|
Post by skyfire on Apr 6, 2009 20:43:47 GMT -5
Jack Thompson was disbarred. It must be persecution! Thompson himself already tried that angle. When the disbarment proceedings began, he tried to get them halted on the basis that as his activism is motivated by his Christian faith any attempt to silence him is tantamount to religious persecution.
|
|
|
Post by fundierefugee on Apr 6, 2009 20:53:18 GMT -5
And of course there are the plenty of "new age" and pseudo-scientific (or even scientific, albeit incomplete) schools of thought that reiterate the same principle. New age and pseudo-scientific schools of thought tend to be full of crap. I don't know that his success would damage me or not. You said that if he succeeds you won't be able to buy GTA anymore. That means that he is damaging you, by removing a right that you implied you exercised before. And since there is no evidence that banning violent video games reduces violence, you can't say he's helping you either. Do you have a reason for defending him, other than his perceived good intentions? Not trying to defend him, just trying to not dismiss him out of hand. As I said, I don't consider my being unable to buy GTA "damaging" if it should ever happen. It's just a video game. There are far greater things in life to be concerned over.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 6, 2009 20:57:51 GMT -5
Damaging does not imply great damage. Just that you are even marginally worse off. And I rephrase my question: Do you have any reason for wishing him good luck, other than his perceived good intentions?
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 6, 2009 20:57:53 GMT -5
The problem is they wont stop at GTA. If we give an inch, they won't be happy until were living in the Christian version of Saudi Arabia. I mean I've heard that I'm a pedophile because of the games I play. Only pedophiles play games online that were originally intended for young players. It can't be an adult who likes a simple game that lets the brain basically shut off, that can't be the answer. hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Only-Pedophiles-Play-Animal-Crossing-Say-Police
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 6, 2009 20:58:38 GMT -5
Except his argument was based on flawed reasoning, inane arguments, and a debate style that can be summed up with the image of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Every single reason he brought up in regards to banning violent video games was totally damaged by his own antics. And then there was his attempts to link any type of violent act that would happen on a school campus to video games. Jack Thompson killed his own credibility.
Ironbite-though he did provide a ton of amusement when he repeatably tried to derail his own disbarment trial.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 6, 2009 21:08:28 GMT -5
So you'll admire me for my attempts to ban guns, tobacco, and magnifying glasses should I choose to do so? I might. It would depend on what kind of argument you make. I may still disagree but I might admire you for it nonetheless. But Thompson is a petty thug who hides behind threatsand specious reasoning. What would I have to do to make your bad list, praytell, when a man who violates ethics and law is not?
|
|
|
Post by fundierefugee on Apr 6, 2009 21:34:08 GMT -5
The problem is they wont stop at GTA. If we give an inch, they won't be happy until were living in the Christian version of Saudi Arabia. I mean I've heard that I'm a pedophile because of the games I play. Only pedophiles play games online that were originally intended for young players. It can't be an adult who likes a simple game that lets the brain basically shut off, that can't be the answer. hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Only-Pedophiles-Play-Animal-Crossing-Say-PoliceI think that's a rather extreme view. I wouldn't put much stock into anyone who says that only pedophiles play video games. And I certainly don't believe for a second that banning GTA and even several other violent video games would lead to a "Christian version of Saudi Arabia". That's an overreaction, IMHO. I'm with you, I enjoy playing video games once in a while, but I have wondered about the effect they have not only on me, but more so on other people who might be more vulnerable than I am to desensitization. If I played as much as some people play, and kids in particular, who are impressionable, I wonder what effect it would have on me.
