Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Oh come on, OP. That's a cheap shot.vansau said:
But, at any rate, I'm kinda worried now. It seems like every generation is determined not to make the mistakes of their predecessors when it comes to horrible overreaction to a blossoming new media/entertainment, but thus far, pretty much every generation has failed.
Radio? Check. Television? Check. Comic books? Check. Even just regular books? Check. Dancing? Check. Rock music? Check. The internet? Double check. And now we're onto video games.
What worries me isn't that video games will somehow suffer because of this opposition. What worries me is what we'll inevitable end up denouncing as the greatest corrupter of our youth.
If parents don't want their kids to play violent video games they can prevent it by taking the away from the minors or by pusnihing the child - grounding, taking TV away, taking computer away etc... - it is all about if they are willing to raise their children like they want.
You see I was behind you for the most part until I read this.vansau said:
If you're gonna write news, you leave most of your opinions at the door. You can say whether you agree or disagree, but you don't bring up stuff like that just to end your article. You don't see any of the regular writers for The Escapist slinging crap around like that, at least not when all someone is doing is expressing their own opinion. You also would never see an actual news reporter put out a story about a celebrity and end it with "Maybe instead of worrying about her waistline, she should be worrying about all the sex she's having." That person would get the boot INCREDIBLY fast.
Alright now my opinion on the article itself.
I don't agree with the archbishop but I do think that his opinion makes sense from an archbishop's standpoint. As one of the higher ranking members of the Catholic church I think that his guidelines would put him at odds with any M-rated game. It seems that all he's putting out here is that he's still against the sale of videogames to minors. Considering his religious background, I see nothing wrong with his statement besides the fact the I think he's wrong. Wait...
As I said before, those activists only emerged as a result of large groups of people, both whites and blacks, already having pre-determined judgements on the situation. Successful activists emerge as a result of social and societal change within the population, they are not the ones who determine that change, they're merely the figureheads of an already opinionated group. They may be the face that results in a change within institutions, but they are not the catalyst that drove the urge for change into existence. The movement is responsible for the effect, not the individual. There will always be someone that will emerge as the face of that movement, but they are not the founders of it. It wasn't the leaders themselves that created the environment for change, it was the movement, and the environment for said change is impossible to develop without it. The environment for change is what matters, without that activists that emerged in times where those pre-existing social factors were not present were struck down, hard.Still Life said:
I asked if you've read Burke because you're basically quote-mining him. That statement was referring to specific concepts that he believed to be evil, such as the notion of democracy or the end of the aristocracy. Burke was a traditionalist who believed that if institutions or concepts within society were confirmed by history then they were proven to be good institutions, meaning that he rejected the majority of social change. That quote has nothing to do with affecting social change, it has to do with STOPPING it if said change is unconfirmed by a long history of success or too broadly applied across society. You're taking the quote out of context. Read Reflections on the Revolution in France and First Speech on the Conciliation with America and you'll see what Burke really thought about rapid shifts in society towards non-traditional ideas.
"Neither the few nor the many have a right to act merely by their will, in any matter connected with duty, trust, engagement, or obligation."
"People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors."
"Good order is the foundation of all good things."
"Goddamn kids and their direct neural interfaces! It's turning them all into serial killers!"Char-Nobyl said:
Seems simply like enforcing the 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' idea to me.Mumorpuger said:
I'm not sure our friend the journalist is going to take seriously advice on writing from someone who can't even spell the word. Just sayin'.BrunDeign said:
Sure, but does the Department of Education relocate pedophile teachers to new schools instead of firing them and cover up the fact that they're pedophiles?shameduser said:
The problem is not the pedophiles. The problem is the support they got from the Vatican, and the number of new children who were, or are, endangered by it.
Am I really part of a minority that just went "oh snap" at the last comment? Pointing one generalization over another is so bad?
Its appears to be the most obvious joke when Catholics enter the fray.
Its appears to be the most obvious joke when Catholics enter the fray.
Justice Scalia's reaction upon reading this article.
"Hmm. Oh really? You disapprove of our verdict? Very well, afterall, all people are entitled to their -- EXILE! That's right, I banish you from our country! Yeah, you can blame video games on this too!"
"Hmm. Oh really? You disapprove of our verdict? Very well, afterall, all people are entitled to their -- EXILE! That's right, I banish you from our country! Yeah, you can blame video games on this too!"
