The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sorry, my mistake “Band these evil games” – but hey, give or take a few consonants and it’s the same thing.
It’s summertime and once again we have the inexplicable death of a child to fall upon and feed, to gorge ourselves on the nasty details and revel in the vileness that is the death of a kid.
Be it The Soham Murders, Gloucester Road…it’s that time of year when news is slow and the days are hot. So yet again we enter the realm of violence towards children.
And as an added bonus, this year we get to pick over the bones and beat away the flies with a rolled up copy of The Daily Mail screaming “BAN THESE EVIL GAMES”.
Yet again that hoary excuse is trotted out, dusted off and held up to a slavering public standing in the village square with flaming torches and “GET THEM!” shining in their eyes.
Are we really that stupid? Do we, in the 21st century, still point a finger at something else and scream about it being evil?
Evil is an overused word these days, it’s lost the sting. Saddam Hussein was an “Evil Madman” (nice way to dehumanise and allow readers to distance themselves before piling on the purgatives ).
So we are halfway through the 1st decade of the 21st century and we’re shouting about banning evil videogames.
Does anybody else look around and feel like Heston waking and seeing the chimp on the pony?
Or is it just another cynical ploy to sell papers to those gullible idiots that don’t know any better?
Could it be that a videogame influenced a child that appears to have a drug habit and needed the money for dealers to murder another child?
It’s as likely as Jamie Bulger being killed because 2 kids watched Child’s Play 3 once – oh you forgot about that one did you? No worries, these tired old cliché-arguments are squeezed out with such dreary regularity that it’s easy to forget and get them confused.
But the media love to blame entertainment. Be it music (Judas Priest subliminally telling their fans to kill themselves), movies (Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a dangerous vile film. Oh, until a few years ago when suddenly it was ok and available again) or games (GTA3, Manhunter blah blah blah influencing moron kids to commit murder).
They’ve always pointed the finger and shrieked about how so-and-so corrupts and influences “the children” to bad places. Elvis Presley was filmed from the waist-up only after his appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in the 1950s promoted *claps hands to cheeks* lewd behaviour and possibly promiscuity.
DH Lawrence’s “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was the subject of an obscenity trial and wasn’t available in the full and complete edition until 1960, and there was mass book burnings outside the High Court.
This intelligent, tolerant and mature nation of ours gathered to burn books. Because it was a threat and would promote sex.
Well I hate to tell you, but people have been having sex ever since we developed gills and hauled ourselves from the swamps (sorry fundamentalists, besides, The Bible tells us of Cain killing Abel, plagues and firstborns being slaughtered by Herod. So let’s band The Bible).
Just as kids have been killing kids since waaaaay before video games. What influenced Mary Bell? (go look her up yourself, I’m not doing your research for you). What influenced Ian Brady & Myra Hyndley?
What influenced Ian Huntley? Or The Wests? Or Jack The Ripper? Or…you see my point here.
It’s lazy blameshift to say “Oh well this game made little Bazza kill”, it’s far simpler to demonise an outside influence than it is to look at how that child has been raised, or the situation around it. It’s ignoring the problem and burning an effigy to appease the bloodthirsty yokels who rampage through the town looking for the witch.
Ask anybody, anybody that plays games, if they’ve killed somebody because of it.
I’ll bet money on the answer. You know it and I know it.
Games do not influence you to kill somebody. Movies do not influence you to kill somebody. Books do not influence you to have an affair with a swarthy gardener in incur the wrath of your peers causing no end of emotional upset.
They may trigger something in an already unstable person, but then anything could.
Note the “already unstable” part of that sentence before you set fire to your console and thank the gods that you are now protected forever from all ills in the world.
But with somebody already wobbling on the ledge, it could be a videogame or it could be too many sugars in their morning coffee that sets them off.
It could be anything at all.
But that aspect is roundly ignored by the media and ignorant parents desperately clutching their offspring to them and screaming “Why? Tell us why? What can we do?”.
