| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
I must say this seems to be a brilliant example of the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy of the non causa pro causa variety.
This entire "videogame causes violence" situation is an epitome of that fallacy.
On a related note: practicing your Latin, eh? 
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:52 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
I like your post, Neptiofpovar. I'm going to ramble for abit, a good break from studing for finals A few things in general confuse me about these types of issues. If one piece of violent of media does not lead directly to violence, what is wrong with media in general being violent? This is a macro/micro issue. We think the micro violence IS NOT bad, but we believe that the macro-violence IS bad. I dont understand this. If the macro is bad, the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of the micro. I understand that each of these medias are different: TV, computer games, etc. However, they are lumped together these discussions, and I feel that leads to some confusion on what the problems are and what the solutions are. Each needs to be devided out and discussed as individual catagories, because legaly they are. While courts ruled games media, TV and movies have other legal bodies that regulate and control them. Right now, games do not, so it is influncing politics.
While I am normaly a big fan of politics, I hate rating systems. In movies all it has done in the U.S. is ensure that movies either focus on sex and or violence, or kiddy Disney junk. Good movies dont make money when made here because all the movie makers are hedging thier cash on the "R" or "G" rating, with a another large demographic being a sophmoric PG-13 teen movies. The same will happen to computer games is ratings are enforced by law.
Rates are a joke. If parents realy care, they will take the time from thier lives to investage what their childern are doing and what they are doing it with. While rating where designed to make this easier, instead, parents just got lazier. Instead of checking ratings they ignore them or fight to make everthing illegal.
LB |
|
Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:14 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
practicing your Latin, eh?
Practising or prancing? 
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:46 pm |
|
|
Northchild
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 232
Location: New York, USA |
@ Lord_Brownie & cfmdobbie:
In an ideal world, all parents would have the time, ability, resources, and inclination to be positive role-models for their children. Society, in turn, would benefit from a populace that is able to fully realize the influences of art, (ephemeral or otherwise), at all times.
The movie ratings system seems to do fairly well in keeping "malpractice-esque" lawsuits away from film studios. In addition to the crap generated for the mass-market machine, there are quite a few interesting, intelligent movies available.
Game studios need to adopt and strictly enforce the same ratings system; not for the sake of the consumers, because the problems that lead to violence are beyond the reach of the film and game industries, but for the sake of the people who just want to make games without having to worry about being sued by those who want to improve their lot by legally mugging other people.
The problems of people who are unable stand on their own intellectual, emotional, and ethical "feet" may or may not be addressed by others, depending on where you stand, but linking the people who have dropped into the deep end with people who work 10-15 hours a day in front of a computer screen in order to make ends meet and to explore their creativity is just plain wrong.
_________________
New to 3D? Check out www.3dbuzz.com today! |
|
Mon Dec 08, 2003 7:49 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
Great response, Northchild. I would point that the computer software industry already has a rating system. However, only laws, at state or local level could enforce them across the board. The software undustry is dwarfed by the retail and distrbution industry which has most the of the control of sales, but is too large and varied to ensure major complaince of any buying restrictions. In short if control of sales is what is needed then only the government can effectively regulate and enforce this across the industry. This may cut down on law-suits, but it will also cut down on what is made and how it is made. Case in point: Temple of Elemental Evil. Because some countries had laws the prevent the killing of childern in computer games, the childern where takei out of the game. The evil god, strictly in my view, is an evil fertility god, and the childern where a major premise for what was happening in the temple. Laws didnt keep anyone from killing childern in the real world, instead they weakened the story and atmosphere of the game.
Long before I got married and had childern I knew I wasnt living in an ideal world. Art is an outlet needed because the world is not perfect, not a manifestation of perfection. Therefore, games as art should reflect the artist vision of the world they are pertraying, not the legal aspects of the real world. Because niether world can be perfect, we should not expect any of them to be.
LB |
|
Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:12 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
Hmmm. . . definitely food for thought. Yes, I read the article Desslock wrote on the children killing subject in PC Gamer. He pointed out that while the children in ToEE were removed, in Ultima IV they were not. And they were not only killable, they were evil!  In Neverwinter Nights the children were just invincible.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:21 pm |
|
|
Secret Agent Lawanda
The last thing you see...
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 1041
Location: World of Darkness (LA) |
quote:
Originally posted by Lord_Brownie
Art is an outlet needed because the world is not perfect, not a manifestation of perfection. Therefore, games as art should reflect the artist vision of the world they are pertraying, not the legal aspects of the real world. Because niether world can be perfect, we should not expect any of them to be.
Too bad some would use such an open-ended arguement for insidious purposes. Therefore, I cannot agree.
_________________
-=Professional Secret Agent=-
Moderator of The Anime and Manga Fan Club |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:19 am |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Lord_Brownie
If one piece of violent of media does not lead directly to violence, what is wrong with media in general being violent?
Let's put your same remark in a much simpler context.
If one Big Mac super-size meal deal won't make you obese, then how can 3 Big Mac super-size meal deals a day for a year lead to substantial weight gain?
