Posted By: Alex Deckard
This is an argument that occurred on Facebook between several parties, one of which was a contributing writer to Gameshoe.net. All the names have been changed to protect those involved. The names have been changed to characters from Mass Effect because I found it amusing. If you want to read it in the voices of the characters, you are welcome to. It makes it funnier. Please enjoy.
· Ashley Williams Oh this is bullshit. Fucking supreme court.
27 June at 20:52 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor since Tillman hasn't got here yet, 'MERICA
27 June at 20:55 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Garrus Vakarian yeah, Ashley. screw those guys. what the hell do they know about law?
27 June at 21:02 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams ....its not about laws or the first amendment or any of that shit. It's about morals. Underage children should NOT be playing violent video games. This case is a classic example of the most liberal state in the union being a complete and total JACKASS.
27 June at 21:05 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor Because it's totally up to the supreme court of the country to impose morals on everyone else. That's what parents are for.
27 June at 21:06 · Like · 4 people
·
.
Ashley Williams But clearly certain parents are stacking in their duties. Yes, the parents SHOULD hold supremacy here, but most don't, and can't control their children. What's stopping them from buying the games off the internet, or away from their parents when they're out with friends? Kids today are fucked up enough- and the violent games, if they're that worth it? Are worth the wait until the minor is of legal age.
27 June at 21:12 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams *slacking
27 June at 21:13 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor I think they decided it wasn't a felony, not that it was ok. Personally, I think that rape, arson, murder, etc. are way worse than selling video games.
27 June at 21:15 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Truth. But who's to say that the games don't desensitize kids to rape, murder, arson, etc. 'Make it ok' as it were.
27 June at 21:16 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor Who's to say that watching the news specials on the topic and listening to people who need a scapegoat for their children's behavior won't desensitize you to taking freedoms away? Aren't you just as brainwashed as the children who think running over hookers with a tank is ok because they played grand theft auto?
27 June at 21:20 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams Minor children HAVE no freedoms. They are at the will of their parents and the authority figures who govern them. You have to be a legal adult to enjoy the freedoms of being an American citizen.
27 June at 21:24 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams sure, I hate freedoms being take away as much as anyone. But when I have to worry about 11 year olds waving a gun at me because they saw it in a video game? When I have to worry about minor children thinking its ok to play with REAL guns because if games and tv? THEN I worry.
27 June at 21:26 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams *taken
27 June at 21:26 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Wait, am I seeing someone who DOESN'T like this decision?
27 June at 21:38 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams No I'm totally being sarcastic. >_>
27 June at 21:39 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt why don't they make a law outlawing stupidity? that way only children who will take the proper lessons out of stuff will get to live
27 June at 21:48 · Like · 1 person
·
Commander Shepard Wow. I swear when I posted my comment, it was the fourth one. I couldn't see the others.
27 June at 21:49 · Like · 1 person
·
Commander Shepard
Okay, couple things.
First off, the "most liberal state" thing is true. California's government were acting like jackasses. They were trying to legislate sales based on content. It's a fine line, and it is not to be crossed. Whatever the consequences may be.
Fact of the matter is, there is no conclusive scientific evidence tying violent video games to violent behavior. All evidence is entirely circumstancial. The studies that DID find a link (and therefore get parroted by the misguided and the easily fooled), were found to have been tainted by ill methods and biased testers.
27 June at 21:54 · Like · 1 person
·
Commander Shepard
Secondly, these games NEED to be given 1st Amendment protection, or it opens up an avenue for ALL SORTS of legislation. Today it's illegal to sell a violent game to a minor, tomorrow it's illegal to sell it to anyone. The ESRB does a perfectly good job of warning parents about content. NO LEGITIMATE RETAILER WILL SELL A MATURE RATED GAME WITHOUT CHECKING ID. That is a fact. If you do it, you're fired. Period. The parents have to do their jobs. If they're shitty parents, they're shitty parents. It's not the governments job to correct them.
27 June at 21:57 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams Well I disagree and point out we're all entitled to our own opinions no matter how unpopular they may be. Frankly, I'm sick of underage kids playing video games that make ME queasy and wish there was a way to block their sales, especially to minors.
27 June at 22:28 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
That's what I'm saying. Retailers don't sell to minors. The law wasn't necessary. Furthermore, it would set a dangerous precedent regarding freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment. I don't want 8 year olds playing GTA either, but it's up to the parent to police that stuff. You make a law, the retailers get jumpy about stocking the product. They do that, the companies stop making the product. Before long, NO ONE gets to play it because it doesn't exist. Just because someone finds the content objectionable doesn't give anyone the right to restrict it through law. It's in the constitution.
27 June at 22:40 · Like
·
.
Garrus Vakarian if anyone, kids or otherwise, is ever under the impression that guns aren't dangerous, violent video games aren't what's at fault. he just has remarkably shitty parents. also, the sales blocking argument is MUCH more complicated than "it makes me uncomfortable, ban it!"
27 June at 22:44 · Like
·
Commander Shepard That's the problem. No it isn't. That's about as complex of an argument that you'll get out of these people. "It makes me feel bad. I want it to go away because it offends my delicate sensibilities." People need to stop imposing their morals on others and try imposing them on themselves for a change.
27 June at 22:46 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Retailers don't sell to children? Please. They know where the money comes from
27 June at 23:09 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt Who brings them to the stores?
27 June at 23:10 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Crappy parents and/or crappy parents of friends. Or they walk. Or ride their bikes.
27 June at 23:13 · Like
·
Commander Shepard You're not hearing me. They don't sell to children. They sell to people who could reasonably be an authority figure for children, but if a kid tries to buy GTA, the teller asks him to come back with a parent. If they think you're buying for an underaged kid and you're NOT the parent, they won't sell to you.
27 June at 23:13 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt So you are blaming the store because parents bring them to pick out the games they want
27 June at 23:13 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams I have watched Walmart retailers sell to 15 year olds.
27 June at 23:14 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt They censor music highly doubt they would sell those types of games to kids
27 June at 23:16 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And if their supervisors found out, they'd be fired. It's against store policy. If you make it illegal, it will still happen. I understand that the games make you uncomfortable, and if you want to believe that lobbying for some bullshit law in order to impose your own morality on everyone is okay, so be it. Some people need to help others so they can sleep easy at night. Other people prefer lying to themselves about how "good" their actions are. You're naive and you're wrong.
