Video Games Are Equivalent to Fighting Words, Conservative Group Argues in Supreme Court Brief
Video Games Are Equivalent to Fighting Words, Conservative Group Argues in Supreme Court Brief
June 26, 2009
The conservative Eagle Forum has filed an amicus (friend of the Court) brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of California's 2005 violent video game law.
As GamePolitics reported last month, California Attorney General Jerry Brown petitioned the High Court to review a U.S. District Court ruling that the state's 2005 law blocking the sale of violent games to minors is unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court upheld the District Court decision in a February ruling.
The family values group, founded by conservative Phyllis Schlafly (left) in 1967, filed the brief on Monday. The document was authored by Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis and founder of Conservapedia (sort of the anti-Wikipedia). In the amicus brief, the Eagle Forum lays an array of societal problems at the feet of violent video games: bad grades, violent behavior, poor graduation rates, school shootings, game addiction and even sudden death.
We'll let the Eagle Forum's laundry list speak for itself (with a little help from GP's trusty red pen):
The First Amendment does not render our nation’s youth defenseless against the predatory, billion-dollar video game industry that churns out increasingly graphic blood and gore for impressionable minds to imbibe...
The corruption of our nation’s youth with increasingly deviant video games is a matter of national importance. Our nation’s youth is in crisis, by any measure. A calamitous 30% of our nation’s youth fail to graduate from public high school, and only 32% of those who attend public high school are ever qualified to attend a four-year college...
A substantial percentage of teenagers are hooked on these disturbing video games, and spend many hours each week playing them. Moreover, mass killings perpetrated by youngsters are frequently linked to addiction to violent video games...
The First Amendment does not forbid state legislatures from keeping this harmful material from children. The California legislature, not known to be conservative, protected its youth against the predatory video game industry. It was an error with national implications for the Ninth Circuit to invalidate the California statute...
Violent video games hurt children in two ways. Their increasingly realistic and disturbing images burn into children’s impressionable minds much as pornography does, and the role-playing inherent in a video game causes the child to buy into the rampages of murder and other heinous crimes that he is acting out...
The early market leader in video games was Nintendo, which adopted a policy against “excessive blood and violence,” but it was trounced in sales by a 3 to 1 margin by more gory material produced by Sega, and Nintendo learned the message that “violence sells video games to children...”
Numerous studies confirm the obvious: violent video games do cause addiction and harm... There has never been a full First Amendment right to flash highly objectionable and disturbing images specifically at children, or to entice them to participate in destructive role-playing behavior...
Displaying a shocking image to a child is conceptually identical to the utterance of “fighting words” to an adult, which this Court famously held to be out-side of First Amendment protection...
The stress attributed to violent video games can even be physically harmful. Eighteen-year-old Peter Burkowski, an avid video gamer, collapsed and died of a heart attack while playing games in an arcade...
Children who play violent video games have difficulty obeying authorities, treating peers properly, and succeeding in school...
DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the Eagle Forum's amicus brief here.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/30/10 at 10:25am
ZippyDSMlee: No lan too but that will be hack in, with 2X maps its as big as SC,so....want more now ;P
ZippyDSMlee: No lan too but that will be hack in, with 2X maps its as big as SC,so....want more now ;P
Posted 07/30/10 at 10:19am
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: @Cheater: Thank you, I´ll try it later. It happened after I installed the new upgrade, btw
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: @Cheater: Thank you, I´ll try it later. It happened after I installed the new upgrade, btw
Posted 07/30/10 at 01:27am
Andrew Eisen: I got hired to sing bass for an a cappella group tomorrow night. I have nine songs to learn. Yikes.
Andrew Eisen: I got hired to sing bass for an a cappella group tomorrow night. I have nine songs to learn. Yikes.
Posted 07/29/10 at 10:53pm
E. Zachary Knight: Zippy, I thought SC2 was only 1/3 of a game? ;)
E. Zachary Knight: Zippy, I thought SC2 was only 1/3 of a game? ;)
Posted 07/29/10 at 08:59pm
ZippyDSMlee: SC2 is god! BOW DOWN TO SC2!
ZippyDSMlee: SC2 is god! BOW DOWN TO SC2!
Posted 07/29/10 at 07:50pm
Cheater87: Garcia that sounds like a A/V problem. Try turning the TV on and off or doing that with the AV changer. Thats how I fix mine.
Cheater87: Garcia that sounds like a A/V problem. Try turning the TV on and off or doing that with the AV changer. Thats how I fix mine.
Posted 07/29/10 at 06:50pm
Andrew Eisen: The urinals now have floor mats!
Andrew Eisen: The urinals now have floor mats!
Posted 07/29/10 at 04:54pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: My PS3 is having some kind of failure. The sound is still there but the image is totally out...
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: My PS3 is having some kind of failure. The sound is still there but the image is totally out...
Posted 07/29/10 at 03:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: SC2!!SC2!!!SC2!!!!!!
ZippyDSMlee: SC2!!SC2!!!SC2!!!!!!
Posted 07/28/10 at 02:45pm
beemoh: Farmville creator Zynga closes one of its games, customers who paid for in-game content unimpressed (Link)
beemoh: Farmville creator Zynga closes one of its games, customers who paid for in-game content unimpressed (Link)
Posted 07/28/10 at 09:49am
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: He blames the internet, but not his abusive mother.
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: He blames the internet, but not his abusive mother.
Posted 07/28/10 at 09:48am
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Akihabara murderer blames cyber bullying for rampage in 2008
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Akihabara murderer blames cyber bullying for rampage in 2008
Posted 07/27/10 at 02:49pm
E. Zachary Knight: Holy Awesome Game Trailers Batman. Superman heat visioning people in the face and Jedi using Hadouken. Awesome.
E. Zachary Knight: Holy Awesome Game Trailers Batman. Superman heat visioning people in the face and Jedi using Hadouken. Awesome.
Posted 07/27/10 at 01:36pm
ZippyDSMlee: Ah I didnt see it down there :P
ZippyDSMlee: Ah I didnt see it down there :P
Posted 07/25/10 at 01:51pm
ZippyDSMlee: Cheater87:I do not think they see the need for it its a shame its more needed than E10.....
ZippyDSMlee: Cheater87:I do not think they see the need for it its a shame its more needed than E10.....
Posted 07/24/10 at 08:19pm
Cheater87: Zippy I sent them an email about a 15 age category a year or so ago and they said they had no plans for one at the moment. I'll send another one and see if they respond back again.
Cheater87: Zippy I sent them an email about a 15 age category a year or so ago and they said they had no plans for one at the moment. I'll send another one and see if they respond back again.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
This of course while defending the carpet bombings of Afghanistand and Iraq, while arguing for war in Iran.
Stay classy Conservative Groups.
/Also, check out Conservapedia
//Best trolls ever
i'm sorry to say this, but i happen to be conservative, and i shake my head everytime people from the eagle forum to JESUS JACK JONES THOMPSON! makes conservatives look bad man!
Jesus Jack Jones Thompson loves you, so kill for his amusement so we can get money for the new "People's Temple of Jesus Jack Jones Thompson"
I'm liberal and yet not a fan of marxism.
I like true marxism in theory. Sadly, it'd never work =/ which is why I prefer Libertarianism. Social rights are a must in any system, it's the fiscal rights that are the real debate, and should either be 99% right or 100% left, no in between. But to do either would require all sorts of blah blah blah that I'm too tired to talk about ^.^
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Liberals and Marxists are two completely different political philosophies. Of course a liberal would not be a fan of Marxism. Assuming one would is the same as assuming a conservative would be a fan of the Neo-Nazi movement.
since you put it that way, yeah, and yipes
Jesus Jack Jones Thompson loves you, so kill for his amusement so we can get money for the new "People's Temple of Jesus Jack Jones Thompson"
This is too long for me to be arsed addressing the finer points so I'll just cut straight to the point. "What a bunch of brain donors."
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Who'd want them?
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Isn't the rate of school violence and drop outs supposed to be on a stedy decline since video games came onto the scene? I don't think it is related, but to try and say the problems they are listing are rampant and video games are to blame is working agains the current data.
What a bunch of old fogies. Why do conservatives LOVE censorship???
Because it's a form of control, and their political.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Because its an easy way to have more control over the masses. Its especially easy once you mention kids. Here's one guy who openly admitted to exploiting it.
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
-Adolf Hitler
Not accusing Eagle Forum of being Nazi's but they are using Nazi tactics to invoke censorship.
Godwin's law strikes again!
Because it is the very nature of their existence of conserve all the "values" of the past through censorship? Who knows, I guess they are infatuated with the nostalgia from the past even though times then sucked just as hard as they do now.
Because the definition of conservative has changed from what it's supposed to be.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Not all conservatives "love" censorship. We have social conservatives that attempt to legislate what they find morally offensive just like we have social liberals that swing the other way and attempt to make everything politically correct. Think of the ideas being proposed in NY State Senate concerning the portrayal of racial stereotypes in video games as a counterpart to the far right Eagle Forum. Both major parties have elements in their ranks that embody these traits and hopefully the courts continue to uphold the Constitution.
First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb
This, in a nutshell. The biggest problem is the fact that there are a lot of people on both sides who resort to namecalling just because the outliers are called out.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Good. Someone pointed out that certain liberals also advocate censorship in the guise of political correctness. Too many people see the problems with the social conservatives but fail to see that social liberals do the same things but call them something different.
If they were social liberals, they wouldn't do something that is by definition conservative. To be either social conservative or social liberal, you have to follow the definition exactly. If you do something that is socially conservative, you aren't exactly a liberal are you.
/It's not that hard to comprehend
//There are very few liberal politicians in America
You're assuming that the names mean something. "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are essentially the same thing with a different name: both sides just want to take away your freedom for their own reasons. The conservatives say it's better because it's the moral thing to do; the liberals say it's better because they're the government and know what's best for you. Neither side thinks you're capable of making decisions for yourself.
