Germany is on the verge of banning violent games page 2

Are you saying that it doesn’t matter if I understand that what i’m doing in a game is real or not, it will still have the same effect?

Of course. Ever get angry while playing games? “Fake” situation from which real physiological changes result.

You could say the same about TV shows or movies. Some people get really into them.

Even if I get angry with a video game, its at the imaginary video game, not at the people around me , if someonr takes out their frustration on the people around them, then violent video games is not their problem.

If someone gets angry at their phone and hits someone, the cause of the anger is still the phone. You can debate what problems they may or may not have, but that doesn’t eliminate the cause.

Also, the cracking down on child porn is not censorship, as the act itself is illegal, therefore the real recording is illagal.

All that is irrelevant. It is still censorship, regardless of whether the act is illegal or not. Censorship is simply blocking or regulating communication, the reasons don’t matter.

Parents do not need omnipotence to make sure that their kids expenditures are monitored, and that they know what games they playing.

Again, parents can’t see or know everything. Getting others involved is common sense, especially for a social species.

As far as making sure they don’t sell things to minors, they already do this, and there is absolutely no reason to keep it from everyone.

Apparently there is a reason. They aren’t doing it for their own amusement, they see a problem and they are addressing it.

There is no just about it, this is censorship, and it is wrong because its not letting people (or their parents) choose for themselves, which is very important for freedom.

Freedom does not mean, in a practical sense, the right to do whatever you want. It has always been regulated in some fashion, and in this case it is simply being expanded.

Again, parents can’t see or know everything. Getting others involved is common sense, especially for a social species.

But the government can? Besides, kids can’t even legally buy these games; they must have an adult (presumably a parent) buy them. I won’t say it is impossible for a child to get a hold of the games without parental consent, but I think it’s fair to say that it is difficult.

Ehh, they’re only video games.
Who cares?

Originally posted by Blaizing:

Ehh, they’re only video games.

Who cares?

Considering your on a game website right now…

Originally posted by cuffofizz:

Originally posted by Blaizing:

Ehh, they’re only video games.


Who cares?

Considering your on a game website right now…

Yeah, but I wouldn’t really care if this website got banned.

Originally posted by Blaizing:

Originally posted by cuffofizz:

Originally posted by Blaizing:

Ehh, they’re only video games.



Who cares?

Considering your on a game website right now…

Yeah, but I wouldn’t really care if this website got banned.

Time to break out the quotes.

Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.

The same could be applied to video game censorship. They are starting with video games, but where will they end? TV? Magazines? Books? Movies?

Originally posted by cuffofizz:

Originally posted by Blaizing:

Originally posted by cuffofizz:

Originally posted by Blaizing:

Ehh, they’re only video games.




Who cares?

Considering your on a game website right now…

Yeah, but I wouldn’t really care if this website got banned.

Time to break out the quotes.

Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.

The same could be applied to video game censorship. They are starting with video games, but where will they end?

Umm, what are you implying?
What else would they take?
Besides this, I don’t play any other kind of game.
I play this while I’m on AIM and/or MySpace.

If people let the gov’t ban video games, they would have no reason to think that the people will stop them from banning/censoring other media (books, TV, magazines, etc.). Maybe even censor the internet like China.

They could take AIM and MySpace. There have been lots of big problems with MySpace from under-age pornography, kids meeting people on-line and getting themselves raped/abducted all the way to suicides just so they’ll get a “remembrance page”.

“If someone gets angry at their phone and hits someone, the cause of the anger is still the phone. You can debate what problems they may or may not have, but that doesn’t eliminate the cause.”

That depends on what you believe… I believe all humans have an ability and a conscious to be good. Thus, if you hit someone because you got angry at the phone, its not the phones fault, its your fault.

Originally posted by pacaholic:

“If someone gets angry at their phone and hits someone, the cause of the anger is still the phone. You can debate what problems they may or may not have, but that doesn’t eliminate the cause.”

That depends on what you believe… I believe all humans have an ability and a conscious to be good. Thus, if you hit someone because you got angry at the phone, its not the phones fault, its your fault.

Reminds me of the gun control debate. Do the phones hurt people, or do people hurt people? Do video games hurt people, or do people hurt people?