27 June at 23:17 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Yes Ryan I am. Because they shouldn't be playing violent video games. If it were that important, or that worthy, it'd be worth waiting until you are of legal age to purchase them. In the meantime, why don't kids spend time playing outside, or doing enriching activities like reading, writing, attending the theater, etc etc? Instead of sitting on their asses day in and day out playing video games?
27 June at 23:19 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And now we get to the root of things. The dismissal of an entire medium as "inferior" simply because it's newer. People wouldn't get so bent out of shape over violent games if they didn't already have a bias against games as legitimate art. Let me give this part an independent section so you don't miss it.
A video game can be just as much a work of art and therefore as enriching as any book, film or painting.
The stories are just as complex. The visuals just as majestic. The social points just as important. The difference is, it's new. So people blindly hate it.
27 June at 23:23 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
Ok that was uncalled for. At any point did I say your opinion was wrong or resort to personal insults? No. I'm just saying, kids today are too desensitized to violence and should be prohibited from seeing or in this case playing certain forms of 'entertainment'. And when parents can't or won't step up and do their jobs, the children have to be protected. That's just the point here. The children have to be protected from themselves.
27 June at 23:25 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams And to clarify, I never said video games weren't art. I was implying that they do little to nothing for education, in the majority. They're mindless, pretty distractions.
27 June at 23:27 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
Firstly, you're wrong. You haven't exactly been hurling hurtful missives, but you've been talking as if children are stupid, cattle-like creatures that blindly repeat everything they see. I'll let you in on a hint. I was a kid once. I was a kid who played mature video games. At no point have I thought "Gee, I should go on a shooting spree." When you make blanket statements like that about the population, you insult people. You may not know it, nor need you intend it, but it happens.
Secondly, video games, by virtue of being an artistic medium, MUST have the same protection as other forms of art. Either you're saying they aren't art, or you're saying that certain artistic expression should be illegal. It's one or the other.
27 June at 23:30 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Garrus Vakarian how do you define a "mindless, petty distraction", then? because if it's as broad as you just implied, something like 90% of all art falls under that category.
27 June at 23:30 · Unlike · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams
Children's brains are still in development and are incapable of making informed, fully intelligent decisions until adulthood. Yes, the majority of children have the sense to differentiate, but some don't and deserve to be protected. Far too much emphasis is put on gaming. Because that's what it is when you boil it down- GAMES. With no benefit for the populace, educationally or otherwise, outside the realm of entertainment. And let's face it- kids are stupid. Sometimes they remain stupid well into adulthood. But if the emphasis put on GAMES was put on education instead, the world would be a better, much less threatening place. Trust me, I feel the same way about movies and wish there was a way to ban parents from taking their children to violent movies. And don't try to tell me it doesn't happen- I worked in a movie theater and I can't tell you how many traumatized children I saw being dragged out of violent movies on a DAILY basis. The problem is rooted in the entertainment industry and now that its out of control, I believe the government needs to step in. Those are my views. I am no less right than you are, Mr. Deckard. Again, if these violent games were so worth it, they'd be worth waiting for, like smoking or the ability to gamble or legally drink.
27 June at 23:41 · Like
·
Commander Shepard It is a moral wrong to punish a majority of society for the sins of a minority.
27 June at 23:44 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams The few always ruin things for the majority. That's life.
27 June at 23:47 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Only if it is allowed to be.
27 June at 23:47 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Now I think you're the naive one. That's just the way life is, whether you like it or not.
27 June at 23:49 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams I fully realize mine is not the popular opinion, but that doesn't make me wrong.
27 June at 23:50 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
Your opinion is not wrong by virtue of being unpopular. Your opinion isn't even, at the core of it, wrong. I'm all for raising better children. But the route is through education. Let them see the options, then help them make the decision. Don't mystify the forbidden, then expect them to deal with it maturely when the time comes.
Also, I am, of course, quite concerned with the impact such legislation could have on free speech. It's not a road we want to walk down.
27 June at 23:52 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
Free speech has its issues. Especially when it allows 8 year olds to view gory decapitations and other abominations over and over. The first amendment is used as a shield far too many times. It's flawed. Again, an unpopular opinion and yes its mildly hypocritical because my own statement is protected by that amendment but the point stands. Think about it. The Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first amendment. Are they right as well by virtue of free speech?
27 June at 23:57 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
The absolute freedom of speech is important because if we don't have absolute freedom, we have limited freedom. And when we have limited freedom someone can restrict it how they see fit. And that is truly unacceptable.
Do I disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church? Of course. Are they disgusting and despicable? Yes. Should they be allowed to continue preaching hate? Definitely. Not because they're right, but because in stopping them, we would be saying "You have free speech, but we reserve the right to censor you based on your opinion."
You're opinions on free speech are unpopular, yes. They are also dangerous. If that's what you believe, go on saying it. But the rest of us don't have to sit here and silently watch. And, spoiler alert, we won't.
28 June at 00:03 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams And that's fair. As I've been saying the whole time, I'm open to others opinions and respect them. I'm just asking for the right to have the same kindness extended to me.
28 June at 00:06 · Like
·
Commander Shepard We're having the conversation, aren't we?
28 June at 00:07 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Indeed we are. But I wasnt the one who began hurling out insults.
28 June at 00:09 · Like
·
.
Garrus Vakarian i just read back through most of the discussion... what insults are you referring to?
28 June at 00:10 · Like
·
Commander Shepard I'm not having this part of the conversation again, it already happened. I simply hurled mine more directly than yours. And with greater intent. Again, when you start making broad generalizations about people, you're bound to piss someone off.
And Gerry, I didn't aim them directly at her, but remarks were made to that effect and she took them the right way.
28 June at 00:11 · Like
·
Commander Shepard "I understand that the games make you uncomfortable, and if you want to believe that lobbying for some bullshit law in order to impose your own morality on everyone is okay, so be it. Some people need to help others so they can sleep easy at night. Other people prefer lying to themselves about how "good" their actions are. You're naive and you're wrong."
That bit, I'm assuming.
28 June at 00:12 · Like
·
.
Garrus Vakarian that's not an insult, that's a heated argument. but i digress.
