It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video Games Teach Kids to Kill!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   


Manhunt 2, ESRB in senators' crosshairs
"That system permits children to act out each of the many graphic torture scenes and murders in Manhunt 2 rather than simply manipulating a game pad," the senators wrote. "This led one clinical psychologist to state that the realistic motions used with the Wii mean that 'You're basically teaching a child the behavioral sequencing of killing.' While this was not cited as the reason for the BBFC decision, we do believe that the ESRB should take the Wii Remote controller, and future advances in game controllers, which create more realistic gaming environments, into consideration."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The article is about four senators going after video games, specifically one called Manhunt 2: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Sam Brownback.


First of all, I'm pretty sure most gamers don't even care about Manhunt 2. And they're going after the Wii? Yes, lets go after the company that produced Mario and Donkey Kong because they have made a unique way of playing video games.

Are they serious? Maybe they haven't noticed there's a lot more (important) stuff going on in the world than violent video games. Don't our politicians have anything else better to do? They act as though kids are completely stupid and don't know they are playing a video game.

This is an example of attempted government incursion into people's private lives. I'm pretty sure that people can deal with this themselves, without having the government spend our money to deal with our supposed video game problems.

Ridiculous.




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Hillary Clinton just lost whatever slim chance she had of me ever trusting her judgment, not that she would care. Hillary is going after Manhunt 2, meanwhile, Kucinich is going after Bush’s crew. How the hell is she the front runner? We need a president, not a mom.

They went after the first Manhunt too, that’s why I bought it. I figured if they hate it that much it must be pretty crazy. It wasn’t a bad game but I never beat it, it was really hard at the end and they had to be jerks and give you a time limit.

I will say though that playing that game on a Wii would feel really sadistic with the hand motions and all. Guilty pleasures.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Man,
That's one stiiiinky game anyway.
Any excuse for a bit of publicity for a politician.

I remember playing 'Japs and English' as a kid with wooden sticks as guns.
I'm guessing that's banned too for being violent or even racist or something.. As though kids would understand that anyway.
Fighting or playing war is as old as civilisation itself.They're denying kids the ability to think for themselves.

I'm pretty sure they'll only be happy when we're all just staying at home hooked up to our TV's,fed with our four doses an hour of adverts eating our government regulation meals.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Also, I’m sure it will have a MA rating so I’m not sure what kids they are talking about. It’s not like you’re going around killing innocent bystanders in the game either, the idea is that you’ve been thrown into a snuff film with the same premise as “The Most Dangerous Game”.

It's a frivilous case.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Video games are the new hollywood. There will be all these fake moralists, followed by some McCarthyism, followed by apathy, like we have now with tv and movies.

Im not going to debate on whether video games teach bad habits or not. I will certainly say that I would blame the parents before the game.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Yes, videogames teach people how to kill, but then so do movies, society, and the internet.

It is my belief that most people alive are aware of the various methods one could employ in order to cause fatal damage to another human being - some with more advanced awareness than others.

Personally, i am aware of a way i could kill someone with merely two fingers - albeit a rather gruesome and messy method of doing so (i'd much rather prefer to cause spinal damage at neck-level as opposed to shoving two fingers into someone's right eye-socket).

Do i need videogames or movies to tell me to do this?

No.

Anyone with a basic grasp of anatomy will be aware of the various points of the human body that are vital to it's continued survival - the heart, the lungs, the brain, the spine, Arteries & Veins.

Anyone with a more advanced understanding would be aware of methods which are far more efficient - such as the two-finger approach i mentioned.

Other examples would include vital points, and specialised knowledge of the bone structure of the human body (for example, causing a bone to break in such a way that it causes massive interior haemorrhaging)

Knowledge of how to harm others comes with maturity - it even happens in nature.

There have been people in history who refer to killing as an art-form, and there are really sadistic people who enjoy making people's deaths last as long as possible (experienced torturers, for example).

Happily, i never took an interest in this.

That said, there is a certain reverse-psychology to this, by damning the game they are infact popularizing it, which only serves to point out a rather inferior understanding of society and the culture therein.

Do we want these people, with their naive views of how society works to be the very leaders of society?



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Another thing you have to take into consideration is that the makers of the game may intentionally go too far in order get this kind of attention, it worked on me the first time. It was a pretty short and repetitive game when it came down to it and they probably crossed lines on purpose to generate hype, intentionally putting in content they knew wouldn‘t fly so that they could fight it for attention. But why a presidential candidate would bite is beyond me. Maybe they gave her campaign money.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Game is awesome, but because I play it doesnt mean I will go out and kill someone with a plastic bag by wrapping it around their face (my favorite kill btw
), but I think going after video games, tv, movies, etc is a bit too far. I mean come on people why must you always blame someone/thing else for your mistakes? I've played the game and several others like it, have I killed anyone?


no.... why?


Because I know it's wrong and dont want to rot in prison. Why did you kid light a house on fire? Oh thats right because Beavis says fire! WTH? really some people just need to grow up and accept responsibility, why must the world owe you something too many people like that now adays -.-



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I'm surprised by the lack of outrage I've seen.

We elect and pay these people to tackle problems that actually affect society. Doesn't anyone else think that attacking video games is a complete waste of time right now?!

There's probably a billion other things these senators could be doing that would be more productive. Hmm, maybe if they tackled real problems like ending the war in Iraq or at least funding the troops or fixing immigration or fixing the budget the U.S. wouldn't have as many problems.

No wonder the approval ratings for Congress and the Senate is lower than the President's approval rating. They don't do anything productive.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
What about all the dead bodies floating in Hillarys wake? Maybe video games made her do it!?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Chyort
 




I'm surprised by the lack of outrage I've seen.

