[©allum]

wtf.

PMS really wouldn't affect her leadership duties, since it's a democracy, not a dictatorship.

[Neraphym]

I'm sure it would have some affect, but I doubt it is a serious enough issue to make her wholey unqualified for president.

[Elvenblader]

I seriously doubt that hilary clinton is going to be in office any time soon, as far as it goes I really am against her being video games and if she tries to force regulation on games she is going to have a serious opposition going against her, the gaming industry is 12 Billion dollar business and well it seems that a lot of politicians are trying to get in on this business. If I had to vote for anyone I would vote for a democrat to be president, maybe kelly or something but the way Bush is running things I say we impeach this ignorant fool and put someone else in place, I heard Bush was trying to impose Democracy on Japan. Japan!? WTF?! I mean come on we set up a government that is similar to our democracy, why mess with a country that already has a similar democracy like the US. Really come on Bush needs to get his head out of his *** and start focusing on internal problems in America and not trying to bring Democracy and change to the other parts of the world, this guy has already bled dry our economy as it is, spread US forces too thin and wants to spread democracy to a country that already has a similar democracy like ours. This guy is loco in the cabesa.

This post has been edited by Elvenblader5: 27 November 2005 - 07:13 PM

[Kaezion]

oh no! she's going to make violent video games less accessible?! she is definitely not qualified to be the president of the U.S.!
heaven knows what restricting violent video games would do!
raising the ratings doesn't do jack. the difference between Mature (17 y/o & older) and Adults Only (18 y/o & older) is one year.
and it's not like anyone pays attention to the ratings anyway. if i walked in and said i wanted to buy San Andreas, 9 out of 10 times the clerk wouldn't give it a second thought as he hands me the video game.

plus, even if violent video games actually are made less accessible, there are potential social benefits with that. i'm not saying playing a game where you shoot people for no reason is going to make that gamer shoot someone in real life, but there is a certain desensitization involved when you engage in unprovoked and brutal violence in the virtual world.
again, yes, any idiot can tell apart from virtual and real. all that violence, however, is going to have an effect on the gamer's personality, especially if that gamer plays the game regularly. that personality isn't part of the gamer's voluntary conscience - the gamer can't leave part of his personality behind at home or in his little game; it carries over to the real world, on which his slightly more violent or aggressive personality might have a negative effect.
if you're going to say i'm making assumptions, consider this example. a kid is continuously shown movies in which there is wanton violence, and another kid is shown a variety of what we might call normal movies - chick flicks, comedy, sometimes horror, whatever. that first child is going to be at least slightly more disturbed than the latter. now, in a video game, the kid playing that game is making the choices to commit that wanton violence. don't you think that it's going to have some effect on him?

that was a digression. the main point i'm trying to make is that, video games aren't the most important factor when you're trying to decide who's going to be the best President of the United States. and no, i'm not a Hillary supporter - i'm just pointing out that it's stupid to bash a politician over his/her stance on video games.

[Neraphym]

I realize this, but it is the principal of the matter than concerns me. Why stop at videogames? The news is violent, let's make it inaccessible to people under 18. Hey, the internet is horribly violent and exposes kids to violence, gore, and tons and tons of porn. Why not make it so ever person who goes on the internet must first log on through government servers so we can filter out the bad stuff from people unworthy to view it? What she is doing by censoring videogames is laughing in the face of the first amendment. For that, she should burn in hell. Let the parents do the parenting, that way smart parents won't be forced to censor their kids from reality because of some law.

[Kaezion]

first of all, where in the first amendment does it provide for freedom to distribute violent video games to kids? the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly (i think those are it). video games fall under none of those categories; firstly, religion, press, and assembly having nothing whatsoever to do with video game content, at least in the context of this debate. secondly, you might argue that freedom of speech guarantees the freedom to depict such content in video games and specifically target youngsters as a market. however, freedom of speech only guarantees every individual's right to express his or her opinion. violent video games express no such opinion - the video games that we're talking about aren't media through which political messages are conveyed. they're merely there because they provide gratification and entertainment to the people who play the games, and because the video game industry is profitable for the manufacturers/makers. encroaching upon the "right" of video game makers to put violent content in their games and market it to kids is totally different from encroaching upon the first amendment. if it wasn't, then restricting pornographic material in school would be a violation of the first amendment too.