28 June at 00:12 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams 'You're naive and wrong'. I never claimed anyone I was discussing with/against/what have you was anymore right or wrong than I was.
28 June at 00:13 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
See, you're confusing the requirement that your argument be made with some sort of imaginary requirement that I not directly disagree with your basis. Your opinions, particularly on free speech, are WRONG, culturally speaking. Western society is built on an individuals right to think and speak freely. You are naive because the actions you advocate would in no way create the world you are envisioning. You place too much trust in the wrong people.
Therefore, you are naive and wrong.
28 June at 00:15 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Well your opinion is clearly pointing towards too much trust in the American people as a whole, which says to me you're idealistic and equally naive and wrong as a result.
28 June at 00:21 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Because the majority of people, as a whole, are IDIOTS.
28 June at 00:21 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Do I trust politicians completely? Of course not. But I choose to believe that politics will come through where it counts.
28 June at 00:22 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And politicians have shown, time and time again, that they will fail to do so.
Here's the thing. If speech is free, the worst that could happen is some people will say objectionable things and upset some other people. Free speech doesn't cause school shootings and carjackings, a poor upbringing, personal moral failings and psychological disorders cause those. But if we restrict free speech, we are giving away power. Power that is currently so diluted that it doesn't cause problems. However, once the government has the right to restrict speech, what makes you think they'll stop at this? Why not restrict religious speech? After all, plenty of religions have caused problems through their doctrine, lets just nip it in the bud. How about political speech? These radicals get all incensed and inspire people to commit acts of terrorism. Lets just ban all anti-government rhetoric.
Are you starting to see the picture? I sincerely hope so.
There will always be problems. But the solution can NEVER be to hand over our freedoms to a government. For when we do that, we never see them again.
28 June at 00:27 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Of course that's crossed my mind. I'm no simpleton. However, it is my hope that the government can restrict ITSELF. Will they? Probably not.
28 June at 00:31 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Which is why this is a risk we cannot take.
28 June at 00:32 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams but certain things NEED to be restricted to protect the people from themselves.
28 June at 00:32 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And that, it seems, is where we differ. That is the core belief on which we disagree. I believe that freedom trumps security, you believe security trumps freedom. That very basic core tenant is a point of contestation between us, and neither of us will waver in that belief, making this argument, and by extension the other, numerous arguments surrounding it, over. It has been a pleasure sparring with you, and I wish you well.
28 June at 00:35 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Garrus Vakarian at what point does darwin come into this? why protect people stupid enough to not see the difference between fiction and reality?
28 June at 00:36 · Like
·
Commander Shepard And then, right on cue, Garrus returns from the bowels of Michigan to continue it. Good show, old boy!
28 June at 00:37 · Like
·
Commander Shepard For the record, Darwin enters in after the opening number, but he leaves shortly following the return from intermission. He's a bitch like that.
28 June at 00:39 · Like
·
.
Joker
Ashley Williams there is no actual evidence that video game violence desensitizes individuals, child or adult, any more than any other violently portrayed medium. If you want your child to grow up non-violent you can: A) Not buy them a game and B) Teach them a decent moral code. However, don't tread on the rights of an individual to convey their art form because you have a distaste for what some people claim it induces.
28 June at 13:12 · Like
·
.
Joker When we relinquish our freedom to the government in exchange for security, we end up with neither.
28 June at 13:13 · Like
·
.
Joker Commander Shepard "I'm all for raising better children. But the route is through education. Let them see the options, then help them make the decision. Don't mystify the forbidden, then expect them to deal with it maturely when the time comes."
-Are we talking violent video games now, or abstinence only education?
28 June at 13:17 · Like
·
Commander Shepard The same principle applies to both. I'll admit, I'm a very hands off guy when it comes to this stuff. Probably because I was raised in a house where the options were never disguised and I was never treated like I was too immature to handle something. When we give our youth the proper instruction, I believe they can handle most anything.
28 June at 13:52 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams
Again: you can't tell me that the games don't play a significant part in desensitizing our youth. I'm not so naive as to place the blame squarely on video games ALONE- but they play a significant part. And why do games have to be violent in the first place? That is something I've never understood. Nor the draw to buy and play them. Maybe I'm a pacifist, but I've never felt the need some have to buy games where you kill mercilessly for fun, outside of Soul Calibur, but that game had no extreme gore. I just don't get it and don't feel that our youth's easy access to such horribly violent material is right. I don't want my future children, or even the young children in my family now to have he ability to purchase these pieces of filth under the guise of 'oh its just a game'. As I keep saying repeatedly, I blame THE ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY for how violent and abhorrent our kids are these days. And if the parents won't step up to stop it, I expected our government to, but they won't either.
28 June at 15:16 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
The idea that it's "just a game" is something we've been fighting for some time. Part of the reason it's been so easy for kids to get these games is that their parents have an outlook that it's "just a game". A game is a toy, and therefore all of it must be okay for children. If it was looked at as an artistic medium, like music or film, it would have the respect, and therefore the parental attention it deserves. Simply put, parents are to blame, not just for lack of judgement, but for a lack of understanding of the medium as a whole.
As for the necessity of violent games, disliking them is a personal preference. I happen to like a number of them a great deal. Not just because of the violence, although I have to admit that is the only reason I own Saints Row 2, but for the complex and mature plots and characters. Take Red Dead Redemption. This is a game with a plot that western directors would have killed for. With characters that number among the most compelling in the genre. It also features a bunch of killing. Does this make it bad? No. It just makes it violent, and therefore not your thing. Ergo, if you don't like it, don't play it.
In conclusion, the two biggest problems are the parents and their unwillingness to give games the same respect and attention they give film and music, and societies inability to separate meaningless violence from actual violence. Violent games give people the opportunity to act out roles that they would NEVER fill in real life. When I play GTA, I steal cars. I kill people. I light old ladies on fire and run them over with my van. It's entertainment. It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it. It's not as if these games are acting as a release for criminal urges kept in check only by our fear of the law. The actions taken in them are immoral, and people are drawn to it because it is a way to briefly step in to the shoes of a psychopath, while still remaining morally clean. Would 99.999% of GTA players commit the crimes depicted in the games? No. Would the part that does do it without the games existence? Definitely. It's a case of mislabeled blame.
