I decided Im not going to argue with anyone about this subject any more. Because my main thoughts on this thing is that it shouldnt have been public in the first place.
And with me discussing it, what I think should be done and how it should be handled.
Not only goes against what I think is right but also makes it more public and less easily forgotten.
Arguing about this will not change how anything happens. It has no major life consequence for me or anyone else besides the family involved. Unlike arguing about our societal structure or the presidency or welfare policies. Those things effect everyone in this country and sometimes others else where.
This should not have been brought to the publics eye or involved the government so high as it did. It has gotten to luducris bullshit levels.
I will say no more.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Friday, March 25, 2005
Terri Vegitable Schiavo
The first time I heard about it I didnt think anything about it. Now that Im looking around on the net Im hearing more about it, I figured that being a good netcitizen/contributor person I should add a new search result for it.
Ok so shes been a vegitable for 15 years. Hmmmm and the cadaver has/had a husband. However you wanna think about that one. As well as parents that are dick heads and some F'ed up senators that happen to be republicans.
Ok lets look at this in a nice little list.
1. Im sure her husband dosent like the sight of his wife's body mearly existing and breathing. It would be nice if he could give her a special burial.
2. If you believe in an after life. Then there are normally 2 different views about the soul.
2.A. The soul is tied to the mind and can not not the death of the body itself. If that is true then they are mearly keeping a cadaver breathing and spending tax money and wasting air time. Let the lady just die so that people can move on in life.
2.B. The soul is tied to the living and breathing body. If this is true then they have trapped this ladys soul in her body for 15 years mearly so they would feel good about keeping her "alive". Why not let her die and go to heaven?? Wheres the downside to that?? There is no reason to keep her alive. She isnt coming back.
3. If you arent religious then you probably dont believe in an after life at all.
Therefore the only reasons to keep her alive would be because someone loves her, she can be a productive member of society, she might make it, or the one that seems the most prevolent right now, to push a political agenda.
3.A. Love trancends dimentions. Not like shes doing an reciprocating anyways.
3.B. She isnt being productive at all. Actually shes being counter productive. Retarded laws and media time and taxes have been spent when they shouldnt have been.
3.C. Its been 15years. She isnt making it.
3.D. The political agenda is to show that republicans care or something like that. I have no idea. But this is all about her damn parents that dont wanna move on in life and act like poopy diaperd old people that want to whine about something that they have no control over.
She would have died later anyways. No one servives life right? Why would you want to be kept on machines for eternity in a brain dead state feeling nothing. Thinking nothing. Being kept alive mearly to satisfy her brain dead parents.
Ok so shes been a vegitable for 15 years. Hmmmm and the cadaver has/had a husband. However you wanna think about that one. As well as parents that are dick heads and some F'ed up senators that happen to be republicans.
Ok lets look at this in a nice little list.
1. Im sure her husband dosent like the sight of his wife's body mearly existing and breathing. It would be nice if he could give her a special burial.
2. If you believe in an after life. Then there are normally 2 different views about the soul.
2.A. The soul is tied to the mind and can not not the death of the body itself. If that is true then they are mearly keeping a cadaver breathing and spending tax money and wasting air time. Let the lady just die so that people can move on in life.
2.B. The soul is tied to the living and breathing body. If this is true then they have trapped this ladys soul in her body for 15 years mearly so they would feel good about keeping her "alive". Why not let her die and go to heaven?? Wheres the downside to that?? There is no reason to keep her alive. She isnt coming back.
3. If you arent religious then you probably dont believe in an after life at all.
Therefore the only reasons to keep her alive would be because someone loves her, she can be a productive member of society, she might make it, or the one that seems the most prevolent right now, to push a political agenda.
3.A. Love trancends dimentions. Not like shes doing an reciprocating anyways.
3.B. She isnt being productive at all. Actually shes being counter productive. Retarded laws and media time and taxes have been spent when they shouldnt have been.
3.C. Its been 15years. She isnt making it.
3.D. The political agenda is to show that republicans care or something like that. I have no idea. But this is all about her damn parents that dont wanna move on in life and act like poopy diaperd old people that want to whine about something that they have no control over.
She would have died later anyways. No one servives life right? Why would you want to be kept on machines for eternity in a brain dead state feeling nothing. Thinking nothing. Being kept alive mearly to satisfy her brain dead parents.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Halo Made Me Do It Mom!!!!!!! I Swear!!!!
I found this article in my latest issue of GamePro.
Issue #199 April 2005
Page 12 "Teach Your Children"
Although I have a few gaming mags with articles about video game violence, this is the first time I've posted about it. I will type the whole letter in and GamePro's response and then what I think.
Then all of yall are free to comment.
Teach Your Children
I have recently come to a conclusion about violence and video games.
Since before Death Race for the Atari 2600, there has been concern about violence in video games.
Now, the reasons for banning violent video games are admirable, but the cause of violence in society and in children is not video games or any form of media for that matter. It can be argued that much is due it the negligence of some parents who don't take the responsibility for teaching their children right from wrong. When you expect media to teach your children life values rather then taking care yourself to have such discussions with them, there will be problems. Games are not the cause of violence, but if parents would just step in and teach their children that violent behavior is wrong, that concern wouldn't not be an issue. Or better yet, if parents don't want their children to play the games, they shouldn't allow them to. Parents have a responsibility in this situation, and until parents decide to change, nothing else will.
MailGP - Via Internet
GamePro's Response
There's no substitute for conscientious and loving parenting: That includes imparting the proper knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Parents are responsible for that, but with technology and culture evolving to rapidly, they can use all the help they can get. This includes the ESRB ratings, proper support for ratings at the retail level, good information (from places like GamePro)*, and responsible gameplay by their gamer children, too.
*that was a shameless plug on GamePro's part, I did not add that in there. All of the above articles were retyped word for word.
Now my thoughts.
Although I do agree that games are not the CAUSE of violence. I do agree that it can contribute to it, Just like movies can. That is why there is a rating system on the games and movies as well. It is up too the retail stores to uphold the ratings of course. For my speech class I did some research on this topic. There was a study conducted where the researchers had different aged kids try and buy games, such as the "TEEN", "M", and rare "AO" ratings. There were about 75% of the kids that were too young to buy such games that were turned away. I know the major stores that started a program for greater awareness of the ESRB ratings include; WalMart, BestBuy, Gamestop chains, and Hastings. The researchers also did some observatory studies in the above mentioned stores and a few other smaller ones. What they saw was that when a kid wanted to buy a game and was too young and therefore turned away, they soon returned with their parent or guardian. This happened about 60% of the time.
This is why the awareness of the ratings is important.
But now about this argument that the video games cause the violence. That is total crap, it is a complete logical fallacy, there is no direct causal link. That is just like saying that the porn industry causes women to be raped. Sure it might contribute to the mind set of the men that do those things, but I think women were being raped long before any sort of pornographic media was made or largely distributed. As were people and youth killing other humans before any type of violent entertainment media.
This is why I think that these arguments and lawsuits should just be dropped and thrown out of court.
Sure the retailer that might have sold the game to an underaged gainer would have a little bit of responsibility in the matter. But there is no way to say that they sold it to him/her.
But the people that sue companies like RockStar, makers of the GTA series, or Bungie, makers of the Halo games, for the death or injury of their precious innocent baby, well they are just crazy and need to wake up. The history and past life of the kid would also have to be considered as would his up bringing. These things would prove to be very difficult to find out and therefore impractical.
The cases are a big waste of everyone's money.
Especially the game companies, because they need it to make more great games.
Issue #199 April 2005
Page 12 "Teach Your Children"
Although I have a few gaming mags with articles about video game violence, this is the first time I've posted about it. I will type the whole letter in and GamePro's response and then what I think.
Then all of yall are free to comment.
Teach Your Children
I have recently come to a conclusion about violence and video games.
Since before Death Race for the Atari 2600, there has been concern about violence in video games.
Now, the reasons for banning violent video games are admirable, but the cause of violence in society and in children is not video games or any form of media for that matter. It can be argued that much is due it the negligence of some parents who don't take the responsibility for teaching their children right from wrong. When you expect media to teach your children life values rather then taking care yourself to have such discussions with them, there will be problems. Games are not the cause of violence, but if parents would just step in and teach their children that violent behavior is wrong, that concern wouldn't not be an issue. Or better yet, if parents don't want their children to play the games, they shouldn't allow them to. Parents have a responsibility in this situation, and until parents decide to change, nothing else will.
MailGP - Via Internet
GamePro's Response
There's no substitute for conscientious and loving parenting: That includes imparting the proper knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Parents are responsible for that, but with technology and culture evolving to rapidly, they can use all the help they can get. This includes the ESRB ratings, proper support for ratings at the retail level, good information (from places like GamePro)*, and responsible gameplay by their gamer children, too.
*that was a shameless plug on GamePro's part, I did not add that in there. All of the above articles were retyped word for word.
Now my thoughts.
Although I do agree that games are not the CAUSE of violence. I do agree that it can contribute to it, Just like movies can. That is why there is a rating system on the games and movies as well. It is up too the retail stores to uphold the ratings of course. For my speech class I did some research on this topic. There was a study conducted where the researchers had different aged kids try and buy games, such as the "TEEN", "M", and rare "AO" ratings. There were about 75% of the kids that were too young to buy such games that were turned away. I know the major stores that started a program for greater awareness of the ESRB ratings include; WalMart, BestBuy, Gamestop chains, and Hastings. The researchers also did some observatory studies in the above mentioned stores and a few other smaller ones. What they saw was that when a kid wanted to buy a game and was too young and therefore turned away, they soon returned with their parent or guardian. This happened about 60% of the time.
This is why the awareness of the ratings is important.
But now about this argument that the video games cause the violence. That is total crap, it is a complete logical fallacy, there is no direct causal link. That is just like saying that the porn industry causes women to be raped. Sure it might contribute to the mind set of the men that do those things, but I think women were being raped long before any sort of pornographic media was made or largely distributed. As were people and youth killing other humans before any type of violent entertainment media.
This is why I think that these arguments and lawsuits should just be dropped and thrown out of court.
Sure the retailer that might have sold the game to an underaged gainer would have a little bit of responsibility in the matter. But there is no way to say that they sold it to him/her.
But the people that sue companies like RockStar, makers of the GTA series, or Bungie, makers of the Halo games, for the death or injury of their precious innocent baby, well they are just crazy and need to wake up. The history and past life of the kid would also have to be considered as would his up bringing. These things would prove to be very difficult to find out and therefore impractical.
The cases are a big waste of everyone's money.
Especially the game companies, because they need it to make more great games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)