|
|
|
Post by fundierefugee on Apr 6, 2009 21:38:04 GMT -5
Except his argument was based on flawed reasoning, inane arguments, and a debate style that can be summed up with the image of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Every single reason he brought up in regards to banning violent video games was totally damaged by his own antics. And then there was his attempts to link any type of violent act that would happen on a school campus to video games. Jack Thompson killed his own credibility. Ironbite-though he did provide a ton of amusement when he repeatably tried to derail his own disbarment trial. I don't know enough about his argument to know whether it was based on flawed reasoning or not; it very well may be. I think the idea behind it isn't an irrational one, though. I have to wonder whether or not his argument is actually flawed argument as much as just one you vehemently disagree with. If it were flawed argument, I'd be more convinced had you shown me how and where it's flawed rather than launch into several ad hom attacks on the man. Honestly, it doesn't tell me much to hear that he is using "inane arguments, and a debate style that can be summed up with the image of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum." This just tells me that you are name-calling and that you hate the guy. So, you very well may be right that his arguments are based on flawed logic, but I wouldn't know that from your post.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 6, 2009 22:33:00 GMT -5
The problem is they wont stop at GTA. If we give an inch, they won't be happy until were living in the Christian version of Saudi Arabia. I mean I've heard that I'm a pedophile because of the games I play. Only pedophiles play games online that were originally intended for young players. It can't be an adult who likes a simple game that lets the brain basically shut off, that can't be the answer. hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Only-Pedophiles-Play-Animal-Crossing-Say-PoliceWoaaaaaah...Holy fuck! That has to be one of the most inane leaps I've ever heard. I mean, aside form Nintendo marketing games like AC to be "family friendly," rather than "just for kids," these games are hugely popular with adult women, period. Quite a few of the "children's games" are, especially in this generation because Nintendo's been trying to court the female market. So in order to enforce one stereotype, that only creepy adults like kiddie stuff, we have to slap down another one, that pedophiles are almost exclusively male. Innnnteresting, no? Makes me wonder if people ever think before they come up with this stuff at all. I think that's a rather extreme view. I wouldn't put much stock into anyone who says that only pedophiles play video games. And I certainly don't believe for a second that banning GTA and even several other violent video games would lead to a "Christian version of Saudi Arabia". That's an overreaction, IMHO. Which would be great if only GTA and a few other games were under attack. Other games are also under attack, using the same "insidious" claims you yourself used when talking about progression. After all, those of use who grew up on Super Mario and Tetris grew up to play Doom and GTA, so that must be the standard. Well, it's fine to wonder, but that's hardly grounds to support people wh omake the claims with neither basis nor actual research. Please don't argue things you don't know. Admiration of the crusade of a man on an issue you do not understand does not make sense. I'm rather curious. Do you think a man who got himself disbarred is likely to be the author of a reasonable argument? For that matter, Thompson himself has a habit of ad hom attacks. Had you even read the links already posted in this thread alone, you would see demonstrations of harassing techniques, bombastic and unrealistic statements, etc. Ibby's comment looks bad, until you include it in the context of the thread. Since this has all been demonstrated, there's no reason to believe he just hates the guy or just vehemently disagrees with it. At this point, the only one to blame for your lack of information is yourself. You might not know it from his post, but you should know it from before we even got to his post.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 6, 2009 23:03:37 GMT -5
I think that's a rather extreme view. I wouldn't put much stock into anyone who says that only pedophiles play video games. And I certainly don't believe for a second that banning GTA and even several other violent video games would lead to a "Christian version of Saudi Arabia". That's an overreaction, IMHO. I'm with you, I enjoy playing video games once in a while, but I have wondered about the effect they have not only on me, but more so on other people who might be more vulnerable than I am to desensitization. If I played as much as some people play, and kids in particular, who are impressionable, I wonder what effect it would have on me. Well then I would say your either extremely young and innocent, or you agree with them. Where does it stop? He's argued about SIMS because you could see naked people in it (Barbie doll naked). I can't remember which game he complained about because some person created him as a character. Racing games cause people to speed, Big Game Hunter promotes violence and poaching. It goes on forever. There's thread upon thread out there about how dancing is evil, music is evil, TV is evil. Well if you don't like it, don't watch. I don't play GTA, but I'm not going to stop anyone else from doing it. Then they'll ban UFC, which I also hate, and it will go on from there. Just because I don't like something does not mean I have the right to tell others how to live or how to enjoy their off time. There's people out there that hate my hobbies, I train dogs to be vicious killers (or that's what I've been told). No, I'm going to stand by my view that if we let these people have their way, we will eventually end up in a Christian Theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 6, 2009 23:30:02 GMT -5
