Dear Jacky does it again...

[GawainBS]

I was surprised I didn't see this in the GB news yet. I maybe it is there, but I didn't noticed it because Bethesda is now feeding the European press with the info they gave the American press long ago and the News section is swarming with FO3 previews... Oh well.

GameRush Entertainment : Jack Thompson sends letter to Take-Two chairman's mom : News

For a "white knight", he plays it extremely dirty. Isn't this some form of violence/assault? I hope they relieve him of his function. This is so low...

[DesR85]

Disgusted, but not surprised. He always does that and you will notice this in letters he wrote to judges residing over cases about GTA or any of Rockstar's games and even to key figures like Patricia Vance of the ESRB. I read some of his letters before and was disgusted by them. In one news article posted at Game Politics, he even went as far as saying he is a 'good Christian' and it is his responsibility to ban videogames with mature content. What a hypocrite.

As a side joke, I wish that his actions will fall under 'Fifth Freedom' territory.

[rmemmett84]

This is a product of what I believe to be wrong with the world...no one wants to accept personal responsibity any more. Call me crazy but if you don't want you children playing this game then you simply don't allow them. While I really don't believe that video games create homicidal tendencies, if you happen to then YOU keep them away from your children. Why does the government have to hold everyone's hand? The goverment should protect us not coddle us. If people relied on themselves more and the government less think of what could be accomplished.

[Lady Dragonfly]

What you will see in your son’s game, if this iteration of GTA is anything like its predecessors, is incredible interactive violence aimed at police officers (whom you can shoot in the head and see the blood spray), innocent bystanders (whom you can run over with your car just for the heck of it), and of course the plentiful female prostitutes you can have sex with and then filet with a knife or stomp with your feet in order to get your money back.

Any kid can go right to little Strauss’ corporate web site and buy GTA IV with no age verification.

Mr. Thompson's rhetoric aside, are the above statements true? Just curious.

I am all for freedom of speech and freedom from the government.
I firmly believe that if people want to shoot virtual cops and abuse virtual whores, by all means, let them do it. It is just a game.

By the same token, it should be perfectly OK to shoot, say, virtual gays.
Or other virtual minorities. After all, it is just a game, right? I am sure a lot of people would enjoy shooting virtual liberal gays. I mean, of course you will have to be 17 to shoot virtual liberal gays (unless your parents think you are mature enough to start shooting virtual liberal gays earlier).

And no, I don't think this is a logical fallacy.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

<snip>

By the same token, it should be perfectly OK to shoot, say, virtual gays.
Or other virtual minorities. After all, it is just a game, right? I am sure a lot of people would enjoy shooting virtual liberal gays. I mean, of course you will have to be 17 to shoot virtual liberal gays (unless your parents think you are mature enough to start shooting virtual liberal gays earlier).

And no, I don't think this is a logical fallacy.

While personally I see no issue with it, but I do think it is a faulty comparison when policeman and prostitute is basically an occupation and being gay is not a profession but something more comparable with race (unless people are in the camp who think people chooses to be gay)..... however shooting liberals (liberal as in the US-type liberal) - I would think many games exits about that already, but perhaps not mainstream.

I would compare it more with shooting lawyers or politicians. Something I'm sure you can already find games about, if only small indy-flash games.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by Xandax

however shooting liberals (liberal as in the US-type liberal) - I would think many games exits about that already, but perhaps not mainstream.

Some sort of Team Fortress-esque game, Red Team/Blue Team (Rs/Ds, obviously, with Elephant/Donkey team icons), with Hillary Clinton as a special 'bonus' character who appears to be Blue but mostly takes shots at the Blues if she isn't immediately made Team Leader. Battle arenas could include downtown Baghdad, the Supreme Court, the White House, etc etc.
After Hail to the Chimp it's not too far of a stretch, and aside from generating the right character/map models it wouldn't be too hard to make.

[Claudius]

I think whether a game is legal or not when it is actually about satisfying a real life craving for violence then it can actually harm you in real life. In general (not an absolute) violence is a harmful state of mind and solution to life's problems. A game where you were getting off by killing certain social classes? I am not sure about that. It is basicly a method to stir up and intensify your anger emotions. Now if you could handle the anger and reject it or transform it that would be great but I think generally you would be enacting the anger albeit in a setting where only pixels are harmed.

Knives are legal but they can also harm you when you are using them for a foolish purpose. A game where you take agression out on social classes that you have developed hate for is a big negative in my book.

I guess as far as legalities I think there are certain pieces of law such as 'hate crimes' which may or may not apply to virtual realities.

[Moonbiter]

Why do we give this person any attention? That's what he does best....

[Crenshinibon]

This sounds like the corporate kindergarten.

"I'm telling on you!"

[rmemmett84]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

Mr. Thompson's rhetoric aside, are the above statements true? Just curious.

By the same token, it should be perfectly OK to shoot, say, virtual gays.
Or other virtual minorities. After all, it is just a game, right? I am sure a lot of people would enjoy shooting virtual liberal gays. I mean, of course you will have to be 17 to shoot virtual liberal gays (unless your parents think you are mature enough to start shooting virtual liberal gays earlier).

And no, I don't think this is a logical fallacy.

The first question shouldn't matter, just because the child can get the game doesn't mean he can play the game if his habits are being monitored by the parents.

Secondly while this may not be a logical fallacy it is certainly a stretch. I suppose if people want to play a game where they kill gays then why not?

As I stated previously I don't believe these type of games create homicidal tendencies but they may very well help bring existing ones to the surface. These however would most certainly surface eventually anyhow. If a person is unstable enough for a video game to drive them into a murdering frenzy then so will a multitude of other factors the government can't contol.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

Why do we give this person any attention? That's what he does best....

I was thinking the same... every time the man so much as farts we end up giving him consideration.
Honestly, the man is a nutbar.... don't give him the pedestal he so obviously craves.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

Why do we give this person any attention? That's what he does best....

Because that is what "we" do on a forum where we talk about/discuss things.

[DesR85]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

Honestly, the man is a nutbar.... don't give him the pedestal he so obviously craves.

As long as the media (especially the gaming media) keeps reporting on this idiot's actions, it isn't going to happen any time soon.

[GawainBS]

But behaviour is bordering on the psychopathic. Telling that woman that by the way she raised her son that she is responsible for the another mother's loss of a son, is a terrible burden of consious, even if he pulled it out of his ass. (Which he obviously did.)
I hope they sue him for this.

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by Xandax

Because that is what "we" do on a forum where we talk about/discuss things.

Agreed, but why don't we treat this guy like we treat the slurring drunk staggering up to us in the street: We look the other way and move on.