Now if we're talking about true liberal politicians, then I'd agree that there are very few of them. I believe we call them "libertarians" these days, and they are unfortunately largely ignored. If we had libertarians in office, we probably wouldn't have to worry about ridiculous crap like this.
Libertarians are actually neither conservative or liberal. They believe that the federal government should do nothing but organize a military, relying on nothing more than income and excise taxes to do it.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Exactly, they believe the federal government has absolutely no right to meddle in the personal affairs of its people. They're classic liberals.
Liberals believe in meddling in the personal affairs of rich people (you know, tax the wealthy to pay for social programs for no other reason than they are rich). Thus, Libertarians are not liberals.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Classic liberals don't believe in messing with the affairs of others. Libertarians are very much classic liberals since they believe in limited government, free market, and personal freedom among other things. The Democrats are modern liberals and believe in doing exactly what you're saying.
"Libertarians... believe that the federal government should do nothing but organize a military, relying on nothing more than income and excise taxes to do it."
Yup, and they would dismantle organizations like the Post Office, fire departments, public water departments that work just fine. Yeah, we'd have a real utopia under Libertarianism.
Not exactly... They'd replace them with private organizations. After seeing how well our government does running large organizations, I'd prefer to have private, competing groups instead of a bunch of unregulated government programs ineffectively wasting money.
Liberals love censorship too.
Luckilly their entire brief seems to consist of randomly inserted buzz words. Listen to conservative talk radio for half an hour and you'll hear pretty much the same randomly used terms.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com
Sounds like they want all video games to be as squeeky clean and happy as 80s Nintendo games.
You mean the ones like Friday the 13th?
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
I could never beat that game. :(
Well there was no blood in the game. If they remade that game today it would be drenched in gore.
Tea and cake or death! Tea and cake or death! Little Red Cook-book! Little Red Cook-book!
So they'd much rather have us eat mushrooms, jump on people's heads, and have a strange fascination with pipes?
Or perhaps kill our enemies with swords, boomerangs, and bombs?
Maybe rape Native American Women (not nintendo, but oh well)?
Games have always been "violent," but it's just with the progress of technology that the violence becomes more noticable.
*sigh*
Your average person is enough of a blank-eyed sheep that they actually listen to the completely unfounded drivel of some tech-challenged, overly-conservative fossil and yet it's still illegal for me to carry a flamethrower in public.
There is no balance in this place.
Actually...
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actual...
Hehe..
I've read a bit of Conservapedia. It scares me.
Imo, Jesus Camp does a lot more to turn kids into intolerant, anti social sociopaths than video games.
--- Ago. Perceptum. Teneo.
Their largest articles are on Atheists, Liberals, and Homosexuals. I love it, it's so funny. But they are also the most insane.
I had a good laugh at the Liberal article. There was too much editorial style writing like "They believe". Too much single sourcing (like liberals are uncharitable). Hell, it's just like a Fox News report.
Haha. Awesome.
If you read about homeschooling, it lists all the positives. I have a friend who's homeschooled and I played a game of baseball with him, he was horrible, same deal with basketball and football. Conservapedia dosen't bring up anything on social interactions.
We don't need the government, all we need is Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security!
ah, Jesus Camp. An example why I have a love/hate relation with Religion. After I saw Jesus Camp, I think they are more of a danger more then what they say about video game.
Now the california videogame law is going nowhere(now that the eagle forum has gotten involved) in fact It is now worthless(thank the eagle forum and anyone else filing an amicus brief if favor for the state)
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
I didn't realize you could file propaganda for use in the Supreme Court? I really hope that you can't actually do something like that..
Maybe I am misunderstanding the idea of a "Friend of the Court" document..
Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court. --- From wikipedia
Basically they have no stake in the case (i.e. they are not a party directly involved) but they want to persuade the judges to rule one way or the other by offering up information/propaganda.
In the Eagle forum's case they used propaganda
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
I can't believe that is legal. So, in any given court case, I can submit a bunch of nonsense and hearsay, even though I am not related to the case in any way shape or form, with the sole goal of influencing the court's supposedly politically neutral decision..
Like I said before.. I can't believe that is legal..
Actually, no. Before you can file your amicus brief, you have to seek and recieve the court's permission to do so, usually by way of filing a motion with the court. If you're interested in having the court grant your motion for permission to file as an amicus, it should set forth some basis upon which you lay claim to peculiar knowledge and/or expetise on the subject matter before the court and how your sharing that knowledge and/or expertise will aid the court in making its decision. If and only if the court grants your motion, can you then file your amicus brief.
And courts are usually reluctant to grant a motion for amicus status unless they've received at least two such motions: one seeking to file in support of the petitioner and one seeking to file in support of the respondent. That way, no one party enjoys an unfair advantage of having an amicus brief filed in their favor.
"The stress attributed to violent video games can even be physically harmful. Eighteen-year-old Peter Burkowski, an avid video gamer, collapsed and died of a heart attack while playing games in an arcade..."
A little digging turns up this from Mark Allen, Lake County's deputy coroner who oversaw the case. An autopsy found unsuspected scar tissue on Peter's heart that was at least two weeks old. Allen believes, it's possible that the stress of the games triggered the attack in Peter's weakened heart. "We certainly don't want to scare people away from video games," Allen explains. "Peter could have died in a number of stressful situations. We once had a boy who had a heart attack while studying for an exam. It just happened that he died in front of a video game."
OMG! Studying kills our youth! We have to ban it!
I love how none of it is backed up by proof in any way. It's like they are saying "THESE ARE OUR OPINIONS! YOU SHOULD DO WHAT WE SAY BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE THINK!"
Hopefully the Supreme Court is used to stuff like this, fanatics with no connection to an issue trying to muscle their way in and tip the scales in their favour, and that they show this brief the disdain and ignoring it warrants.
I'm left wondering if there isn't a burden of proof for claims made in an amicus brief, especially considering that they're designed to influence a court's decision.
I read the entire Claim, there's no proof and It's likley to fail
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Ya know, there are some cases where I know the Supreme Court is going to deny cert, but I REALLY wish they'd grant it just to see these people have to endure the questioning that comes with oral arguments.
Granted, the Supreme Court did make it RIDICUOUSLY difficult to prosecute drug cases yesterday.
For those who don't know, which I guess is everyone here most likely the Supremes handed down a decision yesterday:
In ANY case involving a lab certificate (Drugs, DUI, DNA, Ballistics etc.) the prosecution MUST have the actual person who conducted the test appear in court to testify.
The eagle forum is Like them Psycotic German pols
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
How many decisions did they come out with yesterday?
If what you say is true, it means they released the decision regarding the drug tests, as well as the unconstitutional strip search of a 13 year old girl in school..
Do they just release these things in bunches?
Yes. They rule on cases about once a month, during which they consider a bunch of cases and relase them as a batch at one time.
Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...
Is "Fighting Words" still even considered an exception to free speech?
At the very least, it's not very widely accepted, anymore - which puts them on shaky ground before they even walk into a courtroom. Not that this would ever see the inside of one.
On a side note, while I have nothing but contempt for both of the major political parties, I do consider myself conservative. So, to a few of the previous posters - and undoubtedly some of the future ones - please do not use this as an excuse to embrace the logical fallacy of writing off all conservatives as crazy or simply belittle and insult us. Most of you are intelligent enough to realize that 'conservatives' like this are a very vocal minority. Both sides of the political fence have their share of crazies - you'll find that in any large group.
I myself am also conservative, and I hate some people in the movement like the eagle forum
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
It's nice to see other people echoing my own sentiments about the political establishment.
First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb
Most certainly still a recognized exception to free speech. And often just plain imprudent. I'd counsel against going down to Compton and telling "Yo' Mama . . ." jokes to random passersby.
Fight poverty, Phyllis, it contributes more to all those problems than any video game.
But that would take effort, money, research, interacting with commoners, all no nos among her kind.
I'm glad to see the Eagle Forum approves of us wasting even more taxpayer dollars for the children.
If they really want to help increase the high school graduation rate, they should be advocating this:
Step 1: Drop the appeal completely
Step 2: Put all that money you'll save back into the school system!
Honestly, is it surprising that we're falling behind in educational standards, when it seems like school funding is always the first thing to go?
That and most of what schools are teaching seem to be rote memorization not much actually using what's between your ears.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Maybe, but cutting funding isn't going to help that.
true, the schools need more funding, but all the money in the world isn't gonna help if instead of teaching kids to think, they stay focused on the next "Standardized test"
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
With the Eagle Forum Cailfornia is set fail in supreme for sure, that is if they do want to hear about a unconstitutional law.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
I think Leland yee(and the loony in charge of the eagle forum) Is going to watch this blow up in his face
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Okay, I've been raised with conservative values. Conservative was defined as 'wanting the government to get their nose out of our business'.
So it makes me scratch my head when these people who want the government to censor violent games call themselves conservatives.
Then you weren't raised with "Conservative" values. You were raised with "Libertarian" values. The conservatives want just as much to legislate our morality as the liberals (me being one of them) want to legistlate our money.
No, he's quite accurately defined one of the most important parts of being conservative.
I'm sorry you have a flawed view of conservatives, but I do not blame you. For the most part, people still equate Republicans with conservatives, and most Republicans stopped being conservative a long time ago.
And, meaning no disrespect, I am quite frankly tired of hearing the "legislate morality" cliche. Society legislates morality at every turn - take a look at laws against murder, rape, theft, and any host of lesser crimes, for example.
I suspect that what you mean to say is "legislate religion", and sadly, many Republicans have tried and continue to try this. However, morality != religion, and it's a distinction that you need to make; if for no other reason than to prevent somebody from turning your argument against you.
