Anonymous comments allowed.
#43 - HARTATTACK (01/26/2013) [-]
Violent video games don't create psychos that kill people.
Mentally ill people who don't get treatment and are trained to wield such weapons however, it doesn't take a video game to make them snap
also whatever happened to responsible parents IF violent video games drove a person to do such things. You're the ****** parent who's been buying your kid COD every year since his elementary school graduation
#39 - mysticninja (01/26/2013) [-]
Stop stealing the sniper rifle! **** this, brb buying rpg to **** up a homeless shelter
#38 - xtnega (01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#36 - ecov (01/26/2013) [-]
This image has expired
That cunt ass ****** just teabagged me....

I better shoot up a ******* school
#162 to #156 - ecov (01/26/2013) [-]
This image has expired
brb you ******* faggot
User avatar #364 to #162 - safo (01/26/2013) [-]
that pic is from Hellsing isnt it?
#427 to #364 - flopshel (01/26/2013) [-]
#34 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
I'm so sorry about this, I promise not all Californians are cunts. Except for those inland inbreds. Just joking. (Slightly) (coast fo lyfe)
User avatar #140 to #34 - kreekydoorS [OP](01/26/2013) [-]
my point wasn't all californians are dicks. my point was Senator Lee is wrong.....and a dick.
#31 - robhdf (01/26/2013) [-]
#381 to #31 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
He never actually said that......
#129 to #31 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
Uncensorship is like shoving the steak down the babies throat.
User avatar #289 to #129 - anthonyh (01/26/2013) [-]
Not really, because no one is forcing kids to play games that are rated for ages older than them. Uncensorship is more like leaving the steak on the table and expecting the baby not to try to eat it, as the gaming industry expects parents to decide if their child is mature enough to play it.
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
He has a point, it's like someone on drugs saying drugs don't hurt anyone.
I think the only way to determine it would be for third parties to conduct research.
#107 to #15 - comehonorfacetwice (01/26/2013) [-]
Funnyjunk logic: I don't like what I'm hearing, therefore it's false. You, my good sir, are correct.
User avatar #41 to #15 - thewickedgoose (01/26/2013) [-]
while you do have a somewhat valid point, you are against FJs opinion, there for you are wrong and everybody hates you.
#37 to #15 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
Masterful trolling
User avatar #21 to #15 - TheFreak (01/25/2013) [-]
Think of it this way. An overprotective mom wants to ban horror films from a local tv station because she believes fake gore will psychologically scar her children. She takes the case to court before a judge (a neutral third party) but refuses to let in a horror film enthusiast to speak in defense of the films because she deems him "biased" despite the fact that he is living, speaking proof that horror films do not inevitably traumatize the viewers. Same deal.
User avatar #22 to #21 - Vandeekree ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Who can he speak for? Others? Has he done and research? Any statistics gathering or test cases? He seems terribly under qualified. At best it proves that he doesn't think there should be a ban and that he, one person, is not effected by it. So why should he be allowed to speak on it?
User avatar #23 to #22 - TheFreak (01/25/2013) [-]
Why should the mom be allowed to speak against it? She has not looked into the genre or its effects on children either, she has simply watched a few scenes and decided that it was bad and should be banned. He is as qualified to speak on the effects of the genre as she is and perhaps more so because his hobby leads him to have more information on the subject.
User avatar #24 to #23 - Vandeekree ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Because the safety and well being of her child takes precedence over the avalibility of the movie enthusiast's hobby. She has a concern for her child's mental health and thus has every right to speak. It falls to the enthusiast to bring something forward that is more substantial "Well I think we shouldn't ban this"
#46 to #24 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
okay ur no allowed to drive cuz i dont approve of ur driving, u cant hav a steak knife cuz my kid might get hurt. stfu its their parents fault never the games. if the parent cant eve be like he isnt mature enough for that game nope well that family deserves for its kid to do something stupid
#62 to #46 - javalavalay **User deleted account** (01/26/2013) [-]
***** , don't jump in an argument with your illiterate ways, You're not needed what so ever.
User avatar #26 to #24 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
Unless there is hard evidence to prove that something - whether it be a film or a game or anything at all - is an active threat to society, it is completely unreasonable to expect it to be banned on the testimony of one person or group alone and even more unreasonable to ban those who take the opposite view from entering the debate.
User avatar #27 to #26 - Vandeekree ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
I believe his point was that, sense gamers are only speaking against this because they want video games to be kept free, not because they are thinking about what is best for society, then that selfish motive makes them unfit to speak about whether games cause violence, they have nothing to base it on besides their opinions.
While the people speaking against the games think the games are causing harm and you simply can't blaim someone for speaking against something they think is causing harm to others.
User avatar #28 to #27 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I don't blame people for speaking out against something they sincerely believe is causing harm. That is not the issue. This issue is this: Group A believes Object Z is dangerous and wants it banned. They will therefore collect evidence to prove that point. Group B believes Object Z is not dangerous and do not want it banned, and will therefore wish to provide contradictory evidence. As both groups have a personal interest in whether or not Object Z is banned, it is unreasonable to accept evidence from one while refusing the other. Your statement about "wanting best for society" does not come into play. If the videogame enthusiasts sincerely believe the accusations being lobbied against something they hold dear are unjust, then they have every right to defend it.
User avatar #29 to #28 - Vandeekree ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
See, that's the problem right there, when you talk about it you assume video games are the victims of this and that the people who prosecute are just uptight and looking for something to blame. You and i have bias, and thus have nothing valid to say on the issue.
#57 to #29 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
i personally take my anger out in my games so if my violent games were to be taken away i guess i would just have to get my anger out through realistic violence
User avatar #32 to #29 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I am assuming no one is a victim. I am simply stating that both parties obviously have a bias and one can not discredit the views of the other simply because their motives seem less noble.
#16 to #15 - anon (01/25/2013) [-]
Except drugs are addictive by nature. They affect someone's psychology so that they would say whatever they need to in an attempt to 'get their fix' or rationalize it in their own head. A better point of reference would be car owners. Car owners can have perfectly legitimate claims and point for a debate on 'vehicular regulation'.