We elect and pay these people to tackle problems that actually affect society. Doesn't anyone else think that attacking video games is a complete waste of time right now?!

There's probably a billion other things these senators could be doing that would be more productive. Hmm, maybe if they tackled real problems like ending the war in Iraq or at least funding the troops or fixing immigration or fixing the budget the U.S. wouldn't have as many problems.

No wonder the approval ratings for Congress and the Senate is lower than the President's approval rating. They don't do anything productive



Lady Justice has been raped,
Truth assassin.
Rolls of red tape seal your lips,
Now you're done in.

…And Justice For All



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Chyort
 


The problem is that the bigger issues like war and possible economic recessions usually come alongside a whole bunch of other issues that would have to be deliberated upon.

Say, for example - we were to decide to bring the troops home from Iraq and/or afganistan;

There's more than the simple problem of logistical support for the retreat (Tactical, preferably), there's the human rights issue, the civil discontent not only in Iraq but also in the homeland due to the influx of troops able to share their experiences with other voters - this is to name but a few.

The idea with videogames is to garner support from the meddling parents of society - the parents who seek to blanket their children from violence and disorder, and by voicing opinion on these matters these parents may or may not feel that there are people whom are aware of their motivations in life.

This isn't rocket science, it's been done time and time again in political history.

My problem is that it's the same thing that's happened before - they are aware of the popularity that can be caused by this line of arguement and yet they still carry on with it.

At first glance, this seems rather hypocritical.

But then again, 'they' do say that any publicity is good publicity.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The video game argument frustrates the hell out of me!!! Why do parents not take any responsibility for what their kids are learning, doing, and seeing. Children need to be taught the difference between reality and make believe. If children are instilled with the values of life, there should not be a problem. If your child still insists on acting out his/her video game fantasies, then there is something more serious that needs to be looked into. I am a father of a five year old and a one year old. My five year old seems to have no problem separating fiction from reality. In the issue of the Senators going after the game, I firmly believe that they are just using any bit of nonsense they can to gain popularity.


[edit on 11/21/2007 by palehorse23]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


I actually applaud, rarely, the Senators for this. There's been a handful of 'copycat' killings w/ these and they seem to be getting all the more violent as the 'ratings system' evolves w/ them. I think censoring the games is a good idea, somewhere in Europe, the copycat did some of the same things in Manhunt, burning and torturing a body and there's been suicides related to games. Replace them w/ educational/puzzle games, there's plenty of non-violent ones as an alternative.


[edit on 21-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
The video game argument frustrates the hell out of me!!! Why do parents not take any responsibility for what their kids are learning, doing, and seeing.
[edit on 11/21/2007 by palehorse23]


I completely agree with you. I don't understand why the government has to step in when parents are perfectly able to.

Anhinga- I'm not sure if I completely understand, but it sounds like you want to censor video games and replace them with non-violent ones. You actually want the government to step in a tell you what kind of games people can play? You want the government to censor games? Would you want the government to censor violent movies? If someone doesn't like the violence in a game, I don't believe anyone forces them to play.

You mention copycat killings, but I'm not sure if there's been any proven link to these. I know some of these killers do play violent video games, but they're also picked on in school, made fun of, and usually depressed.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


I believe your view falls into my realm of the parents having to be ultimately responsible for what their kids see. I do not allow my children to see such violent things. When they are old enough, they will be taught the difference between reality and fiction. I just get tired of people sitting back and not owning up to their mistakes. The word censorship is not too popular with me either. People are going to murder regardless of what games they play. I do not believe because they saw it in manhunt, that is why they did it. The true reason of what made them do it is deeper than Manhunt.
thanks Chyort

[edit on 11/21/2007 by palehorse23]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


I’m curious as to how those murders would have turned out if those kids based them on the movie Saw instead. Since when do we respond to the terroristic threats of crazy people, oh wait…



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
This is NOT about censorship. It is about proper, realistic rating for the video games. No one is preventing the video from being produced or sold. The senators want the video re-rated for adults only. If I cannot trust the ratings to be reliable and accurate then what good are they.




"In sum, we ask your consideration of whether it is time to review the robustness, reliability, and repeatability of your ratings process, particularly for this genre of 'ultra-violent' video games and the advances in game controllers," the letter reads.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by x-phile
 


I have no problem with that, I'm over 18 and it is consistent with the rest of our media. I was mislead into believing this to be bad judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton and apologize for that comment. Whether you like her or not, false dirt is bad dirt.


From GameSpot.com:

Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY and current presidential candidate), Joe Lieberman (I-CT, formerly a democrat and candidate for president in 2004, and Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 presidential race), and Evan Bayh (D-IN, who publicly considered a run in 2008 only to opt against it) proposed the Family Entertainment Protection Act to restrict minors' access to violent games. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS and recently withdrawn 2008 presidential candidate) attempted to pass the Truth in Video Game Rating Act, which would have required the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) to play through the games it assesses.

www.gamespot.com...


I’ll admit I originally only read the OP’s quote, not the article. I should have known better because that would be really dumb of people who made it that far in politics. They aren’t helping generate sales in a avoidable manner, the game companies just push for a lower rating then they know they should have so they can sell to a broader audience if it works or generate hype among adult gamers if it doesn’t.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by x-phile
 


Unfortunately, you can have all the rating systems and warning labels you want. It's still not going to stop anyone from doing exactly what it is they intend to do. Especially if it is an act of violence.

How about this thrown into the mix. Some people, as written in the book, "The Lucifer Principal", go as far as to say that violence is a human genomic trait. They truly believe that if a person intends to commit an act of violence that it can be traced to a certain gene. I am a cytogeneticist, and I tell you what, if that is ever found to be true, it would blow my coworkers mind. If anyone has heard of proof of that, please let me know where it can be found.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join