Here is a brief on the history of "fighting words":
http://tinyurl.com/lczpbf
I am really finding it hard to connect fighting words with video games.
Figthing words are essentially direct communication with the intent of hurting those hearing it. Think of it in a way as insulting with the intent to mentally abuse the person hearing it.
This is a very narrow area of First Ammendment exception.
I have seen nothing in a game that would constitute direct communication with the intent of hurting those hearing it.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
In the court's own words (from the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision that established the exception):
(...)“fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Emphasis, of course, is mine. Even ignoring the fact that the research drawing a link between violence and video games is non-existent (or, at best, fatally flawed), I don't think even the most negative studies would support that.
And EZK, unless I'm mistaken, "fighting words" seems to be a continuation or expansion of the prohibition against incitement. Typically, you incite a person to violence against someone else - with fighting words, you're provoking them into violence against yourself. I don't believe the fighting words exception would cover abusive or hurtful words that weren't designed to provoke a reaction.
While "fighting words" are most commonly though of as the sort of things said to someone which are likely to cause them to whup your ass, there is, as the Court in Chaplinsky noted, the class of words which by their utterance cause injury. This can be thought of as an expansion of the defamation exception but without the usual requirement that a third-party recieve the defamatory statement. It is enough under the "fighting words" exception that the publication of the false statement spread no further than between the two parties. Of course, it can easily be argued that this is merely six of one and a half-dozen of the other. Having falsehoods about one's self stated to one's face is not only injurious but also likely to inspire one to whup the ass of the person stating the falsehood.
Thank you for the clarification.
Example: "I'm gonna rip your head off an #(&! down you throat"
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
As a conservative, these people aren't conservatives. They're idiots. True conservatives don't believe in government intrusion like this. This is an argument by idiots, plain and simple.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
No, they are social conservatives, meaning people who believe in the conservation of ideology (Over anything) from "ye ole days".
The fact that their little club was founded over 40 years ago is evidence of that.
No, they're idiots, plain and simple. These people undermine the efforts of true conservatives, who value individual liberty and responsibility, a strong military presence abroad and minimal federal interference with personal lives. What of this brief fit in with these principles?
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
No, they are conservatives, this is conservative ideology put in place for social causes. Try to actually learn something here, social conservatives (And yes, all of them, that's the point of being a social conservative) want nothing more than to see their old time beliefs put back into law. Conservatives don't care about government, wrong scale, that would be the libertarian/authoritarian scale. We are talking about the social scale which goes from conservative to liberal, liberals believing in freedom and LIBERTY (Some sort of root word affair going on here).
Hmm... well, it really depends. Perhaps I've been living in the wrong USA, but I always understood it as such:
Conservative: Believes that the government should be, well, conservative. As in, spend less money, stay out of our business, etc. Hard, unbending view of constitution.
Liberals: Believes that the gov should take more LIBERTIES to fix things and (hopefully) help the country. Interpret the constitution a bit looser, so that the government can take more action.
But, meh, you could be right, too. I never did too well in that Government class...
How it is now though is like this:
Conservatives: Little government in economics, (generally) Big government in private (social) affairs
Liberal: Big government in economics, Little government in social affairs
Libertarian: Little government in both
Populist: Big government in both
Of course, we've seen liberals (Hillary Clinton, etc) that want big government in social affairs, and we've seen not-so-fiscally conservative types that want government controlling money. So, for definition purposes, social conservative means they want the government to conserve social values.
Many people like jedithefreak, understandably, will say that the buffoons in this article aren't really conservatives, because they don't fit the "ideal" conservative (which wants little money spent on government), although they fit the "social conservative" category quite well. And I can see why jedi wouldn't want these idiots associated with the same group that he is in, eesh are these fossils stupid.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Liberals don't advocate more liberty. That's why they created Political Correctness.
Try to actually learn something here. REAL conservatives don't care about social issues. They care about a small federal government. They feel that there are bigger problems in the world than how our every day lives are run. They believe in the power of capitalism, and think that the government should generally stay out of the way of business, so long as everyday people aren't being hurt by businesses.
Also, do you not know the definition of liberal? It means to apply a lot, as in a lot of government in our lives. Liberty is not a root word of liberal. Go back to fourth grade grammar school.
As far as social conservatives are concerned, they aren't real conservatives. They have more than a few things in common with most conservatives, as the movement started out with an unwillingness to change laws for "progress for the sake of progress." They believed (as most still do) that if the country wanted it, they'd hear about it. However, most social conservatives are not this bad, as what these people are doing is idiocy.
So, once again, these people aren't conservatives, they are idiots.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Someone post the facepalm picture, the comment above is laced with stupidity and selfishness.
I'll have to respond in sequence, this might take a while.
1) Nobody created "political correctness", its existance is based on a counterbalance against those who preform the exact opposite of political correctness. Do we need to know what that is? No, we don't. If you read on, you'll know exactly where the hate comes from (Surprise surprise, it wasn't the people who believe in liberty)
2) Liberal comes "Liberty" which comes from the french word "Libre", which means freedom (Or in this case to be specific, one who is free). Try to actually learn the meaning of words before you debate them, so you won't look stupid.
3) Social conservatives, are conservatives. This may be a shock to you, but they are more conservative than you are (*Gasp*) because they implement conservative ideology to everything. Small government isn't a conservative thing, Reagan increased the size of government and he was a conservative. The size of government is Y-Axis ideology (Authoritarian-Libertarian), whereas social and economic policy is X-Axis (Liberal-Conservative).
Yeah, don't try to interact with Jedid. Here is how it will go in a nutshell: Anything bad done by any conservative isn't a real conservative. And anything bad done by a liberal is supported by all liberals and there are none at all who disagree.
Though I do wonder just how he manages to ignore the cult of family values knuckle draggers who are at the forefront of the conservative leadership.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Well, according to people like you, there is no conservative leadership.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
"Well, according to people like you, there is no conservative leadership."
Hold on, let me fix this.
"Well, according to me, there is no conservative leadership because liberals are always wrong so therefore all of our problems are caused by liberals alone."
I've really got to hand it to you, there's quite a lot in your tiny statement that you just projected.
I don't think cinder blocks will stick to stainless steel any better than bricks, no matter how hard and how many times you chuck them at it.
The Eagle Forum are Equilavent to Shallow minded Bullshit.
Or such were my first thoughts when I read this.
Honestly, is it not so much about being conservative you know. Nope. It is about being rabid, ie the whole Ultra Conservative bit. As a conservative I really wish they would shut the hell up and stop giving a bad name to the rest of us.
I would strongly urge them to do a meet and greet with PETA then we could raid the building, capture them and ship both groups off to some island somewhere from whence they could make the world safe from morally challenged non-religious animals and leave the rest of the rest of us in relative peace.
I nearly stopped reading when I saw that this group was founded in 1967. Time did move forward ,even if these jagoffs haven't and wants the planet to like Leave it ot Beaver, WHEN IT WAS NEVER LIKE THAT AT ALL!!!
They really need those rose colored glasses smashed, and I will add, people like this make me pray tiem travel NEVER becomes possible.
The fact that they yank up such a dated concept further evidences how badly they want the worls of the 50s back. It's like in the 60s they noted changes, were scared, and wanted the US rewound by 17 years.
"Them's fightin' woids!"
YES! That is exactly what went through my head when I read that headline.
Go ahead, kids! Put a piece of wood on your shoulder, put up those fists, and play some Mortal Kombat!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game on, brothers and sisters.
Somebody should explain to this chick that the whole point of the ESRB is to make violent games less likely to get into the hands of kids. If kids are playing violent games, it's the fault of their parents or legal guardians for not making informed choices about their childrens' entertainment.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
"Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings."
No, freedom of speech protects lying. It does not protect fraud or libel, however.
I am completely allowed to come up to you, shake your hand, and introduce myself by the name of Bob Smith. A lie, but not illegal. It becomes illegal when I follow up with "..and I represent charity X, would you like to make a donation?" because then it is fraud.
No, intentional self-misrepresentation is illegal by federal law, as it is a precursor to terrorist activities. Nice try.
Little tip, though, how about you not comment on my sig and actually comment on the story?
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Pro tip: A little seperator between your message and your sig (like everyone else has) will prevent people making the mistake they always make. Any idiot would have worked that out by now.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
I strongly suggest reading every message before you hit "Post comment", and if it's not something you'd say to a person's face, either edit it or don't post it.
And if you see no problem with this kind of hostility, even in person, then consider taking steps to improve yourself.
That could go for many of the other readers here, as well.
Yes mum.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Uh-huh..
I strongly suggest reading every message before you hit "Post comment", and if it's something that would make you seem like a holier than thou dipshit, either edit it or don't post it.
And if you see no problem with this kind of hypocracy then consider taking steps to improve yourself.
There you go, I fixed it so it applies to you now.
It's amazing what anonymity and a perceived lack of consequences can do to a person.
And I do mean perceived, because the consequences can be very real. A little over two weeks ago, a person I know - mostly in passing - committed suicide over a post by a troll in an online forum. That poster will probably never even realize he/she caused someone's death, and can continue trolling with an unblemished conscience.
From the little bit of information I've been able to find, while these kinds of suicides are infrequent, they are rising. Even when the damage is not so dramatic, unleashing this kind of bile against someone can cause damage. Not to everyone, perhaps, but you never know who you're talking to on the internet - and it's really not necessary to be so rude, is it?
So have I begun to reevaluate how I behave online? Yes, absolutely. Do I expect to change the world? No, not really.
But you can bet when I run across someone harassing somebody online, I'm going to call them out on it. I am sorry if you cannot understand that - but there is no need to retaliate over it.
Not that I'm not sympathetic to anyone who feels compelled to take their own life, but I can't help but wonder what an individual with a psyche so fragile that the words of an Internet troll would cause them to commit suicide was doing on the Internet conversing with a troll in the first place. At the risk of seeming callous, I'm somewhat inclined to say, "If you can't take the oven's heat, then stay out of the kitchen."
