Gordon Copeland is an arse

[RantyDave]

What a tool.

Independent MP and twat Gordon Copeland has called for GTA4 to be banned. Despite that fact that thousands of people have it already and are skiving work to play it even as we speak. Type. Whatever.

http://stuff.co.nz/4503711a28.html

"It is time to reverse the tide of violence in New Zealand" said Mr Copeland, carefully avoiding his equally strong stance on his right to hit children (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440050).

So, fellow bikers, I call for a movement to reverse the tide of intolerance in New Zealand. For too long art, in particular, has found itself falling foul of populist intolerance ... all too often freedom of expression is sacrificed in favour of headlines for a self-obsessed fiftysomething desperately straggling for power. FUCK THEM I say, while I still can. Fuck you, Gordon Copeland, and the bible you rode in on. Free expression lives on. Hopefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNrhmbc0y_8

Dave

[Mully]

Ahh, the fun police are hard on the case.

D'ya think it's possible to download the full noise version of GTA4? I'd be kind of curious to play the full on version if I could get my hands on it.

[98tls]

:sleep:The fact that people take a day off work to play a computer game just reinforces to me that the countrys fucked.:apint:

[Gubb]

Agreed. The Church and State don't belong together. I don't need your God to tell me what is right, I am quite capable of making my own mind up thankyouverymuch.


Ahh, the fun police are hard on the case.

D'ya think it's possible to download the full noise version of GTA4? I'd be kind of curious to play the full on version if I could get my hands on it.

Only on Consoles at the moment, PC version comes out later.

[Mikkel]

It's a sales stunt perpetrated by the GTA4 importers and Mr. Copeland. He makes these rash statements and all of the sudden GTA4 is the bees knees and nobody will notice it's a rather mediocre game... Thus sales increases and everyone are happy.

GTA who cares? Carmageddon 2 was published years ago and can be downloaded for free via BitTorrent!

[Gubb]

I've got a copy of Postal 2 lying around somewhere. That'll really piss him off.

[Clockwork]

Populist? Gordon Copeland?

Relax, he's just a sad act, desperately seeking publicity.

[MisterD]

Well you lot voted for MMP, live with it. It only takes one wowser to get votes from 5% of the electorate (and last time 11% were stupid enough to vote green) to get on the parliamentary gravy train

[Mully]

Well you lot voted for MMP

I object. I was not allowed to vote at that election.

Jeez, people blame me for everything.

[avgas]

Carmageddon 2 was published years ago and can be downloaded for free via BitTorrent!
now in 800x600 resolution!!!! lol
The funniest thing is, the toned down version of GTA in NZ is BS. We just banned beating your kids yet i can still buy condemned/condemned 2 where picking up a bit of pipe/fake leg/bit of wood with a nail in it or even a locker door and go beat the shit out of some stupid druggy is common place.
That game is awesome - i suggest you try it late at night with no lights on.

[Usarka]

Generation x was good, and a few of his earlier works were ok, but getting a bit tired in recent efforts.....

[Skunk]

It's a sales stunt perpetrated by the GTA4 importers and Mr. Copeland. He makes these rash statements and all of the sudden GTA4 is the bees knees and nobody will notice it's a rather mediocre game... Thus sales increases and everyone are happy.

GTA who cares? Carmageddon 2 was published years ago and can be downloaded for free via BitTorrent!
Carmageddon 2! Got a seed?

[yod]

:sleep:The fact that people take a day off work to play a computer game just reinforces to me that the countrys fucked.:apint:
why? cos you don't get it?


It's a sales stunt perpetrated by the GTA4 importers and Mr. Copeland. He makes these rash statements and all of the sudden GTA4 is the bees knees and nobody will notice it's a rather mediocre game... Thus sales increases and everyone are happy.

GTA who cares? Carmageddon 2 was published years ago and can be downloaded for free via BitTorrent!
Carmageddon was better than Carmageddon 2 - pity about the graphics tho...

[Robert Taylor]

What a tool.

Independent MP and twat Gordon Copeland has called for GTA4 to be banned. Despite that fact that thousands of people have it already and are skiving work to play it even as we speak. Type. Whatever.

http://stuff.co.nz/4503711a28.html

"It is time to reverse the tide of violence in New Zealand" said Mr Copeland, carefully avoiding his equally strong stance on his right to hit children (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440050).

So, fellow bikers, I call for a movement to reverse the tide of intolerance in New Zealand. For too long art, in particular, has found itself falling foul of populist intolerance ... all too often freedom of expression is sacrificed in favour of headlines for a self-obsessed fiftysomething desperately straggling for power. FUCK THEM I say, while I still can. Fuck you, Gordon Copeland, and the bible you rode in on. Free expression lives on. Hopefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNrhmbc0y_8

Dave

No comment on GTA4 but I do respect Gordon Copeland for resigning from that puppy dog party as a point of principle over that anti smacking bill. I voted for FPP as I could see MMP as essentially ''mickey mouse politics. But we are stuck with it and I d rather see dozens of Gordon Copelands compared to Bradfords and Tancztossers!

[Grahameeboy]

I miss Spave Invaders...

[Usarka]

I miss Spave Invaders...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/arcade.php?do=play&gameid=2 :D

[Grahameeboy]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/arcade.php?do=play&gameid=2 :D

I love you.....saved to favourites...not so great without stick but cool

[Mikkel]

Carmageddon 2! Got a seed?

I'm sure http://thepiratebay.org/ can help you in that regard ;) I downloaded it recently and it's about 60 Mb. I used the torrent from this (http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3214239/Carmageddon_ll_-_Carpocalypse_Now) link.

You'll need a glide wrapper to run it under XP in Hardware Accelerated mode. I recommend the one here: http://www.zeckensack.de/glide/index.html

[onearmedbandit]

and nobody will notice it's a rather mediocre game...

Mediocre??? Mediocre?? Heathen.

[ManDownUnder]

Time for the kiddies to get out from behind game consoles and meet the real world me thinks.

GTA4 hold no attraction for me, rewards all the wrong things and while it might be a ton of fun, it's another step down that slippery slope.

Call me a wowser all you like but anyone that's brave enough to do that shit on a PC but never pulled the trigger on a real gun and knows what it actually means to consign something or someone to eternity is talking through their arse, and anything (game, toy whatever) that lessens the gravity of that is morally repugnant.

A concern I have is with the ability of CGI to make the virtual appear real. We can suddenly have snuff movies, paedophilia, "filmed" rape, beheadings and all manner of other crap being normalised through sheer volume of exposure. With respect - those are things I do NOT want normalised. Of course society does change it's moral stand on various issues over time, and for me that line gets drawn as soon as there are innocents hurt.

For those that have no clue who those innocents are - see how many rape or abuse victims put their hands up and say enough... it'll be one in 5... tops. The rest simply look about them, horrified at their world being filled with kids that gleefully engage in the very shit that has destroyed their lives. The familiaies of car accident victims are similarly going to be upset and annoyed.

FFS, save your money, sell the fucken Xbox and buy a real gun - go hunting for real rather than do it on a stupid machine. Or possibly buy a real car and race it, or maybe a real tennis racket and hit the ball.

Would you rather play motorbike racing games or actually be good on a bike?

[Tank]

Its just another bandwagon for them to jump on.

I hate it with the fucken nanny state - FFS - its not the games that are causing all the problems, its bad parenting and the fact that we have piss weak sentencing - thus the kids know that they can get away with shit.

Kids know the difference between a game and reality - the idiots in parliament however dont have an idea of reality at all.

If only they put the same effort into making our country a better place as they do getting their fat sweaty faces in front of the TV .....

And FFS - hes a churchy - if they wanted to help kids - how about coming down hard on all the priest and Christian Heritage party members that are kiddy fiddlers.

[vifferman]

Independent MP and twat Gordon Copeland has called for GTA4 to be banned.
Good for him!
What a Top Bloke!!

Anything to get my lounge back, and the troglodytes back in their basement where they belong.

I also hate the tantrums, wobblies, shit-fests and violent outbursts that erupt every few minutes when things don't go as the players expect.

Fucking computer games...:Pokey:

[Usarka]

Good for him!
What a Top Bloke!!

Anything to get my lounge back, and the troglodytes back in their basement where they belong.

I also hate the tantrums, wobblies, shit-fests and violent outbursts that erupt every few minutes when things don't go as the players expect.

Fucking computer games...:Pokey:

how old are these gremlins of yours, and if they are old enough to be playing why don't you kick their arses out on the street GTA IV stylez?

[onearmedbandit]

Would you rather play motorbike racing games or actually be good on a bike?

I prefer to do both. I love that I can choose what to do with my time, be it conversing with friends, going out, riding my bike, spending time with my daughters, or just when it's too cold to ride, my friends are tired of my conversation, it's too late to go out, and my daughters are asleep, I can flick on the PC or console and relax having a few games, be it laps of some famous racetrack in Germany that I can't afford to fly to atm, or driving around the beautifully recreated streets of Vice City (a very good take on NY city).

Plain and simple as that. I value my ability to decide what I want to do, not have someone else tell me what I can and can't do, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or harming their property.

And honestly, play it before you judge it. The game is so much more than just shooting hookers and driving over pedestrians. I think.

[scumdog]

Time for the kiddies to get out from behind game consoles and meet the real world me thinks.

The rest simply look about them, horrified at their world being filled with kids that gleefully engage in the very shit that has destroyed their lives. The familiaies of car accident victims are similarly going to be upset and annoyed.

True, I wonder how all those that were at Edgeware Road see GTA4 and it's ilk as 'fun' when they see pedestrians get sent flying as the cars plough into them???

[scumdog]

:sleep:The fact that people take a day off work to play a computer game just reinforces to me that the countrys fucked.:apint:

Oh, that and and that people spend zillions on a non-practical, redundancy guaranteed product too,,,:rolleyes:

[Mikkel]

Mediocre??? Mediocre?? Heathen.