the president would never be allowed to touch the news, or the internet, because they both are forms of press (although the latter fits under "press" rather loosely) and are thus explicitly protected under the first amendment. i don't think Hillary is trying to achieve anything that extends beyond executive power. she is perfectly within her rights to try to restrict certain content in video games.

and, you say that smart parents shouldn't be forced to "censor their kids from reality" because of some law. so, how exactly would restricting video game content shield children from reality? this seems to be a concept many people seem to struggle with; video games are not everything. video games are not the only means through which people can experience life. by restricting video games, you would actually force children to experience more of reality rather than virtual reality, which is in most cases very unlike reality. in fact, the virtual reality presented inside some violent video games are as far as possible from reality - would you, on a typical day, go out and kill people by the masses?

again, i'm not a Hillary supporter, but condemning people to hell because they seek to place tighter restrictions on video games?
and no, there is no principle behind it. video games are video games, and freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 28 November 2005 - 07:15 AM

[Neraphym]

I consider videogames to be an art form in the very sense of the word. Art is an expression of the artist, and is therefore covered under freedom of speech. Not all videogames are mindless pieces of garbage. Some have just as much if not more of a higher level of sophistication than that which can be found in novels and cinema, both of which are also covered under the first amendmant.

In the beginning, man created the spoken language. They told tales orally around the campfire. All was good. Then man created the written word. Oh god, no! The written word is a curse on our society! And thus, many people shunned the very existance of the written word, but it still survived and caught on. Then, with the invention of the printing press, people everywhere could enjoy novels and great works of written art. Naturally, people like Hillary Clinton existed back then, and did their best to limit people from viewing these atrocities. Books were banned and burned. More recently, the ability of man to make movies arrived. These movies are nothing more than visual representations of the written stories, and should be considered to be the same thing, just with a different medium. And facist people like Hillary Clinton existed and tried to bring down the movies.

It is my opinion that videogames are nothing more than interactive movies, which are nothing more than visual representations of books. So in a way, to ban videogames is the same as banning books. Banning books, though still practiced, is generally frowned upon. I consider anyone who does so to be facist, and unworth of life, let alone a majority of an electoral vote.

Hillary could not possibly take out the videogame, news, and internet in 8 years, but she could start us down a path for others to follow and ban them. To take away videogames is the first step on the road to absolute government censorship. (That kinda makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, lol)

And as for reality, I was talking about the news, not videogames. Your point is very valid, though. There is so much more to life than can be experienced playing videogames, and people shouldn't miss out on that.

[Elvenblader]

I seriously doubt that Hilary will succeed in trying to ban video games, sure she is against it and a lot of other people support her in the case of trying to regulate video games, but you cant ban violent video games. That is infringing on the first amendment, sure the first amendment doesn't allow us to play video games, but violent video games and video games in general are an exercise of our first amendment right, and if someone like Hilary Clinton tried to ban video games she would get a serious backlash from gamers worldwide. It's almost like calling people who play video games stupid, a politician did that a while back and said that gamers in general are mindless masses that can be controlled and influenced through games, I don't know who said that but I remember somewhere a politician stating something like that. And what happened? The gaming community acted back and put posts on the message boards and serious statement calling people like gamers stupid. But getting back to what I was saying, gaming in general cannot be banned, this is like the democrats trying to ban and restrict guns. Many supporters of the NGA go back and forth with the democrats and it still isn't resolved. So this might become one of those issues that is in the spotlight for a very long time before it's put to rest. I am a serious supporter of games, but trying to say a violent video game is going to cause someone to go and commit mass murder is a ignorant and stereotypical. Might as well as just take away all our right that are guaranteed by the constituion and the bill of rights.

