Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IHavePMS)
    I'm gonna sue your ass for that, scumface.
    Slander! Say goodbye to your career.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Slander! Say goodbye to your career.
    'Goodbye to your career.'


    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IHavePMS)
    'Goodbye to your career.'


    Oh. Now I get it. I pity the fool who falls for that one. *self pity*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Oh. Now I get it. I pity the fool who falls for that one. *self pity*
    I'm going to go to bed now, and try sleeping whilst contemplating over all the insults I can come up with for this.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It's funny how, although the logic of association can be applied in any way, only the manner which scares people is ever properly voiced.

    Ok, so there's violence in video games. And let's say this violence encourages the players to be violent in the video games in order to succeed. Then surely the immediate rational conclusion would be "violence in video games induces violence in video games". However, that doesn't really sound too dramatic, so it wouldn't be considered a sensible conclusion :rolleyes:.

    The details are always discarded when trying to connect a crime with something shown in media, especially games. I haven't read the story, nor heard of the game. I can assure you though that the killer didn't proceed to look for a restart button after completing the murder, nor did he take his console controller along for the perfect control, nor was he surprised when his victim didn't respawn, etc, etc etc. I assume the similarity and connection comes from how the victim was killed and the culprit's obsession with the game.

    All the incident is ever going to show, like all similar incidents before it is that it is verifiable that information in media can affect how a crime is commited, but cannot be shown to cause the crime.

    The game cannot be held responsible for blurring the boundary between reality and imaginings - that had most likely already occured.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
    It's funny how, although the logic of association can be applied in any way, only the manner which scares people is ever properly voiced.

    Ok, so there's violence in video games. And let's say this violence encourages the players to be violent in the video games in order to succeed. Then surely the immediate rational conclusion would be "violence in video games induces violence in video games". However, that doesn't really sound too dramatic, so it wouldn't be considered a sensible conclusion :rolleyes:.

    The details are always discarded when trying to connect a crime with something shown in media, especially games. I haven't read the story, nor heard of the game. I can assure you though that the killer didn't proceed to look for a restart button after completing the murder, nor did he take his console controller along for the perfect control, nor was he surprised when his victim didn't respawn, etc, etc etc. I assume the similarity and connection comes from how the victim was killed and the culprit's obsession with the game.

    All the incident is ever going to show, like all similar incidents before it is that it is verifiable that information in media can affect how a crime is commited, but cannot be shown to cause the crime.

    The game cannot be held responsible for blurring the boundary between reality and imaginings - that had most likely already occured.
    Excellently put!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Excellently put!
    definitely!
    the game is just an escape goat...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is just getting rediculus - its just using the game as a scapegoat. Someone who can be affected in that way by a game is going to end up being affecting in the same way but by something else at some point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    After hearing all the stories in the news, i did my part and logged straight onto the net and ordered myself a copy!
    looks a good laugh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IHavePMS)
    ...On the 'Murder by Playstation' issue surrounding the game Manhunt and Warren Leblanc killing that 14 year old kid after becoming obsessed with the game. Do you think the media...i.e. books, cds, magazines, games etc can have that great an effect? Do you feel the game should be banned here as it is in New Zealand? This reminds me of that rape case involving two boys and that M Manson cd...where do we need to draw the line?
    Movies get X-rated , why not the same for computer games? I honestly think it is quite rediculous to blaim the media for a murder. I mean its not like it would hold up in court, would it? People are responsible for their own actions and just like you cant blaim the alcohol if your drive drunk and kill someone you cannot blaim a movie if you slit someones throat. Youd have to be pretty unbalanced on beforehand if a pc-game is all it takes to turn you into a killer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Considering we know absolutely nothing about this boy (his upbrining, his friends, his family life, his medical records, etc) apart from that he was partial to a rather violent video game that he purchased illegally, I cant understand why so many people have come to the conclusion that it was the video games fault?!?

    Things that have caused more deaths than Manhunt (or videogames in general) and, using such logic, should thus be banned outright (some may overlap):
    -War
    -Starvation
    -George W Bush
    -Cars (or traffic in general)
    -Ciggerettes
    -Capitalism
    -Guns
    -Knives
    -Alcohol
    -Scientists (do we include animals in the death list?)
    -Fatty-food
    -Negligent doctors
    -Fire
    -Electricity
    -Water/Drowning
    -Zionism

    ...and many, many more...
    I agree with everything you say here EXCEPT for "capitalism". Capitalism is largely responsible with taking people out of poverty all over the world, it provides jobs so people can afford food. Since 1980 100 million Indian citizens have been lifted out of people, which coincides with the time they decided to adopt more global economic policies and less socialist, internal policies. Since that same time, the percentage of people in the world living in absolute poverty has fallen from 31% to 20% due to a growth in exports and jobs in developing nations and capitalism, which allows people to lift themselves out of poverty rather than foolish socialist ideas in the 1960's/1970's where the IMF/ world bank took money from the rich, gave it to the poor and were in so much debt in the 1980's/ early 1990's they were practically suffocating. Don't forget its the socialist CAP which keeps agriculture prices artifically high, which forces people to pay more for food (which hits the poor the hardest) and leads to overproduction and cheap produce exported to Africa, which keeps them in poverty, all thanks to socialism. So please don't blame capitalism for the worlds problems when its starting to repair all the damage that socialist policies have done to the world in the 20th century.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    I agree with everything you say here EXCEPT for "capitalism". Capitalism is largely responsible with taking people out of poverty all over the world, it provides jobs so people can afford food. Since 1980 100 million Indian citizens have been lifted out of people, which coincides with the time they decided to adopt more global economic policies and less socialist, internal policies. Since that same time, the percentage of people in the world living in absolute poverty has fallen from 31% to 20% due to a growth in exports and jobs in developing nations and capitalism, which allows people to lift themselves out of poverty rather than foolish socialist ideas in the 1960's/1970's where the IMF/ world bank took money from the rich, gave it to the poor and were in so much debt in the 1980's/ early 1990's they were practically suffocating. Don't forget its the socialist CAP which keeps agriculture prices artifically high, which forces people to pay more for food (which hits the poor the hardest) and leads to overproduction and cheap produce exported to Africa, which keeps them in poverty, all thanks to socialism. So please don't blame capitalism for the worlds problems when its starting to repair all the damage that socialist policies have done to the world in the 20th century.

