New Anti-Gaming movie from religious extremists

[Krang]

Originally Posted by Krang's Uncle

Apparently you dont understand whats being written. Ive already brought up an example this being blown out of proportion. Peanut is a hypocrite because he rails against how some people think of the gaming industry, yet he has no problem sounding like an idiot, much like they do, when hes on his rants. Thats been what ive been against from my first post on. I havent said anything about games needing to be toned down, i just want an attitude that is more constructive to not painting you and fellow gamers as losers on par with Thompson. And i posted again. What are you going to do about it?

Despite all of your accusations, it seems that the one who is the most angry and vicious here is you. How can you expect people to have a "constructive" attitude when you have such a condescending one yourself? Any point you were trying to prove was lost long ago when you started acting like a forum troll. If you can't post in this thread without provoking people, please don't post in it at all.

[Mecha Cow]

Peanut is a hypocrite because he rails against how some people think of the gaming industry

BZZZT.

This is where your argument falls apart. Like I've said -and like you've ignored- before, people dislike Thompson because he's making ungrounded insults and uninformed assumptions and for generally acting like a Nazi - Not for being angry in general. As such, there is no hypocrisy in being angry at him. Do you even know the meaning of the word?

If you did, you would realise the only hypocrite here is you, as Krang just pointed out. You bitch and moan about people sounding like 'idiots' and 'lunatics', but sweetheart, you're the only one who has a problem here. You're the only one attacking other members.

You are a troll, and you clearly have nothing of any value to contribute to this discussion. Just go away.

[Krang's Uncle]

Originally Posted by Krang

Despite all of your accusations, it seems that the one who is the most angry and vicious here is you. How can you expect people to have a "constructive" attitude when you have such a condescending one yourself? Any point you were trying to prove was lost long ago when you started acting like a forum troll. If you can't post in this thread without provoking people, please don't post in it at all.

Angry? The only thing im "angry" about is how people on this board act just like the lunatic they so despise. How do you guys think Jack Thompson gets his ammunition to attack games/gamers? By blowing their behavior and why he thinks it happens (by playing games) out of proportion. By cursing and screaming at him that he doesnt know anything, that only reinforces his opinion. Im not trying to provoke people, i would much rather they try to set something up to counter his claims. And i see no one touched upon that part of my last post. I guess its just easier to try and bash someone rather than to work towards making something that will help your cause. Its too bad that a differing opinion is equated to being a troll.

[愛]

You came in here singling people out, calling them hypocrites, when you have been contradicting yourself left and right. You're a troll and a hypocrite yourself. You can call people lunatics and idiots all you want. It doesn't make you sound any more intelligent.

I didn't want to post in this thread, because I knew it would come to this, and to be honest, I don't really see any point in continuing this thread. It will be locked soon unless it gets back on topic.

[iris]

Originally Posted by Krang's Uncle

How do you guys think Jack Thompson gets his ammunition to attack games/gamers? By blowing their behavior and why he thinks it happens (by playing games) out of proportion. By cursing and screaming at him that he doesnt know anything, that only reinforces his opinion. Im not trying to provoke people, i would much rather they try to set something up to counter his claims.

Thompson doesn't need to get ammo to attack gamers. He just points the violence in the games, and then points the violence in society and links them together.

It's just like when a cross-sectional study comes out saying that people who eat lots of hot dogs also have a higher incidence of cancer, and then the news editor comes up with the headline: "Hotdogs Cause Cancer." Sounds rational, right? Even though the study didn't say that at all. It's a logical fallacy (applying a causal relationship to a correlative relationship). But people believe it because you don't need proof to convince people of something! You just have to state it in such a way that it looks like you're right.

People play violent video games in America.
People use violent actions in America.
:: Violent video games cause violent actions.

What I would like to see is evidence that Thompson looks at general gamer behavior. As far as I can see, there's no indication that he would give a widget about that, because mainly uses speficific cases. I've just been looking at his record; he has made a career at setting up straw men for the public to burn.

[Ra]

Originally Posted by iris

What I would like to see is evidence that Thompson looks at general gamer behavior. As far as I can see, there's no indication that he would give a widget about that, because mainly uses speficific cases. I've just been looking at his record; he has made a career at setting up straw men for the public to burn.

Same here, Iris. Thompson doesn't really seem to look at the general video gaming audience, save for the ones that have all of the qualities he needs for a good example for a "violent gamer". I have no idea if that is the truth or not, but that is just my opinion

It makes me wonder what he has against video games. Maybe he couldn't get one as a kid, so then he thought "If I can't get one, NOBODY gets one!" or something? *shrugs* Again, just my opinion...

[Anarky]

Originally Posted by Ra

Same here, Iris. Thompson doesn't really seem to look at the general video gaming audience, save for the ones that have all of the qualities he needs for a good example for a "violent gamer".

He does look at the videogamers. See the Penny Arcade and the VGCats incidents. Or if he doesn't look at it himself, he has someone looking at it for him. Otherwise there was little way he could have heard of those things. And yes, he needs gamers to be violent in order to have a case. Of course we know that they aren't a particularly violent bunch, so he can use every little bit of gamer violence he gets. Which basically means, every opinionated post every gamer yelling online, every little attack on him or his side is just further "proof" of his "just fight".

That's why you shouldn't get arguments on a personal or emotional level, especially when you're the ones defending.

[iris]

Originally Posted by Anarky

He does look at the videogamers. See the Penny Arcade and the VGCats incidents. Or if he doesn't look at it himself, he has someone looking at it for him. Otherwise there was little way he could have heard of those things. And yes, he needs gamers to be violent in order to have a case. Of course we know that they aren't a particularly violent bunch, so he can use every little bit of gamer violence he gets. Which basically means, every opinionated post every gamer yelling online, every little attack on him or his side is just further "proof" of his "just fight".

That's why you shouldn't get arguments on a personal or emotional level, especially when you're the ones defending.

I totally disagree with you on this one, Anarky. I think people should speak their minds, and I don't think it was too excessive in this thread. Thompson does it backward-- he looks at violent cases for any evidence that the perpetrator liked rap music, movies or shows that contain violence, or video games that contain violence. Being that many, many young people play "violent" video games, it's an easy thing.

[Anarky]

I'm not against people speaking their minds, but it's not about the "what" it's about the "how". I can say "I don't like this game because the graphics are sub-par" or I can say "F*** this piece of s*** game, it f***ing blows and looks f***ing horrible". Same thing, different way of saying it. I just think it's not the best idea to appear to be two seconds short of running amok while trying to prove that your side is not running amok.

[Krang]

Originally Posted by Krang's Uncle

Angry? The only thing im "angry" about is how people on this board act just like the lunatic they so despise.

Regardless of your reasoning, you're still admitting to acting angry toward other members, which was my point exactly.

Im not trying to provoke people, i would much rather they try to set something up to counter his claims.

From your very first one to the one I'm replying to, every single post of yours in this thread has been condescending and rude to the members who post here. If you think you're not provoking people, you're going to need to try a little harder.

Its too bad that a differing opinion is equated to being a troll.

Anarky provided a differing opinion in this thread without trolling. Go look at his posts as proof that it's possible. See the difference, or are you too blinded by anger to notice?