28 June at 15:59 · Like · 2 people
·
Commander Shepard TL;DR, games aren't toys, they're art like movies and deserve the same parental treatment, violent games are a healthy form of entertainment to the sound mind, and people that commit crimes and blame video games are either insane or liars.
28 June at 16:01 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
To which I have to ask what's so damn entertaining about lighting elderly women on fire and murdering them? If you did that in real life, people would call you a psychopath. I see no difference in perpetrating the crime in the real world and the virtual world because you consciously made the decision to do it. Sure, in video games, you get points and largely don't get tried for your crimes. But if its ok in the virtual realm doesn't that, by extension, make it ok in reality? That's how a lot of people think and its just stupid. And video games started life as GAMES. TOYS. Why should they be treated any differently now? Just because they've suddenly become more complex than an Italian plumber beating his head on bricks on for coins? I don't think so. They're just. Games. If people put as much fervor into other pursuits as they're putting into arguing with people like me over GAMES than maybe gas prices wouldn't be so damn high, two people in love could get married and rape would be prosecuted in the way it should be. But no. We're arguing over moving pixels. This is stupid, and I'm done. Nothing any of you say is going to change my mind as much as anything I say is going to change yours. I bid you all a very fond farewell. Good day.
28 June at 16:15 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt you both typed way to much... my scroll button doesn't like you
28 June at 16:21 · Like
·
Commander Shepard I'm about to post something much larger, and then I'm done with this.
28 June at 16:22 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
Just as well you leave now. You just pressed ALL my hot buttons.
And if you read this, I want you to know that you've maintained perfectly reasonable composure up until this point. Your argument is, in a word, infantile. It shows a lack of thought and a greater lack of any and all logic. By now you've probably stopped reading, but for my own sake, and the entertainment of anyone who cares to read, I'll go ahead and dismantle your arguments from that last post. Oh, and I'm done being Mr. Goddamn Nice Guy.
1. As for your questioning the fun of lighting elderly people on fire, it's a deviant behavior. Human beings are, by our very nature, drawn to and interested by deviant behavior. It's how we roll. And like you said, if I did that in real life, people would call me a psychopath. Absolutely. Because that would be shithouse crazy. The problem is exactly as you laid it out. You don't see the difference in the act virtually vs. the act in reality. You don't understand the inherent difference in the act. In the game, it's enjoyable. It's a test of skill and of creativity. No one is harmed, so a moral element never enters. When you murder people, the cops come after you. If the cops catch you, they either kill you or take your money. There is a consequence. It's the same as the thrill of a chase scene in a movie, only now it's you. Why do we watch movies about bank robbers? Why do we read books about outlaws? Because every once in a while, everyone wants to role play the bad guy.
2. You're right. People who equate actions that are acceptable in games to being acceptable in reality ARE stupid. Just like people who continue to insist that actions in games are just as immoral as their real life counterparts. This argument conflicts with your initial one.
3. Okay, so because games started as toys, they will remain toys forever? Yeah, THAT makes sense. You know what? Paintings began as nothing more than scribbles on a cave wall. Sorry Van Gogh, your paintings aren't actually high art, they're just graffiti. Oh, and music started out as cavemen banging rocks together, so I guess there's no need to look at it as anything more than that. My bad Beethoven, I guess you're just an idiot with some stones. And literature started out as scribbles describing how much grain some nomads had. I guess all literature is just really fancy bookkeeping. Better luck next time Hemingway.
Are you starting to see my point? If you are, good job. If you aren't, then you're either too stubborn or too stupid for your own good, and you seem too well spoken to be stupid, so I'll assume you're just being momentarily foolish.
4. This is my favorite. If we weren't arguing about this all the time, then we'd be brokering peace in the Middle East, banishing homophobia and ending rape? Wow. That is possibly the most ridiculous argument I've seen from a person older then 12. There are not words to adequately describe how utterly moronic that statement is.
So I guess I'll describe it inadequately.
Firstly, I'll assume that this was an argument made as a heated parting shot, which indicates that my rebuttals got to you and got you angry. That's a shame, I was under the impression you were better than that, but oh well. For the record, if that WAS a well thought out and tempered response, then I take back what I said before. You ARE an idiot.
Secondly, how are these problems related? It's not like the people bickering about video games are doing so instead of smoothing over international relations in the Middle East. We're not having this argument during our time off from educating hillbillies on tolerance. I don't have the police on hold waiting for a rape report while I type this. Your argument doesn't make sense. As ill-informed and juvenile as the other ones were, at least they fit the topic.
Thirdly, your argument seems to imply that it's not just the people who disagree with you who are now responsible for these terrors, but EVERYONE who bothers to have the argument. Including yourself. Wow. How do you live with yourself, knowing that you just personally caused gas prices to go up 20 cents? How will you sleep at night with the knowledge that you are responsible for gay people in Kansas having to live in fear? What will you tell the rape victims that you would have saved, had you been out and about as Rape Batman, instead of having this conversation? Honestly, have a little common sense. Have ANY common sense. Learn to SPELL common sense, find a dictionary, look up the phrase, then ask several people what they think it means, and finally take some sort of class so that you can properly understand what little sense you're making. When you've done that, talk to me. But until then, you should probably consider keeping your opinions to yourself. They make you look foolish.
28 June at 16:39 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Sorry for the length there. That took a while...
28 June at 16:39 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
I will admit to snickering at 'Rape Batman' and will also admit to having lost my temper. But as a human being, I can only take so many personal attacks (not from yourself but from others) before I lose my nerve and act, as you've pointed out, rather foolishly. However I maintain my stance that we're arguing over games, which is equally as foolish, with energy that could be better expended elsewhere. Otherwise, I bow to an opponent greater than myself. Were you in debate at any point? I must admit, you're more than a worthy adversary. And again I'm done. This is why I attempt to remain out of any and all political arenas. Again I bid you a good day, apologize for any insults I may have hurled, implied or otherwise, and wish you well.
28 June at 16:49 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And I, in turn, apologize for any offense my remarks might have caused. Fact of the matter is, when I try to hurt, I go for the jugular. It is by no means a statement on you as a person. You seem, at the very least, to be a morally sound individual.
And yes, I debated through high school, and, due to the lack of a Mizzou debate team, internet argument has become the last refuge I have for this stuff.
