Well I was under the impression he was going against "violent" video games, not so much that he went after Super Mario and Tetris.
We're talking about the progression to a "Christian version" of Saudi Arabia, and Jack Thompson is n't the only person to have opposed video games.
Citation, plz.
Thompsonmade these claims about several shootings, too, from VTech to Columbine. Even if this is the case, that he "trained on video games," his batting average on this claim is not very good.
In short, I could call every member of Congress a pedophile, and maybe find one or two. When you look at the overall record, not just the hits, it doesn't look that impressive, does it?
Beside the point. You're still praising a guy, though you're professing ignorance to his actual cause and tactics.
Examples, plz.
And even still, you're argument "but other people are ignorant?" Really?
The accountant metaphor kind of falls apart, as being a good accountant doesn't directly impact ethics at all.
But I'd point out he generally loses these cases when they come to court.
Poor reasoning. I mean, really poor reasoning.
Bill O'Reilly has a huge listener base, despite making a living on ad hominem attacks and poor logic. It might not play out in court, but he's an activist who uses sensationalism to draw support to his cause.
Hell, he was disbarred and still is out there getting attention. What does that tell you?
What I'm saying is that most of us are capable of interpreting a post as part of the thread in which it was created. Ibby doesn't really need to provide a compelling argument, as what he offered was commentary based on what has already been presented.
Blindly? No no, dear. In fact, I just pointed out that there were links previously in this very thread. Rather, you're providing counter arguments and even admiration blindly.
So Ibby's not the brightest bulb in the box. Doesn't particularly matter; the homework has already been done in this thread. It's not unreasonable to assume you've at least bothered to take the time to follow the rest of the thread.
Now, Ironmouth may not have been doing that. I'm not going to speak for him. But then, if you had done it, you'd already know what he was talking about.
Your analogy works great, if someone had already shown the manual for the car in question and everyone chose to ignore it.
Of course, that in and of itself was an ad hominem attack. Practice what you preach, at the very least.
Lets take a look at the list of things these people want to ban.
We've covered video games
- GTA
- Animal Crossing
- Casino Royal game
Online gambling
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Immoral Websites (definition was not included)
Ford (although Ford backed down)
McDonalds
Junk Food
Gay people using public washrooms (guess they'll have to wear pink triangles)
Books
Unisex washrooms
Gay adoption
Stem cell research
Unmarried couple adoption
HIV+ travelers
Transgendered reassignment surgery
Walt Disney
Affirmative Action
Planned Parenthood
Birth Control
TV shows considered immoral
And that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I did some research, I'd be able to fill a page with it.
They will ban Gender Reassignment Surgery over my dead body.
Which, I believe, is probably okay with them, but still.
![:-X](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/lipssealed.png)
Both ad homs, I'll point out... And by the way, I'm neither young and innocent nor do I necessarily agree with them.
This, especially:
Is not an ad hominem.
Even if they lie?
Have you ever read Jack Thompson's description of Bully? Have you played the game? The two do not match up. Have you read his claims of pornography in GTAIV? Granted, if I hear Roman say "big American titties" one more time, I might break the disc, but....
That seems to be what's to stop Thompson, too.
Thompson has taken an unreasonable stance on the issue, even if you believe the specific issue to be reasonable.
By way of analogy, Thompson isn't the 9-11 comission, he's the Loose Change "Documentary" group.
Of course, he didn't just go after Barbie Doll Nude. He went after the makers of the Sims for content added by the community, which included adding genitals to make things explicit. There is no discussion, simply because he is accusing the makers of doing something they didn't do to promote something they weren't promoting.
This is the equivalent of suing JK Rowling because someone wrote Potter/Snape slashfic.
Do you not understand the faulty logic there?
Also: HE, Ibby?
I am saying the word a lot, because it's being used a lot by the likes of you.
That's more an ad hominem than many of the ad hominems you've claimed.
But banning lawnmowers of itself is rather unreasonable, even if it's only certain kinds.
Since you were arguing reason to curb such things, clearly her criticism and statement is valid.
Ad Hom! Ad Hom!
I'm sorry, how often have they tried to get rid of video games, even before Doom?
Now, how many times have they tried to ban all guns?
Do you see the difference, here? One has actually happened on a national level. One is a fantasy. It's no longer knee-jerking when it's already happened. AC is employing hindsight here.
An ad-hom and a gay slur all in one.
So the Bush Administration had no control?
Bad joke? I hope so.
Compare Japanese crime rates to American crime rates. I will provide some sources if you really need.
If violent games lead to violent behaviour, then the more violent culture that exists in Japan should lead to much higher violent behaviour, and yet it's the other way around. Our culture has much higher crime rates.
Japan has a ton of sexual and violent content, but they do not have the crime rate to match ours, or especially to beat it.
That sounds like you're arguing a technical victory, though the realistic outcome is still one which doesn't bear you out.
Yup. Definitely a poor attempt at humour, instead of addressing the topic.
Mmmmmm....Pre-emptive invocation.
You didn't respond to the leaders that are taking extreme positions. What about the law that states a pharmacist can refuse to give a woman birth control even if she has a prescription?
In Mass, a "Christian" hospital doesn't have to dispense the morning after pill. Romney allowed a "religious belief" clause, which means if a woman comes to you having been raped and beaten, you can say you don't have to give her the morning after pill.
Yup. No worries about religious laws or anything.
By the way, I still love the notion that the beltway sniper learned through video games. I mean, having a military professional who was a radical Muslim training him was probably only incidental....
Violent video games rarely get sniping right, and rarely get guns right beyond the basics. That's because they're not--as Thompson claims--murder simulators. I also hear your wounds don't close if you hide behind a desk for a few seconds, you don't get a radar for avoiding the cops, and you can't just shoot a police chopper with an RPG, hide out for two minutes, and walk away with no repercussions.
I've handled firearms a lot. I don't own guns, and I don't plan to, but I'm more than just a little familiar with them, because I live in Rural Vermont, where we're still dealing with bears walking up into the middle of town and taking over.
Dealing with rifles, I have to wonder who would even believe that they are viable as training for sniping, or are murder simulators. For that matter, assuming that they did. How does a kid who "trains" on GTA become an even remotely effective sniper?