GSX-R - you happy now? :scratch:


FFS, save your money, sell the fucken Xbox and buy a real gun - go hunting for real rather than do it on a stupid machine. Or possibly buy a real car and race it, or maybe a real tennis racket and hit the ball.

Fuck yeah, I agree! MORE GUNS will solve all or our problems...

And quite frankly I'd rather have the cretins sit inside having a hard-on about shooting pedestrians or running over hookers in cyber-space than hanging on the street being obnoxious with their bling, boomboxes and boy-racer cars.

Tennis on the other hand builds character!


And honestly, play it before you judge it. The game is so much more than just shooting hookers and driving over pedestrians. I think.

You think wrong! As I stated earlier - go play carmageddon if you want to have real fun. With cheat codes you don't have to worry about the pesky missions either...

[onearmedbandit]

True, I wonder how all those that were at Edgeware Road see GTA4 and it's ilk as 'fun' when they see pedestrians get sent flying as the cars plough into them???

What about Dajiiro Kato who was killed at Suzuka in a MotoGP race? How does his family feel every time they see a new game come out with that exactly track, with the exact corner he was killed on? How about all the racing drivers/riders killed? How about the Isle of Man, shit lots get killed there every year but still they (being the evil corrupt game publishers) push onto the poor innocent public games where you too can actually race there?

How about the parents of a child killed by a karting accident? Should we ban Mario Bro's and any other game that allows you to ride a go-kart and experience that for yourself? Oh of course not, they are 'games' after all, no one actually dies. Hmmm, kind of like GTA.

I'm getting the feeling that those who complain about these games are the ones we have the most to fear from. No disrespect to anyone intended, but if you want to stop me from doing what I enjoy, that doesn't hurt others or harm their property, then we have a problem. Oh sure we could draw correlations between violence in real life and video games, shaky evidence at that, mind you I suppose we also could draw the same conclusions about alcohol, and SD I definitely don't need to lecture you on that. How's that bottle of scotch in your lounge? Feel like giving it up to the government and never touching a drop again because of the actual links between alcohol abuse and violence? No?

Didn't think so.

[onearmedbandit]

You think wrong! As I stated earlier - go play carmageddon if you want to have real fun. With cheat codes you don't have to worry about the pesky missions either...

Played it many years ago. IMO GTA IV makes Caramgeddon very painful. What I like about GTA IV is the missions, the city life, the cars, the weapons. The city is visually beautiful, so well detailed it's simply amazing.

[Str8 Jacket]

Played it many years ago. IMO GTA IV makes Caramgeddon very painful. What I like about GTA IV is the missions, the city life, the cars, the weapons. The city is visually beautiful, so well detailed it's simply amazing.

AIYEEE! I was just gonna say a similar thing. The reason you can play GTA for so long and enjoy it is because of the missions. Cheat codes are for loser's with no patience..... :wait:

[Mikkel]

AIYEEE! I was just gonna say a similar thing. The reason you can play GTA for so long and enjoy it is because of the missions. Cheat codes are for loser's with no patience..... :wait:

Whereas computer games without cheat codes are for losers with a patience?

Oh you evil evil man - you cheated the computer game shame on you!!!


Played it many years ago. IMO GTA IV makes Caramgeddon very painful. What I like about GTA IV is the missions, the city life, the cars, the weapons. The city is visually beautiful, so well detailed it's simply amazing.

I doubt it'll beat the VR that is meatspace though. Out there you can actually taste the coffee ;)

[Str8 Jacket]

Whereas computer games without cheat codes are for losers with a patience?


That didnt take you long to bite did it! :wari:

[onearmedbandit]

I doubt it'll beat the VR that is meatspace though. Out there you can actually taste the coffee ;)

Huh? What's that got to do with the price of fish?

[scumdog]

. Oh sure we could draw correlations between violence in real life and video games, shaky evidence at that, mind you I suppose we also could draw the same conclusions about alcohol, and SD I definitely don't need to lecture you on that. How's that bottle of scotch in your lounge? Feel like giving it up to the government and never touching a drop again because of the actual links between alcohol abuse and violence? No?

Didn't think so.

hey, hey, keep yer knickers from getting twisted OAB, I was making comment on how the reality of life is soo much different to any 'game' - I should have deleted more of the post I was quoting I guess (that second paragraph) as it has thrown my post out of context.


Oh, and I'm drinking the scotch as fast as I can so's it don't fall into the wrong hands...so you're dead right, the answer IS 'no'!!!:woohoo:

["D" FZ1]

Can't see the point of sitting in front of a TV pretending to kill people anyway. Doesn't exactly teach the youth of today much when they have F##k all respect for anything as it is. Would rather spend the time riding my bike.

[Str8 Jacket]

Can't see the point of sitting in front of a TV pretending to kill people anyway. Doesn't exactly teach the youth of today much when they have F##k all respect for anything as it is. Would rather spend the time riding my bike.

There is nothing better than a good mash after a good ride. GTA is great if the traffic has been particuarly bad and the drivers extra moronic while on said ride. It helps to get all that anger out!

[Mikkel]

That didnt take you long to bite did it! :wari:

Oh, don't take it as a sign of annoyance though. I think we have established I have a fondness for computer games and have had so for a long time. And I shall never consider the time I have spent thus anything but lost - and I'm still loosing time playing computer games as such it'll only be fair to consider me a loser because of it.

Patience however, I have it not.


Huh? What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Oh, you don't recall the whole coffee controversy surrounding GTA?


There is nothing better than a good mash after a good ride. GTA is great if the traffic has been particuarly bad and the drivers extra moronic while on said ride. It helps to get all that anger out!

:yes: It's either that or beating up your partner and flatmates ;)

[Clockwork]

... I voted for FPP as I could see MMP as essentially ''mickey mouse politics. But we are stuck with it and I d rather see dozens of Gordon Copelands compared to Bradfords and Tancztossers!

FPP, the last refuge of the childlike mentality that causes adults to throw their toys out of the cot because "they can't have things all their own way"

[avgas]

Played it many years ago. IMO GTA IV makes Caramgeddon very painful. What I like about GTA IV is the missions, the city life, the cars, the weapons. The city is visually beautiful, so well detailed it's simply amazing.
Can't say i ever completed a mission on any of the GTA games, yet i would have clocked about 300 hours in total on the series (has been going for 10 years). There is just something about stealing cops, killing some Joho's, cop chase, ditching the car, get 5 stars, ditching the car again....repeat.
It gets addictive. Good thing i keep it off the street.
Its basically world of warcraft for anyone other than Sue Bradford

[onearmedbandit]

Oh, you don't recall the whole coffee controversy surrounding GTA?





Ah, yes, yes I do. Only time I ever saw anything of it was on youtube when searching for GTA IV pre-release vids a while back. Otherwise never interested me. The big issue about NZ getting the 'watered down' version of GTA IV doesn't bother me either, if I want to see sexual abuse, excessive death etc, I'd just flick the TV on at 6pm.

[Mikkel]

Ah, yes, yes I do. Only time I ever saw anything of it was on youtube when searching for GTA IV pre-release vids a while back. Otherwise never interested me. The big issue about NZ getting the 'watered down' version of GTA IV doesn't bother me either, if I want to see sexual abuse, excessive death etc, I'd just flick the TV on at 6pm.

I'd say the internet is a better source for that than TV NZ - international news are almost always watered down and/or neglected.

[Usarka]

can someone explain why everyone is so upset that you can kill hookers in the game, but no one cares about the average joe walking down the street minding his own business? at least they didnt take your cash and give you the clap :lol:

[Swoop]

I'm still fucked up from Donkey Kong.
Always looking upwards, for a monkey throwing barrels and if I see a barrel on the street, I just have to jump over it.

[onearmedbandit]

I'd say the internet is a better source for that than TV NZ - international news are almost always watered down and/or neglected.

Very true, but as the internet is so often painted as being a source of evil, so much so that we have restrictions on it's use put in place by parents (and lets face it, there is some seriously dodgey stuff out there), it doesn't make for a good yard stick. However with TV's in almost every house in the country, and most tuned into the news at 6, there is an obvious source of violence that no one complains about. I'd almost wager that copycat crimes originate more from TV than any other source, due to its accessibility.

[Mikkel]

Very true, but as the internet is so often painted as being a source of evil, so much so that we have restrictions on it's use put in place by parents (and lets face it, there is some seriously dodgey stuff out there), it doesn't make for a good yard stick. However with TV's in almost every house in the country, and most tuned into the news at 6, there is an obvious source of violence that no one complains about. I'd almost wager that copycat crimes originate more from TV than any other source, due to its accessibility.

Dunno about that. Unless dad hitting mom (or vice versa) is the done thing in your home I doubt that watching TV is going to turn you into a crook.

Bad parenting and a society that does not impose consequences upon unacceptable behaviour is to blame IMHO. As for copycat crime - well the crims do talk to each other and they do get new, and fortunately almost always idiotic, ideas now and again.

If anything the TV is just going to brainwash you into an unquestioning consumer...

[ManDownUnder]

What about Dajiiro Kato who was killed at Suzuka in a MotoGP race?

How about the parents of a child killed by a karting accident? Should we ban Mario Bro's and any other game that allows you to ride a go-kart and experience that for yourself? Oh of course not, they are 'games' after all, no one actually dies. Hmmm, kind of like GTA.

Both are knowingly involved in risk sports and the families of those people have the opportunity to have a say in the outcome. A far cry from a child falling innocent victim to a paedofile and their family's consequent grief.


I'm getting the feeling that those who complain about these games are the ones we have the most to fear from. No disrespect to anyone intended, but if you want to stop me from doing what I enjoy, that doesn't hurt others or harm their property, then we have a problem.
Agreed!

I'm talking of the actual victims of the actual acts perpertrated in real life then having their noses rubbed in it by those thinking that just because it's on screen it's affecting no-one.

I can name 4 people right here and now - probably reading this post - that fall into exactly that category. What's you answer to them?

"Sure you were abused or raped, sure your life's been turned upside down because of it, and ignore the fact that I abhore rape... unless I'm only enjoying it virtually". HTFU is not an answer for them.