In other breaking news, Jack Thompson called the Supreme Court mad for their decision as he was fitted with his sixth straight jacket. He somehow managed to cut himself out of the first five with a broken Grand Theft Auto 4 disk.
Seriously though, this should really suprise nobody. People who think that video games are evil will feel this was a horrible mistake that will lead to the collapse of civilization if they don't stop it. Those who think video games are just another form of entertainment and don't think they are the tools of the devil will think that it's a good ruling on the court's side. It's not that surprising.
Still, the joke about the priests causing more damage made me giggle a bit.
Seriously though, this should really suprise nobody. People who think that video games are evil will feel this was a horrible mistake that will lead to the collapse of civilization if they don't stop it. Those who think video games are just another form of entertainment and don't think they are the tools of the devil will think that it's a good ruling on the court's side. It's not that surprising.
Still, the joke about the priests causing more damage made me giggle a bit.
I'm not a fan of religion in any way, to a pretty high level these days, but that last comment found itself in bad taste for me.
Even were this an editorial, you don't win a discussion with someone else by dropping lines like that. You need to discredit your opponents argument, not cite something else they or people loosely related to them have done and tangentially relate it to discredit them as a person, especially when it doesn't directly relate to the person making the argument (Though that guy in the picture's got quite the pedosmile going on...). It's childish and unprofessional. No, people shouldn't forget about the highly provable wrong that was caused by the link in question, but that's not whats being discussed here. Focus instead on how the idea that the government is deciding not to wrest control of your kids viewing habits away from parents is actually a huge plus for the parents, assuming they want to take the time and effort to raise their children in a meaningful way.
But really, this is the same meaningless crap we heard from other ignorant politicians and private groups. If you didn't expect some denomination of Christianity or Catholicism to throw an opinion around about this, you haven't been living on earth very long.
Even were this an editorial, you don't win a discussion with someone else by dropping lines like that. You need to discredit your opponents argument, not cite something else they or people loosely related to them have done and tangentially relate it to discredit them as a person, especially when it doesn't directly relate to the person making the argument (Though that guy in the picture's got quite the pedosmile going on...). It's childish and unprofessional. No, people shouldn't forget about the highly provable wrong that was caused by the link in question, but that's not whats being discussed here. Focus instead on how the idea that the government is deciding not to wrest control of your kids viewing habits away from parents is actually a huge plus for the parents, assuming they want to take the time and effort to raise their children in a meaningful way.
But really, this is the same meaningless crap we heard from other ignorant politicians and private groups. If you didn't expect some denomination of Christianity or Catholicism to throw an opinion around about this, you haven't been living on earth very long.
And this is the problem with running to the courts instead of trying to win the public over. You get knee jerk reactions from everybody about it, just because they think it might "threaten the parents rights". People often make their decisions simply by reading a headline, and "Court sides against parents in violent videogame suit" doesn't go over well, especially with priests.
QFTbeliever258 said:
Why is it so difficult for parents to just tell their kids "no" in this day and age? The governments of the world don't exist to raise their kids for them.
My parents had no problem shutting me down if I wanted something that clearly wasn't appropriate for me, and I turned out just fine. I don't hate them or anything, so clearly just giving your kids boundaries that you yourself set is a valid way of doing things, not just whining that the government should make it impossible for your children to buy those games.
Finally someone man enough to stand up to SCROTUS. I am so tired of that guy teabagging everything.
While there are plenty of disaffected groups in any given society, they either don't know what it is that ails them in specificity; if a social group is self-aware to that point, social entities don't have the the specific organisation/means of enacting change. This is where leaders come in.Blind Sight said:
Your theory assumes that each group has the capacity to self-determine change without a catalytic element(s) which set a reaction in motion. This is where leaders earn their keep; those singular voices that bring the machine of a social group into action, and without leadership, such an action quickly withers and dies.
All the elements can be there, but you need a leader, or a group of leaders -- the key ingredient -- to push that machine. Over time we see social change, if it is a concerted and reasonable effort. Over greater periods of time we see cultural change.
You don't give leadership enough credit. Leaders may not be the force that creates change, but they are the embodiment of that change and become the figureheads which define it, marking it in history. Without leaders, there can be no social force which shifts the balance of power, thus changing the sociopolitical landscape.
You are certainly correct in saying that I'm 'quote mining' one of Western society's important philosophers. Because like many others of his time -- who by our current standards -- that had ethically and/or morally questionable standards, they also had teachings which have evolved as societies have grown. The meaning behind that phrase, has thus taken a life of its own. Hence it "has merit".
