Anti-Gaming Television Episode Earns Official Complaint
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Well, The wright stuff is a bunch of middle class idiots who believe they talk for the community. Evidently, they don't realise that within the first 10 years of our lie, we are shaped by what happens around use. And i doubt any good parent would allow there hild to play a CoD game at 10 or younger. Also, how does a game set in 2016, involving a group of political terrorists who have been hired to shoot up a airport by an mad general, have anything to do with a act of randomly attacking a group of because of a dispute on who wears there trousers the lowest? Also, violent games don't 'obviously' cause violent behaver. Its your upbringing, and the modern media like, like the news. If tomorrow i was to announce Disney movies cause dementia and under lining violent tendency's, i wouldn't be praised. I would get the reaction i deserve.
Having just watched the segment thanks to Calumon, The host Matthew Wright (as always) is in the middle and doesn't provoke anything infact he tends to not believe the link between games and killings. The panel however seem to be dead set on it being the most evil medium in the land.
What I have to say on the matter is you don't see Mario gamers eating mushrooms, you don't see people who play harvest moon turn into farmers, it's basically taken everything out of context besides that Modern Warfare level is ALWAYS taken out of context.
What I have to say on the matter is you don't see Mario gamers eating mushrooms, you don't see people who play harvest moon turn into farmers, it's basically taken everything out of context besides that Modern Warfare level is ALWAYS taken out of context.
"which goes in some way the level ignorance of all involved in the program on the subject being discussed."
Boom.
It's really funny when simple common sense totally rips down arguments like these, it shows those who make such ludicrous claims for the idiots they are.
Boom.
It's really funny when simple common sense totally rips down arguments like these, it shows those who make such ludicrous claims for the idiots they are.
A TV show taking a stance against gaming by... oh no wait, it's just a day time TV show, on Channel 5, and it had a Daily Mail presenter, for a second I though someone slightly more credible was talking, like one of those Chimpanzee's that dress up in funny hats.
To put a serious remark on the matter, it's a logical fallacy to claim any evidence to the contrary is biased by the opposition as by extension their evidence isn't valid because it must be biased by their own supporters.
To put a serious remark on the matter, it's a logical fallacy to claim any evidence to the contrary is biased by the opposition as by extension their evidence isn't valid because it must be biased by their own supporters.
So when did Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Tipper Gore become the "Faces of Fox news"? I ask this because they're some the main people here in America against violence in video games. Yeah, this isn't a "right wing crackpot" thing, it's a bipartisan effort to use cheap scare tactics to weasel their ways into easy votes, like claiming to be "tough on drugs" or "anti-crime".
Prior to the world wars super mario -1 and 0 were released proving that computer games cause violence.
The Wright Stuff ranks just above The Jeremy Kyle Show(Americans: Jerry Springer) for tasteless hatred TV.BoredDragon said:
And only just.
Besides all the obvious "Don't listen to anyone else, they're just lying to you. We're the only ones you can trust." that the report stinks of I really like the response of people to the show.
Now that is a great response. It just blows a fucking hole in the logic of the show by using part of their argument. And all done is a polite and controlled manner.Andy Chalk said:
It's British chat shows on trash TV (And the BBC's pseudo-documentary Panorama, which did a rather poor episode about video game addiction) that are for the 'idiots'. The last time I remember such outrage was over the Alan Titschmarsh (Probably spelt wrong) Show, in which one British games journalist was put up against a woman with an agenda, some guy without a clue and an uninformed host, i.e. he couldn't win from the start. No matter how much sense he made, and how many facts he used, he was shouted down (Slightly aggressively, too), and the audience took her side despite him quoting and referring to valid, government-based studies.Saviordd1 said:
Really, this topic is nothing new, but sadly it still persists.
but your forgetting the first rule of their journalism, "It's only a reliable study if it supports your point of view, otherwise its left/right wing, commie/liberal [delete as appropriate] propoganda"believer258 said:Not only was there tons of violence before games, there was more of it. At least, I remember hearing such things, I'll find a study or something later. Not a huge frame of time here.D33dl3 said:I find it annoying that the media in general find this to be acceptable. ..... any chance we can tell Anonymous that these fkrs were having a go at them
so glad there was no violence b4 video games.
Anyway, the people that believe this are old, and old people tend to die pretty soon. They can't do any more harm than has already been done a million times before, so I'm not so concerned. I'll speak out a bit more when they start to actually ban games.
Oh, and I find that oftentimes the most peaceful people are the ones that play violent games like GTAIV, Modern Warfare 2, DOOM, and the like.
Also, they basically said "We don't need them there studies and evidence bullshit! We've got common sense!"
Of course, not realizing that common sense would say "At first glance it appears these games have violent effects, but several reliable studies have shown otherwise. Is it possible that violent games have little or possibly the opposite effect on violence than we thought so?"