And a good day to you too.
28 June at 16:52 · Like
27 June at 20:52 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor since Tillman hasn't got here yet, 'MERICA
27 June at 20:55 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Garrus Vakarian yeah, Ashley. screw those guys. what the hell do they know about law?
27 June at 21:02 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams ....its not about laws or the first amendment or any of that shit. It's about morals. Underage children should NOT be playing violent video games. This case is a classic example of the most liberal state in the union being a complete and total JACKASS.
27 June at 21:05 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor Because it's totally up to the supreme court of the country to impose morals on everyone else. That's what parents are for.
27 June at 21:06 · Like · 4 people
·
.
Ashley Williams But clearly certain parents are stacking in their duties. Yes, the parents SHOULD hold supremacy here, but most don't, and can't control their children. What's stopping them from buying the games off the internet, or away from their parents when they're out with friends? Kids today are fucked up enough- and the violent games, if they're that worth it? Are worth the wait until the minor is of legal age.
27 June at 21:12 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams *slacking
27 June at 21:13 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor I think they decided it wasn't a felony, not that it was ok. Personally, I think that rape, arson, murder, etc. are way worse than selling video games.
27 June at 21:15 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Truth. But who's to say that the games don't desensitize kids to rape, murder, arson, etc. 'Make it ok' as it were.
27 June at 21:16 · Like
·
.
Jacob Taylor Who's to say that watching the news specials on the topic and listening to people who need a scapegoat for their children's behavior won't desensitize you to taking freedoms away? Aren't you just as brainwashed as the children who think running over hookers with a tank is ok because they played grand theft auto?
27 June at 21:20 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams Minor children HAVE no freedoms. They are at the will of their parents and the authority figures who govern them. You have to be a legal adult to enjoy the freedoms of being an American citizen.
27 June at 21:24 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams sure, I hate freedoms being take away as much as anyone. But when I have to worry about 11 year olds waving a gun at me because they saw it in a video game? When I have to worry about minor children thinking its ok to play with REAL guns because if games and tv? THEN I worry.
27 June at 21:26 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams *taken
27 June at 21:26 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Wait, am I seeing someone who DOESN'T like this decision?
27 June at 21:38 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams No I'm totally being sarcastic. >_>
27 June at 21:39 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt why don't they make a law outlawing stupidity? that way only children who will take the proper lessons out of stuff will get to live
27 June at 21:48 · Like · 1 person
·
Commander Shepard Wow. I swear when I posted my comment, it was the fourth one. I couldn't see the others.
27 June at 21:49 · Like · 1 person
·
Commander Shepard
Okay, couple things.
First off, the "most liberal state" thing is true. California's government were acting like jackasses. They were trying to legislate sales based on content. It's a fine line, and it is not to be crossed. Whatever the consequences may be.
Fact of the matter is, there is no conclusive scientific evidence tying violent video games to violent behavior. All evidence is entirely circumstancial. The studies that DID find a link (and therefore get parroted by the misguided and the easily fooled), were found to have been tainted by ill methods and biased testers.
27 June at 21:54 · Like · 1 person
·
Commander Shepard
Secondly, these games NEED to be given 1st Amendment protection, or it opens up an avenue for ALL SORTS of legislation. Today it's illegal to sell a violent game to a minor, tomorrow it's illegal to sell it to anyone. The ESRB does a perfectly good job of warning parents about content. NO LEGITIMATE RETAILER WILL SELL A MATURE RATED GAME WITHOUT CHECKING ID. That is a fact. If you do it, you're fired. Period. The parents have to do their jobs. If they're shitty parents, they're shitty parents. It's not the governments job to correct them.
27 June at 21:57 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams Well I disagree and point out we're all entitled to our own opinions no matter how unpopular they may be. Frankly, I'm sick of underage kids playing video games that make ME queasy and wish there was a way to block their sales, especially to minors.
27 June at 22:28 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
That's what I'm saying. Retailers don't sell to minors. The law wasn't necessary. Furthermore, it would set a dangerous precedent regarding freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment. I don't want 8 year olds playing GTA either, but it's up to the parent to police that stuff. You make a law, the retailers get jumpy about stocking the product. They do that, the companies stop making the product. Before long, NO ONE gets to play it because it doesn't exist. Just because someone finds the content objectionable doesn't give anyone the right to restrict it through law. It's in the constitution.
27 June at 22:40 · Like
·
.
Garrus Vakarian if anyone, kids or otherwise, is ever under the impression that guns aren't dangerous, violent video games aren't what's at fault. he just has remarkably shitty parents. also, the sales blocking argument is MUCH more complicated than "it makes me uncomfortable, ban it!"
27 June at 22:44 · Like
·
Commander Shepard That's the problem. No it isn't. That's about as complex of an argument that you'll get out of these people. "It makes me feel bad. I want it to go away because it offends my delicate sensibilities." People need to stop imposing their morals on others and try imposing them on themselves for a change.
27 June at 22:46 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Retailers don't sell to children? Please. They know where the money comes from
27 June at 23:09 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt Who brings them to the stores?
27 June at 23:10 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Crappy parents and/or crappy parents of friends. Or they walk. Or ride their bikes.
27 June at 23:13 · Like
·
Commander Shepard You're not hearing me. They don't sell to children. They sell to people who could reasonably be an authority figure for children, but if a kid tries to buy GTA, the teller asks him to come back with a parent. If they think you're buying for an underaged kid and you're NOT the parent, they won't sell to you.
27 June at 23:13 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt So you are blaming the store because parents bring them to pick out the games they want
27 June at 23:13 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams I have watched Walmart retailers sell to 15 year olds.
27 June at 23:14 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt They censor music highly doubt they would sell those types of games to kids
27 June at 23:16 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And if their supervisors found out, they'd be fired. It's against store policy. If you make it illegal, it will still happen. I understand that the games make you uncomfortable, and if you want to believe that lobbying for some bullshit law in order to impose your own morality on everyone is okay, so be it. Some people need to help others so they can sleep easy at night. Other people prefer lying to themselves about how "good" their actions are. You're naive and you're wrong.