I really do wish that people who were that emotionally fragile would avoid potentially damaging situations - internet forums certainly qualify.
Unfortunately, they do not. On the contrary, while obviously everybody is different, I've found that many often spend more time in those places. Why, I don't know - perhaps they're searching for some sort of support or affection that they are not receiving in real life.
Which, of course, makes it all the worse when somebody comes along and kicks them in the shins for the lulz.
So I prefer now, instead, to simply treat everyone with the same respect I would expect - much the same as I would if I was speaking with somebody face to face. It's something I imagine I should have been doing all along.
Like the poster I mentioned above, I'll probably never know if I run across somebody who is that fragile or distraught. But at least I'll know I haven't gone around pushing people - perhaps over the edge.
Fair enough. Point well-made and -taken.
I will say, however, that those of fragile psyche, while perhaps entitled to respectful discourse, certainly shouldn't initiate the shin-kicking. If they do and get their shins bloodied in response, then I damn sure ain't sympathetic. The mouse who tickles the cat's nose, etc., etc.
Believe me, I agree completely.
While I won't be the one retaliating against such a person, I'm not going to extend any sympathy, either.
Ah, yes, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, first theorized by Gabriel and Tycho of Penny-Arcade fame. I believe it goes:
You + Internet + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
Though I may have been paraphrasing there, I believe I may have gotten the gist of it. Though the aforementioned example stated above is an extreme consequence of the Theory, I do feel remorse for the person who committed suicide. My condolences.
(Though I, too, question the mental fragility of said person at time of said verbal abuse. Other factors may have been affecting him/her, and the effects of trolling may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game on, brothers and sisters.
If I could, I'd much rather be a total fuckwad in the comfort of my own home than on the Internet. Unfortunately, Wifey ain't putting up with that nonsense.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that I am no troll. I just happen to hate it when people attempt to act like thier shit doesn't stink.
To chastise someone, on an internet forum, no less, for being a dick is, well, being a dick. You don't know this person, and you sure as hell don't have any influence in thier lives whatsoever. Like JDKJ said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.
To me, if I wasn't trying to be a dick before, and someone happens to pull the amazingly egotistical, "I'm going to lecture you on the internet about being nice to people", holier than thou attitude. I will make it a point to be a bigger dick to them in the future.
And, even better, I happen to have no concience when it comes to people I don't know. If my words happen to cause someone I don't know to kill themselves, I can honestly say, I wouldn't feel a damn bit of remorse. In fact, considering my words aren't exactly that harsh, I might actually be slightly amused at the fact that someone was so fucked up mentally that my snide comment about something pushed them over the edge.
Yes, I am that callous. Ask JDKJ, I have no respect for people I don't know, and delight in the suffering of people I don't like. I laughed at the way David Carradine died (I had nothing against him, but the circumstances were hilarious), and I was gleeful when I heard the news that Michael Jackson died (I hated that 'accused' child molester).
Yes, I am an unapologetic dick. And, while I don't go out of my way to piss people off like a pathetic internet troll who has nothing better to do, but I certainly have no qualms about offending people who happen to have caught my ire.
So, I will ask: What have we learned here? I hope that we have learned that attempting to put out the flames will just cause them to rise, and be redirected towards you.
I thought we learned that you were a verbose dickish troll who gets his jollies off attacking people asking others to be nice on the interwebs. He may be tilting at windmills, but if you're attacking him for at least trying to do a good thing, then you are a troll and you are a dick of epic proportions.
Like with how people who have stupidly fragile psyches need to see a specialist, you sir need to see someone about the "glee over death" thing.
I am hardly a troll.
Troll == Someone who intentionally and repeatedly pissed people off for shits and giggles.
Me == Normally a nice guy (to people I like), who sometimes has a few harsh words for people who do things that piss me off (Trying to tell strangers how to behave on the internet is one of them). Ask the folks around here. I've been here for a while, and yes, I do go off on rants and raves and tell people off when someone pisses me off, but I can also be a pretty nice guy.
As for the dick comment.. Yeah, I am a dick. Yeah, I am also pretty jaded. I'm also a realist and a pessimist..But that's what makes me who I am, and I wouldn't change that for the world.
As for the "Glee over death" thing. I can tell you I am not mentally ill, if that is what you are saying.. I just don't much care for people I don't like. And yeah, it probably doesn't make me person of the year, but it certainly doesn't make me mentally ill. It is human nature to be happy at the fact that someone you don't like has died. It might not be socially acceptable, but it is what it is. Being happy that someone I didn't like has died is no worse than when soldiers in war will cheer and high five each other after taking out a target. In fact, the soldiers are worse than I am, considering they are the ones doing the killing. (Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.. It just fits my point.)
While there are several exceptions to freedom of speech that encompass even the truth, I'm afraid you've fallen into a logical fallacy.
Saying that "Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth." is not the same as saying "freedom of speech doesn't protect any lies".
"If kids are playing violent games, it's the fault of their parents or legal guardians for not making informed choices about their childrens' entertainment."
No, because that concept relies on accepting personal responsibility for ones own actions.
Personal responsibility is something we just won't tolerate in this day and age.
Sarcasm, much?
"We are not at fault! It's them damn vidjagames! Halb-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-blb!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game on, brothers and sisters.
ah conservipedia
set up by a guy who felt that the reality centered wikipedia was being unfair to him trying to change reality by changing our documentation of it
"I don't like reality, I don't like wikipedia because it is reality centric so I will set up my own site and hope that if I say reality is like this enough and get enough people around me that agree maybe it will become true"
The guy thought wikipedia had a liberal bias, so what's an academic man to do, set up a wikipedia knock-off that is neutral? No no no no no that would make far too much sense and be far too honest, instead he sets up a wikipedia knock-off with a tremendous bias towards conservatives.
Also your post and conservapedia reminds me of a quote from Adam Savage
"I reject your reality and substitute my own".
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
I Think The free speech collition and the US supreme court slammed Ashcroft over violent media and said that obsenity only applys to sexually explicit media(and pretty much Yee is screwed)
Taken from media colition website(via PDF file) http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/finalcomment.pdf
As the Supreme Court stated in Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft: “As a general principle,
the First Amendment bars the government from dictating what we see or read or speak or hear. The
freedom of speech has its limits; it does not embrace certain categories of speech, including defamation,
incitement, obscenity and pornography produced with children.” 535 U.S.1382, 1389 (2002). The
Court has never approved the restriction of speech based solely on violent content. Indeed, as shown
below, federal courts consistently have rejected government attempts to do so.
I think we have a chance here(for SCOTUS to deny it altogether)
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
I really take issue with their claims that gory and violent video games tend to be bestsellers. Let's look at the 20 best-selling games of all time:
1. Wii Sports [E]
2. Super Mario Bros. [E]
3. Tetris [E]
4. Wii Play [E]
5. Nintendogs [E]
6. Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green [E]
7. Super Mario World [E]
8. New Super Mario Bros. [E]
9. Wii Fit [E]
10. Super Mario Bros. 3 [E]
11. Brain Age [E]
12. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl [E]
13. The Sims [T]
14. Mario Kart Wii [E]
15. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec [E]
16. Mario Kart DS [E]
17. Pokémon Gold and Silver [E]
18. Super Mario Land [E]
19. Brain Age 2 [E]
20 (tie). Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire [E] and The Sims 2 [T].
In the top 10, all of the best-selling games are rated E for Everyone, and there are only 2 games rated T for Teen in the top 20. The only games rated T for Teen have that rating for "sexual themes, comic mischief, mild violence" or "crude humour, sexual themes, violence". Not exactly GTA.
This is a signature virus. Please copy and paste into your signature to help it propagate.
Yeah, but to these people Pokemon is an example of grotesque violence peddled to children with cute critters and pretty colors...
OR a plot by the japanese to brainwash the children of the US.
Chinpokumon FTW!
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Ugh.. Dont make me look at that list anymore.. There shouldn't be so many poorly made wii games on a top 20 list..
I agree. Life is stupid. And so is the Wii.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
"poorly made"? Actually those are some of the best made games on the Wii.
Unless you are talking "poorly made" as in they use motion controls, do not have the same graphics as games found on the PS3 and/or the 360, and are made for the Wii, then yes, they are "poorly made".
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Them's fightin' woidz. See you in court.
Wii sports == Lame pack in with broken controls in all but 2 of the games..
Nintendogs == Do I even need to expand on that? Nintendogs?! Come on.. Its a game made for children and teenage girls. All you need is some cute animal and BAM! best seller. Not exactly a good game by any means.
Brain Age == Thats hardly a game. At least in the sense of what generally attracts the serious fans of video games. Those things being a compelling story, emotional attachment, well developed characters.. This is nothing but a series of brain puzzlers packeged in such a way as to fool people into thinking they are getting smarter..
Hardly ANY of the games on that list (Note that I didn't say ALL of them) really deserve to be up there. GTA4 was a great game.. The Final Fantasies were Great Games (well, most of them..), Call of Duty was a great game, The entire Black Isle Forgotten Coast games were great games.
Those games in that list, with a few exceptions, are nothing but trivial entertainment for throngs of people who don't actually appreciate what true gaming is. At risk of sparking a casuals vs hardcore's debate, those games were designed with maximum sales in mind, not for advancing the artform. I find it hard to respect games designed soley to take money from a moronic casual populace who think it is awesome that they can Totally pet thier dogs!!!1! on thier DS or Wii.
It is truly depressing to know that so very few companies exist to advance the art of gaming and to progress games to the point where they are even more cinemactic and awe inspiring than even the best movies of our time.