What you can do is take some goddam responsibility for raising your children correctly and stop trying to blame something that hundreds of thousands of other kids the world over own, play and enjoy with no murderous outcome.
And somebody needs to say that by the way, not every parent is responsible and adult enough to raise a child properly. And don’t give me the crap about single parents families, broken homes etc because I come from a single parent family and, should I follow the view of The Daily Mail and other associated news, I should be knee-deep in the flyblown carcasses of children, hunched over a copy of Natural Born Killers and ejaculating wildly as I inject heroin into my helmet.
But I’m not.
So what does that tell you about the typical, lazy excuses offered? Does it mean I, and countless others in the same situation regarding social history and parental situation, am an anomaly – or does it suggest that easy scapegoating serves no purpose other than inflame a situation and help to distract from the more important issues of children roaming free at 10pm because their parents are disinterested and just want peace and quiet?
But the rational view is never taken, our viewpoint is never heard. Why?
Because that doesn’t sell newspapers. And that’s what this is about at the end of the day. Making money, profiting from the death of this child by sticking “BAN THESE EVIL GAMES” as the headline instead of “Child murdered”.
And The Daily Mail is the worst of the worst.
I don’t count The Sun, The Mirror etc because it’s generally accepted that these rags are little more than wrapping for tomorrow’s dinner.
But The Daily Mail positions itself as the bastion of moral decency and people actually read it thinking it’s anything other than a right-wing daily edition of Mein Kampf.
Every single day there are stories about immigrants committing crimes, with no mention ever of people that have fled their countries because of genuine fear of death.
Every single day there are stories about teenagers drinking and having sex.
Every single day there is a snidely written article about homosexuality.
Which is why, whenever I reference that vile toiletpaper, I use the phrase “darkies and bummers”, because that’s the level of that newspaper.
It’s a hateful, ill-informed odious dishcloth that masquerades as a newspaper – typically read by narrowminded white middle-class people that think we’re on the verge of being overrun by darkies and bummers, where every single person that uses the internet is trying to seduce their child, where anybody under the age of 45 is binge drinking and having unprotected sex (possibly with darkies or bummers), where video games instantly turn your nice polite perfect little angel into a slavering hellbeast intent on slaughtering his classmates with gleeful abandon.
In Tuesday’s edition, there was an article about “Reasons we don’t need Sven Goran Erickson” with 20 reasons offered. And number 2 was, and this is word for word,
“We thought we’d stopped the Vikings coming over here stealing our money and sleeping with our women nearly 900 years ago”
????????????????????????????????????
Not only woefully ignorant of history (they came, they saw, they kicked our ass and then left because they were bored) but stunningly racist and BNP in attitude.
But let’s humour their Victorian jackbooted writers for a moment shall we?
Let’s say, without a shadow of a doubt, that entertainment can influence your behaviour and shape your morals ok?
The safest way to protect your child is to ban television. That’s far more dangerous than Manhunter or watching Child’s Play 3 or reading DH Lawrence (the first two come with age restrictions anyway, so what the hell is a minor doing with them?).
I can turn on way before the watershed and watch Trisha. This programme shows me people sleeping with each left, right and centre. It shows me parents screaming at their children on television, haranguing them and almost coming to blows. It shows me drug addicts, former prostitutes and all manner of “criminals”. This is at 9:30 am, with no age restriction in place to prevent me from purchasing.
Or I can watch a soap opera anytime in between 7pm and 9pm. These shows, watched by 16 million people nightly in the case of Eastenders and “Corrie”, have stories that involve murder, incest, robbery, rape, adultery, theft, blackmail and all these other things that I’m supposed to be protected against.
Again, beamed right into my house and I can watch with my family.
This is entertainment folks, and it’s just as relevant in the “Games made me do it!” argument if you’re stupid enough to be influenced by it.
I can watch 3-part dramas about the Vice Squad, I can watch imported American shows that show, in detail, serial killings, rapes, murders etc etc.
Or I can watch Sex in The City, which tells me that single women are having sex anywhere and everywhere because they don’t feel complete with a man.