This is an issue of excess. Glutonny if you will. The old and tired phrase you might have read from the diary of a long dead relative reading something like, 'too much of anything is bad for you, balance is best.'
The 'collective media' (as in, NOT just videogames) provides a never ending onslaught of violent images and sounds and unless you choose to live in a box, you are going to be exposed to these images and sounds continuously, and it does have an affect on people and their behavior - from the subtle to the explicit.
Why is this the case? Because for whatever reasons, violence sells, so marketers are providing violence and consumers are swallowing it up.
But in large doses, it isn't good for you, no matter how fun or entertaining you think it is. Just like super-size Big Mac meal deals aren't good for you on a daily basis, no matter how good it might taste to you.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:17 am |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
quote:
Originally posted by Secret Agent Lawanda
Too bad some would use such an open-ended arguement for insidious purposes. Therefore, I cannot agree.
Secret Agent Lawanda, can you please elaborate on you idea? If you mean those who commit violent crime, they should be put in jail for their actions against other human beings, not for what they paint or write. The art of justice.
Neptiofpovar, I read through your post and I am thinking about it. If I change my mind or come up with something I'll post back.
LB |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:02 am |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
May I be first to point out the fact that I could get a thousand super sized Big Macs a day and not become obese. I must merely not eat them.
If perhaps you were to use the analogy of drinking a coke a day, resulting in the ultimate corrosion of your teeth, I would suggest that a mind, unakin to teeth, does have the ability to develop and mend itself.
But another second... what happens when we go the other way? When we are subject to no violence whatsoever in media? Clearly, if the trite omni-applying saying, "too much of anything is bad for you," were true, we would all suffer equally horribly as much for not being exposed to any media violence as if we were to be exposed to nothing but media violence.
So, in effect, by reductio ad absurdum, we have proved, based upon the notion that "too much of anything is bad for you," is a supposed truism, that watching PBS is just as likely to be mentally damaging (don't get started on trying to define that!!) as an equal amount of time spent watching the R-rated movie channel?
Humour aside, there is a weak car in this satire of someone's train of thought.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:05 am |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
May I be first to point out the fact that I could get a thousand super sized Big Macs a day and not become obese. I must merely not eat them.
Ah. Fun with analogies. Ok. Well, if you avoid obesity by not eating the thousand super sized Big Macs that you buy each day, then you’ll take a hit in your wallet instead of your gut – and unless you’ve got a money tree growing in your backyard, you’re going to take damage to yourself one way or another.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
If perhaps you were to use the analogy of drinking a coke a day, resulting in the ultimate corrosion of your teeth, I would suggest that a mind, unakin to teeth, does have the ability to develop and mend itself.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I believe the human mind has the ability to overcome just about anything. This ability, along with long term memory, greatly separates us from the next most intelligent species on the planet. But not all minds are equally healthy or equally utilized and because of that it is quite possible that person A continues along in life relatively unaffected by the onslaught of violence in the media while person B is unable or unwilling to be unaffected at varying degrees.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
But another second... what happens when we go the other way? When we are subject to no violence whatsoever in media? Clearly, if the trite omni-applying saying, "too much of anything is bad for you," were true, we would all suffer equally horribly as much for not being exposed to any media violence as if we were to be exposed to nothing but media violence.
You are saying that too much of ‘nothing’ must be equally as bad as too much of ‘anything.’ I don’t agree. Too much of nothing can be neither good or bad. But too much of anything usually isn’t good for you.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
So, in effect, by reductio ad absurdum, we have proved, based upon the notion that "too much of anything is bad for you," is a supposed truism, that watching PBS is just as likely to be mentally damaging (don't get started on trying to define that!!) as an equal amount of time spent watching the R-rated movie channel?
No. But spending too much time watching TV or watching movies, whatever they are about, is probably not good for you.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
Humour aside, there is a weak car in this satire of someone's train of thought.
I don’t think so. I’m not a brain surgeon, heart specialist, or rocket scientist. And I don’t speak or understand Latin. Yet, I still feel I have meaningful and intelligent things to contribute despite condescending remarks that fail to justify an alternative position. But that’s ok. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, regardless if they can convince others to think the same way or not.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:41 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
I dug up an article about media violence that hits on a lot of the points brought out by myself and other posters on this board. It really describes the subtle and not-so-subtle affects violence can have on people, the motivations behind why people in the media use violence (basically, $$$), consequences, and personal choice (or as pointed out by sauron38, mind over matter), to name just a few. A good read if you have more than just a passing interest on the subject of media violence.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/12/175437.shtml
quote:
Joe Eszterhas is a powerful Hollywood screenwriter. He has written 14 films, his most famous being "Basic Instinct," which made Sharon Stone a star. The film revolved around two women, both at least bisexual, who were crazy and/or cold-blooded ice-pick-wielding killers. Surprisingly, this Hollywood powerhouse has written an opinion piece for the New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/09/opinion/09ESZT.html] confessing his guilt about the content of his films.