[Kaezion]

i see your point, alpha, and i have to admit it's a valid one. however, when we make the connection between artistic expression and video games, we must take into account the video game maker's intentions. if his intentions were to express himself through an art form, then sure - his video game could be considered art. however, i believe that this is simply not the case with most, if not all, violent video games. companies like Rockstar - their objective is not artistic expression. it's to make as much $ as possible, and they don't care how many children they negatively affect by making and selling such disturbing games. this is not art; this is an industry.

video games are not, in fact, interactive movies. the phrase "interactive movies" is an oxymoron - the whole point of movies is that the audience watches a plot unfold unscreen and possibly comprehends some kind of message or artistic expression from the author that is conveyed through the plot. movies being "interactive," then, defeats the point. no, video games are in a category of their own, and this is evidenced by the fact that people play video games because they like playing it, not watching it - video games revolve not around what the maker is trying to get across, but around what the gamer wants and does, and therefore there is generally no room for a message from the maker, making video games purely entertainment, mostly devoid of meaningful artistic expression. inversely, movies and books are all about what the author puts on the screen or on print, and the audience/reader inputs nothing on the actual content of the movie or book; thus it is purely the author's creativity/opinion that is shown in the movie or book (whether it is entertaining or not is up to the audience). this is why movies and books can be considered art forms, while video games generally do not fit under that category.

yet, i'm not saying that all games are simply objects designed to make money rather than convey a message. i'm sure there are a few out there that were made with the intention of expressing something. but that's what they are: few. the overwhelming majority of video games are simply produced for money, thus my reasoning that video games generally don't count as art.

and restricting the content and sales of violent video games doesn't count as "taking away" video games. there are plenty of other very enjoyable video games that do not involve shooting cops or whatever.

tell me, are you a proponent of gay marriage? even if you aren't, you would probably agree with me that the argument used by opponents of gay marriage - the "slippery slope" argument - is illogical. it goes as follows: if we legalize gay marriage, that will open the door for the legalization of sodomy, polygamy, marriage with animals, etc. this is essentially the same argument you are using; restricting some content on video games because it is potentially socially harmful doesn't lead to censorship on books and similar media. it is simply a crackdown on an industry because that industry might be harming society in pursuit of its own financial interests.

so again, i emphasize that Hillary is not violating the first amendment when she tries to crack down on video games, because video games generally cannot be considered as a medium for artistic expression or opinion.



and elvenblader, i recommend that you consider a career in literature. you seem to be a master of irony, considering that you are accusing others of ignorance. but wait - that would require you to be able to read, wouldn't it?
in making your accusation, you seem to have missed this short part of one of my posts that effectively addressed and nullified your argument before you even made it.

i'm not saying playing a game where you shoot people for no reason is going to make that gamer shoot someone in real life, but there is a certain desensitization involved when you engage in unprovoked and brutal violence in the virtual world.
again, yes, any idiot can tell apart from virtual and real. all that violence, however, is going to have an effect on the gamer's personality, especially if that gamer plays the game regularly. that personality isn't part of the gamer's voluntary conscience - the gamer can't leave part of his personality behind at home or in his little game; it carries over to the real world, on which his slightly more violent or aggressive personality might have a negative effect.

please refrain from posting in debate topics unless you have anything of intellect to contribute (i.e. not broken record posts in which you say basically the same thing that everyone else says, while not contributing at all to the strength of the argument itself) - which, as you've demonstrated, you don't.

P.S. i think you meant the NRA, not NGA.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 29 November 2005 - 05:07 AM

[Neraphym]

If there is a 'National Gun Act,' then he may have meant NGA. idk...

Anywho, I am disgusted by many of the games that are on the market, but I do not feel that all games should be considered under the standards of the bad ones, which the government would inevitably have to do. There are some great games out there that convey strong, important life messages (though some gamers probably end up missing out on them...). For example, I recently played a game called Tales of Symphonia. It was a rather violent videogame (rated teen, I believe), but it had a very powerful anti-racism message which came across very well. I am afraid that such games like these would be made into mature or adult, and many people that could benefit greatly from experiencing this game would then miss out.

Books and movies are also made to sell just as much as videogames are. Some books are made only to express an important belief, and some are made only to make money, yet all are covered under the first amendment. Movies are the same way, and so are/should be videogames. If you were to say that all videogames are not an expression of the programers and game designers, than you must also say that all books are not expressions of the author and all movies are not expressions of the director or the actors and actresses.

tell me, are you a proponent of gay marriage? even if you aren't, you would probably agree with me that the argument used by opponents of gay marriage - the "slippery slope" argument - is illogical. it goes as follows: if we legalize gay marriage, that will open the door for the legalization of sodomy, polygamy, marriage with animals, etc.