Except his argument was based on flawed reasoning, inane arguments, and a debate style that can be summed up with the image of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Every single reason he brought up in regards to banning violent video games was totally damaged by his own antics. And then there was his attempts to link any type of violent act that would happen on a school campus to video games. Jack Thompson killed his own credibility. Ironbite-though he did provide a ton of amusement when he repeatably tried to derail his own disbarment trial. I don't know enough about his argument to know whether it was based on flawed reasoning or not; it very well may be. I think the idea behind it isn't an irrational one, though. I have to wonder whether or not his argument is actually flawed argument as much as just one you vehemently disagree with. If it were flawed argument, I'd be more convinced had you shown me how and where it's flawed rather than launch into several ad hom attacks on the man. Honestly, it doesn't tell me much to hear that he is using "inane arguments, and a debate style that can be summed up with the image of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum." This just tells me that you are name-calling and that you hate the guy. So, you very well may be right that his arguments are based on flawed logic, but I wouldn't know that from your post. He got himself disbarred. Keep that fact on the forefront of your thought process k? Here's how he behaved during this disbarment trial. -he sent homoerotic pictures to members of the court as "evidence". -repeatably tried to have the judge on his disbarment case thrown out after it was revealed that she was leaning away from him -called the proceedings a kangaroo court and a star chamber when there was no, I repeat, no evidence of such a thing happening. -sent pictures of bombing aftermath that caused some lawmakers to throw up due to how explicit they where. Called them evidence. This and other things don't make me hate the man. I'm calling him what he is. There is no hatred in there. I moan and groan at his antics but I don't hate him. It's like how I deal with Skyfire. I call him on his crap because I can. Just like everyone calling Thompson on his shit. The fact remains that Thompson didn't have one single solitary arguement in banning violent video games outside of "Think of the children" and that was it. Ironbite-I'll accept the "think of the children" arguement when the people who use it have something that can back it up.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 7, 2009 0:06:27 GMT -5
Don't forget the "murder simulator" argument.
|
|
|
Post by fundierefugee on Apr 7, 2009 0:12:24 GMT -5
I don't know enough about his argument to know whether it was based on flawed reasoning or not; it very well may be. I think the idea behind it isn't an irrational one, though. I have to wonder whether or not his argument is actually flawed argument as much as just one you vehemently disagree with. If it were flawed argument, I'd be more convinced had you shown me how and where it's flawed rather than launch into several ad hom attacks on the man. Honestly, it doesn't tell me much to hear that he is using "inane arguments, and a debate style that can be summed up with the image of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum." This just tells me that you are name-calling and that you hate the guy. So, you very well may be right that his arguments are based on flawed logic, but I wouldn't know that from your post. He got himself disbarred. Keep that fact on the forefront of your thought process k? Here's how he behaved during this disbarment trial. -he sent homoerotic pictures to members of the court as "evidence". -repeatably tried to have the judge on his disbarment case thrown out after it was revealed that she was leaning away from him -called the proceedings a kangaroo court and a star chamber when there was no, I repeat, no evidence of such a thing happening. -sent pictures of bombing aftermath that caused some lawmakers to throw up due to how explicit they where. Called them evidence. This and other things don't make me hate the man. I'm calling him what he is. There is no hatred in there. I moan and groan at his antics but I don't hate him. It's like how I deal with Skyfire. I call him on his crap because I can. Just like everyone calling Thompson on his shit. The fact remains that Thompson didn't have one single solitary arguement in banning violent video games outside of "Think of the children" and that was it. Ironbite-I'll accept the "think of the children" arguement when the people who use it have something that can back it up. You make a great case for your opinion that he was a jerk during his disbarment trial. Of course, it still doesn't have anything to do with the logic he used in his activism against violent video games, but it does amplify your ad hom attack.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 7, 2009 0:19:01 GMT -5
Oh lordy another one.
Ironbite-telling people their shit does stink is not an ad hom attack.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 7, 2009 0:29:55 GMT -5
Well I guess we're all supposed to bow down to our Moral betters.
All those leather clad bimbos who tell us not to eat meat, yeah, they're so much more moral than us.
The child molesting moral majority. Well calling them child molesters is an ad hom attack.
The Fundie telling us how to fill our spare time, well they obviously know whats best.
How about we let Tom Cruise tell us how to live, he's just as sane as the rest of them and flopping around on the ground pretending to be a sperm at least burns calories.
|
|