Not that it’s straying too far off-topic, but a majority of you are implying that the ESRB ratings on a game should serve sufficiently to keep it out of the hands of minors. Referring back to the OP…

Originally posted by dd790:

The minister of the interior of Lower Saxony commented: “Violent games lower the inhibition level for real violence and spree killers always played such games before they did the crime.”

…the proposed ban seems to be for denying access to everyone, not necessarily a specific age group. they aren’t concerned with trying to keep minors from obtaining copies of certain games illegally, but with keeping material with a potential to influence those with a propensity for violence away from those very individuals..

But the government can?

Why not?

Time to break out the quotes.

Yeah, let’s not go with emotional appeals and a slippery slope.

Thus, if you hit someone because you got angry at the phone, its not the phones fault, its your fault.

However the phone is a causal factor behind the anger. This isn’t complicated guys.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Even if I get angry with a video game, its at the imaginary video game, not at the people around me , if someonr takes out their frustration on the people around them, then violent video games is not their problem.

If someone gets angry at their phone and hits someone, the cause of the anger is still the phone. You can debate what problems they may or may not have, but that doesn’t eliminate the cause.

Also, the cracking down on child porn is not censorship, as the act itself is illegal, therefore the real recording is illagal.

All that is irrelevant. It is still censorship, regardless of whether the act is illegal or not. Censorship is simply blocking or regulating communication, the reasons don’t matter.

Parents do not need omnipotence to make sure that their kids expenditures are monitored, and that they know what games they playing.

Again, parents can’t see or know everything. Getting others involved is common sense, especially for a social species.

As far as making sure they don’t sell things to minors, they already do this, and there is absolutely no reason to keep it from everyone.

Apparently there is a reason. They aren’t doing it for their own amusement, they see a problem and they are addressing it.

There is no just about it, this is censorship, and it is wrong because its not letting people (or their parents) choose for themselves, which is very important for freedom.

Freedom does not mean, in a practical sense, the right to do whatever you want. It has always been regulated in some fashion, and in this case it is simply being expanded.

In response to your first statement, that would mean that if I say your comments, exploded in anger, and hit someone, the cause would be your post? I believe the term to be used here is “the straw that broke the camels back”. Meaning, even if I hadn’t seen your post, I would have just as easily exploded over another post, banning or blocking your post would not have prevented my explosion. This same thing applies to video games.

In response to your second statement, yes I concede the point, blocking child porn is censorship, and thus making my statement wrong. Let me reevaluate it then. All censorship of media that is not a depiction of a real person getting harmed is wrong.

In response to your third statement, governments aren’t omnipotent either, and you don’t want them to be

In response to your fourth statement, yes, there is a reason, but is that reason for the benefit of the county?

People must remember that a government is only another organization, it is mostly a good thing, but that does not free it from scrutiny.

In response to your fifth statement, the question is to ask whether the hindrance of freedom is necessary, because (sorry to Bodkin!) the Nazis were "simply’ expanding their powers too.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

But the government can?

Why not?

Time to break out the quotes.

Yeah, let’s not go with emotional appeals and a slippery slope.

Thus, if you hit someone because you got angry at the phone, its not the phones fault, its your fault.

However the phone is a causal factor behind the anger. This isn’t complicated guys.

Please don’t talk down to me. There is no need for that in SD.

In response to your first statement, that would mean that if I say your comments, exploded in anger, and hit someone, the cause would be your post?

Yes.

Meaning, even if I hadn’t seen your post, I would have just as easily exploded over another post, banning or blocking your post would not have prevented my explosion.

But you didn’t. You exploded over my post. If something about my posts consistently elicits such responses, it becomes something worth looking into.

This same thing applies to video games.

All censorship of media that is not a depiction of a real person getting harmed is wrong.

So simulated child rape would be ok, as long as they are paid actors? Currently legislation disagrees on that point as well.

In response to your third statement, governments aren’t omnipotent either

They don’t have to be. It just means more eyes on a situation means less chances for things to go wrong.

In response to your fourth statement, yes, there is a reason, but is that reason for the benefit of the county?

Do you really think the government is doing this for the detriment of the country?

In response to your fifth statement, the question is to ask whether the hindrance of freedom is necessary, because (sorry to Bodkin!) the Nazis were "simply’ expanding their powers too.