For what exactly has he finally realized his culpability? His portrayal of Sharon Stone as that psychotic lesbian ice-picktress? Or Stone as a stalked victim-to-be in "Sliver"? Or Linda Fiorentino as psycho/whore/possible killer in "Jade"?
Nope – he's upset he glamorized smoking. Why? Eszterhas has been diagnosed with throat cancer, has lost most of his larynx and has difficulty speaking after years of what he termed being a "militant" smoker.
While anyone getting cancer is a tragedy, and he deserves the best of luck in has recovery, Eszterhas' personal hypocrisy is truly stunning and worthy of criticism.
Yes, it's good he finally recognizes that glamorizing smoking can influence people, but what about glamorizing violence? Perhaps I've been living on a planet different from Eszterhas' but the fact that smoking causes cancer has been known for decades. As has film's impact in general on an audience's social attitudes and mores.
This is where the real danger of his movies comes to light. Choosing to smoke is ultimately a direct personal decision. The impact on attitudes, however, especially about women, is a much more sinister and insidious problem.
What are the common themes in his films from the 1990s? Like "Basic Instinct," "Jade," "Showgirls" and "Sliver" alternately sexualized violence against women (and men!), glamorized murder, portrayed women as whores who were not to be trusted, and declared in image and word that violence against women is erotic, understandable and inevitable. After all, if you don't kill them, they'll kill you first!
This sick contribution to our popular culture demeans both women and men, and has made Eszterhas, and those associated with his films, rich and famous.
Considering that three women are killed every day in this country by a husband or boyfriend or acquaintance (and that comes from FBI and coroner statistics, not from a feminist think tank) and that women also kill the men in their lives, it would appear that Eszterhas and others of his ilk have created quite the artistic legacy.
But now, after years of making movies that contribute to the woman-as-evil syndrome, Eszterhas has seen the light and declared that his films have actually influenced people (whaddaya know!), comparing the Hollywood film industry to an advertising agency that affects what people think and do.
"My hands are bloody," he wrote, and vowed, "I want to do everything I can to undo the damage I have done with my own big-screen words and images."
But apparently only about smoking.
Eszterhas made a choice to come out in a big way to declare his war on one of the less insidious parts of his films because he personally has been afflicted by the Big C. Just like my mentor in the feminist establishment (one of the last women in that bastion who had integrity and class), who smoked and died a lingering death due to lymphoma and lung cancer. And like many other members of my family, who also smoked and are now dead due to either emphysema or cancer.
My mother was a chain smoker. I don't smoke. I decided against it. It was that simple. It took a thing called a "decision." Images encouraging and glamorizing smoking are indeed a problem, and with those images it may also take some willpower, but some of us take personal responsibility and choose to not smoke.
Eszterhas demands in his piece that smoking should be as illegal as heroin. That's just silly. What's really at issue here is what can't be made illegal: Eszterhas and his colleagues making ugly personal and professional decisions that have repercussions.
Like the eroticization of violence and, yes, smoking. Our culture suffers for it, and now he does, too. Everyone loses because of a moral compass that was lost long ago by the Left Elite in the entertainment business for whom personal responsibility and common decency are so foreign they've been completely forgotten. Until, of course, the resulting rot imposes itself on them.
I'm not sure how much Eszterhas' belated brainstorm will help all the people he's now so concerned with. His films are still out there and, with video and DVD, will always be seen, with their slaughtered human beings and smoking superstars.
The saddest commentary is that we do not expect or demand common sense and decency from these people while they are in charge of our increasingly morally relativistic culture. It seems to only happen, as with Eszterhas, when something happens to them. As cultural gatekeepers, their responsibility is larger than that, and it's time we remind them so.
Eszterhas said in his op/ed that he has made a deal with God and has pledged to try to "stop others from committing the same crimes I did." I applaud that, as I'm sure you do.
If he really is committed to doing the right thing, however, he needs to get going and make a list of all that his films glamorize – including murder, violence against women, indecency, stalking, lying, cheating, prostitution, marital infidelity and, oh yes, smoking. It is time for him, and the rest of the Cultural Elite, to look beyond themselves for once.
Tammy Bruce is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW and a contributing editor to FrontPageMagazine.com. She is the author of "The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds."
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:25 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Neptiofpovar
You are saying that too much of ‘nothing’ must be equally as bad as too much of ‘anything.’ I don’t agree. Too much of nothing can be neither good or bad.
*ahem* Anorexia nervosa.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:43 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
quote:
Originally posted by Neptiofpovar
You are saying that too much of ‘nothing’ must be equally as bad as too much of ‘anything.’ I don’t agree. Too much of nothing can be neither good or bad.
*ahem* Anorexia nervosa.
Too much weight loss isn't good for you.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:54 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neptiofpovar
Too much of nothing can be neither good or bad.
That's a fallacious statement. In fact it contradicts itself. If you have nothing, then how can you have too much of it?
Think about it.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