They sold more copies than any other game. That makes them "deserve" to be on a list of the top-selling games of all time. Now if the list was titled "Games Valdearg doesn't think are crap because he doesn't understand that immature teenagers and young adult males aren't the only people who deserve to play video games because he's a tool who thinks that gaming is only cool when it isn't mainstream," then you'd be right.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Well, Nintendo ARE on a concerted effort to phase out the whole 'gameplay' part of their games so that more people will buy their products. "Games that play themselves? Wow, just like a movie!"
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
@DarkSaber
"Games that play themselves? Wow, just like a movie!"
Even though that feature is going to be entirely optional and (in the best case scenario) would allow developers to make a game hard enough for us Gamers to enjoy (not using the "H word"), but at the same time not scaring them off as well.
...Anyway, I thought we're talking about Right Wing Elitists, not being Gaming Elitists that give us a bad name.
"Games Valdearg doesn't think are crap because he doesn't understand that immature teenagers and young adult males aren't the only people who deserve to play video games because he's a tool who thinks that gaming is only cool when it isn't mainstream,"'
Yup, you keep telling that to your Nintendog...
I'm fine with more and more people enjoying games as time goes on. What upsets me is how far companies, especially nintendo, have dumbed down thier games in order to make money and bring more people to buy games.
It annoys me that people buy those games, with thier rushed development, poor controls, and very poor concepts, rather than the games that truly stand above the rest in the artform. Games shouldn't be treated as a giant money grab. They should be treated as what they are, an artform..
Note: Im not against casual games or the Wii in general. In fact, some of the best fun I've had playing a game in the past few months was playing Boom Blox with my Girlfriend and some friends.. Casual games can be fun games, its just that most of the games that Nintendo makes for the Wii and the DS, especially when they are targeted towards the casual audience, are just SO BAD. What makes it worse, is that these people gobble it up, which just encourages the gaming companies to take more funds from quality games and direct them towards these pathetic excuses for games, just so they can increase thier bottom lines.
If you don't like the games, don't buy them and don't play them. However, just because YOU don't like the game, that doesn't mean that companies don't have a right to make them, knowing they'll sell and they'd make a fuck-ton of money. That's what a company is supposed to do, make money. Maybe you need a history lesson. The N64 and the GC were both technologically superior to their rivals and homes for hardcore gaming. However, they both were outsold by inferior technology because people weren't making games for them. Now, Nintendo is back on top because of the commercial successes they've garnered with the Wii.
You don't run the gaming industry, and you can't change sales data, so you're just going to have to deal with the fact that games you don't like sold better than the games you do.
The point that was trying to be made, that you missed completely because of how retarded you are, is that 18 of the top 20 selling games of all time are rated E for Everyone. The other 2 were rated T for Teen, due to some content that is similar to what you'd see on an episode of Batman: The Animated Series. This was brought up to point out that the most popular games in history are not viloent at all, or are less violent than what would be found on mature cartoons, therefore can't be the scourge of society that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum try to make it out to be.
Get your head out of Halo and MGS long enough to actually think about stuff that concerns more than just you, okay?
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Hahahahahahahaha...
"Get your head out of Halo and MGS long enough to actually think about stuff that concerns more than just you, okay?"
This comment right here shows exactly how ignorant you are. I never played MGS, never had a thing for stealth action games. And while I played Halo, I don't really like people who play it hardcore, considering a lot of them have never played anything else.
Also, I caught the point that the games were all E or T rated, it still doesn't change the fact that like 17 of them are just awful games, and they were rushed out the doors and onto the shelves becuase the gaming companies don't have any respect for thier consumers' intelligence and know that if you put a cute little puppy on it, it will sell like mad.
Also, cut the whole "Free market RULES!" bullshit. Free Market Capitialism is what causes this whole issue in the first place. When money becomes the sole goal of a company, instead of recognition, praise, and admiration, games become less like an artform, like they should be, and become something different. Those games on that list, while having the same protections as true, quality, artistic games, are nothing like them. They are pathetic and successful attempts at making games that appeal to the uninformed masses, with no respect given to gameplay or entertainment value. This is what the industry will become in 15 years. Who needs to spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars on a ground breaking, genre defining, beautifully done game, when you can have your team chug out 20 of these craptacular "best sellers" in the same amount of time?
If companies don't make money, they don't stay companies, you idiot. It definitely isn't the sole driving force of any company that wants to exist in the long term, but no company can survive without turning a profit. Once again, these companies don't answer to you. It's probably a good thing, too, because you obviously don't know good games when you see them. Wii Sports does have some control issues, but it's still a very fun game. Wii Play is probably only on that list because of the free controller, but Brain Age is actually statistically proven to make people smarter. As for the rest, these were all great games. If Super Mario Brothers and it's sequels weren't made, we never would have the industry as big as it is. The Pokemon games are RPG's aimed at kids, getting them ready for more advanced material, and that's always a good thing. With these exceptions, there aren't any real casual games on that list.
So, again, seeing as how you disapproving of this list makes you CLEARLY in the minority (if not the only one there), stop pretending to be some sort of a gaming badass and actually do something worthwhile. If you don't like the state of this list, how about you make the game you would want to see on this list, and see how it compares?
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
"If companies don't make money, they don't stay companies, you idiot."
And if they're not making anything worthwhile, as a game, who cares? I'd rather work for a company that has a tight budget and is making something new and original, than work for EA and pump out Madden 20XX.
Nobody cares where you'd rather work. That also has absolutely no bearing on the 20 best-selling games list. My point is nobody has a right to say that certain games have no business being on that list, unless they didn't actually sell as many copies necessary to be on that list. The reason the list was printed here is because of the fact that this list is a crude but effective means of measuring popularity. Most of these games were critically acclaimed, and were extremely popular on their own merits. Others were helped onto this list, and MAYBE shouldn't be because of such, but the fact of the matter is they did sell that many copies. However, since Valdearg has no influence on the gaming industry other than his personal purchases, making claims that the games he likes should be on this list instead of what is already on there is very self-absorbed, as is claiming that gaming companies should only make games he'd approve of, in order to appeal only to a hardcore audience.
The fact of the matter is, thanks to Nintendo's choices over the last few years, we are at a precipice in our industry. There are a whole lot of people that, until recently, would never have considered purchasing a console. As such, they will most likely eventually experiment with something a bit more advanced than the party games, just to validate the initial expense of a game console. Making claims that casual games don't deserve to be made is a very archaic thought process that makes no sense. No corporation could survive worldwide concentrating on only their hardcore fanbase. Why do you think GM and Chrysler are in trouble? They didn't expand, and they are dying. Ford may be on the verge of collapse, but they are putting a big gamble on the table, and if they succeed, I don't think anything could stop them (except Obama, because I'm pretty sure he'd find a way to gum up Ford, even though they didn't take a dime of taxpayer money).
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
I never once said the games I liked should be on the list. It just frustrates me to no end to see shit games on the list. I can't change the fact that they are best sellers, but I can certainly lament the attitude that Nintendo, among others, is taking with regard to making tons of shitty games that appeal to the ignorant masses, rather than several quality games that appeal to people who truly enjoy gaming as an art form.
You must really enjoy failing at reading my mind and putting words in my mouth with regards to how I feel about this subject, like most morons like you seem to do. The bottom line is that most of the games on that list are trash. Yes, they deserve to be there strictly based on thier sales figures, but to debate the quality of the games is a debate you will lose.
Just remember what your "Corporations SHOULD make shitty games for more profit" thinking is going to get you.. A whole generation of "games" like Nintendogs and broken, unfinished games like most of the shit that EA pumps out. Say goodbye to innovative, entertaining and intelligent games, and hello to new generations of shovelware.
It's talking to a wall, Valdearg, don't bother.
I know.. But at least it gives me something to do while my code is compiling at work..
I think it refers to poorly made as in shovelware. But one can hardly fault Nintendo for doing what they are doing. If they can make more money with less effort by selling garbage to the masses than by selling quality to those who were formerly their customers then it would be insane for them to take a course of action that would make them less money.
Nintendo is to the gaming world what corporate assembled boy bands are to the musical world.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
@Erik
The 3rd parties are responsible for the shovelware. They're the ones trying to make a quick buck off of the Wii. I suppose games like SSBB and SMG don't exist then.
I thought GP only attracts Jack Thompson as a troll, not console trolls
Console Trolls?
Well, I apologize for lamenting the current state of the Gaming Industry and the Quality of the software they are currently throwing out at us.. I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself from now on..
/sarcasm
Do we really need a forum level console war debate on here?
It's pretty ironic considering that they compared video games to fighting words and we ended up using them "Fightin Woids" over a Best Selling Video Games list.
The funny thing is most gamers spend more time fighting among themselves they really against those that critize XD
Wow. That bit from the Eagle forum was like a forced abortion to my fucking brain. Seriously, "numerous studies"? Gah, I'll come back to this when I heal a bit...
- "Quick... think of a form of speech that is legal to suppress."
- "Um... libel?"
- "Games are libel? No, no. That won't do. Give me something that deals with violence."
- "Um... fighting words?"
- "Fight-ing words. Brilliant! Violent video games are like fighting words. It's so obvious! How did I not see it before? Fighting words."
Hahahaha, I betchya that's how it went down too.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Fighting words.... fighting words...... thats their reason..... wow.
Aparently these people never heard "sticks and stones..." before. Ah well, they are extremist nut jobs who are out of touch with reality. Though on a seperate line of thought, has anyone thought a fighting game where you fight with and As words; Literally! Two words duking it out with each other to determine which is better. I'd play that.
------------------------------
Responsibility: Its time that the next generation takes up the reigns of power in our government, before the old fools who hold them steer this country of ours closer to capsizing. We must act before its to late to repair the damage.
The corruption of our nation’s youth with increasingly deviant video games is a matter of national importance. Our nation’s youth is in crisis, by any measure. A calamitous 30% of our nation’s youth fail to graduate from public high school, and only 32% of those who attend public high school are ever qualified to attend a four-year college...