I have a very firm believe that if someone wants to do something, and it can cause no legitimate physical harm to you, then you shouldn't make laws against it. "Every time a gay couple marries, I lose 500 brain cells." If that were true, then I would be against gay marrige, but the fact remains that it doesn't... neither does incest, polygamy, and interspecies sex. Though I wouldn't participate in any of those, I still believe others should have the right to do so. And I believe in the slippery slope. Repealing laws is like playing Jenga. Take one too many out, and many more will come with it. Unlike others, I do not see this is a bad thing if it is done in moderation (which kinda ruins my Jenga analogy).

[Kaezion]

For example, I recently played a game called Tales of Symphonia. It was a rather violent videogame (rated teen, I believe), but it had a very powerful anti-racism message which came across very well. I am afraid that such games like these would be made into mature or adult, and many people that could benefit greatly from experiencing this game would then miss out.

however, the messages that these games convey can also be found in books and movies - in fact, these messages have been carried by books and such forms of art for a very long time, long before video games ever existed.

Books and movies are also made to sell just as much as videogames are. Some books are made only to express an important belief, and some are made only to make money, yet all are covered under the first amendment. Movies are the same way, and so are/should be videogames. If you were to say that all videogames are not an expression of the programers and game designers, than you must also say that all books are not expressions of the author and all movies are not expressions of the director or the actors and actresses.

you're forgetting a crucial difference between video games, and books & movies - in video games, the center of focus is on the gamer; in most cases, the gamer concentrates on what his own status is, what he must do to advance, and how to beat the game or whatever. although a message can be conveyed here, there really is no room for a clear and effective message, when usually the gamer's focus is on the actual gameplay. for example, with your Tales of Symphonia, i'm willing to bet that you're a rare case - many people would probably go through the game not paying much attention at all to the anti-racism message because they're caught up in their own characters or whatever. even if they somehow catch the message, most people wouldn't take the message seriously enough to have it make a difference in overall social quality.
and, if you're able to actually recognize and comprehend such a message, you're probably old enough and educated enough to have experienced this message before anyway.

with books or movies, the focus is on what the author puts onto the page or the screen. yes, these forms of media are just as highly motivated by money as the video game industry; however, the very nature of these media forces the audience to focus on what the author puts on the page or the screen - because that's what the audience is paying to do. this is what makes it possible and practical for an author to express a message or opinion through books or movies; books and movies were made to convey messages (books in particular), whereas video games started as, and remain, geared toward entertainment only.

i'm not going to argue that there's a lot of trash out there among books and movies that's just there to make money. but the fact is, the beneficial messages you find in video games can be found (with more diversity and frequency) in books and movies, and they do hell of a better job at conveying these messages than do video games.

maybe i should make a clarification. i don't consider movies to be as pristine a form of art as books (actually, books aren't so pristine themselves, especially as of present times). movies are increasingly being made solely for money, with little useful messages to be found in them. however, i'm arguing that the very nature of movies still facilitates the expression of messages, because (i think i'm repeating this for the 3rd time or so) the audience spectates, and thus is doing the exact action that is required to comprehend messages - watching. in video games, the gamer is usually too caught up with himself and what he does to actually be paying attention to messages. messages aren't integral to videogames; with your Tales of Symphonia, couldn't you actually take out the anti-racism message, and still have a perfectly fine video game in terms of gameplay?

if you don't believe me, then you could turn to history. mankind saw a significant improvement in education once the printing press was invented - when books were made affordable. did you see that kind of improvement with the advent of video games? hardly - you actually saw a decline in social health due to many youths wasting their lives playing video games 24/7. you might be able to say the same for movies and TV, but they brought a whole new dimension to message-conveying in order to compensate; information didn't travel as slowly anymore, as information could be transmitted instantaneously via electronics. plus, the graphic nature of movies and TV allowed for stronger expression.