Oh sure we could draw correlations between violence in real life and video games, shaky evidence at that

Yeah - reaaaaalllll shaky. The army invested how much in training sims, training grounds, ammo and the like to normalise the scenarios and get rid of any heistance in killing or maiming people. The more you practice something the less abnormal it is.

It's not causative, but it is normative. Big difference

[onearmedbandit]

Dunno about that. Unless dad hitting mom (or vice versa) is the done thing in your home I doubt that watching TV is going to turn you into a crook.

Bad parenting and a society that does not impose consequences upon unacceptable behaviour is to blame IMHO. As for copycat crime - well the crims do talk to each other and they do get new, and fortunately almost always idiotic, ideas now and again.

If anything the TV is just going to brainwash you into an unquestioning consumer...


My point is the number of items on the news relating to violence, sexual assault, etc etc etc. So more accessible on the TV. Then we have an abundance of 'real life' crime programs, that desensitise us to the above. Shit the number of ways I've learnt to cover my tracks from watching programs like CSI is scary.

However if you want to blame bad parenting (as I do) then we should stop the debate over the banning of games/movies/etc, and put the responsibility soley in the hands of the parents. Pity so many of them are under qualified to handle that particular role.

[ManDownUnder]

Fuck yeah, I agree! MORE GUNS will solve all or our problems...

I hope you're being serious there. More guns, and (most importantly) understanding the rights, responsibilities and consequences of using one... hell yes!

It'd put this virtual shite in perspective real quick, and actually ease my mind considerably. I don't mind shoot 'em up games in the hands of those that have pulled the trigger and seen the life fade from the animal you just killed.

I also firmly believe anyone that enjoys killing for the sake of killing needs to be denied access to guns.

[Str8 Jacket]

I'm talking of the actual victims of the actual acts perpertrated in real life then having their noses rubbed in it by those thinking that just because it's on screen it's affecting no-one.



(This is not aimed at you personally MDU)
Of course not all of us who have been "victims" to some pretty horrid stuff hang on to that. It is naive to think that we have to protect people from what other people enjoy. I agree that the game can and probably does affect some people in a horrific way but you cannot tip toe around everyone in the world who has had something bad happen to them. The world knows what this game is about, if offends you then dont buy it, dont play it and dont have it in your house. Everyones reality is different and if we stopped producing things that may offend people then we would be stuck with Pacman and Tetris for the rest of our lives.
People should have a choice and thats what makes this world a great place.

[onearmedbandit]

Both are knowingly involved in risk sports and the families of those people have the opportunity to have a say in the outcome. A far cry from a child falling innocent victim to a paedofile and their family's consequent grief.

Not seen any games in my time where you can sexually abuse young children. In fact I think you will find that there are laws prohibiting that...





I'm talking of the actual victims of the actual acts perpertrated in real life then having their noses rubbed in it by those thinking that just because it's on screen it's affecting no-one.

I can name 4 people right here and now - probably reading this post - that fall into exactly that category. What's you answer to them?

"Sure you were abused or raped, sure your life's been turned upside down because of it, and ignore the fact that I abhore rape... unless I'm only enjoying it virtually". HTFU is not an answer for them.


Once again, never in all my time have I played a game (and I've played quite a few) where you can rape or sexually abuse someone. Where are you drawing your comparisons from? GTA IV contains sex yes, but no sexual abuse or rape.




Yeah - reaaaaalllll shaky. The army invested how much in training sims, training grounds, ammo and the like to normalise the scenarios and get rid of any heistance in killing or maiming people. The more you practice something the less abnormal it is.

It's not causative, but it is normative. Big difference

How much does the media love to jump on this sort of thing. Blaming Columbine on Marilyn Manson etc. Yet how many times has it cropped up in the news that 'such and such youth admitted to playing [insert evil game name in here] and decided to carry it out in real life...'? A handful, at the most. Reminds me of the lawsuit against Judas Priest that got thrown out.

[ManDownUnder]

(This is not aimed at you personally MDU)
No worries at all. I enjoy the chance to air this stuff. Similarly the response isn't targeted back.


It is naive to think that we have to protect people from what other people enjoy.

This is the guts of what I'm trying to say (I think...). Let's choose running over kids as the example.

I don't see how a person can say they are against it (and I'd hope they do), yet derive pleasure from it when it's done on a PC. Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

What would you say if The Pope enjoyed a good ol' game of something involving rape and murder?

[onearmedbandit]

What game involves running over children and raping people?????

[Mikkel]

I hope you're being serious there. More guns, and (most importantly) understanding the rights, responsibilities and consequences of using one... hell yes!

It'd put this virtual shite in perspective real quick, and actually ease my mind considerably. I don't mind shoot 'em up games in the hands of those that have pulled the trigger and seen the life fade from the animal you just killed.

I also firmly believe anyone that enjoys killing for the sake of killing needs to be denied access to guns.

Your hope is very misplaced then - I was being about as sarcastic as I could possibly be.

Now don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with guns when used for hunting and when being used responsible.

However, and the "Fuck yeah" was a hint, if the Americas show us anything in regards to this subject, it has to be that an increased supply of guns doesn't exactly help anything.

I get what you are saying about respect for the prey and not killing for the sake of killing. However, this has NO relation to computer games at all IMHO.

The fact that you try and make something special out of seeing "the life fade from an animal" and are relating that to FPSers concerns me slightly. It's a bit like saying "I don't mind CRPGs in the hands of those people who have tried taking a life with a sword and seen the life fade from the animal you just killed." (FYI - I consider humans animals too... although this is not always flattering to the animals, I am sorry.)

[Str8 Jacket]

[/SIZE]

This is the guts of what I'm trying to say (I think...). Let's choose running over kids as the example.

I don't see how a person can say they are against it (and I'd hope they do), yet derive pleasure from it when it's done on a PC. Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

What would you say if The Pope enjoyed a good ol' game of something involving rape and murder?

I would say to you then you must have never played GTA, cause that certainly isnt what the game is!
As for the pope and anyone else, who am I to say what they should and shouldnt enjoy in their own home. Certainly a sicko is a sicko but there are alot of "normal" people who probably would never act out something that they play on a PC. Each to their own I say!


What game involves running over children and raping people?????

Yeah, what he said....

[ManDownUnder]

Not seen any games in my time where you can sexually abuse young children. In fact I think you will find that there are laws prohibiting that...
Yes - but why? Using your argument below - if it's only virtual... wouldn't you stand for the rights of anyone wanting to do that?


No disrespect to anyone intended, but if you want to stop me from doing what I enjoy, that doesn't hurt others or harm their property, then we have a problem.




Once again, never in all my time have I played a game (and I've played quite a few) where you can rape or sexually abuse someone. Where are you drawing your comparisons from? GTA IV contains sex yes, but no sexual abuse or rape.
OK - point take (thanks). What about shooting cops? Stealing cars, running people over?



How much does the media love to jump on this sort of thing. Blaming Columbine on Marilyn Manson etc. Yet how many times has it cropped up in the news that 'such and such youth admitted to playing [insert evil game name in here] and decided to carry it out in real life...'? A handful, at the most. Reminds me of the lawsuit against Judas Priest that got thrown out.
No argument there, and I suggest that a number of those are simply looking for a cop out.

That said - I don't think it's causative, it's normative like I previously mentioned. It doesn't make you do that shite, but it supresses some the alarm bells that would have gone off when someone gets pissed off and wants to run someone down.

If' it's a familiar action... the training is there and it sure makes it easier.

[ManDownUnder]

However, and the "Fuck yeah" was a hint, if the Americas show us anything in regards to this subject, it has to be that an increased supply of guns doesn't exactly help anything.
So why don't the Swiss have similar problems?

at least one gun per household... the essence is in the training. The Swiss are trained to use them - every 4 or 5 years they spend time in the army etc etc etc.

It's the culture. The swiss know and respect guns.


I get what you are saying about respect for the prey and not killing for the sake of killing. However, this has NO relation to computer games at all IMHO.

The fact that you try and make something special out of seeing "the life fade from an animal" and are relating that to FPSers concerns me slightly.

It's a bit like saying "I don't mind CRPGs in the hands of those people who have tried taking a life with a sword and seen the life fade from the animal you just killed." (FYI - I consider humans animals too... although this is not always flattering to the animals, I am sorry.)

That's nothing at all like what I meant. I'm simply saying (albeit in a dramatic fashion - sorry) if you understand the reality of what you're pretending to do in a game you will have a very different opinion of it.

You're right about the animal comparison though. At least they're honest

[avgas]

those that have pulled the trigger and seen the life fade from the animal you just killed.
Should not be in the same context in NZ.
Too many bush deaths.
Seems these days if you really hate someone - you take them hunting.
Seems there alot of gun-ho out there but not many people facing up the consequence of where the bullet goes. Why because there is no learners for shooters - you walk up sign the paper and you qualify for a locker full of whatever.
The rest of us they understand where the bullet goes got shot with slug pellets and the like.
Confirm your target doesn't seem to apply in NZ culture.

[Usarka]

i agree with almost everything said in this thread.

[Mikkel]

So why don't the Swiss have similar problems?

at least one gun per household... the essence is in the training. The Swiss are trained to use them - every 4 or 5 years they spend time in the army etc etc etc.

It's the culture. The swiss know and respect guns.

That may be. Switzerland has its own problems though AFAIK.

Besides - NZ is whole lot more like the US than like Switzerland! That said I agree that conscription might have a positive influence - but let's not drag this thread in that direction we have covered that plenty in an older thread.


That's nothing at all like what I meant. I'm simply saying (albeit in a dramatic fashion - sorry) if you understand the reality of what you're pretending to do in a game you will have a very different opinion of it.

You're right about the animal comparison though. At least they're honest

Ah, I'm sure you picked up on me being a bit dramatic as well ;)

I still fail to see how going out in the bush hunting in your spare time, not out of need but out of pleasure/desire/whatever you wanna call it, prepares you for the reality of being in mortal peril, fighting for your life and an objective on some generic battlefield in cyberspace. Can you explain that to me?