Or I can watch Hollywood movies where the steroid-inflated hero massacres entire nations of brown skinned people and has a witty quip to hand.
Or I can watch the news and see footage of real-life death courtesy of bombs, car crashes, planes crashing, boats sinking etc etc etc.
So by all means ban these evil games. But also band these evil television (influencing millions more people nightly than a shoddy beat’em up game) and ban these evil movies and songs and books.
Let’s all exist in cotton wool with no external stimulus shall we?
Ooops, we had that already in the 1900+ years before television and the 1980 years before video games didn’t we?
People were murdering people back then, which doesn’t make sense because I’m being told by my newspaper that video games, teenagers having sex, darkies and bummers are responsible for all the problems in today’s society.
Nevermind a Prime Minister that is only too willing to, by proxy, kill 11,000 Iraqi civilians based on non-existent weapons that were never a threat anyway.
Nevermind a culture that rewards the lusty pursuit of trivia and the mundane by allocating 15 mins of fame for living in a television programme for 3 months beamed 24/7 into your home.
Nevermind a falling literacy rate that is on a level with Peru.
Nevermind a generation of children raised on burgers and parented by screamingly loud, colourful shows trying to flog their merchandise to you.
No, don’t look at the wider picture where you might have to stop for a moment and realise that raising a child might actually require more than you birthing it and screaming for it to “Fakkin’ shat up” when it cries in a shop because it’s hungry or tired and you have to purchase that new England top in time for the next cup league.
Don’t look at any of that.
It was the videogame/film/book/song that made me do it.
Now you have your answer, all is well and you can go back to sleep safe and secure in the knowledge that your newspaper is looking after you, but you’d better lock your door and put massive gates around your frontgarden in case any darkies or bummers try to break in and play those evil games.
It’s summertime and once again we have the inexplicable death of a child to fall upon and feed, to gorge ourselves on the nasty details and revel in the vileness that is the death of a kid.
Be it The Soham Murders, Gloucester Road…it’s that time of year when news is slow and the days are hot. So yet again we enter the realm of violence towards children.
And as an added bonus, this year we get to pick over the bones and beat away the flies with a rolled up copy of The Daily Mail screaming “BAN THESE EVIL GAMES”.
Yet again that hoary excuse is trotted out, dusted off and held up to a slavering public standing in the village square with flaming torches and “GET THEM!” shining in their eyes.
Are we really that stupid? Do we, in the 21st century, still point a finger at something else and scream about it being evil?
Evil is an overused word these days, it’s lost the sting. Saddam Hussein was an “Evil Madman” (nice way to dehumanise and allow readers to distance themselves before piling on the purgatives ).
So we are halfway through the 1st decade of the 21st century and we’re shouting about banning evil videogames.
Does anybody else look around and feel like Heston waking and seeing the chimp on the pony?
Or is it just another cynical ploy to sell papers to those gullible idiots that don’t know any better?
Could it be that a videogame influenced a child that appears to have a drug habit and needed the money for dealers to murder another child?
It’s as likely as Jamie Bulger being killed because 2 kids watched Child’s Play 3 once – oh you forgot about that one did you? No worries, these tired old cliché-arguments are squeezed out with such dreary regularity that it’s easy to forget and get them confused.
But the media love to blame entertainment. Be it music (Judas Priest subliminally telling their fans to kill themselves), movies (Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a dangerous vile film. Oh, until a few years ago when suddenly it was ok and available again) or games (GTA3, Manhunter blah blah blah influencing moron kids to commit murder).
They’ve always pointed the finger and shrieked about how so-and-so corrupts and influences “the children” to bad places. Elvis Presley was filmed from the waist-up only after his appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in the 1950s promoted *claps hands to cheeks* lewd behaviour and possibly promiscuity.
DH Lawrence’s “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was the subject of an obscenity trial and wasn’t available in the full and complete edition until 1960, and there was mass book burnings outside the High Court.
This intelligent, tolerant and mature nation of ours gathered to burn books. Because it was a threat and would promote sex.