this is why video games cannot be considered art or media; video games, when compared with the various forms of art and media currently existing, serve no useful function in expressing opinions or messages. their very nature (focus on what the gamer does, instead of a focus on what the maker's intended message is) makes it impossibly difficult for a maker to use it as a tool for effective communication of information or messages. video games have always been, and still are, intended for purely entertainment purposes, peppered with only faint traces of message expression. thus, it is unprotected by the first amendment.

video games are, as mentioned before, purely geared toward entertainment. while there's nothing wrong with entertainment, there is something wrong if that entertainment seems to have some kind of negative impact on society. and we know this is true, as video games occupy many hours of people's lives that could otherwise be used for something productive, with some violent video games even going beyond that and negatively impacting the personalities of the gamers themselves.

and, it's not like Hillary's trying to ban sales on video games. she's only trying to make already existing restrictions slightly tougher so that these restrictions do what they were created to do. it's not as if you can't ever buy Tales of Symphonia if Hillary gets what she wants; it's just that the game, along with its violent content, will be less accessible to those who shouldn't have been able to access them in the first place.

Hillary might be wrong in her campaign with video games, for all i know. however, i'm saying that she is completely within her rights to try to restrict violent content on video games, and that she is backed by a logical motive in terms of societal benefit. and, even if the statements above aren't true, Hillary is only working to tighten the restrictions that have existed since the past. we're not going to go down a slippery slope here.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 30 November 2005 - 02:19 AM

[Neraphym]

You make a VERY compelling arguement here. My final attempt to support my position that restricting videogames is unconstitutional is this:

Regardless of how strong the arguement you just made or my arguement is, it may not even be applicable. We are both trying to establish a motive that was not our own. All it would take is for a videogame developer to say "I did this to express something" or "I only did this for entertainment," and then one of our points is clearly incorrect. If a case like this ever makes it to the supreme court, it would come down the the 9 justices to determine whether or not videogames are expressions or not. The arguement can go either way, but I would definitely like to see it go in favour of the videogames.

Either way, Hillary Clinton's actions are immoral, and because of this, I find her a poor candidate for president.

[Kaezion]

we're trying to establish a motive that isn't our own? maybe. but more than that, we are trying to establish whether or not video games are constitutionally protected.

consider your example for a moment. the videogame developer will always say that he created the videogame for the sake of expression, whether it is true or not. why? because he has a lot to gain if the videogame is protected under the first amendment. will you let a murderer go just because he said that he killed in self-defense? probably not - it is up to our use of logic to figure out as best we can what really is going on, including the true motive, culpability, etc.

no, the veracity of our points do not depend upon the highly biased statement of someone who stands to profit greatly from the protection of videogames under the first amendment. our arguments still stand.

and most of the topics we debate about in this forum have the potential to make it to the Supreme Court. it will be up to them to make the ultimate decision - but that doesn't mean we can't debate about these topics to try and see which decision is the more reasonable one.

and might i remind you, a rating system on videogames already exists (the ESRB) - a system whose function is to limit the accessibility of inappropriate video games to those who are underage. apparently, the Supreme Court doesn't find this unconstitutional. thus, seeing as efforts to limit access to videogames already exist without violating the first amendment, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that videogames aren't protected under the first amendment?

how are Hillary's actions immoral "either way?" isn't that what we're debating about right now? you make it look as if the immorality of Hillary's actions is an absolute truth.

by labeling Hillary's actions as categorically immoral, you are taking a leap of faith that is unaccompanied by logic.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 01 December 2005 - 05:43 AM

[Neraphym]

I was merely too lazy to add the logic, and wanted to let you figure that out on your own. I still am...

And the ESRB, like the movie rating system, is only a guideline. I do not believe either has made it illegal to purchase any specific type of game (except porn, which is another story entirely), however, store ploicies are based upon these ratings and result is that many games and movies have been removed from the store shelves. I am not against this, as it gives parents a general guideline as to what games are pieces of violent garbage, and what games aren't.

Darn, school time... will post a bit later finishing this.

[Elvenblader]

Hey kaez thats funny, your right I should pay attention more, but I'm far from being a master of iron, I appreciate your sarcasm. Well shame on me for not paying attention this time.