Video games are a past-time; a hobby, not a drug that can be abused.
#20 to #16 - anon (01/25/2013) [-]
of course they can be addictive u dip **** , theres mental and physical addictions... how else would ppl get addicted to alcohol or gaming...
#18 to #16 - comehonorfacetwice (01/25/2013) [-]
Actually anon, video games are also addictive, I will look for the study
#19 to #18 - spiderfan (01/25/2013) [-]
Video games are not truly addictive. Drugs affect the mind to force it to crave more. Video games don't do that. To say video games are addictive is like saying baseball is addictive. It's a fun past-time, and that is pretty much it.
#105 to #19 - comehonorfacetwice (01/26/2013) [-]
Also, saying that video game addiction is not real is the exact same as saying gambling addiction is not real. Shall I start looking for references on that? Because I'm nearly positive the APA recognizes gambling addiction AND video game addiction as legitimate forms of addiction.
User avatar #468 to #105 - spiderfan (01/26/2013) [-]
Last time I was on Wikipedia, I was too busy laughing at the Ewoks storming Normandy.
#471 to #468 - comehonorfacetwice (01/27/2013) [-]
Shall I follow the link and then follow the references at the bottom that they cite and link them, or should I take this as a sign of you being finished with intelligent discussion?
User avatar #472 to #471 - spiderfan (01/27/2013) [-]
Wikipedia is great when it is accurate. I said that because the last few times I was there, almost nothing was right. Even a large portion of their sources were, in fact, wrong. It comes down to the "don't believe everything you read on the internet." lesson that we all... sorry, most of us learned early on.
#473 to #472 - comehonorfacetwice (01/27/2013) [-]
I learned that. However, the study I read wasn't online. I cannot find a link to it, but am still looking for it inbetween studying for midterms and browsing fj. So inbetween browsing fj.
User avatar #474 to #473 - spiderfan (01/27/2013) [-]
If I need to study for anything, I have full access to a library. It has encyclopedias that can't be edited by morons with a keyboard. In all my time there, I never once found anything on that. Gambling, however, is recognized as an addiction, and on that point, you do have my agreement.
#475 to #474 - comehonorfacetwice (01/27/2013) [-]
As do I. With 5.5 million volumes and access to millions more through the state.
User avatar #476 to #475 - spiderfan (01/27/2013) [-]
I still have yet to see an accurate study on videogames. All of the ones I've found were conducted by highly biased groups, and had almost no credibility to them.
#104 to #19 - comehonorfacetwice (01/26/2013) [-]
And quote "Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from family and friends or from other forms of social contact, and focus almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than other life events, and exhibit lack of imagination and mood swings." Sounds like an addiction to me.

#35 to #19 - roderick (01/26/2013) [-]
If they were actually addicting, I would be addicted, but if the situation rises, that I don't have a game to play or just can't do for lack of time, I'm fine and I can find something else to do. It's just VERY fun and a lot of the stories are great.
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
But when you say you don't think video games cause violence is that because you know about it? You have some greater insight into the effects of video games than anyone else? Or are you only saying it because you don't want video games(the thing you enjoy to be regulated or banned?
#50 to #17 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
everything can cause violence u insolent slump. again ithe parents have to approve of the games. they have a rating on them like like all shows and movies. so pron causes std's and pregnancy, ban that, the horror movies cause ppl to becoem violent ban those, swearing turns my kids into assholes ban them, wrap turns my kids into gangsters ban them
User avatar #30 to #17 - aciar (01/26/2013) [-]
But I have more knowledge on the effects of violence in video games from a first person point of view. I witness what effects it has on people. I'm better qualified to speak on behalf of video games violence than someone who has no knowledge on the subject, nor have they seen any evidence that it actually does have an effect, but only speculation.

Anyway. Studies have actually been done on this and there is absolutely no evidence to say that Video games violence effects some-ones perception of violence. Fantasy violence is nothing like real violence. Infact the only similarities is that there may be red liquid expunging from an un-natural orifice of some-ones body.
#25 to #17 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
The people arguing against it don't know about it. There aren't many unbaised studies, and therefore they can't make a logical and fair conclusion.