The “hindrance of freedom” is necessary for a society to function, so yeah. People are just overly idealistic and see things in black and white. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

So simulated child rape would be ok, as long as they are paid actors?

You mean paid child actors? There’s consent issues there.

If you mean adult actors dressing up in schoolgirl uniforms, what is wrong with that?

Originally posted by Jabor:

So simulated child rape would be ok, as long as they are paid actors?

If you mean adult actors dressing up in schoolgirl uniforms, what is wrong with that?

Nothing at all! (Though a little off topic)

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

In response to your first statement, that would mean that if I say your comments, exploded in anger, and hit someone, the cause would be your post?

Yes.

Meaning, even if I hadn’t seen your post, I would have just as easily exploded over another post, banning or blocking your post would not have prevented my explosion.

But you didn’t. You exploded over my post. If something about my posts consistently elicits such responses, it becomes something worth looking into.

This same thing applies to video games.

All censorship of media that is not a depiction of a real person getting harmed is wrong.

So simulated child rape would be ok, as long as they are paid actors? Currently legislation disagrees on that point as well.

In response to your third statement, governments aren’t omnipotent either

They don’t have to be. It just means more eyes on a situation means less chances for things to go wrong.

In response to your fourth statement, yes, there is a reason, but is that reason for the benefit of the county?

Do you really think the government is doing this for the detriment of the country?

In response to your fifth statement, the question is to ask whether the hindrance of freedom is necessary, because (sorry to Bodkin!) the Nazis were "simply’ expanding their powers too.

The “hindrance of freedom” is necessary for a society to function, so yeah. People are just overly idealistic and see things in black and white. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

Once again, i’ll respond to your statements like before.

In relation to your first and second comments, my point it it would do absolutely no good to ban your post, because I would just explode on something else.

In relation to your third, as long as noone is getting hurt, its fine.

in relation to your fourth, what I mean there is that all government policy should be given scrutiny regardless of who or what proposed it, who knows, we may find corruption.

In relation to your last, I did not say every hindrance to freedom is bad, I just said any hindrance to freedom must be examined very closely. I do not think this law is required for law and order in the country, nor do I think it will help.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

So what is absolute freedom then? And how can I have an idea of something which doesn’t exist?

God surely has absolute freedom, the ability to do whatever he wants.

it’s just a matter of getting used to a type of lifestyle.

the govt has been free with the web for a long time. but soon, the web will become as regulated as your common city street. no porn, no parking, fines if you are found ordering alcohol while underage, no criminal IPs allowed etc…

and why? because ithas to happen to protect society’s collective interests. same thing with games. all it is is just the community getting used to what is needed in the greater interest.

Originally posted by Jabor:

So simulated child rape would be ok, as long as they are paid actors?

You mean paid child actors? There’s consent issues there.

If you mean adult actors dressing up in schoolgirl uniforms, what is wrong with that?

If they appear to be children then in many cases it is against the law. That being said I can think of numerous reasons why it should be so, but I think we are starting to go off topic here.

In relation to your first and second comments, my point it it would do absolutely no good to ban your post, because I would just explode on something else.

So you don’t think we should bother to take any actions against those who consistently cause conflict in the forums (i.e. trolls or whatever)? Even “rational” people can reach their limit when the situation is right, although people like to think they are immune to it.

In relation to your third, as long as noone is getting hurt, its fine.

Even if it can be shown to often lead to actual attacks on children? I might start a new thread on this later since it is a separate topic.

in relation to your fourth, what I mean there is that all government policy should be given scrutiny regardless of who or what proposed it, who knows, we may find corruption.

In what form?

So what is absolute freedom then?

Doing whatever you want with no consequences. It just can’t happen.

I love their reason for banning them.

Ministers for Germany’s sixteen federal states (The Bundesrat) today agreed that ‘killer games’ should be banned with utmost haste. The term, coined in recent years to describe games in which violence is the main focus, has gained rapid traction since the killing spree by a teenager who was able to access his father’s weapons. Following the incident in March, press and politicians have regularly claimed that the boy was heavily influenced by violent games, despite there being no supporting evidence.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/48045/Germany-Banning-Killer-Games-With-The-Utmost-Haste

despite there being no supporting evidence.

Well if a video gaming site says so, we can take that as proof. No bias there.