Yes, honesty is good!

[scumdog]

Why because there is no learners for shooters - you walk up sign the paper and you qualify for a locker full of whatever.
The rest of us they understand where the bullet goes got shot with slug pellets and the like.
Confirm your target doesn't seem to apply in NZ culture.


So how many ARE killed by firearms in the NZ bush each year?
AND have YOU got a firearms licence?

And where did yoU learn to troll???

[onearmedbandit]

Yes - but why? Using your argument below - if it's only virtual... wouldn't you stand for the rights of anyone wanting to do that?


Ok you're calling me out on it, so I'll stand my ground. Yes, if it has no consequences to anyone or their property then if they are doing it in their own home, then go for it. I would never touch Heroin in real life, but if there was a game that simulated it's use I'd give it a go. However if there was a game that simulated child abuse I wouldn't go near it. Simply because they are my standards, the operative word being 'my'. As long as it harms no one else or their property.






OK - point take (thanks). What about shooting cops? Stealing cars, running people over?



Yip, you can shoot cops, steal cars and run people over. But in GTA if you shoot a cop, steal a car, or run someone over the consequences are small and avoidable. Not like real life.


No argument there, and I suggest that a number of those are simply looking for a cop out.

That said - I don't think it's causative, it's normative like I previously mentioned. It doesn't make you do that shite, but it supresses some the alarm bells that would have gone off when someone gets pissed off and wants to run someone down.

If' it's a familiar action... the training is there and it sure makes it easier.

I agree with this point. However there are other things that society condones that should get our attention first, like for instance how acceptable alcohol abuse is today.

At the end of the day, how much violence is caused by games or movies compared to that of alcohol. Yes I know it's not alcohols fault, rather those that can not handle it. But those people seem to be of a higher number than those that can not tell the difference between real life and a game.

I'm sick of the witch hunts against games and movies when it is considered socially acceptable to get shit faced on a weekend with alcohol. Go into any town centre on a weekend and witness the violence, violence which has far greater effects on innocent people than a stupid 2D game.

[ManDownUnder]

I still fail to see how going out in the bush hunting in your spare time, not out of need but out of pleasure/desire/whatever you wanna call it, prepares you for the reality of being in mortal peril, fighting for your life and an objective on some generic battlefield in cyberspace. Can you explain that to me?

Hunting prepares one for mortal combat through the simple process of knowing what you and your weapon of choice are capable of when it comes to choose if and how you are going to use it.

The only mortal danger an Xbox presents is the possibility of a nasty shock when you plug it in. If you go "bang dead" online, how hard is it to have another go?

What about in real (mortal) combat? Bang Dead is the end - forever... and I question if non hunting gamers can really have that perspective.

[vifferman]

I don't think it's causative, it's normative like I previously mentioned. It doesn't make you do that shite, but it supresses some the alarm bells that would have gone off when someone gets pissed off and wants to run someone down.

If' it's a familiar action... the training is there and it sure makes it easier.
Quite possibly correct.
Troglodyte #2 (a keen computer gamer) currently doesn't have a licence: last year he did a runner when a cop went to pull him over to have a word with him about his driving.
I'm quite sure if you asked him, he'd say that he can distinguish fantasy from reality, and that computer gaming doesn't influence his thinking/actions, but I'm not so sure.

I don't think the loss of licence and $1200 in fines have made an appreciable dent in his attitude either.

[ManDownUnder]

Ok you're calling me out on it, so I'll stand my ground. Yes, if it has no consequences to anyone or their property then if they are doing it in their own home, then go for it. I would never touch Heroin in real life, but if there was a game that simulated it's use I'd give it a go. However if there was a game that simulated child abuse I wouldn't go near it. Simply because they are my standards, the operative word being 'my'. As long as it harms no one else or their property.

All good - and the bit in bold is the thing that concerns me. I've seen this stuff really slam abuse victims, and for society as a whole to say something is ok because it's only simluated gives them the feeling that society actually doesn't care - and I take that as not a bad point!



Yip, you can shoot cops, steal cars and run people over. But in GTA if you shoot a cop, steal a car, or run someone over the consequences are small and avoidable. Not like real life.
Again - another problem



I agree with this point. However there are other things that society condones that should get our attention first, like for instance how acceptable alcohol abuse is today.

At the end of the day, how much violence is caused by games or movies compared to that of alcohol. Yes I know it's not alcohols fault, rather those that can not handle it. But those people seem to be of a higher number than those that can not tell the difference between real life and a game.

I'm sick of the witch hunts against games and movies when it is considered socially acceptable to get shit faced on a weekend with alcohol. Go into any town centre on a weekend and witness the violence, violence which has far greater effects on innocent people than a stupid 2D game.

Agreed except I modify it slightly - this is something that should get our attention also (instead of first).

[Mikkel]

Hunting prepares one for mortal combat through the simple process of knowing what you and your weapon of choice are capable of when it comes to choose if and how you are going to use it.

The only mortal danger an Xbox presents is the possibility of a nasty shock when you plug it in. If you go "bang dead" online, how hard is it to have another go?

What about in real (mortal) combat? Bang Dead is the end - forever... and I question if non hunting gamers can really have that perspective.

Well, I doubt any amount of hunting would make you gain a proper perspective of "Bang Dead is the end - forever"... Unless you of course take one of your not so good mates hunting ;)

Now, I don't have any experience with hunting - but I somehow can't see how it would get your adrenaline levels up. On the other hand FPS get the adrenaline pumping and subject you to quite a high level of stress.

All I'm saying is that neither is going to prepare you for being under fire. However, while hunting may teach you how to use a gun and move stealthily - computer games may teach you how to keep a clear head and a steady hand at higher stress levels. Neither will teach you how to control and work with your fear. As such neither is a good preparation for MORTAL KOMBAT (except of course for computer games if you decide to play that specific game :yes: )

While hunting may teach you how to handle your gun I don't think it'll prepare you for using it while in mortal peril. A gun is only worth something if you can point it at what you want to hit - shaking like a leaf makes that process difficult.

[onearmedbandit]

I have no hunting experience, only fired a handful of real guns in my life. Yet I'm a dab hand at being in the middle of a fire fight with the police or some terrorists in a computer game. However, if I was to get caught up in a scenario like the above in real life, I think I'd be keeping my fucking head down and working out how to get the fuck out of there. In PS3 I have infinite lives, and it doesn't hurt when I get shot. In real life I only have one life (yet to be confirmed however) and I know pain hurts. So despite my skills in killing in the fantasy world, I'd be shit in the same environment in real life.

And anyone who says they wouldn't is a liar. We (despite what some people profess) are all scared of that final moment of life.

[ManDownUnder]

Well, I doubt any amount of hunting would make you gain a proper perspective of "Bang Dead is the end - forever"... Unless you of course take one of your not so good mates hunting ;)

ok - that's a big problem right there. It should, and if it doesn't then a person doesn't deserve to be in charge of one.


Now, I don't have any experience with hunting - but I somehow can't see how it would get your adrenaline levels up. On the other hand FPS get the adrenaline pumping and subject you to quite a high level of stress.
Hunting does have periods of excitement, and yes I can see you haven't. Just as my lack of gaming is probably apparent. I played them, they were fun, and I gave them up in favour of something productive and tangible


All I'm saying is that neither is going to prepare you for being under fire. However, while hunting may teach you how to use a gun and move stealthily - computer games may teach you how to keep a clear head and a steady hand at higher stress levels. Neither will teach you how to control and work with your fear.
Agreed - and I would take it further - computer games do teach you (somewhat) how to use a weapon. They simply absolve you of the responsibility.

Real life Bang Dead
Virtual Life Bang, points lost, have another go

Meaning gamers make more capable killers. More or less my original assertion.

[onearmedbandit]

Meaning gamers make more capable killers. More or less my original assertion.

Not this killa. Nor any of my gang-banger homies in da hood.

[Beemer]

:sleep:The fact that people take a day off work to play a computer game just reinforces to me that the countrys fucked.:apint:

Precisely - FFS it's a GAME. I can understand taking a day off work for something worthwhile, but playing shoot 'em up computer games is not it.

[imdying]

I don't think the loss of licence and $1200 in fines have made an appreciable dent in his attitude either.I'm not sure that banning even this game would make up for your lack of parenting :rolleyes: The Dukes of Hazzard has been around since 79... we haven't had 30 years of people trying to jump cars as a result, blaming any form of media for your spawns lack of respect for police is pretty weak.


Hunting prepares one for mortal combat through the simple process of knowing what you and your weapon of choice are capable of when it comes to choose if and how you are going to use it.Oh my goodness, it's almost sounds like you believe what you're saying :lol: Mortal combat for the average New Zealander would likely as not involve no weapons at all, much less hunting rifles/knives/crossbows/whatever... the carrying of such weapons being illegal and all... and if you're carrying those with the intent of using them in mortal combat, well... GTA is the least of your problems.


Scummy, not too many figures easily found via google, but it appears somewhere between 40-80 gun related deaths a year, over half of which are due to pathetic hunters who can't even identify a target... and they were going to make a kill shot how? They're not hunters, they're murders waiting to happen.

[imdying]

Agreed - and I would take it further - computer games do teach you (somewhat) how to use a weapon. They simply absolve you of the responsibility.

Real life Bang Dead
Virtual Life Bang, points lost, have another go

Meaning gamers make more capable killers. More or less my original Sounds like we should get rid of the guns, not the games.

[Mikkel]

ok - that's a big problem right there. It should, and if it doesn't then a person doesn't deserve to be in charge of one.

I dare say that it's not a given that you'll pick that up just because you go out and shoot a few animals now and again.

Thing about MORE GUNS is that it won't take into account whether people are responsible around them or not!


Hunting does have periods of excitement, and yes I can see you haven't. Just as my lack of gaming is probably apparent. I played them, they were fun, and I gave them up in favour of something productive and tangible

Good on ya! Wish I could just do the same... Unfortunately my brain is now addicted to high endorphine levels and the massive stream of information that games output is the easiest way to get that fix.