In order to draw a conclusion, you need both sides of the issue. You can't exclude one side. Ex: when women were fighting for the right to vote, anyone smart didn't say "women have no right arguing on this issue, let the men do everything." They would have never actually gotten the right to vote if that were true.

And yes, people that don't want something banned have a vote in the matter. Have you seen the alcohol debates of the past? Successful businessmen would go to the streets in protest because they didn't want it banned. And videogames aren't even a drug.

In addition the entire videogame debate raises the question: Is it the industries problem or is it your problem? Parents can regulate what their kids play and monitor the computer for illegal downloads of the games. But they don't. They could get rid of the computer or console. But they don't. Why do we blame the industry for parental failure? Why should gamers suffer for your incompetence?
#14 - anon (01/25/2013) [-]
AND he is chinese :S
User avatar #12 - hargleblarg ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Every single game he's holding has an M rating..as in, children should not be ******* playing these games.

Who controls what the children play? The parents. If a kid plays that game, don't blame the industry, blame the parent.
#458 to #12 - taurusguy (01/26/2013) [-]
But, i used to be able to buy m rated games when i wasnt old enough, i was 15...
#444 to #12 - nightstar (01/26/2013) [-]
And how!!

Although, the parent is the final judge and if they think the kid can handle it, then the kid can play it.

Just not enough parents take the time to find out what their kids are into, and just assume the government can do everything for everyone.
#112 to #12 - unholyjebus (01/26/2013) [-]
The parents can't take responsibility for there own actions and instead of pointing the finger at themselves, they point it somewhere else.
#111 to #12 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
Yeah but they want to be able to actually punish somebody
You can't punish the parents like you can the game industry, which is why they choose to target the makers themselves
User avatar #13 to #12 - zilver (01/25/2013) [-]
I was standing in a GameStop once and some kid walks up to Black Ops with his mother. The reason why she didn't buy him the game was the price, she never even mentioned that it's 18+
User avatar #68 to #13 - maxismahname ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
17+ ... it's not porn
User avatar #340 to #68 - honkan (01/26/2013) [-]
18 in some countries.
User avatar #459 to #340 - maxismahname ONLINE (01/26/2013) [-]
wow really?
User avatar #467 to #459 - zilver (01/26/2013) [-]
Yup, says right here on the cover, 18+
#8 - andrewjo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #235 to #8 - gtk (01/26/2013) [-]
Can you let me get out of the ******* state first?
#170 to #8 - rayjaythefucker **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #71 to #8 - mookiez (01/26/2013) [-]
Dude, California wanted to ban all airsoft and paintball guns. 95% of them are ****** up and scared of everything and blame everything.
#33 to #8 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
fight me irl faggot do u even lift? ill fuk u up m8.

Seriously though, we Californians aren't really that bad. People more inland can be like that sometimes, but coastal places are really well educated and liberal over here.
#116 to #33 - anon (01/26/2013) [-]
"really well educated and liberal"
So well educated that they've learned that everything in existence can give you cancer. I guarantee there are 10 things in your house that are "known to the state of California to cause cancer".
The California government is a nanny state, pansy ass government.
If any state in the union represents the worst of America, it is California.
#65 to #33 - andrewjo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #44 to #33 - Greengreda (01/26/2013) [-]
my thoughts exactly
most Californians live near the cost as well.
User avatar #326 to #44 - TwistedBamboozler (01/26/2013) [-]
The majority of the world lives near the coast dude. I believe it's around 80% . . . maybe 90
User avatar #9 to #8 - kreekydoorS [OP](01/25/2013) [-]
That certainly would make the game and movie industry interesting being as how they are mostly located in California.
#11 to #9 - andrewjo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #7 - dementedllama (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah because, you know, we haven't played them for hours and seen exactly what sort of material they contain.

Violent imagery is everywhere. If you want to blame society's problems with violence on that, you can't just target video games. Movies and TV are just as bad or worse. But despite all that, there's no scientific proof of correlation between violent outbursts and video games.
#3 - felixjarl (01/25/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Why cant some people just...shut up.
User avatar #392 to #3 - haunterbrony (01/26/2013) [-]
>Not being stupid
Choose one.
User avatar #1 - huntergriff ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
didn't california lift its ban of m-rated games a couple of years ago? they did something with video games a couple of years ago...
#10 to #1 - andrewjo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2 to #1 - kreekydoorS [OP](01/25/2013) [-]
This is the same Senator that tried to ban all M rated games but the Supreme court denied it telling him it violates the 1st amendment.
User avatar #4 to #2 - huntergriff ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
And he's making the same argument again? honestly this is all futile unless we just completely get rid of the constitution...
User avatar #5 to #4 - kreekydoorS [OP](01/25/2013) [-]
Well he's all up in arms again because of the recent shootings in Sandy Hook and New Mexico. Also President Obama and Biden want to look more into violent video game research.
User avatar #6 to #5 - huntergriff ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
well, goddamn it.
 Friends (0)