Brit cops barking over dogs

Remove all ads!

I find the outcry from groups amusing when something mildly offensive comes onto the market, its no suprise to see complaints about reservoir dogs.

 

New Zeland and Australia are too hard on games - Narc was competely banned! I was surprised at the amount of games censored in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Controversial_computer_and_video_games

[ August 18, 2006, 16:42: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

what i love though is that there is graphic violence on TV all the time.

 

*grumbles about his country* Fine! I'll just get it when I go to Thailand.

Stuck up bastards *rude gesture @ government*

 

Or alternatively, maybe we have got it right, given the much lower level of gun related violence in New Zealand compared to some other places. It's really hard work as a parent to keep your kids from being overexposed to all the violence and sex that is all over every form of electronic media these days.

 

No offence here, HB, but blaming media for voilence is just another way of distancing oneself from personal responsibility. I play voilent games, but I'm not a violent person. I've been exposed to alot of sexual media, yet I don't have any STDs or bastard children.

Some of the most violent people in the world are those who are NOT exposed to voilence in the media. Parents should teach children that explosions and blowing stuff up is fun in video games but there is no place for it in the real world. If that can't be educated then there is bound to be more than just that as the problem with the individual and I doubt the media is to blame.

 

I find it hard to muster up much enthusiasm to rant against this - I've done it too many times...

 

I can see the problems the officers are having.

How can officers uberhaupt be be proud of their work and do it with pleasure when the general population has absolutely no problem with the idea of taking pleasure in killing these officers through these virtual representations.
Dear officers, here's a piece of advice , go on strike, for a whole year.

I totally agree with this.

@Abomination

Teaching children that fantasizing the idea of setting people on fire/running them down with [cars/swords/guns]/shooting them in the face and indiscriminately blowing stuff up is fun, that is just pushing them to the line.
Actually, how thin is that line between entertaining the idea and actually doing it? Very, very thin.
The only thing that then would stop them is the consequence raining down on them, but what if they get the idea that they can get away with it?
What then stops them?

Now, for the other side of the discussion, how much glorification is their anyway? GTA had the possibility of killing policemen, but I never felt that it was glorified. I have never played the game, or heard of it before entering this thread, so I can't tell if there is any glorification or encouragement and so whether this game is basically asocial.

@Montresor

The general population has never been(and never will be) able to decide for themselves what is morally acceptable. The fact that there are religions, cults and other groups bound by a certain moral should tell you that.
But these politicians do not decide what is acceptable, in democracies, they represent a group of the population. They do not voice their own moral, but the moral of the herd that elected them.

 

There is no thin line between fun in video games and the real world. There is (or at least should be) a firm barrier between the two that a parent should have educated into their child. If it isn't there then the parent has failed to educate their child properly.

And there is NO glorification in any of the GTA games for killing innocent bystanders or policemen. The player is actually punished for doing so by a realistic response - being hunted down by the police first on an arrest-on-sight then a shoot-first-questions-later method.

 

In the first few GTAs though, killing pedestrians earned bonus points. I think Liberty City is the last that had it. And, of course, who can forget the casino-like voice that said "Kiiiiiiiiiiiil Frenzy!"

I am not helping my position, I suppose. Well, I've played any kind of game from H-games to high-violence shooters to simcity. None have been more addictive and damaging to my common sense than RPGs, actually, and I've played more than a few. I dare claim I'm still reasonably sane, not an alcoholic or any other substance abuser, and I haven't seriously hit a human being in years. The last time was when we fought with my sister, for which I'm not particularly proud - but people with younger siblings may understand me.
Anyway: I've played and watched nearly anything, and I can say I am much more "compassionate" than half the politicians railing against violence in games; I can't speak about policemen but I hazard a guess they aren't such angels either. When someone goes on a rampage, it's not because they've played CS a while back. At least, it's far from the biggest reason.

 

Finland does not censor any k-18 games, as far as I know, and there have been no problems because of it. In fact, I have played violent games ever since the first Mortal Kombat was published and I still don't have any kind of "uncontrollable" urges. If you exclude painting your opponent blue during a paintball-match. It can be very violent, you know, with living targets and all.

IMO, the number of banned entertainment is a clear indication of how democratic the society is. The more there are "no-no" games and flicks, dictated from up-to-down, the clearer it is that free economics and personal rights are not exactly understood. NZ and Australia are a sad example of this.

On the other hand, banning stuff only encourages to download it from the net. Or: regulations encourage piracy and black-market activity. In the worst case scenarios, people will start buying stuff from organized crime and this, naturally, will fund the potential terrorist-attacks. So tell the outraged "anti-game" activists to STFU and stick the regulations up to their arse, or they might end up funding terrorists!

 

No, but it makes a damn sight easier to exercise your personal responsibility when there isn't raunchy dancing and people shooting each other al over the place on TV and games. Just as the people who like this stuff want it to be on for their own selfish reasons, I want it to be minimised purely for my own selfish reasons of not having to police my kid's TV watching continuously. Not saying I'm right - just expressing my frustrated opinion of what I have to deal with at this particular point in my life.

 

That argument doesn't hold up, how can you be so sure that these people aren't already following politicians, preachers, or other self-proclaimed "experts"?

 

The thing is - I don't like this stuff - I have no interest at all in this game. Yet, I want it to be available. Why? Because I want the *choice* as to whether I can play it or not - to be able to choose *for myself* rather than have someone who claims to represent me make my choice for me. Stealing my freedom to decide whether or not this game interests me - that's what annoys me - not that the game isn't available. If it was never made, I wouldn't give a damn.