Agreed - and I would take it further - computer games do teach you (somewhat) how to use a weapon. They simply absolve you of the responsibility.

Real life Bang Dead
Virtual Life Bang, points lost, have another go

Meaning gamers make more capable killers. More or less my original assertion.

I would say games doesn't teach you anything about weapons at all!

If we speak about a sense of responsibility - that is unfortunately a lacking characteristic in people today. But I'd blame society and upbringing for that - not computer games and/or (lack of) hunting.

I'd like to draw a parallel between the two paragraphs I marked with bold and how traffic enforcement is being handled. No wonder it's a bumpercar ride out there!

[Mikkel]

Sounds like we should get rid of the guns, not the games.

Sense at last!

I like your new avatar btw :niceone:

[ManDownUnder]

I would say games doesn't teach you anything about weapons at all!

Was it you throwing out the TLAs before? Not bad from someone that's never gone near one. Any idea of their range, effects, ideal targets and weaknesses?

Let's start with an RPG.

[scumdog]

Scummy, not too many figures easily found via google, but it appears somewhere between 40-80 gun related deaths a year, over half of which are due to pathetic hunters who can't even identify a target... and they were going to make a kill shot how? They're not hunters, they're murders waiting to happen.


I feel that figure would be ALL firearms deaths, not just hunting related ones.

I've been to more suicide shootings than all others put together.

[ManDownUnder]

I feel that figure would be ALL firearms deaths, not just hunting related ones.

I've been to more suicide shootings than all others put together.

Scummy - gut feel - how many hunting deaths a year in NZ? 2 or 3?

Edit - that's 1.1 per year for a period of 10 years (which ten are not specified) from guncontrol.org.nz
===
Though an awful tragedy, Leathwick's death in 2003 is one of just 11 fatal hunting accidents to occur in the last 10 years in New Zealand, which, for the high number of guns owned by Kiwis, has a remarkably good record for gun safety.

[Mikkel]

Was it you throwing out the TLAs before? Not bad from someone that's never gone near one. Any idea of their range, effects, ideal targets and weaknesses?

Let's start with an RPG.

TLA? :D Never heard of that gun...

RPGs rocked in Duke Nukem 3D - I've learned that you shouldn't fire into a wall if you yourself is within close proximity of said structure.

[vifferman]

I'm not sure that banning even this game would make up for your lack of parenting.
Gee - thanks for that!
Perhaps - since you seem to know all about good vs. bad parenting - you could give me some helpful hints? Or given that after being a parent for nearly 25 years, I'm lacking in skills, and know nothing at all about living with an autistic, stubborn, and very, very difficult, depressed and sometimes suicidal person, you could come and visit and show me how it's done?

I've got it! When I come home, after he's spent five or six hours GrandTheftAuto-ing, and he's swearing at the screen, I should calmly turn the power off? (He'll probably smash summat, but it's only stuff, right?)
Or maybe I could swear back at him, scream a bit, give him the bash, and he'll calm down?

Or quietly ask him to calm down?

Bribe him?

Mace?

Electric cattle prod?

Throw a bucket of water over him (and the PS3)?

Feel free to interject with ideas - I'm just throwing these out there because I haven't a clue, lacking in parenting skills as I am...

[ManDownUnder]

Scummy, not too many figures easily found via google, but it appears somewhere between 40-80 gun related deaths a year, over half of which are due to pathetic hunters who can't even identify a target... and they were going to make a kill shot how? They're not hunters, they're murders waiting to happen.

err - see my post above. 1.1 hunting death per year doesn't quite stretch to 1/2 of 40 to 80.

worst case it's 2.75%

[Mikkel]

know nothing at all about living with an autistic, stubborn, and very, very difficult, depressed and sometimes suicidal person,

Fuck, I didn't know you were imdying's father...

[imdying]

Fuck, I didn't know you were imdying's father...Hahahahah, bling for you :yes:


autistic, stubborn, and very, very difficult, depressed and sometimes suicidal person, Blah blah blah, you know all that and still let them play GTA... nice one :Punk:

[vifferman]

Blah blah blah, you know all that and still let them play GTA... nice one :Punk:

Let them? WTF?!?

Blah blah blah blaw wibble gripe how do I stop them? They're all adults.

[imdying]

So what's your point then?

[skidMark]

:sleep:The fact that people take a day off work to play a computer game just reinforces to me that the countrys fucked.:apint:

Jesus i figured that out when i was about 5.

[ManDownUnder]

So what's your point then?

look up - see that vapour trail? Pretty isn't it?

[98tls]

Jesus i figured that out when i was about 5. :shit:you mean your :shutup:not going to go there.:innocent:

[imdying]

look up - see that vapour trail? Pretty isn't it?No idea either huh :rofl:

[Robert Taylor]

FPP, the last refuge of the childlike mentality that causes adults to throw their toys out of the cot because "they can't have things all their own way"

MMP is a system that demonstrably allows minorities to demand favours from the big parties who often rely on their support, forcing legislation on the majority who dont want such nonsense. Perverse.

[Usarka]

Democracy a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making (dictionary)

MMP a system of government that allows minority to make law (usarkas definition)

[imdying]

Ok, so if some are able to process it as a game, and some can't, just like some shouldn't have guns, and some are fine with them, what's the answer? R18 that's actually enforced? A license to operate like a gun? Blanket banning because some can't handle it I (obivously) don't agree with, not least of which is because it just won't work.

[Usarka]

i had a go on gta iv in the weekend. i could not see any incentive for running over pedestrians, or for beating up innocent people (apart from the cops which unfortunately goes with the territory when you're a bad-ass crim).

So, if people are going to play games where they race around streets in cars, isnt it better that there are consequences like running over innocent people? Or should games not depict consequences for acts like this?

[Lias]

Personally, the "moral majority" types and the drag queen that runs the OFLC are far more likely to make me go on a postal killing spree than a computer game.

[Clockwork]

MMP is a system that demonstrably allows minorities to demand favours from the big parties who often rely on their support, forcing legislation on the majority who dont want such nonsense. Perverse.

I think you mean that MMP allows the majority of voters some say in how the country is to be run. Rather than, as was frequently the case under FPP, the majority getting no say at all.

Of course if you arn't prepared to compromise for others..... simply secure more than 50% of the vote, that works in MMP too.

[avgas]

Wow yet another thread that i have missed alot in.
Scummy to answer you question as far as im concerned 1 death hunting by cause of 1 man shooting another man is 1 too many.
Hunting 101 states that you must at all times identify you target, sight, confirm and re-identify. It is not war in the bush, the deer is not going to charge you (Although a tusker may sprint away ?towards? you depending one where your dogs are).
Or do we loose hope in hunting as we have with driving - let everyone have a go?
I mean how the f do you shoot someone wearing a fluro orange camo fleece jumper??? then say "I though he was a dear". I'm not saying there is mass slaughter out there - I'm just merly stating that the chances of seeing another hunter the bush is slim. So shooting one should be near impossible. If not you really hate your hunting buddy.

Now back to guns vs games thread. The 2 have to co-exist. So the best thing would be keep them separate. Yes games simulate bad things. Before them books/stories would. Everything in moderation. No Playstation for every spare moment, no taking a .223 out for your (unskilled) mates to play with.

[Usarka]

woohoo how about some research from the good ol secret service (ssshhh)

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

Looks at previous school shooting incidents and examines possible factors such as video games....



• Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent movies (27 percent, n=11).

• Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent books (24 percent, n=10).

• One-eighth of the attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games (12 percent, n=5).

• The largest group of attackers exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays, or journal entries (37 percent, n=15).

[jrandom]

<img src="http://www.asofterworld.com/clean/gta.jpg"/>

[LilSel]

FB & I bought GTA3 the other day...

spoke to the guy at the games shop counter... he said that the only censored part of GTA4 is a 21 sec clip... not the actual game play... & its a big hooohaaaa over nothing as its only a short clip that you can prob find on youtube anyways :done:

[ManDownUnder]

Now back to guns vs games thread. The 2 have to co-exist. So the best thing would be keep them separate. Yes games simulate bad things. Before them books/stories would. Everything in moderation. No Playstation for every spare moment, no taking a .223 out for your (unskilled) mates to play with.

I agree they have to co-exist, but my approach is one of people having informed opinions (oh the irony since I'm running on relative hearsay about GT4). Generalising, them that understands the reality of killing something will have a more balance view while playing the game than those that have no idea what it's like.

The first blast from a decent gun is a very impressive, and can be an intimidating thing. The sheer power is far from anything a gaming console could ever portray, and the mess made of an animal etc is also pretty hard to portray.

The dog below is a good example of exactly that - someone posted it a few days back and while it's not tasteful that is reality. I find it hard to draw any comparisons between that and the "bang-I'm dead, have another go" attitude I see in a lot of kids, now adults too. War is seen as glorious in games, and also in some parts of society - while anyone that's seen the reality of war will most likely tell you otherwise.

[ManDownUnder]

GTA4.

2 questions
1) Is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdqBkqk9kfU) actually from the game - watch it all the way to the end.
2) You say this is ok for people to do - even virtually?

Real fucken Jake the Muss stuff that... what a hero...

So - thnks I... what else is out there... look at the the very next one I found (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5QkU9hBwxc&NR=1)

I personally draw a distinction between movies (passive) and games where the involvement is active, and anyone with sadistic tendencies is going to have them rewarded by actually being able to do this shit. In grossly simple terms - I can see how this could easil make bad people worse.

This is being sold in the name of entertainment! I dont want that shit on the shelves...

[ManDownUnder]

Personally, the "moral majority" types and the drag queen that runs the OFLC are far more likely to make me go on a postal killing spree than a computer game.

So remind me, are you for or against GTA4 being on the shelves?

[jrandom]

<img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080502.jpg"/>

[Str8 Jacket]

This is being sold in the name of entertainment! I dont want that shit on the shelves...