Well I hate to tell you, but people have been having sex ever since we developed gills and hauled ourselves from the swamps (sorry fundamentalists, besides, The Bible tells us of Cain killing Abel, plagues and firstborns being slaughtered by Herod. So let’s band The Bible).
Just as kids have been killing kids since waaaaay before video games. What influenced Mary Bell? (go look her up yourself, I’m not doing your research for you). What influenced Ian Brady & Myra Hyndley?
What influenced Ian Huntley? Or The Wests? Or Jack The Ripper? Or…you see my point here.
It’s lazy blameshift to say “Oh well this game made little Bazza kill”, it’s far simpler to demonise an outside influence than it is to look at how that child has been raised, or the situation around it. It’s ignoring the problem and burning an effigy to appease the bloodthirsty yokels who rampage through the town looking for the witch.
Ask anybody, anybody that plays games, if they’ve killed somebody because of it.
I’ll bet money on the answer. You know it and I know it.
Games do not influence you to kill somebody. Movies do not influence you to kill somebody. Books do not influence you to have an affair with a swarthy gardener in incur the wrath of your peers causing no end of emotional upset.
They may trigger something in an already unstable person, but then anything could.
Note the “already unstable” part of that sentence before you set fire to your console and thank the gods that you are now protected forever from all ills in the world.
But with somebody already wobbling on the ledge, it could be a videogame or it could be too many sugars in their morning coffee that sets them off.
It could be anything at all.
But that aspect is roundly ignored by the media and ignorant parents desperately clutching their offspring to them and screaming “Why? Tell us why? What can we do?”.
What you can do is take some goddam responsibility for raising your children correctly and stop trying to blame something that hundreds of thousands of other kids the world over own, play and enjoy with no murderous outcome.
And somebody needs to say that by the way, not every parent is responsible and adult enough to raise a child properly. And don’t give me the crap about single parents families, broken homes etc because I come from a single parent family and, should I follow the view of The Daily Mail and other associated news, I should be knee-deep in the flyblown carcasses of children, hunched over a copy of Natural Born Killers and ejaculating wildly as I inject heroin into my helmet.
But I’m not.
So what does that tell you about the typical, lazy excuses offered? Does it mean I, and countless others in the same situation regarding social history and parental situation, am an anomaly – or does it suggest that easy scapegoating serves no purpose other than inflame a situation and help to distract from the more important issues of children roaming free at 10pm because their parents are disinterested and just want peace and quiet?
But the rational view is never taken, our viewpoint is never heard. Why?
Because that doesn’t sell newspapers. And that’s what this is about at the end of the day. Making money, profiting from the death of this child by sticking “BAN THESE EVIL GAMES” as the headline instead of “Child murdered”.
And The Daily Mail is the worst of the worst.
I don’t count The Sun, The Mirror etc because it’s generally accepted that these rags are little more than wrapping for tomorrow’s dinner.
But The Daily Mail positions itself as the bastion of moral decency and people actually read it thinking it’s anything other than a right-wing daily edition of Mein Kampf.
Every single day there are stories about immigrants committing crimes, with no mention ever of people that have fled their countries because of genuine fear of death.
Every single day there are stories about teenagers drinking and having sex.
Every single day there is a snidely written article about homosexuality.
Which is why, whenever I reference that vile toiletpaper, I use the phrase “darkies and bummers”, because that’s the level of that newspaper.
It’s a hateful, ill-informed odious dishcloth that masquerades as a newspaper – typically read by narrowminded white middle-class people that think we’re on the verge of being overrun by darkies and bummers, where every single person that uses the internet is trying to seduce their child, where anybody under the age of 45 is binge drinking and having unprotected sex (possibly with darkies or bummers), where video games instantly turn your nice polite perfect little angel into a slavering hellbeast intent on slaughtering his classmates with gleeful abandon.
In Tuesday’s edition, there was an article about “Reasons we don’t need Sven Goran Erickson” with 20 reasons offered. And number 2 was, and this is word for word,
“We thought we’d stopped the Vikings coming over here stealing our money and sleeping with our women nearly 900 years ago”
????????????????????????????????????