    I will no doubt go over this point again tomorrow as not even a late night/early morning coffee can prepare me for tediously going over a topic that a) has been done an incredible amount of times on this board before (try searching), and b) has very little to do with the topic of this thread anyway.

    Just pointing out two glaring errors in your arguement. Firstly, this formulation of a Robin Hood role of the IMF/World Bank that you've created, whilst fascinating, is completely erroneous. The poor worlds international debt is the result of uneven trade. If a nations wishes to buy goods from abroad, such as medicines or computers or grain, and has no foreign exchange with which to buy them, then it must borrow that money. It thus incurs an international debt. It can discharge that debt only by earning foreign exchange, which it seeks to do by exporting goods of its own. If it persistently fails to earn as much from its exports as it spends on its imports, its debt will begin to accumulate. As this occurs, a nation must find more an more foreign money with which to pay the interest. This, unless it can boost the value of its exports, means that it must borrow still more, driving it further into debt. The further it falls into debt, and therefore the more it has to pay in interest, the less money it has to invest in building its economy and generating exports. It is easy to see, then, how the poorer nations become trapped in a viscious circle of debt. The IMF and World Bank are charged with the task of emancipating these countries from the debt they are due to pay the rich nations, but have failed in their duties horrendously. Infact, many countries have enforce the market-fundamentalist (God knows where you got the socialism from!) policies of these institutions have found themselves in an equally worse position as those countries condemned to be indebted due to corruption and mis-management. The debt caused by this interest payment driven form of global capitalism is evident in the fact that many of the poorest nations are spending more on debt repayment that primary education (the record being held by Sierra Leone, which spends 6.7 times more on servicing its debts that it spends on primary schooling).

    Secondly, I have no idea where you get the idea that the CAP is socialist. If anything it is protectionist capitalism at its worst (oh, capitalism and markets can be protectionist by the way). I disagree absolutely with the concept of heavily subsidised farming by the EU and North America and see no reason why a socialist should have to be seen to defend practices aimed at maintaining the Wests superiority and dominance in the global agriculutural markets. The devestation and wretched poverty caused by the dumping of our cheap agriculutural produce abroad does nothing to arouse the sense of solidarity in any socialist.

    So if we must re-play this debate, at least we can pre-empt the riddance of such follies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound01)
    Capitalism is largely responsible with taking people out of poverty all over the world, it provides jobs so people can afford food.
    You think capitalism end povety!!! Capitalism is the main course of povety - it is socialism and communism that end povety. I think this is the only time I have ever heard anyone cliam tht capitalism ends povety. Capitalism is basicaly "The survival of the fittest" and therefore if you aren't 'fit' enough you end up in povety.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    it is socialism and communism that end povety.
    Is there no poverty in China, North Korea or Cuba?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Is there no poverty in China, North Korea or Cuba?
    Yeh sure there is but theres a lot less than there was before the communists took over. Also look at Russia - they were all peasents before the revolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Yeh sure there is but theres a lot less than there was before the communists took over. Also look at Russia - they were all peasents before the revolution.
    Please name me one communist nation in existence today that has less poverty when compared to a capitalist nation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Please name me one communist nation in existence today that has less poverty when compared to a capitalist nation.
    Cuba compared to Angola.

    Facts about Cuba:
    Population 11,184,023
    Literacy 95.7%
    Life Expectancy 74.02 male, 78.94 female
    GDP (per capita) $1,700

    Facts about Angola:
    Population 10,366,031
    Literacy: 42%
    Life Expectancy: Male = 37.36 Female = 39.87
    GDP (per capita): $1,000

    However this is all very off-topic.

    (Original post by Chubb)
    Cuba compared to Angola.

    Facts about Cuba:
    Population 11,184,023
    Literacy 95.7%
    Life Expectancy 74.02 male, 78.94 female
    GDP (per capita) $1,700

    Facts about Angola:
    Population 10,366,031
    Literacy: 42%
    Life Expectancy: Male = 37.36 Female = 39.87
    GDP (per capita): $1,000
    Never mess with a man who knows where to find his GDP figures
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roseonthegrave)
    Never mess with a man who knows where to find his GDP figures
    Indeed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Cuba compared to Angola.

    Facts about Cuba:
    Population 11,184,023
    Literacy 95.7%
    Life Expectancy 74.02 male, 78.94 female
    GDP (per capita) $1,700

    Facts about Angola:
    Population 10,366,031
    Literacy: 42%
    Life Expectancy: Male = 37.36 Female = 39.87
    GDP (per capita): $1,000

    However this is all very off-topic.
    This is a very petty arguement as both Soviet Stalinism and global capitalism are systems void of benefits for those at the bottom of the pile.
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.