I think we really do get where you are coming from but some of us dont agree. To be honest mate your arguments are getting more than alot frustrating. As much as you hate it, your going to have to accept that the game is here to stay and people will play it, some of them quite 'normal' as well.

Anyway, I thought you were leaving?!!!

[ManDownUnder]

As much as you hate it, your going to have to accept that the game is here to stay and people will play it, some of them quite 'normal' as well.

That same line of argument applies to P as well - I have similar concerns and similarly expect people to question it's use (although P is an order of magnitude above GTA4 IMHO)


Anyway, I thought you were leaving?!!! I've hit phase two... waiting patiently and slowly ingraciating myself my into KB with my tail between my legs pretending nothing's wrong.

[Str8 Jacket]

That same line of argument applies to P as well - I have similar concerns and similarly expect people to question it's use (although P is an order of magnitude above GTA4 IMHO)


Yep for sure. Life sucks, there are horrible things that happen and sometimes there isnt a thing we can do about it so I prefer just to look after myself and get my tits in a tangle only over things that I can change, or suck it up and move on. Lifes too short and I would rather not be depressed for more than 50% of it.

[imdying]

Generalising, them that understands the reality of killing something will have a more balance view while playing the game than those that have no idea what it's like.Except that they're, ya know, not actually killing stuff... it's a game.


1) Is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdqBkqk9kfU) actually from the game - watch it all the way to the end.
2) You say this is ok for people to do - even virtually?

Real fucken Jake the Muss stuff that... what a hero...How exactly was he going to get his money back otherwise? Hookers are among the lowest forms of life, I just can't get worked up about a game that lets your slay them virtually.


I personally draw a distinction between movies (passive) and games where the involvement is active, and anyone with sadistic tendencies is going to have them rewarded by actually being able to do this shit. In grossly simple terms - I can see how this could easily make bad people worse.Apparently pyschos have fed themselves on all sorts of stuff (movies, books, the internet), and progressively move upwards and onwards till they're 'daring' enough to try it for real. Every one of those mediums would have to be restrained in some way to have any real affect, because we know that antisocial behaviour has been around since long before GTA.

I can easily see how some novels could easily make bad people worse, but I'm not going to encourage censoring those either.

In the end, it's a game, and the majority can cope with that. The world will always have unstable people that can't cope with a game like this, or a 'bad' book, or music videos that are filled with young girls dressed like sluts, or any one of a number of things.

[ManDownUnder]

Yep for sure. Life sucks, there are horrible things that happen and sometimes there isnt a thing we can do about it so I prefer just to look after myself and get my tits in a tangle only over things that I can change, or suck it up and move on. Lifes too short and I would rather not be depressed for more than 50% of it.

Agreed. I don't spend all day on this stuff, but I've been lucky enough to cross paths with some good people affected by this shit in real life... anything belittling that pushes my buttons.

That said - I am turning into a moral campaigner of sorts which shits me too... funny - being a perverted moral campaigner. I guess I draw a line in the sand in my own unique way

[jrandom]

Hookers are among the lowest forms of life...

Rubbish. You personally may have difficulty with the idea of one person paying another for sex, but many others don't. It's entirely a matter of perspective.

I dated a hooker once. She was a bit of a sad headcase (I'm good at finding those (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34124)) but she wasn't a bad person.


In the end, it's a game, and the majority can cope with that. The world will always have unstable people that can't cope with a game like this, or a 'bad' book, or music videos that are filled with young girls dressed like sluts, or any one of a number of things.

I think this is the key point.

Forget the precise place where we should draw the line; the real question is, should we be trying to save people from themselves?

I answer no.

Some things should be censored - kiddie porn, for instance, involves the degradation and abuse of real children, and its production and distribution are therefore rightly banned.

However, when it comes to fictional representations of distasteful acts, the production of which harms nobody, I cannot bring myself to argue that society as a whole should restrict such because of the effect it might have on those of weaker minds.

Complete freedom, complete responsibility. All else is just steps on the slippery slope toward an Orwellian nightmare.

MDU, you don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare, do you?

Think carefully about the ramifications of your position. Yes, I know you would argue that you draw the line in a reasonable place, but it would be easy to find another person, just as eloquent, to draw the line a little tighter, and then another to draw it a little tighter still.

Draw no lines, I say; let the proletariat wallow in their filth and be damned.

[imdying]

Some things should be censored - kiddie porn, for instance, involves the degradation and abuse of real children, and its production and distribution are therefore rightly banned.What about simulated kiddie pron? I mean, if GTA4 had that instead of beating a hooker to the ground...

[jrandom]

What about simulated kiddie pron?

Fine by me.

I wouldn't buy the game and watch it, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

A law against simulated anything essentially equates to the establishment of thoughtcrime as a legal concept.

[imdying]

Hmmm, it's an interesting concept for sure.

I've often wondered if the net could be used by government to conduct large numbers of mini referendums... let the people self govern somewhat?

[Lias]

So remind me, are you for or against GTA4 being on the shelves?

It should be on the shelves in its pure unadulterated form, not the watered down shit we got because of the aussies.

As far as I'm concerned the FV&P act needs to be altered to prevent the OFLC from censoring ANYTHING based on the violence content. Make it R18? sure. Ban it? never.

Then again I might be bias because I'm still hoping i'll live to see bloodsport become legal in my lifetime. I'd actually pay per view UFC if it was no holds barred, or better yet fight to the death. I think its a great solution to 3rd world overpopulation.. Pay them to kill each other for our enterainment.

[ManDownUnder]

A law against simulated anything essentially equates to the establishment of thoughtcrime as a legal concept.

I'm not talking about thoughtcrime - I'm talking about the active engagement in an activity where the victim - in real life - would be unable to defend themselves.

Take the kiddie porn example for a second.
===
Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc... why would sex crime or murder be any different?
===
Victims - anyone that has actually fallen prey to paedophile i) being reminded of their nightmare and ii) seeing a crime against their person being normalised and trivialise by turning it into a toy.

Anyone that will fall prey to a paedophile (per the writeup of Perps above)
===

Per a number of previous posts - where I draw the line is described by the impact on others. I have an issue with any thing or situation where there are defenceless victims. As a society we need to provide the defence for those people where we reasonably can. If that's the price we pay then I'm personally all for it.

[jrandom]

I have an issue with any thing or situation where there are defenceless victims.

There are no victims, defenceless or otherwise, of video games. If some people find certain media offensive, they should not be forced to view it. End of story.

Your extrapolation as to the likely effect of such media on impressionable minds is something you should certainly apply to the way you entertain yourself and raise your children, but it is not anything that should be enshrined in law.

The idea of living in a society that passes laws telling me what to read, view, think or speak fills me with horror.

The solution to society's woes is not to ban, piecemeal, any entertainment that appears to lead in the cognitive directions you speak of. Rather, it's to fix, as far as possible, the underlying socioeconomic factors that create the criminal underclass.

I reject utterly your ideal of a sanitised world where all speech, art and recreation conforms to a particular narrow-minded definition of morality.

[ManDownUnder]

There are no victims, defenceless or otherwise, of video games. If some people find certain media offensive, they should not be forced to view it. End of story.

You and I could both probably name 3 people that have fallen victim to serious sex crime. We certainly know them well enough. They did not choose to be victims - yet they are. Creating a plaything encouraging others to re-enact that crime helps them relive those events at every mention. They become a victim each and every time. Ask them.

... I also enjoy anything ending in "End of Story". It's used by the closed minded, or those closing their minds - most unlike you

[jrandom]

You and I could both probably name 3 people that have fallen victim to serious sex crime. We certainly know them well enough. They did not choose to be victims - yet they are.

Yes, as you know, I've been quite closely involved with victims of such crime. And it was not a video game or any other entertainment media that victimised them. It was another person. An evil person. Not a DVD, or a picture on a wall, or words on paper.


Creating a plaything encouraging others to re-enact that crime helps them relive those events at every mention. They become a victim each and every time. Ask them.

That statement, in and of itself, is ridiculous. They do not 'become a victim' due to the existence of a plaything. The crime was real, but the broken shit that goes on in their heads subsequently becomes something to be fixed, not something to be seen as a limitation to impose upon the rest of the world.

Unvictimised people are normal. People suffering from PTSD et al due to violent crime should strive for a return to that normality, rather than attempting to mould the world around their brokenness.


... "End of Story". It's used by the closed minded, or those closing their minds - most unlike you

Rubbish! It's used to make the point that a statement constitutes an unarguable axiom. I consider the right of all people to view what they wish and think as they wish to be an unarguable axiom.

You, obviously, do not agree that it's unarguable. However, don't attempt to undermine my statement by implying that stating that something is axiomatic somehow weakens a position.

If you wish to argue that the right of all people to view what they wish and think as they wish is not axiomatic, provide reasons.

You have, so far, provided the reason that allowing such a right will upset the victims of crime.

I'd refute that by saying that any victim of crime who is upset by the portrayal of crime in fictional media doesn't need laws banning such portrayal - they just need further psychotherapy.

[ManDownUnder]

Yes, as you know, I've been quite closely involved with victims of such crime. And it was not a video game or any other entertainment media that victimised them. It was another person. An evil person. Not a DVD, or a picture on a wall, or words on paper.

Remind me how they feel whener they see an act they relate to being protrayed in a glorious manner on screen?


You have, so far, provided the reason that allowing such a right will upset the victims of crime.
...and encourage those tempted to have a go at those crimes to take an extra step toward their temptation - untimately ending in the actual engagement in those acts for some of them.

Sure they need help, but if they don't know it, are not willing to do anything about it and no-one enforces it - we end up with victims.


I'd refute that by saying that any victim of crime who is upset by the portrayal of crime in fictional media doesn't need laws banning such portrayal - they just need further psychotherapy.
Agreed entirely that they need help.

Lets take this to what I consider a foreseeable conclusion. Computer graphics and processing power are continuing to increase at pace. We will reach a time where interactive media will be generating interactive imagery impossible to distinguish from the real thing.