Not only woefully ignorant of history (they came, they saw, they kicked our ass and then left because they were bored) but stunningly racist and BNP in attitude.
But let’s humour their Victorian jackbooted writers for a moment shall we?
Let’s say, without a shadow of a doubt, that entertainment can influence your behaviour and shape your morals ok?
The safest way to protect your child is to ban television. That’s far more dangerous than Manhunter or watching Child’s Play 3 or reading DH Lawrence (the first two come with age restrictions anyway, so what the hell is a minor doing with them?).
I can turn on way before the watershed and watch Trisha. This programme shows me people sleeping with each left, right and centre. It shows me parents screaming at their children on television, haranguing them and almost coming to blows. It shows me drug addicts, former prostitutes and all manner of “criminals”. This is at 9:30 am, with no age restriction in place to prevent me from purchasing.
Or I can watch a soap opera anytime in between 7pm and 9pm. These shows, watched by 16 million people nightly in the case of Eastenders and “Corrie”, have stories that involve murder, incest, robbery, rape, adultery, theft, blackmail and all these other things that I’m supposed to be protected against.
Again, beamed right into my house and I can watch with my family.
This is entertainment folks, and it’s just as relevant in the “Games made me do it!” argument if you’re stupid enough to be influenced by it.
I can watch 3-part dramas about the Vice Squad, I can watch imported American shows that show, in detail, serial killings, rapes, murders etc etc.
Or I can watch Sex in The City, which tells me that single women are having sex anywhere and everywhere because they don’t feel complete with a man.
Or I can watch Hollywood movies where the steroid-inflated hero massacres entire nations of brown skinned people and has a witty quip to hand.
Or I can watch the news and see footage of real-life death courtesy of bombs, car crashes, planes crashing, boats sinking etc etc etc.
So by all means ban these evil games. But also band these evil television (influencing millions more people nightly than a shoddy beat’em up game) and ban these evil movies and songs and books.
Let’s all exist in cotton wool with no external stimulus shall we?
Ooops, we had that already in the 1900+ years before television and the 1980 years before video games didn’t we?
People were murdering people back then, which doesn’t make sense because I’m being told by my newspaper that video games, teenagers having sex, darkies and bummers are responsible for all the problems in today’s society.
Nevermind a Prime Minister that is only too willing to, by proxy, kill 11,000 Iraqi civilians based on non-existent weapons that were never a threat anyway.
Nevermind a culture that rewards the lusty pursuit of trivia and the mundane by allocating 15 mins of fame for living in a television programme for 3 months beamed 24/7 into your home.
Nevermind a falling literacy rate that is on a level with Peru.
Nevermind a generation of children raised on burgers and parented by screamingly loud, colourful shows trying to flog their merchandise to you.
No, don’t look at the wider picture where you might have to stop for a moment and realise that raising a child might actually require more than you birthing it and screaming for it to “Fakkin’ shat up” when it cries in a shop because it’s hungry or tired and you have to purchase that new England top in time for the next cup league.
Don’t look at any of that.
It was the videogame/film/book/song that made me do it.
Now you have your answer, all is well and you can go back to sleep safe and secure in the knowledge that your newspaper is looking after you, but you’d better lock your door and put massive gates around your frontgarden in case any darkies or bummers try to break in and play those evil games.
Page:
I take your points - our views are pretty similar in several respects, just on some they differ - mainly being my belief that even if somebody is evil and has done bad things, that does not mean they will neccessarily do the same again.
In respect to your views on scapegoats and avoiding issues - I don't believe that this is always the case. I mean, there is undoubtedly a huge amount of scapegoating and crap like that in big cases exposed by the media, and yes, sometimes punishments are seemingly a little lenient. However, I read something very interesting recently - a coloumnist was commending the Sun on apologising for being a bit partisan or some other such part of its oh so loveable character - but the writer had one problem with it. It said something like 'The parents of James Bulger have every right to be involved in the cases of their sons killers' - It wasn't worded as such, but the point the Sun made was that because their son was killed, they should have a direct part to play in their sons killers punishments. The writer was horrified, and I agree - how is justice (in a modern sense, not the old/ancient!) supposed to exist if the victims mete it out? I realise that what happened was abhorrent and that they suffered horrendous pain as a family, and that the killers evidently did an evil and terrible thing, which is morally unforgivable, but does that make them more likely to make a good judgement? No.