Couldn't be our shitty schools, could it?
A substantial percentage of teenagers are hooked on these disturbing video games, and spend many hours each week playing them. Moreover, mass killings perpetrated by youngsters are frequently linked to addiction to violent video games...
I won't debate the existence of addiction to games; hell people get addicted to food, but FREQUENT? Any basis for this claim? And no, "many hours each week" is not clear enough no claim addiction, you could just be over reacting (likely) or it could just be a lack of discipline and proper priorities. On the mass killing note, that's just garbage, and it's been dissmissed by federal investigations into such incedents(see the book 'Grand Theft Childhood'). Good lord, learn the difference between correlation and causation...
Violent video games hurt children in two ways. Their increasingly realistic and disturbing images burn into children’s impressionable minds much as pornography does, and the role-playing inherent in a video game causes the child to buy into the rampages of murder and other heinous crimes that he is acting out...
That's why games have ratings and content discriptors. And please explain what all this "buy into the rampages of murder" nonsense is about.
The early market leader in video games was Nintendo, which adopted a policy against “excessive blood and violence,” but it was trounced in sales by a 3 to 1 margin by more gory material produced by Sega, and Nintendo learned the message that “violence sells video games to children...”
Chamale already listed sales and nintendo's at the top with one of there non violent Wii games. And once again, I must remind you of the ESRB ratings and content discriptors. Violent games are not intended for children. That's what the big ol' M17+ is all about.
Numerous studies confirm the obvious: violent video games do cause addiction and harm... There has never been a full First Amendment right to flash highly objectionable and disturbing images specifically at children, or to entice them to participate in destructive role-playing behavior...
Please be more specific. AND AGAIN, ESRB RATINGS. COME ON.
Displaying a shocking image to a child is conceptually identical to the utterance of “fighting words” to an adult, which this Court famously held to be out-side of First Amendment protection...
No it isn't. This has already been established by folks like E. Zacheary Knight.
The stress attributed to violent video games can even be physically harmful. Eighteen-year-old Peter Burkowski, an avid video gamer, collapsed and died of a heart attack while playing games in an arcade...
Source please? And two things can happen at the same time and not be related. I could be typing this and then have to use the bathroom. That doesn't mean typing makes me need to pee.
Children who play violent video games have difficulty obeying authorities, treating peers properly, and succeeding in school...
Again, source?
Children who play violent video games have difficulty obeying authorities
Or it could be THEY ARE TEENAGERS... Goddess knows I didn't have the greatest respect for authority when I was in my teens. Still don't when the authorites in question are like these assholes.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Indeed. It's also important to note that not obeying authorities isn't always a bad thing; if the founding fathers hadn't been rebelious this country wouldn't exist. Even in modern times plenty of authority figures abuse that authority and don't deserve respect or obedience.
That's one thing that I find especially disturbing about crazy ass super conservatives, they always seem to mistake obedience with ethics and morality.
Don't forget that crazy-assed super liberals do the exact same thing, just on the other side of the spectrum. "You didn't vote for the black presidential candidate? You must be racist! You didn't vote for the woman presidential candidate? You must be sexist!" These things were uttered so much during the 08 campaigns that a political cartoonist made a cartoon where this guy asked Dem voters whether they were a sexist voter or racist one.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Voting for Obama just because he's black is just as racist as not voting for him for the same reason. Why do some people have such a hard time seeing that?
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
What's the status of the state's appeal? Aren't amicus briefs usually submitted once the court decides to grant certiorari? My computer was down for a time some weeks ago, so did I miss anything as to whether the Court granted or denied cert, or are we still waiting to hear?
No. They can be submitted while the court is deciding to hear the case. If it is submitted during that phase, the court will use that as part of the decision to hear it.
The Eagle Forum is most likely trying to paint gaming in a bad enough light to convince the court that there is a big enough threat to actually rule on it.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
"The Eagle Forum is most likely trying to paint gaming in a bad enough light to convince the court that there is a big enough threat to actually rule on it."
which won't work, instead it'll backfire (thier psycotic comments (combined with CA's Rant filled Cenatori) are going to be the end of the video game law appeal(Like a certain disbarred attourny for the same rant filled comments when he did the same when he appealed his license to SCOTUS only to be denied because of such comments))
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Proving once again that 'moral' groups and "family values" groups are willing to publish bold-faced lies if it'll get them their way.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Kind of ironic, huh? What really sucks for me is that I am a conservative, and these idiots open their mouths, so I call them out for their idiocy (it's what I do), getting either a) being called a liberal fascist for daring to question these psycho special interest group outliers, or b) not listened to at all because I'm a conservative, thus making me a fearmongering warmongering Bush worshipper who want another 9/11.
Go figure.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
"Family values" is a joke if the ideas are very specific, because every child is different and there are many different ways to raise a good child.
GameSnooper
Exactly. But don't let uber-cons and uber-libs hear that, cuz the cons'll torture you n the libs'll write you a strongly worded letter, as they take your children away because you're a bad parent.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
TL; DR
But really, that conservopedia is such a bunch of bullshit. I hate it when special interest groups put together information purporting to be accurate and honest while spewing a lot of bullshit. The sad thing is, a lot of people will not see it for what it is and believe what they read.
You read about the "liberal-controlled" media and you can just feel they wanted to throw the word Jew in there. Just keep in mind that in a generation all this will be water under the bridge, and a third generation that has grown up with video games will tell these people to fuck off and die.
Considering most of the "liberal media" doesn't care about Jews all that much, I'd say that comment isn't apt, but we all could only hope for what is promised by your final statement.
Also, I find it funny that people say conservatives are trying to undermine President Obama's policies, but this seems to run right along side his anti-gaming comments as of late.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
What "Anti-Gaming" comments?
These ones where he's suggesting parents get thier kids to exercise more, so they don't get fat? Or what about the ones where he suggests that parents make sure thier kids do thier homework before playing games? What about the one where he suggests they take them to do some charity work, rather than play games?
You mean those comments? Those comments that, honestly, are damn good parenting advice? What the hell do you want him to say? "Hey, Parents, forget all that good advice I was giving you, you should make sure your kid plays at least 8 hours of video games a day! That way, he can be fat and stupid, which is exactly the kind of person we need more of in this already awesomely fat and stupid country!"
Disclaimer: I know games themselves don't make you fat and stupid, but sitting down all day, playing games, and not studying or doing homework will certainly contribute to that.
Doing homework or studying doesn't contribute to losing weight.
It certainly contributes to good grades.. How about we stay on point here, and don't intentionally misinterpret my words, ok?
You can't expect me to believe that you're too stupid to see that as a cover for him to try and get his own version of control over the gaming industry, can you? Obama lovers cite all of the things Bush said in order to get the Patriot Act passed, and the fact that people who dissented were told by Bush supporters, well, something very similar to what you're saying to me.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Now come one, do you really think Obama is looking to legislate games? This is obviously a rhetorical device used to drive home his point.
Okay, put your head in the sand, but when it happens, don't say I didn't warn you.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
And this is why I have no respect for conservatives. Especially people as stupid as you. You are an IDIOT of the Nth degree. Just... Stop..
...I'd be laughing at this if you weren't so pathetic.
See the comment right above mine, and think about it. Think harder.
Where are they getting these numbers for graduation rates? On the Dept of Educations website the national graduation rate for high school students is approximately 75%. Granted Nevada's dropped down to 57% so maybe they should just stfu and worry about their own state.
A nutjob-moralist keeping their noses out of other people's business!?!? Unthinkable!!!!11!!!1!1!11
"A substantial percentage of teenagers are hooked on these disturbing video games"
So how much is a substantial percentage? 30%? 2%? They don't actually bother posting stats so who knows how much it really is.
Methinks it's a low number or that they don't have any stats since they would've actually posted stats if they had a high number.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
They probably think that any more than 15 minutes a day constitutes and addiction...
I thought this was an issue between the State of California and not just the State of Nannies and Ignorant Social Conservatives. Do they have to bother California even though they don't live there? I understand their goal is to give our children flowers and unicorns so that they won't have to see pure reality, everybody gets hurt everyday and people should at least be exposed to video games and violence.
"Do they have to bother California even though they don't live there?"
yup
Such is the nature of petty moralist, busy body swine. They want to make sure no one can do something they find inappropriate and they're willing to lie through their teeth to do it.
Didn't prop 8 teach you anything (I live in CA and the amount of BS coming from the prop 8 side was staggering)?
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
So were the firebombings of churches by gay people because Prop 8 didn't go the way they wanted.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Source Please.. I don't remember such a thing.
There were protests, yes, but I hardly think that level of violence happened.. (No matter how much the mormon church deserved it..)
It was all over the news for about ten minutes. The day after they didn't get what they wanted, they went into Nevada and started firebombing churches, because they believed that these particular churches were to blame, because apparently Californians can't make up their own minds.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Link Please, it wasn't that far ago, IF it happened, then it is probably in the archives still. The worst that happened was some signs were stolen and a giant foam cross was forcibly taken from a stupid little old lady and smashed. (She deserved it, too..)
"Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings."
I love irony. I really do, because this is grade A stupidity right here. Plain and simple. Here's a tip, don't make extremely outlandish claims without sources while using a signature that denounces people for doing so.
Indeed, I heard of signs being stolen and some vandalism but this is the first I ever heard of a fire-bombed church.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Just because you claim churches were bombed doesn't mean it actually happened.