27 June at 23:17 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Yes Ryan I am. Because they shouldn't be playing violent video games. If it were that important, or that worthy, it'd be worth waiting until you are of legal age to purchase them. In the meantime, why don't kids spend time playing outside, or doing enriching activities like reading, writing, attending the theater, etc etc? Instead of sitting on their asses day in and day out playing video games?
27 June at 23:19 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And now we get to the root of things. The dismissal of an entire medium as "inferior" simply because it's newer. People wouldn't get so bent out of shape over violent games if they didn't already have a bias against games as legitimate art. Let me give this part an independent section so you don't miss it.
A video game can be just as much a work of art and therefore as enriching as any book, film or painting.
The stories are just as complex. The visuals just as majestic. The social points just as important. The difference is, it's new. So people blindly hate it.
27 June at 23:23 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
Ok that was uncalled for. At any point did I say your opinion was wrong or resort to personal insults? No. I'm just saying, kids today are too desensitized to violence and should be prohibited from seeing or in this case playing certain forms of 'entertainment'. And when parents can't or won't step up and do their jobs, the children have to be protected. That's just the point here. The children have to be protected from themselves.
27 June at 23:25 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams And to clarify, I never said video games weren't art. I was implying that they do little to nothing for education, in the majority. They're mindless, pretty distractions.
27 June at 23:27 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
Firstly, you're wrong. You haven't exactly been hurling hurtful missives, but you've been talking as if children are stupid, cattle-like creatures that blindly repeat everything they see. I'll let you in on a hint. I was a kid once. I was a kid who played mature video games. At no point have I thought "Gee, I should go on a shooting spree." When you make blanket statements like that about the population, you insult people. You may not know it, nor need you intend it, but it happens.
Secondly, video games, by virtue of being an artistic medium, MUST have the same protection as other forms of art. Either you're saying they aren't art, or you're saying that certain artistic expression should be illegal. It's one or the other.
27 June at 23:30 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Garrus Vakarian how do you define a "mindless, petty distraction", then? because if it's as broad as you just implied, something like 90% of all art falls under that category.
27 June at 23:30 · Unlike · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams
Children's brains are still in development and are incapable of making informed, fully intelligent decisions until adulthood. Yes, the majority of children have the sense to differentiate, but some don't and deserve to be protected. Far too much emphasis is put on gaming. Because that's what it is when you boil it down- GAMES. With no benefit for the populace, educationally or otherwise, outside the realm of entertainment. And let's face it- kids are stupid. Sometimes they remain stupid well into adulthood. But if the emphasis put on GAMES was put on education instead, the world would be a better, much less threatening place. Trust me, I feel the same way about movies and wish there was a way to ban parents from taking their children to violent movies. And don't try to tell me it doesn't happen- I worked in a movie theater and I can't tell you how many traumatized children I saw being dragged out of violent movies on a DAILY basis. The problem is rooted in the entertainment industry and now that its out of control, I believe the government needs to step in. Those are my views. I am no less right than you are, Mr. Deckard. Again, if these violent games were so worth it, they'd be worth waiting for, like smoking or the ability to gamble or legally drink.
27 June at 23:41 · Like
·
Commander Shepard It is a moral wrong to punish a majority of society for the sins of a minority.
27 June at 23:44 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams The few always ruin things for the majority. That's life.
27 June at 23:47 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Only if it is allowed to be.
27 June at 23:47 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Now I think you're the naive one. That's just the way life is, whether you like it or not.
27 June at 23:49 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams I fully realize mine is not the popular opinion, but that doesn't make me wrong.
27 June at 23:50 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
Your opinion is not wrong by virtue of being unpopular. Your opinion isn't even, at the core of it, wrong. I'm all for raising better children. But the route is through education. Let them see the options, then help them make the decision. Don't mystify the forbidden, then expect them to deal with it maturely when the time comes.
Also, I am, of course, quite concerned with the impact such legislation could have on free speech. It's not a road we want to walk down.
27 June at 23:52 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
Free speech has its issues. Especially when it allows 8 year olds to view gory decapitations and other abominations over and over. The first amendment is used as a shield far too many times. It's flawed. Again, an unpopular opinion and yes its mildly hypocritical because my own statement is protected by that amendment but the point stands. Think about it. The Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first amendment. Are they right as well by virtue of free speech?
27 June at 23:57 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
The absolute freedom of speech is important because if we don't have absolute freedom, we have limited freedom. And when we have limited freedom someone can restrict it how they see fit. And that is truly unacceptable.
Do I disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church? Of course. Are they disgusting and despicable? Yes. Should they be allowed to continue preaching hate? Definitely. Not because they're right, but because in stopping them, we would be saying "You have free speech, but we reserve the right to censor you based on your opinion."
You're opinions on free speech are unpopular, yes. They are also dangerous. If that's what you believe, go on saying it. But the rest of us don't have to sit here and silently watch. And, spoiler alert, we won't.
28 June at 00:03 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams And that's fair. As I've been saying the whole time, I'm open to others opinions and respect them. I'm just asking for the right to have the same kindness extended to me.
28 June at 00:06 · Like
·
Commander Shepard We're having the conversation, aren't we?
28 June at 00:07 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Indeed we are. But I wasnt the one who began hurling out insults.
28 June at 00:09 · Like
·
.
Garrus Vakarian i just read back through most of the discussion... what insults are you referring to?
28 June at 00:10 · Like
·
Commander Shepard I'm not having this part of the conversation again, it already happened. I simply hurled mine more directly than yours. And with greater intent. Again, when you start making broad generalizations about people, you're bound to piss someone off.
And Gerry, I didn't aim them directly at her, but remarks were made to that effect and she took them the right way.
28 June at 00:11 · Like
·
Commander Shepard "I understand that the games make you uncomfortable, and if you want to believe that lobbying for some bullshit law in order to impose your own morality on everyone is okay, so be it. Some people need to help others so they can sleep easy at night. Other people prefer lying to themselves about how "good" their actions are. You're naive and you're wrong."
That bit, I'm assuming.
28 June at 00:12 · Like
·
.
Garrus Vakarian that's not an insult, that's a heated argument. but i digress.
28 June at 00:12 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams 'You're naive and wrong'. I never claimed anyone I was discussing with/against/what have you was anymore right or wrong than I was.