At that time - you still have no problem with snuff movies, kiddie porn and the like being generally available? And it's going to do no harm whatsoever? I content we're simply going to enable

But - all that is in the future... it is merely hypothesis at this time... so - do we never draw a line, and wait for innocents to become victims before we do something - at which point what - we say "sorry"?

What we're seeing now is that very same thing - it is the enablement of those with unacceptable tendencies to predicatably further their causes toward an entirely foreseeable conclusion

Re "End of story", the very existance of continued debate on the subject as evidenced by this very reply is undeniable proof that it is not, indeed, the end of the story.

[imdying]

Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?The only flaw in that logic is that kiddie fiddlers, murderers, etc, have been around long before the mediums of books, video games, and movies. Yes, it does seem logical that the existence of the new mediums can only encourage that sort of behaviour. It would be easier if we could just do away with perpetrators of that sort of crime, but what denotes 'that sort of crime' is what worries me. 'That sort of crime', 'those sort of games', 'that sort of speed', just makes me feel uneasy.

And what of Vifferman's poor son, he never asked for his mental health condition, it seems a little 'off' to legally exclude him from some content mediums because of that... but is it less fair to exclude him, or less fair to exclude everyone (in an effort to exclude him without making him feel excluded).

[imdying]

There are no victims, defenceless or otherwise, of video games.Not directly, the point he is making is that mediums such as violent games perhaps have the ability to encourage people to step outside of their normal moral boundaries (or maybe just help to accelerate that). And imho there must be a certain amount of that going on. But am I willing to ban the games because of that? No, I would rather hang murderers and castrate kiddy fiddlers (but that's another slippery slope).

[ManDownUnder]

The only flaw in that logic is that kiddie fiddlers, murderers, etc, have been around long before the mediums of books, video games, and movies.

Yup - they have. I'd be curious to see accurate data on offending frequency too - I hope I'm wrong on this shit - I really do.

In support of the argument I've been offering re the encouragement of offenders, I know about a guy that had to change channel every time a nappy ad came on because he found the sight of a baby's bum highly arousing. It was one of the tactics he employed to stay out of prison....

I'm not saying ban nappy ads, but I am saying we need to be careful in the use of imagery etc.

Another question I have is - why did the game makers include it in the game? Was the ability to do this horrific stuff it an unintended consequence of the incredible functionality of the SW? I find that hard to believe given the specific inclusion of controversial characters such as prostitutes, but I'm also mindful that a simple hammer can be used to murder someone - and I'm not saying access to hammers should be restricted.

[jrandom]

... encourage those tempted to have a go at those crimes to take an extra step toward their temptation - untimately ending in the actual engagement in those acts for some of them.

Ah, the old chestnut.

Frankly, none of us really has any idea whether violence in the media has anything to do with crime rates. It's fallacious to speak as though such a causative link is evidently probable.


Sure they need help, but if they don't know it, are not willing to do anything about it and no-one enforces it - we end up with victims.

So let's put some effort into victim support. I know I have...


At that time - you still have no problem with snuff movies, kiddie porn and the like being generally available? And it's going to do no harm whatsoever? I content we're simply going to enable...

You say it will 'enable' such behaviour, I say it will provide a harmless outlet for normal negative impulses that might otherwise have been acted out.

Who's to say who's right? I don't pretend to know for sure.

But one side of the debate argues for restriction, and the other argues for freedom. I know which side I'd prefer to err on. Really, that's all we're discussing here - which side it's better to err on.


What we're seeing now is... enablement... entirely foreseeable conclusion

You proclaim these causative links as though they're self-evident. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of men in white coats with letters after their name, no link has ever been proven.

As opposed to, say, the link between poverty and violent crime, which has been shown to be rock-solid time and time again.

Don't ban videogames; if you must do something to help, fight gambling addictions and starving schoolchildren!


Re "End of story", the very existance of continued debate on the subject as evidenced by this very reply is undeniable proof that it is not, indeed, the end of the story.

Well, the ongoing discussion is undeniable proof that someone doesn't agree that it's the end of the story. The statement I made is simply a rhetorical expression of the strength of my opinion.

[Ixion]

...
Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc... why would sex crime or murder be any different?
===
..

But , to extend your analogy: I know of many people who have started off on a 250 (or such like), "progressed" to a big bike, and later gone back to a small one.

Who is say that exposure to aberrancy in a relative safe (for all) setting may not cause satiation and rejection of the aberrancy. That which seemde novel and exciting at first becomes boring and uninteresting with constant repetition.

I agree with the piscine gentleman. The fact that a small percentage of people think that such a thing as a video game may , perhaps, accentuate possible, but unproven, behaviour in a second small percentage of people, which the first small percentage think objectionable is far too vague a justification for banning things. It comes down to "I don't like this stuff, so it should be banned".

I think that videos of MotoGP racing are likely to encourage antisocial behaviour on the roads. They should be banned because people like Skidmark and The Dover will be more likely to crash after watching them.

[Usarka]

Another question I have is - why did the game makers include it in the game? Was the ability to do this horrific stuff it an unintended consequence of the incredible functionality of the SW? I find that hard to believe given the specific inclusion of controversial characters such as prostitutes, but I'm also mindful that a simple hammer can be used to murder someone - and I'm not saying access to hammers should be restricted.

Driving and killing are not going to go away from games without some major societal revolution.

So, should games featuring driving fast, or shooting etc depict realistic consequences if things go wrong or if things are misused? Or should cars not be able to spin out of control on the streets and kill people, and should bullets only be able to hit "the bad guys"?

One could argue that if you subscribe to the "games influence behaviour" thinking, then watering down the consequences of violence and anti-social activities may make people more likely to commit it.

[ManDownUnder]

Ah, the old chestnut.

Frankly, none of us really has any idea whether violence in the media has anything to do with crime rates. It's fallacious to speak as though such a causative link is evidently probable. and yet the enabling effects of events progressively sliding back boundaries until the previously unnaceptable becomes normalised, or indeed desirable have ben demonstrated time and time again.

Dommsday cult, Waco, ring of paedophiles, Killer Bees. All groups that have progressively brainwashed each other into acting in a manner they would very likely have not tolerated prior to their exposure to normalising influences.



So let's put some effort into victim support. I know I have... No problems with that - but a fence at the top of the cliff will reduce the workload on the ambos at the bottom.



You say it will 'enable' such behaviour, I say it will provide a harmless outlet for normal negative impulses that might otherwise have been acted out.

Who's to say who's right? I don't pretend to know for sure.
A good point, and nor do I, but given it's an adrenaline inducing scenario, complete with natural highs etc - do you really think it would do anything else... it's hardly doing something along the lines of disabling or discouraging that behaviour


But one side of the debate argues for restriction, and the other argues for freedom. I know which side I'd prefer to err on. Really, that's all we're discussing here - which side it's better to err on.
Good point - repeal all laws - effective immediately.



You proclaim these causative links as though they're self-evident. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of men in white coats with letters after their name, no link has ever been proven. as is the case with anything cognitive. But by all means - lets aim for freedom of action and keep the ambos handy for the victims that may or may not be created through a lack of guidance.


As opposed to, say, the link between poverty and violent crime, which has been shown to be rock-solid time and time again. not cognitive... quite neat really.



Don't ban videogames; if you must do something to help, fight gambling addictions and starving schoolchildren!
I'd love to - I'd also like to include sexual assault and violence in that list


Well, the ongoing discussion is undeniable proof that someone doesn't agree that it's the end of the story. The statement I made is simply a rhetorical expression of the strength of my opinion.
Noted

[ManDownUnder]

But , to extend your analogy: I know of many people who have started off on a 250 (or such like), "progressed" to a big bike, and later gone back to a small one.

That's not extending it - that's proving it. They did progress on right? How many start on a 250 and never try a bigger one? c'mon - percentages... I'd estimate 95%+


The fact that a small percentage of people think that such a thing as a video game may , perhaps, accentuate possible, but unproven, behaviour in a second small percentage of people, which the first small percentage think objectionable is far too vague a justification for banning things. It comes down to "I don't like this stuff, so it should be banned".
aaaa yes - but of those expertly qualified in the area, committed to research and understand (i.e. those one would turn to for advice) - how many... percentages will do - I'd go for 50% plus, possibly 80%

[jrandom]

All groups that have progressively brainwashed each other...

You would equate the acceptance and social pressure of a peer group with exposure to entertainment media?

I think one is orders of magnitude more powerful than the other.


a fence at the top of the cliff will reduce the workload on the ambos at the bottom.

It also stops me from enjoying the view, and people who actually want to jump (or throw someone else off) won't be deterred.

Let's not stretch the metaphor too far, though.


do you really think it would do anything else...

Why, yes... yes, I do. That's more or less what this is all about, isn't it? We disagree on cause and effect, or at least I hold the position that cause and effect must be provable before it should be used as a justification for restricting personal freedom.


Good point - repeal all laws - effective immediately.

Nope, just the laws that try to restrict people's behaviour and activities based on unproven theories.


... the case with anything cognitive... not cognitive... quite neat really.

Indeed. Things with proven causative links to violent crime? Pour whatever resources one can into stamping 'em out. Works for me.

But banning 'cognitive' stuff? Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime', dude, and anyone who wants to take away my freedom to think what I like will have to lift it from my cold dead skull.

Funny, isn't it, that one can never prove those 'cognitive' behavioural links, and even funnier how that doesn't immediately make it obvious to all that laws attempting to use said unproven links to justify restricting people's activities are a bad idea...


sexual assault and violence in that list

Well, that's 'ambulance' stuff. I was making the point that things can be targeted that have been proven to be precursors of sexual assault and violence, such as basic childhood neglect and various elements of the poverty cycle like drug and gambling addiction.

That's what I call a useful fence at the top of the cliff.

[Ixion]

That's not extending it - that's proving it. They did progress on right? How many start on a 250 and never try a bigger one? c'mon - percentages... I'd estimate 95%+


..