I realise that isn't one of your points, just I felt it was somewhat similar to your points of punishment etc, if not the same as your arugments about lenient penalties etc - which also, I believe, are somewhat inflated. The system appears to be orientated around helping the people, rather than ignoring them. Perhaps this doesn't always work. But I feel it's better than letting the slavering masses (and I hope you aren't included) dish out their own Tony Martin style justice, or, the other way, just ignoring the problems and locking them up.
I saw that vandals program too (nicely placed 'Britain under siege' and evidence of lenient punishments) - it nearly had me going for the hunting rifle , it was that well done. Just an hour of endless pointless vandalism. Now, in retrospect to these people, I pity them more than hate them. They seem to exist in such vacums of ignorant stupidity - their idiocy is actually quite distressing, rather than hate inducing.
In respect to your views on scapegoats and avoiding issues - I don't believe that this is always the case. I mean, there is undoubtedly a huge amount of scapegoating and crap like that in big cases exposed by the media, and yes, sometimes punishments are seemingly a little lenient. However, I read something very interesting recently - a coloumnist was commending the Sun on apologising for being a bit partisan or some other such part of its oh so loveable character - but the writer had one problem with it. It said something like 'The parents of James Bulger have every right to be involved in the cases of their sons killers' - It wasn't worded as such, but the point the Sun made was that because their son was killed, they should have a direct part to play in their sons killers punishments. The writer was horrified, and I agree - how is justice (in a modern sense, not the old/ancient!) supposed to exist if the victims mete it out? I realise that what happened was abhorrent and that they suffered horrendous pain as a family, and that the killers evidently did an evil and terrible thing, which is morally unforgivable, but does that make them more likely to make a good judgement? No.
I realise that isn't one of your points, just I felt it was somewhat similar to your points of punishment etc, if not the same as your arugments about lenient penalties etc - which also, I believe, are somewhat inflated. The system appears to be orientated around helping the people, rather than ignoring them. Perhaps this doesn't always work. But I feel it's better than letting the slavering masses (and I hope you aren't included) dish out their own Tony Martin style justice, or, the other way, just ignoring the problems and locking them up.
I saw that vandals program too (nicely placed 'Britain under siege' and evidence of lenient punishments) - it nearly had me going for the hunting rifle , it was that well done. Just an hour of endless pointless vandalism. Now, in retrospect to these people, I pity them more than hate them. They seem to exist in such vacums of ignorant stupidity - their idiocy is actually quite distressing, rather than hate inducing.
Well, you make a good point Cyclone. I think I was a tad biased by the television programme I watched last night - 'Vandals' on BBC1. Kids setting peoples cars on fire, burning down £15 million school buildings, injuring people for the rest of their lives, and getting nothing but a slap on the wrist.
Things always seem better in retrospect, and I could harp on about how things were better when I was a kid, but they weren't. And in actual fact I probably played a part in vandalism and petty crimes of this nature, more times than I would care to remember. But I never remember, ever, wanting to stab someone in the chest, simply because I saw it happen in a computer game. There are lines to be drawn between children/people who are just a nuisance to the public, and those who are genuinely dangerous. A man was killed driving his car under a motorway bridge I read in the paper not so long ago, by children throwing breeze blocks off it. This isn't 'boys being boys', this is pre-meditated attempted murder, or at the very least manslaughter. If it was an adult committing this act, he/she would be sent down immediately, but when children are involved, we question whether they really are at fault, or whether those around them failed them in some way.