28 June at 00:13 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
See, you're confusing the requirement that your argument be made with some sort of imaginary requirement that I not directly disagree with your basis. Your opinions, particularly on free speech, are WRONG, culturally speaking. Western society is built on an individuals right to think and speak freely. You are naive because the actions you advocate would in no way create the world you are envisioning. You place too much trust in the wrong people.
Therefore, you are naive and wrong.
28 June at 00:15 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Well your opinion is clearly pointing towards too much trust in the American people as a whole, which says to me you're idealistic and equally naive and wrong as a result.
28 June at 00:21 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Because the majority of people, as a whole, are IDIOTS.
28 June at 00:21 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Do I trust politicians completely? Of course not. But I choose to believe that politics will come through where it counts.
28 June at 00:22 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And politicians have shown, time and time again, that they will fail to do so.
Here's the thing. If speech is free, the worst that could happen is some people will say objectionable things and upset some other people. Free speech doesn't cause school shootings and carjackings, a poor upbringing, personal moral failings and psychological disorders cause those. But if we restrict free speech, we are giving away power. Power that is currently so diluted that it doesn't cause problems. However, once the government has the right to restrict speech, what makes you think they'll stop at this? Why not restrict religious speech? After all, plenty of religions have caused problems through their doctrine, lets just nip it in the bud. How about political speech? These radicals get all incensed and inspire people to commit acts of terrorism. Lets just ban all anti-government rhetoric.
Are you starting to see the picture? I sincerely hope so.
There will always be problems. But the solution can NEVER be to hand over our freedoms to a government. For when we do that, we never see them again.
28 June at 00:27 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams Of course that's crossed my mind. I'm no simpleton. However, it is my hope that the government can restrict ITSELF. Will they? Probably not.
28 June at 00:31 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Which is why this is a risk we cannot take.
28 June at 00:32 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams but certain things NEED to be restricted to protect the people from themselves.
28 June at 00:32 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And that, it seems, is where we differ. That is the core belief on which we disagree. I believe that freedom trumps security, you believe security trumps freedom. That very basic core tenant is a point of contestation between us, and neither of us will waver in that belief, making this argument, and by extension the other, numerous arguments surrounding it, over. It has been a pleasure sparring with you, and I wish you well.
28 June at 00:35 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Garrus Vakarian at what point does darwin come into this? why protect people stupid enough to not see the difference between fiction and reality?
28 June at 00:36 · Like
·
Commander Shepard And then, right on cue, Garrus returns from the bowels of Michigan to continue it. Good show, old boy!
28 June at 00:37 · Like
·
Commander Shepard For the record, Darwin enters in after the opening number, but he leaves shortly following the return from intermission. He's a bitch like that.
28 June at 00:39 · Like
·
.
Joker
Ashley Williams there is no actual evidence that video game violence desensitizes individuals, child or adult, any more than any other violently portrayed medium. If you want your child to grow up non-violent you can: A) Not buy them a game and B) Teach them a decent moral code. However, don't tread on the rights of an individual to convey their art form because you have a distaste for what some people claim it induces.
28 June at 13:12 · Like
·
.
Joker When we relinquish our freedom to the government in exchange for security, we end up with neither.
28 June at 13:13 · Like
·
.
Joker Commander Shepard "I'm all for raising better children. But the route is through education. Let them see the options, then help them make the decision. Don't mystify the forbidden, then expect them to deal with it maturely when the time comes."
-Are we talking violent video games now, or abstinence only education?
28 June at 13:17 · Like
·
Commander Shepard The same principle applies to both. I'll admit, I'm a very hands off guy when it comes to this stuff. Probably because I was raised in a house where the options were never disguised and I was never treated like I was too immature to handle something. When we give our youth the proper instruction, I believe they can handle most anything.
28 June at 13:52 · Like · 1 person
·
.
Ashley Williams
Again: you can't tell me that the games don't play a significant part in desensitizing our youth. I'm not so naive as to place the blame squarely on video games ALONE- but they play a significant part. And why do games have to be violent in the first place? That is something I've never understood. Nor the draw to buy and play them. Maybe I'm a pacifist, but I've never felt the need some have to buy games where you kill mercilessly for fun, outside of Soul Calibur, but that game had no extreme gore. I just don't get it and don't feel that our youth's easy access to such horribly violent material is right. I don't want my future children, or even the young children in my family now to have he ability to purchase these pieces of filth under the guise of 'oh its just a game'. As I keep saying repeatedly, I blame THE ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY for how violent and abhorrent our kids are these days. And if the parents won't step up to stop it, I expected our government to, but they won't either.
28 June at 15:16 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
The idea that it's "just a game" is something we've been fighting for some time. Part of the reason it's been so easy for kids to get these games is that their parents have an outlook that it's "just a game". A game is a toy, and therefore all of it must be okay for children. If it was looked at as an artistic medium, like music or film, it would have the respect, and therefore the parental attention it deserves. Simply put, parents are to blame, not just for lack of judgement, but for a lack of understanding of the medium as a whole.
As for the necessity of violent games, disliking them is a personal preference. I happen to like a number of them a great deal. Not just because of the violence, although I have to admit that is the only reason I own Saints Row 2, but for the complex and mature plots and characters. Take Red Dead Redemption. This is a game with a plot that western directors would have killed for. With characters that number among the most compelling in the genre. It also features a bunch of killing. Does this make it bad? No. It just makes it violent, and therefore not your thing. Ergo, if you don't like it, don't play it.
In conclusion, the two biggest problems are the parents and their unwillingness to give games the same respect and attention they give film and music, and societies inability to separate meaningless violence from actual violence. Violent games give people the opportunity to act out roles that they would NEVER fill in real life. When I play GTA, I steal cars. I kill people. I light old ladies on fire and run them over with my van. It's entertainment. It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it. It's not as if these games are acting as a release for criminal urges kept in check only by our fear of the law. The actions taken in them are immoral, and people are drawn to it because it is a way to briefly step in to the shoes of a psychopath, while still remaining morally clean. Would 99.999% of GTA players commit the crimes depicted in the games? No. Would the part that does do it without the games existence? Definitely. It's a case of mislabeled blame.
28 June at 15:59 · Like · 2 people
·
Commander Shepard TL;DR, games aren't toys, they're art like movies and deserve the same parental treatment, violent games are a healthy form of entertainment to the sound mind, and people that commit crimes and blame video games are either insane or liars.