Actually , quite a few. Certainly more than 5%. More like 50% . You are constricting the argument illogically. The correct logic is 'those who start off on a 250 and never get a bigger bike'. That includes the very large number who get a bike, try it, decide it is not for them (or mum/partner/girl fiend decides for them) and move on. That is a very large number indeed. And directly analagous: many people will wonder what all this GTA4 fuss is about, try the game a few times, and decide they don't like it. But even 5% would be sufficient, since it is less than the percentage of people who progress to big bikes and kill themselves thereon - or , in terms of the original argument, the percentage of people who "act out" their antisocial tendancies by way of computer games, and, thus relieved (so to speak) , do not progess to "act them out" in real life, is greater than the percentage who progress from the virtual acting out to the real acting out (even disregarding the very strong argument that the latter would have 'progressed' to real life mayhem regardless)

I see no reason at all to suppose that anti social criomes of violence are worse now thna they were when I was young (before com puter games were invented). rather, by personal observation, the reverse. So if computer games DO foster such behaviour their effect is being more than offset by some other unknown and unspecified factor acting in the other direction. I invoke Mr Occam.

[ManDownUnder]

You would equate the acceptance and social pressure of a peer group with exposure to entertainment media?

I think one is orders of magnitude more powerful than the other.
so you're happy with the fact the entertainment media is a thought leader in itself, and that others you identify with that play and enjoy the same activities (in this case a computer game) influences behaviour?

Very big of you.


It also stops me from enjoying the view, and people who actually want to jump (or throw someone else off) won't be deterred.

Let's not stretch the metaphor too far, though. Credit where it's due man - that was cheesy... funny - but cheesy



Why, yes... yes, I do. That's more or less what this is all about, isn't it? We disagree on cause and effect, or at least I hold the position that cause and effect must be provable before it should be used as a justification for restricting personal freedom.

It takes an athlete how long to get addicted to exercise? They get the addiction through adrenaline inducing activity. Anything reliably producing adrenaline is addictive for some (racing bikes comes to mind).

Not 100% proven sure, but far from disproven, and common sense suggests the link is a strong one.


Nope, just the laws that try to restrict people's behaviour and activities based on unproven theories.
Remove restrictions on tobacco sales too then - the link between that and any health issues is far from proven - hotly contested in fact, unless you take into consideration those offering a supportive argument have a vested interest.



Indeed. Things with proven causative links to violent crime? Pour whatever resources one can into stamping 'em out. Works for me. Those links are as proven as the links to media exposure's influence on violence dude.

Check out any research describing rate of violence amoung children (or longer term violence rates) among adults reklative to their exposure to violent media. They are not causitive links - they do suggest influence on the behaviour though - especially those predisposed and under the influence of other complimenting factors (a violent home, drugs int he house etc)


But banning 'cognitive' stuff? Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime', dude, and anyone who wants to take away my freedom to think what I like will have to lift it from my cold dead skull. I'm not calling for any such thing. I'm talking about the active involvement in an activity that could lead on to have more serious consequences.

To choose another right off the bat to make my point - videos showing people how to make bombs. I'd prefer those to be unavailable too... ...


Funny, isn't it, that one can never prove those 'cognitive' behavioural links, and even funnier how that doesn't immediately make it obvious to all that laws attempting to use said unproven links to justify restricting people's activities are a bad idea...

... perhaps because they're unproven it doesn't automatically free make them a bad idea? Or are you saying we now know it all - and because science hasn't proven something one way or the other we should live with what we can see are highly undesirable consequences?


Well, that's 'ambulance' stuff. I was making the point that things can be targeted that have been proven to be precursors of sexual assault and violence, such as basic childhood neglect and various elements of the poverty cycle like drug and gambling addiction.

Au contraire - it's not proven to be causitive. It is likely to be a factor increasing the likelihood however.

[Usarka]

Interesting post about gta4 at gtaforums (http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=342781) It's "a work of art".

[ManDownUnder]

Actually , quite a few. Certainly more than 5%. More like 50% . You are constricting the argument illogically.

Actually you've redefined the original assertion

"bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc" are the exact words. You're saying I'm wrong because a lot give up bikes (and you are right)... but that's not the group originally referred to who "stay on a 250 forever" - i.e. those that continue riding.

Of that group - who has never progressed on to a larger bike?

edit - I there was typo in the first post too - it should have read 95%+ don't (continue on to a bigger bike...)

[Ixion]

Actually you've redefined the original assertion

"bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc" are the exact words. You're saying I'm wrong because a lot give up bikes (and you are right)... but that's not the group originally referred to who "stay on a 250 forever" - i.e. those that continue riding.

Of that group - who has never progressed on to a larger bike?

No. I have not. You original quote, in its context was

"the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc."

Your argument resolves (as far as bikes go) to a statement that anyone who tries out a 250 will not be satisfied and will move on to a bigger bike. Which is patently untrue. Of those who sample two wheels, the majority never move on at all, they move out. Some stay on , but do not 'progress' , and a percentage (quite a small one) 'progress' to larger bikes.

I might be more inclined to accept your argument if you restricted your argument to KB memebers. But that would be like saying that members of a "NZ Car Thieves" site were encouraged by the game.

Most people who start of on two wheels (which includes scooters) never ride a litre bike. Most people who sample GTA4 will never commit a crime.

I could also point out that your argument is flawed as regards to speed: not everyone wants to go ever faster. The fact that crusiers are the largest bike segment proves that. Many rides , indeed the vast majority, find something that is sufficient to them and stay there. They have no compulsion to move to a 'next step'.

[ManDownUnder]

Ix - please put it fully into context and you'll find it resumes the assertion I'm making. I'll take advantage of Occam to make my point because I need t run.

Some people use motorcycles to get a thrill. Those that do eventually move beyond a 250 forever because there is potential for more thrill on bigger bikes.

Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc...

[Mikkel]

You guys have come a long way - sorry to dig out something from a bit further down the pile...


The dog below is a good example of exactly that - someone posted it a few days back and while it's not tasteful that is reality. I find it hard to draw any comparisons between that and the "bang-I'm dead, have another go" attitude I see in a lot of kids, now adults too. War is seen as glorious in games, and also in some parts of society - while anyone that's seen the reality of war will most likely tell you otherwise.

The funny thing about reality is that it, to quite an extend, is subjective. There are more than a few people who doesn't dare looking beyond the tip of their own nose and behold the world at large in its magnificient diversity. As a result, when confronted with the reality of others, these people react illogically. They'll condemn and deny what is foreign to them since it is easier than trying to get their head around the matter. This is the very basis that all phobias (mental or social) stems from.
Many people don't want reality - because it's difficult.

Regarding the dog, that sure manage to provoke some reactions. Distubingly enough, I am reasonably certain that if I had posted an image of some unfortunate person who had gotten their head crushed and had their brains leaking out, it wouldn't have provoked nearly as strong a reaction (it would certainly have been a different reaction). Most likely because we hear about people getting killed and maimed, run over and crushed, etc. every day in the media - however, we do not hear about people shooting dogs very often... If you can not cope with the reality of the fact that animals (humans included) are used and thrown away every day then my suggestion would be that you become a vegetarian.
I'm not saying that you have to like it or be in favour of it - but if you can not accept that reality and the fact that it is the very base upon which you base your lifestyle I would recommend opening your eyes.
As for the dog - this is the commentary that accompany the image on Wikipedia:

Recently shot sled dog in Upernavik, Greenland. The stock of sled dogs in Upernavik are regulated by shooting. A dog shooter is hired for the regulation - the dog is killed on-site by a rifle shot in the head in the open terrain. Afterwards the dog is drawn to a road side, whereafter it is refuse collected. This particular dog was photographed shortly after the shot was fired at a road side. The sled dog stock in Upernavik is decreasing these years. In the last few winters rising temperatures and changed currents in the sea around the island have made it impossible to use sled dogs for hunting and transportation.
Just because you regard a dog as a nice and cuddly pet doesn't mean that is always the role that dogs play across the globe.

Regarding wars - I think that war today is the least glorified it has ever been to be quite honest. Personally I think that is a good thing, although I fear that this is more due to people not wanting to leave the comfort zone I mentioned above rather than any thoughful reflection on the merits of war.

[avgas]

FB & I bought GTA3 the other day...

spoke to the guy at the games shop counter... he said that the only censored part of GTA4 is a 21 sec clip... not the actual game play... & its a big hooohaaaa over nothing as its only a short clip that you can prob find on youtube anyways :done:
Lemme just say that i find it goes further than that.
The sex scenes are well not there.....all you get is a badly acted conversations (B grade porn has better conversations), the blood....well doesn't exist.... at all.
The only thing i have seen more censored was a High-5 episode on TV where they played with bubble wrap.

[avgas]

The dog below is a good example of exactly that - someone posted it a few days back and while it's not tasteful that is reality. I find it hard to draw any comparisons between that and the "bang-I'm dead, have another go" attitude I see in a lot of kids, now adults too. War is seen as glorious in games, and also in some parts of society - while anyone that's seen the reality of war will most likely tell you otherwise.
Yes but you have to ask if this is cause or effect?
While it is easy to say - "I blame the war games for making violence to look cool", it seems it is not so easy to say - "Is there something wrong here, my son likes smashing his toy bulldozer into the wall???"
I used to think that people go psyco from what they have seen, but now i just think some of it was human nature.
Yes i think horrific acts of violence should be penalized. But i think that the effect of going soft on penalizing people has actually brought about MORE violence.
When i got my first speeding ticket my head hung really low going home. Not because i was going to have to pay a fine - but because i knew that my dad was going to kill me. Would someone who has no life feel bad killing someone if it meant that all he was going to get was free accommodation for the next 10? would he feel worse if he knew he had to smash rocks, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10 years?
Do the games start the violence, or does the violence start the game?
I would like to see a graph of violence vs (time - increase in population)

[ManDownUnder]

Do the games start the violence, or does the violence start the game?
I would like to see a graph of violence vs (time - increase in population)

I honestly think the two have always co-existed, they influence and feed each other to a certain extent and with the advent of a variety of technologies the two are more easily comingling, and violent or undesirable tendencies can be freely indulged in without real consequence.