I'm sorry, but once you reach the age of about 8, maybe younger, you are aware what is right and what is wrong. This using of the youth card just doesn't wash, and the age for prosecution badly needs to be lowered. Those Thompson and Venables(sp) kids are out of juvenile detention now, with fresh new identities, no doubt dating some poor persons daughters. That poor person is completely oblivious to the danger. Why? Because they were children when they murdered, therefore they deserve a second chance. what? something is very wrong here. I'd love to know just what grounds they were being let off on. Emotional problems? Not doing well at school? Being bullied? Watching Chucky 2 or whatever it was? hey, I can think of a million wafer thin reasons like that myself, but somehow I doubt that would stop someone signing my life away in some sewer somewhere.
Justice just doesn't seem to be constant at all, as long as you have a scapegoat reason that enough people will believe, you can do what the hell you want. Just look at OJ simpson - he was 'framed'. Poor fella.
Things always seem better in retrospect, and I could harp on about how things were better when I was a kid, but they weren't. And in actual fact I probably played a part in vandalism and petty crimes of this nature, more times than I would care to remember. But I never remember, ever, wanting to stab someone in the chest, simply because I saw it happen in a computer game. There are lines to be drawn between children/people who are just a nuisance to the public, and those who are genuinely dangerous. A man was killed driving his car under a motorway bridge I read in the paper not so long ago, by children throwing breeze blocks off it. This isn't 'boys being boys', this is pre-meditated attempted murder, or at the very least manslaughter. If it was an adult committing this act, he/she would be sent down immediately, but when children are involved, we question whether they really are at fault, or whether those around them failed them in some way.
I'm sorry, but once you reach the age of about 8, maybe younger, you are aware what is right and what is wrong. This using of the youth card just doesn't wash, and the age for prosecution badly needs to be lowered. Those Thompson and Venables(sp) kids are out of juvenile detention now, with fresh new identities, no doubt dating some poor persons daughters. That poor person is completely oblivious to the danger. Why? Because they were children when they murdered, therefore they deserve a second chance. what? something is very wrong here. I'd love to know just what grounds they were being let off on. Emotional problems? Not doing well at school? Being bullied? Watching Chucky 2 or whatever it was? hey, I can think of a million wafer thin reasons like that myself, but somehow I doubt that would stop someone signing my life away in some sewer somewhere.
Justice just doesn't seem to be constant at all, as long as you have a scapegoat reason that enough people will believe, you can do what the hell you want. Just look at OJ simpson - he was 'framed'. Poor fella.
~stands up and applauds cyclone~
Borat, I agree with you on the game bit at the end (stupidity not to really), but I don't with the moral bits. I'm 'too scared' ('You're scared to death to say a word in case you offend someone with our seemingly ever tightening moral code hanging over your head. Free speech my ass'.) to say something? Excuse me, but I am not in fear of being un-PC. The backlash against all the PC stuff that's been going on is partially good to me, but only up to a point. I mean, I'm not saying these people deserve understanding simply because they're different, I'm saying it because it's a damn sight more humane thing to do than just ignore a problem, or just kill anything you don't like.
You go on to Tony Martin, which is a different case, and one I'm still not totally sure where I stand on! However, you talk about people just accepting that some people are bad. Which I perfectly agree with! However, your statement that Martin 'gunned them down', which in turn stopped them from being criminals for the rest of their lives is my point - that's blatantly not understanding, or even attempting to do so. Even a bad person can change.
This goes back to the usual 'bend-over-backwards liberal wimpy' crap that people blurt. Does that mean even a modicum of compassion is somehow wimpy? I know which I'd rather have, and I stick to it and fight to defend it.
You go on to Tony Martin, which is a different case, and one I'm still not totally sure where I stand on! However, you talk about people just accepting that some people are bad. Which I perfectly agree with! However, your statement that Martin 'gunned them down', which in turn stopped them from being criminals for the rest of their lives is my point - that's blatantly not understanding, or even attempting to do so. Even a bad person can change.
This goes back to the usual 'bend-over-backwards liberal wimpy' crap that people blurt. Does that mean even a modicum of compassion is somehow wimpy? I know which I'd rather have, and I stick to it and fight to defend it.