28 June at 16:01 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
To which I have to ask what's so damn entertaining about lighting elderly women on fire and murdering them? If you did that in real life, people would call you a psychopath. I see no difference in perpetrating the crime in the real world and the virtual world because you consciously made the decision to do it. Sure, in video games, you get points and largely don't get tried for your crimes. But if its ok in the virtual realm doesn't that, by extension, make it ok in reality? That's how a lot of people think and its just stupid. And video games started life as GAMES. TOYS. Why should they be treated any differently now? Just because they've suddenly become more complex than an Italian plumber beating his head on bricks on for coins? I don't think so. They're just. Games. If people put as much fervor into other pursuits as they're putting into arguing with people like me over GAMES than maybe gas prices wouldn't be so damn high, two people in love could get married and rape would be prosecuted in the way it should be. But no. We're arguing over moving pixels. This is stupid, and I'm done. Nothing any of you say is going to change my mind as much as anything I say is going to change yours. I bid you all a very fond farewell. Good day.
28 June at 16:15 · Like
·
.
Urdnot Grunt you both typed way to much... my scroll button doesn't like you
28 June at 16:21 · Like
·
Commander Shepard I'm about to post something much larger, and then I'm done with this.
28 June at 16:22 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
Just as well you leave now. You just pressed ALL my hot buttons.
And if you read this, I want you to know that you've maintained perfectly reasonable composure up until this point. Your argument is, in a word, infantile. It shows a lack of thought and a greater lack of any and all logic. By now you've probably stopped reading, but for my own sake, and the entertainment of anyone who cares to read, I'll go ahead and dismantle your arguments from that last post. Oh, and I'm done being Mr. Goddamn Nice Guy.
1. As for your questioning the fun of lighting elderly people on fire, it's a deviant behavior. Human beings are, by our very nature, drawn to and interested by deviant behavior. It's how we roll. And like you said, if I did that in real life, people would call me a psychopath. Absolutely. Because that would be shithouse crazy. The problem is exactly as you laid it out. You don't see the difference in the act virtually vs. the act in reality. You don't understand the inherent difference in the act. In the game, it's enjoyable. It's a test of skill and of creativity. No one is harmed, so a moral element never enters. When you murder people, the cops come after you. If the cops catch you, they either kill you or take your money. There is a consequence. It's the same as the thrill of a chase scene in a movie, only now it's you. Why do we watch movies about bank robbers? Why do we read books about outlaws? Because every once in a while, everyone wants to role play the bad guy.
2. You're right. People who equate actions that are acceptable in games to being acceptable in reality ARE stupid. Just like people who continue to insist that actions in games are just as immoral as their real life counterparts. This argument conflicts with your initial one.
3. Okay, so because games started as toys, they will remain toys forever? Yeah, THAT makes sense. You know what? Paintings began as nothing more than scribbles on a cave wall. Sorry Van Gogh, your paintings aren't actually high art, they're just graffiti. Oh, and music started out as cavemen banging rocks together, so I guess there's no need to look at it as anything more than that. My bad Beethoven, I guess you're just an idiot with some stones. And literature started out as scribbles describing how much grain some nomads had. I guess all literature is just really fancy bookkeeping. Better luck next time Hemingway.
Are you starting to see my point? If you are, good job. If you aren't, then you're either too stubborn or too stupid for your own good, and you seem too well spoken to be stupid, so I'll assume you're just being momentarily foolish.
4. This is my favorite. If we weren't arguing about this all the time, then we'd be brokering peace in the Middle East, banishing homophobia and ending rape? Wow. That is possibly the most ridiculous argument I've seen from a person older then 12. There are not words to adequately describe how utterly moronic that statement is.
So I guess I'll describe it inadequately.
Firstly, I'll assume that this was an argument made as a heated parting shot, which indicates that my rebuttals got to you and got you angry. That's a shame, I was under the impression you were better than that, but oh well. For the record, if that WAS a well thought out and tempered response, then I take back what I said before. You ARE an idiot.
Secondly, how are these problems related? It's not like the people bickering about video games are doing so instead of smoothing over international relations in the Middle East. We're not having this argument during our time off from educating hillbillies on tolerance. I don't have the police on hold waiting for a rape report while I type this. Your argument doesn't make sense. As ill-informed and juvenile as the other ones were, at least they fit the topic.
Thirdly, your argument seems to imply that it's not just the people who disagree with you who are now responsible for these terrors, but EVERYONE who bothers to have the argument. Including yourself. Wow. How do you live with yourself, knowing that you just personally caused gas prices to go up 20 cents? How will you sleep at night with the knowledge that you are responsible for gay people in Kansas having to live in fear? What will you tell the rape victims that you would have saved, had you been out and about as Rape Batman, instead of having this conversation? Honestly, have a little common sense. Have ANY common sense. Learn to SPELL common sense, find a dictionary, look up the phrase, then ask several people what they think it means, and finally take some sort of class so that you can properly understand what little sense you're making. When you've done that, talk to me. But until then, you should probably consider keeping your opinions to yourself. They make you look foolish.
28 June at 16:39 · Like
·
Commander Shepard Sorry for the length there. That took a while...
28 June at 16:39 · Like
·
.
Ashley Williams
I will admit to snickering at 'Rape Batman' and will also admit to having lost my temper. But as a human being, I can only take so many personal attacks (not from yourself but from others) before I lose my nerve and act, as you've pointed out, rather foolishly. However I maintain my stance that we're arguing over games, which is equally as foolish, with energy that could be better expended elsewhere. Otherwise, I bow to an opponent greater than myself. Were you in debate at any point? I must admit, you're more than a worthy adversary. And again I'm done. This is why I attempt to remain out of any and all political arenas. Again I bid you a good day, apologize for any insults I may have hurled, implied or otherwise, and wish you well.
28 June at 16:49 · Like
·
Commander Shepard
And I, in turn, apologize for any offense my remarks might have caused. Fact of the matter is, when I try to hurt, I go for the jugular. It is by no means a statement on you as a person. You seem, at the very least, to be a morally sound individual.
And yes, I debated through high school, and, due to the lack of a Mizzou debate team, internet argument has become the last refuge I have for this stuff.
And a good day to you too.
28 June at 16:52 · Like
RSS Feed