What I've learned about the people who were for Prop 8 didn't seem to understand that gay people could marry somewhere else and a church would not get sued, which was totally false. There was too much pressure from people who didn't live in California and pretty much all around the country giving money to fund the Yes side and even on the No side and telling us to vote for this. The problem I've had with the No side was that they seemed disorganized and choatic, but I don't mean that in a bad way, like they just ate too many Twinkies. What I mean is that the Yes side seemed to be capitalizing on how mean and how destructrive the people who are for gay marriage. You've might have heard people taking their Yes on 8 bumper stickers from their cars or writing grafitti or people's garages who have the Yes on 8 on their lawn.
I also learned that the sky will not fall if there were to be gay marriage and God will not burn us in hell if we lose the term, "One man and one woman". I was so annoyed by that. They also said something about democracy for them since the majority of people voted for no gay marriage. They seem to be shouting out words like 'Democracy' or 'Freedom' in the midst of winning the Yes vote. They were also saying something about the interference of government or limited government and gay marriage.
The argument trhat if we have gay marraige it will piss off God and he'll kill us all seems loony to me (for lack of a better term).
Europe had gay marraige and so did some other states, God hasn't smote them yet.
Although forgetting gays for a minute why hasn't God smited certain Middle East regions for banning Christianity and punishing Christians? Certainly that would deserve God's wrath far more than gay marraige, and yet it hasn't happened. So I don't think we need to worry about God crushing all of our society for disobeying him or something.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
True. I remember during the Propr 8 fiasco that people reported seeing picket signs that said "End the hate, vote Prop 8."
If you have to lie to the faces of people you aim to "save", when you are doing the exact opposite, or are just out for your own interests.
Disclaimer: I didn't mean to imply that all who are against gay marraige are moral busybodies, just that there are a significant number of them from Utah (since they funded prop 8 which had absolutely no effect on them)
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
You're absolutely right. They had no business sticking their noses into it. However, neither did the wackjobs who started firebombing churches. And I'll be the first to say that they're wackjobs, and not libs, because I firmly believe that these people are just plain old wackjobs, on either side of the political spectrum.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Again, Link Please.
Firebombings didn't happen. Again, the moron church certainly deserved it, but it didn't happen. Even if it did, it certainly wasn't widespread. But, like I said, you probably won't find a link to a story about a firebombed church because of Prop 8, so your comments are pathetically invalid.
Edit: Just noticed an entertaining typo in my comment, but I'll leave it there, since Moron and Mormon are interchangable with respect to prop 8.
Everyone is still waiting for you to cite your firebombing claims. Whats your excuse for refusing this time?
Two words: Google It.
If I posted a link, you probably wouldn't look anyway, or you'd come up with some smartass comment about how I picked some crappy website. If you are actually willing to find out, look for yourself. You see, I actually watch the news on televison, not just looking for stuff on the internet.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
This isn't youtube, you can freely post links. Hell, the fact that you have yet to post a link just shows you are making shit up. Which is kind of obvious considering I've been paying attention to this series of events months before November 2008 started began, to this day, every piece of news pertaining to the Prop 8 vote and the aftermath has been accounted for. To this day, no church has been firebombed because of it.
The burden of proof is on you. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. All you ever do when someone expects you to cite your claims is make excuses and project your opinions as fact. Typical of a fake Marine.
When have I projected my opinion as fact? Almost everything I've ever said is my opinion.
Speaking of which, wouldn't calling me a "fake Marine" also be projecting my opinions as fact?
And I explained why I won't post a link. If that isn't good enough for you, you're merely proving my point about it.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Opinions are nice and all, but when it comes to an interpretation of facts, your opinions suck. Your opinion or belief as to why you shouldn't post links is a bad one.
I call you a fake Marine because you lack any and all qualities of an actual Marine, and, like everything else you've claimed on this site, you have refused to prove it. Every time someone calls you out on one of your claims, you whine, complain, bring out your persecution complex, and expect everyone else to look up and prove your claims. That's not how it works here, or anywhere else. If making outlandish claims and expecting everyone else to provie it "proves your point" then your sense of logic is seriously more warped than imagined.
What is it with conservatives always refusing to back up anything they ever say?
Mmm... As a liberal, let me just say, LOGIC IS AMAZING. I love logic, it feels soooo goood... Thank you, Mr Pat, for giving me that nice dose of logic. However, conservatives like mister moronic jedi, there, don't like logic. They recoil in fear, when logic is introduced to an argument. Pathetic Really.
Like everyone else before me has said, Jedi.. The burden of proof is on you. Until you provide us a link from a reputable news source (NOT the Drudge Report, in case you were thinking it.), it didn't happen.
The best part about this is that you won't provide a link, thus proving once and for all that you are a lying, ignorant, conservative blow-hard with no facts to ever back up your opinions. Next time, before you go about making outlandish claims about things that never really happened, how about you take your head out of your ass, and realize that most of us here are smart enough to see through your bullshit lies.
GOD DAMN, I love it when a conservative destroys his credibility.. (Not that conservatives have much credibility to begin with..)
Lying blow-hards come in all shapes including liberal so knock off the liberals are all so great with logic crap.
Although whenever someone makes a claim they themselves have to back it up, I find it amusing that people who are on sites where you can post links always say just google it. If it were that easy why don't they just do it and post the links they find?
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
I'll do whatever I damn well please, thank you very much.
According to what I've observed in my life, my comments are perfectly accurate. I've yet to find a conservative who relies on logic and thinking to come to thier conclusions. That being said, I also know that liberals can fall down that line too, but, to my ever growing amusement, it happens so much more often on the other side. And it is fun to watch.
I had to reply to this, because the irony was so thick I thought I was going to choke on it.
"However, conservatives like mister moronic jedi, there, don't like logic. They recoil in fear, when logic is introduced to an argument. Pathetic Really."
This is commonly known as argumentum ad hominem, or, attacking the man. Instead of adressing a point, you adress the individual and what you perceive as faults in an effort to discredit him.
"Like everyone else before me has said, Jedi.. The burden of proof is on you. Until you provide us a link from a reputable news source (NOT the Drudge Report, in case you were thinking it.), it didn't happen.
The best part about this is that you won't provide a link, thus proving once and for all that you are a lying, ignorant, conservative blow-hard with no facts to ever back up your opinions."
This is known as argumentum ad ignoratium. You assume that because something has not been proven true, that is has been proven false. Should jedi provide a link? Of course, but the assumption that something is false due to a lack of evidence is a logical fallacy.
"Next time, before you go about making outlandish claims about things that never really happened, how about you take your head out of your ass, and realize that most of us here are smart enough to see through your bullshit lies."
A combination of ad hominem and argumentum ad ignoratium here.
"GOD DAMN, I love it when a conservative destroys his credibility.. (Not that conservatives have much credibility to begin with..)"
Also known as argumentum ad odium, or an appeal to spite. You are relying on other people's existing distaste for conservatives in order to make an argument which consists purely of ad hominem to begin with.
The amount of logical fallacies in your post is staggering, to say the least.
Jedi, I was watching the news the other day, and it said YOU killed a bunch of orphans!! How could you?!
You better provide a link that says that you did or didn't, or else everyone should just assume you killed a bunch of orphans... with diseases!
Tried google, didn't find actual carried out incidents
I just realized something, since this is a Supreme Court decision we're talking about it will effect them, should the case be heard. If they ever want to ban sales of violent games to minors a supreme court decision calling such bans constitutional would make it so much easier to pass (likewise one calling it unconstitutional would make it considerably difficult).
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Dear Eagle Forum,
Please stop it.
Love, David
You know, everytime some group that has Psycotic comments like the eagle foum(that have no business dealing with california's shennigans if it weren't enough for the SCOTUS) the SCOTUS appeal comes crashing down(Just like JT's appeal)
In my opinion (even with the eagle forum getting involved in a non-issue) It'll fail because of it's friovolusioty, psycoticness(espically the California AG and Eagle forum) not cost-effectiveness(pork barrel spending, just like the louisanna law) and unable to provide the aduquate forces to fine them
fair warning, even with the video game law, they're already bankrupt(to begin with) due to wasteful pork
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
If you are so concern about kids, then maybe save the kids who are involve in actual violence instead of kids doing virtual violence. I guess that makes too much sense.
Wow....
Seriously? These people are that stupid that they rambled on with that kind of crap? "role playing games and murderous rampages" or whatever it was they said was pretty damn funny..I remember playing legend of gaia in high school and never went on a murder rampage.
once again just more ignorant crap rambled on by idiots who dont know what is going on today and just want to go back to the leave it to beaver era
i'm going to go kill people now in call of duty 4 online
So if I asked her if she wants to play some multiplayer in GTA4 she would then respond by attacking me?
So they are really saying that it is Ok to brutalize gamers. Way to care about public morals, you inciters of violence!
"What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
This best sums up the biggest pile of bullshit ever written by a bunch of delusional weirdos who deserve to be locked up in a mental health facility and the key thrown into liquid nitrogen.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
I need to save that quote. There are stories on this site frequently enough that deserve to be Billy Madison'ed.
I love it when people complain about the youth disobeying "authority", because you can always tell that they think they're the authority.
Funny, I blame bad grades, violent behavior, poor graduation rates and school shootings on ignorant, gun-toting super-conservatism.
That's a little unfair. What about the ignorant, blame-passing super-liberals who believe the government should take care of everything and that no one should have any personal responsibility? They'd like to use video games as a scapegoat just as much as the super-conservatives.
Thus, Barack Obama as of late.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Those "ignorant" "blame-passing" "super-liberals" (You know, if there were any liberal politicians in America) generally take some form of priority on fixing those grades, violent behaviours (In other countries), and graduation rates (Republicans aren't ignorant? As if they were the ones to advance social policy).
Also you must be mistaken. Republicans blame democrats for everything. They blamed them for 9/11, the economy, crime, abortion, everything. Hell, there are still some republicans who blame Carter for cryin' out loud. But they both support some form of legislation on video games.
/This of course all from politicians
If you can call what they do "fixing." I've yet to see them "fix" anything; they just like to throw money at it and assume it sorts itself out.
It seems to me the term "personal responsiblity" often means "I don't want regulations on my business so I can do whatever I want, but as soon as things go wrong I'll whine to the government."
Unfortunately, it often does. Obama really should have just let the auto companies fall. If we had decent, intelligent politicians, we might have a system where everyone is responsible for his or her own actions and reaps the benefits or suffers the consequences accordingly without government intervention.
My only response: if you don't want your children to play violent games, then don't let them play violent games. Unless controlling your children is also against your values.
Its interesting how almost everybody objects to big government and want goverment off their backs. But then you get these fruitcakes practically demanding that the government blocks and bans what THEY think is offensive and inappropriate with no consideration for the opinions for others. So they want no governement intervention except to make decisions that they should be making for themselves and not forcing government to make for them AND EVERYONE ELSE.
For those who are offedned by everything they see and hear....The most effective form of protest is: DON'T WATCH! DON'T LISTEN! DON'T BUY!
Can't we have some analysis on the effects of video games on people that don't come from any strongly biased sources? This includes both pentagenarian-and-older lobbying groups AND video game organizations. I just want a clean, neutral take on the the whole situation. Someone that can be the referee on both sides.
GameSnooper
Thems fighting words! Let me at her, I'll knock that old bat right on her ass... oh no! Look what years of playing violent video games has turned me into.
Just another cheap attempt to shift the attention from the utter failure of the "(neo-)conservative agenda" (represented by 8 years of "applied" fashism) to other fields of society.
Sorry, old lady, but your very own kind also worshipped Adolf Hitler and claimed that Nazi Germany was "such a nice and tidy place with polite and orderly children".
ZAR.
Seconded
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Do you even know what fascism is? Fascism abhors capitalism, and if Bush is anything, he's a pure capitalist (right up until the bank bailouts).
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Looks like you are the one who doesn't know what "fashism" means.
Get your facts straight!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
ZAR.
I went to Wikipedia and looked up fascism. That's where I got my info. Considering I'm the one spelling it right, I'd have to say you're the one who doesn't know what it is.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Congratulations! You got the spelling right.
ZAR.
Fascism is businesss run government and communism government run business. Haven't you EVER heard about that saying? Well know you have.
Hope you actually know what fascism now. Oh, here's a fun fact, fascism is the style of governance in Deus Ex. Hope that clears things up.
So.. an old wrinkly lady from a party completly disconnected from reality, who has never touched a game controller in her long life, has full knowledge of America's societal problems and can clearly point them on video-games for being merely the latest new hotness in entertainment?
The fact she raised a child into fear of distribution of information to the mass (wikipedia) says a lot about her...
Conservatives are like Stewie ; "I don't like change!!"
Here's a tottally unscientific idea for those morons who believe in video game addiction, have a bunch of kids play some violent games, then in the middle of their playing, cut the power and see if their hands keep using the controller, (sorry I'm bored, and that just popped into my head, kinda like the stay puft marshmallow man)
Why is "liberal group" never used, even when the group is decidely liberal?
Because they are usually referred to as "radicals", "militants", "leftists", or some other implied "danger to society" title. Aren't you glad the Eagle Forum was just referred to as a "conservative group" rather than "an Anti-Freedom of Speech, Theological dictatorship seeking, hate mongering, guttertrash group"? Personally, I think GP was being TOO kind.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
I do agree with that statement
I also know That our previous president(Bush) comission somthing on both Left wing and right wing extremism
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Everyone, if you're ever thinking about attacking these guys over video games, you may wanna think twice, according to the Overthinker
http://www.screwattack.com/myvidsdontsuck/Final/TheGameOverThinker
What is a game?(throws wine glass on the floor and it breaks to pieces) A miserable little pile of secrets.
The First Amendment does not render our nation’s youth defenseless against the
predatory, billion-dollar Eagle Forum Groupthat churns out increasingly rubbish and lies for impressionable minds to imbibe...
The corruption of our nation’s Christian people with increasingly deviant preaching is a matter of national importance. Our nation’s Christian followers are in crisis, by any measure. A calamitous 30% of our nation’s youth fail to graduate from public high school, and only 32% of those who attend public high school are ever qualified to attend a four-year college...
A substantial percentage of teenagers are hooked on these disturbing Eagle Forum radio shows, and spend many hours each week listening to them. Moreover, mass killings perpetrated by youngsters are frequently linked to addiction to Eagle Forum Radio Station...
The First Amendment does not forbid state legislatures from keeping this harmful material from children. The California legislature, not known to be conservative, protected its youth against the predatory Eagle Forum Group. It was an error with national implications for the Ninth Circuit to invalidate the California statute...
Eagle Forum radio rants hurt honest and law abiding Christians in two ways. Their increasingly realistic and disturbing messages burn into christians impressionable minds much as Rants from Osama Bin Laden does for the Islamic youth, and the role-playing inherent in a Bible causes the Christian to be brainwashed into the rampages of murder and other heinous crimes that he is acting out...
Numerous studies confirm the obvious: Extreme Christian Fundamentalism in the likes of the Eagle Forum's Radio Station do cause addiction and harm... There has never been a full First Amendment right to flash highly objectionable and disturbing preaching specifically at children, or to entice them to participate in destructive moral behavior based on the words of the Bible...
Preaching a shocking view of people of different genders, races and against people who have a difference in their sexuality to a child is conceptually identical to the utterance of “fighting words” to an adult, which this Court famously held to be out-side of First Amendment protection...
The stress attributed to violent Eagle Forums rantings can even be physically harmful.
Children who listen to the Eagle Forum radio show have difficulty obeying authorities, treating peers properly, and succeeding in school...
PS. See what I did there? I guess someone has to post this to the Eagle Forum so they can have a taste of their own medicine. To be honest, this sort of letter is just piss in the wind to me. And it is about time that the Eagle Forum are going to be hit by their own preaching they try to spew out to others.
Two things. One, if this were posted to the Eagle forum proper, in under an hour it would be deleted and the person who posted it permabanned and marked for harassment. They hate outside ideas makign it in.
Second
"A calamitous 30% of our nation’s youth fail to graduate from public high school, and only 32% of those who attend public high school are ever qualified to attend a four-year college and they aim to keep that way" would seem more accurate.
Don't forget the "Billion Dollar Eagle Forum" part. I doubt that they're worth that much.
Just thought I'd point that out.
These people need to get back playing shuffleboard and yelling at kids to keep off their lawn.
I can see the US supreme court laughing this BS amicus curaie off(and deny it outright)
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
After looking it up, this "fighting words" argument really is insanely weak and idiotic.
GP posted on his twitter to Dan at Gameslaw.net that the Eagle ForDumb specifically cited Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire(1942), but Gameslaw states that it's good news for the industry.
SCOTUS since the initial ruling has struck down numerous "fighting words" statutes and reversed decisions in other cases, including Street v. New York(1969)(involved flag-burning), Brandenburg v. Ohio(1969), Cohen v. California(1971), Gooding v. Wilson(1972), Lewis v. City of New Orleans(1974), and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul(1992).
Zero divided by zero is still zero chance of winning for California.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
Hopefully this issue never sees the SCOTUS, it would be a waste of there time at this point with all the evidance behind the game industry.
Yukimura is still here. "When he's at his best, he's little less then a man, and when he's at his worst, he's little more then a beast." W.S
Was just at that Conservapedia site, and under its "commandments" for posting on it is the following:
"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."
Seriously, for some reason i find this hilarious. Can anyone explain why i find it so amusing?
*Edit* Oh, and if you look underneath the "commandments", after it claims that the rules are so as to be less restrictive than Wikipedia, it quotes several U.S. laws with punishments that you will be subject to if you do anything such as post "profanity" or "harassment" on the site. Frankly, im afraid to look now as it will probably sue me if i click on the wrong link.
In war, truth is the first casualty.
Dammit! Why, when it asks for me to sign in, can this forum not attach my response to the bloody post I was commenting on?
Not an American, your schooling rates as stated by Eagle Forum surprise me. There's a couple statistics I'd like to know to correlate them:
What percentage of university and college students play video games?
What percentage of university and college students play violent video games?
I suspect percentages are high for both, but it would be nice to know.
Wow...Conservapedia is definitly the opposite of wikapedia. Instead of detailing facts, they just shove their opinions down your throat.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Yeah, isn't it great?
It's like the wiki version of Faux News.
...and you sound suprised....why?
Displaying a shocking image to a child is conceptually identical to the utterance of “fighting words” to an adult.
I don't think they understand the concept of "concepts."
Look, I'm a pretty tame guy about most things. But these whack jobs need to have the microphone removed from in front of their faces. There are too many things wrong with their logic that it's senseless to even debate it. It's like they came from a paralell universe or something. Their commentary has no basis in fact or fiction. 100% Whargarbl.
Eighteen-year-old Peter Burkowski, an avid video gamer, collapsed and died of a heart attack while playing games in an arcade...
A simple search of Google finds:
"The cause of death is a heart attack, and while an autopsy finds previously undetected, two-week-old scar tissue on Burkowski's heart, the coroner does not rule out prolonged stress from the videogame as the triggering factor."
What they don't point out with the FACT is that it happened in 1982! 27 years ago, when games / gaming was no where near the level it's at now.
So to use their own example I'd expect to see a massive increase in heart failure related deaths from video games in that 27 year period...only there aren't really any.
That said visiting my friend google again I find:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15859553/detail.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1618058,00.html
Two semi recent examples of young people dying related to baseball, do you know the one thing people can draw from this?
People with undiagnosed heart problems are more likely to die!
It could be on the baseball field, at an arcade or sitting in your room. The CAUSE is a bad heart and that says more about the health care system than it does video games!
I find it hilarious that I've been attacked personally on this thread for AGREEING with the people who are attacking me that this group should STFU.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.