Light wrote:
> I haven't read down the whole thread here, but did you know that the
> police have officially rejected any link between the game and the
> murder?
Yep, I think mattribute posted the news report on it a few posts down
> I haven't read down the whole thread here, but did you know that the
> police have officially rejected any link between the game and the
> murder?
Yep, I think mattribute posted the news report on it a few posts down
I haven't read down the whole thread here, but did you know that the police have officially rejected any link between the game and the murder?
interestingly, HMV are now enjoying an increase in sales of Manhunt. Could this be the perfect marketing event for this game?
hehe.. nice :)
I have it on good authority that GTA was responsible for the crusades.
I think we're too quick to try and 'understand' these people, try to get to know the real person, try to get inside their brains. We're a society of hippies, there seems to be no such thing as being too politically correct.
You're scared to death to say a word in case you offend someone with our seemingly ever tightening moral code hanging over your head. Free speech my ass.
Tony Martin guns down two gypsy kids who were robbing his house and terrorised him on a weekly if not daily basis. But oh, they're kids, they're so innocent. How dare he take their lives, they had everything to live for, their entire lives ahead of them. A whole life of stealing, bullying and eventually murdering perhaps, yes. I'm sure the world won't miss the antics of young jimmy thieving-get or his brother. But oh, it's societies fault - they were shunned by the rest of society, forced to live in poverty. Many, many people live in poverty throughout the world, but I can assure you they are not all thieving vandals. But oh, their parents were probably the same, and their habits were passed on to the children. Many, many people have truly evil parents, but turn out to be upstanding members of society. But oh, they watched films that glorified crime. Just shut up and blame those who are responsible - the children themselves. I don't know what is more disturbing, the ridiculous excuses people/the media/solicitors come up with, or the fact that a great many of them are considered viable.
Is it really that hard for people to believe that if someone is a bad apple, it is up to them, not those around them. Nature and Nurture will play a part, of that there is no doubt, but the final choice, the choice to go and rob some old lady, or murder your schoolfriend with a knife, in broad daylight, rests with the individual. He/she is responsible for that decision. But with our corrupted perception of justice, anyone and anything can be a scapegoat for these crimes.
So anyway, ban these games, lets all play nothing but mario and other none-threatening game types, and see if violence is lowered in schools. It won't be long before someone asks if whether mario killing turtles by jumping on them is morally wrong.
You're scared to death to say a word in case you offend someone with our seemingly ever tightening moral code hanging over your head. Free speech my ass.
Tony Martin guns down two gypsy kids who were robbing his house and terrorised him on a weekly if not daily basis. But oh, they're kids, they're so innocent. How dare he take their lives, they had everything to live for, their entire lives ahead of them. A whole life of stealing, bullying and eventually murdering perhaps, yes. I'm sure the world won't miss the antics of young jimmy thieving-get or his brother. But oh, it's societies fault - they were shunned by the rest of society, forced to live in poverty. Many, many people live in poverty throughout the world, but I can assure you they are not all thieving vandals. But oh, their parents were probably the same, and their habits were passed on to the children. Many, many people have truly evil parents, but turn out to be upstanding members of society. But oh, they watched films that glorified crime. Just shut up and blame those who are responsible - the children themselves. I don't know what is more disturbing, the ridiculous excuses people/the media/solicitors come up with, or the fact that a great many of them are considered viable.
Is it really that hard for people to believe that if someone is a bad apple, it is up to them, not those around them. Nature and Nurture will play a part, of that there is no doubt, but the final choice, the choice to go and rob some old lady, or murder your schoolfriend with a knife, in broad daylight, rests with the individual. He/she is responsible for that decision. But with our corrupted perception of justice, anyone and anything can be a scapegoat for these crimes.
So anyway, ban these games, lets all play nothing but mario and other none-threatening game types, and see if violence is lowered in schools. It won't be long before someone asks if whether mario killing turtles by jumping on them is morally wrong.
Page: