison? Because murdering is wrong, but for what reason is it wrong? Is it because we were programmed to think it wrong or because society demands it (God's principles vs man's principles)?

I am arguing that if you were to look at it from the theist's perspective, that the Bible is God's Word, then we are to honor it, as God created us and thus owns us. However, to fall back onto the value of man, is to fall back on something that is self-contradictory. Terrorists think it's a good thing to kill us, since it's a jihad for them. For us, it's bad to kill. Christians are against abortion, and atheists (not necessarily all, both Christian and athiest) are for it. Who's right?

I am not forcing the Bible in your face. You have the right to ignore me and hit the back button. I am however, interested in discussing how subjective opinions about value judgments compare to the absolute standard of the Divine. God has shown Himself to be very consistent throughout the Bible, and demonstrates His trustworthiness. "God does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man, that He should change His mind."

Wow.... Since when has glorifing violence been a problem with this society that we live in? Most of the major religions through out the world have been spread by.... VIOLENCE. good f*cking game. You people cry about violence BUT do not stop to think that maybe just maybe your being hipocritical. The bible says do not murder... CRUSADES ANYONE? thought so. Would you rather see violence in a VIRTUAL world where it does not HARM anyone or have mass murders occur again i.e. the holocaust. This makes me sick to my f*cking stomach to see. Take your false platitudes about violence and stick them in your arse lady.

Terrorists (of all faiths) fail the first rule of mine, about not interfering with someone else's life. What they do is quite despicable, especially since the victims of terrorism are rarely their ideological opponents - I doubt many of the 9/11 victims were very gung-ho about the U.S.'s imperialist tendencies and other such things that the terrorists fight against. In my eyes no faith can pardon the slaying of another, even though more have died for religion than for any other cause.
The 'Don't Interfere With Another's Life' clause takes care of many of your concerns. No matter what motivates a murderer, they still took away a person's right to live their life at all. Ditto for rape, theft, assault, and most of the laws on the books - the ones that society as a whole never question.
We don't ever ask why it is wrong to kill another. Why? I do not question it because it deprive a person of their right to live. You do not question it because it's in the Commandments (the Fourth one, though I'm ashamed to say I needed to double check.) Some people think the ban on killing is absolute, and some make exceptions. The fact that we seem utterly unable to agree is why I think that it is important to come to one's own conclusions. To say that Catholic doctrine is correct is to say that Islamic doctrine is all wrong, and there are plenty of Muslims that are good and devout people who deserve a good afterlife.
And perhaps you're not saying that they don't. My main issue is that if you write down a hard and fast code on what is or is not just, you're bound to draw a line that'll let in a few undeserving ones and exclude a few deserving ones. Which is why I don't think such a code should be attempted and applied to everyone - it doesn't work. The 10 Commandments do a good job, but it's not perfect. What about the police officer who slays a criminal in order to save his own or another's life? The boy that has to steal to feed himself?
Anyhow, I think there's an answer in there somewhere for you, Soga. And no, you are not a Bible-pusher and I can't fault you for simply being devout in your beliefs - I was making a general point about those who are more aggressively evangelical and how they bother me; I should have been more clear in my statement. I do believe in God and expect he has a good rule for who is or is not good and just; I just don't think we've figured it out yet, and I doubt it's something easily committed to words.

No matter how hard the goverment tries they won't be able to try and remove violent video games from the shelfs or from peoples houses. It will always be unconstitutional for them to ban violent video games because then they would have to do it with music, books, manga, comics, movies, tv shows, toys....I mean good luck legislators...you won't win I promise you!
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIt's not bad so far, but I am honestly not sure what to make of it (or where it's going for that matter)07/28/2014 - 9:44pm
Matthew Wilsonis it any good?07/28/2014 - 9:36pm
Papa Midnight"Love Child" on HBO -- anyone else watching this?07/28/2014 - 9:27pm
MaskedPixelanteNah, I'm fine purple monkey dishwasher.07/28/2014 - 4:05pm
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician