Seconded. That was a low blow, and shouldn't have been included in the article. I don't agree with the Archbishop's case, but wow, way to sink to the lowest common denominator just for a crude laugh.starwarsgeek said:
Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Right. The source of real-life violence. The real-life violence that has been steadily decreasing as gaming has been going up.
Otherwise I defend Mike in bringing up the child abuse scandals. Between that, the church's opinions on homosexuality, and their encouragement of Africans to not use condoms, I hold no respect for the Vatican.
Otherwise I defend Mike in bringing up the child abuse scandals. Between that, the church's opinions on homosexuality, and their encouragement of Africans to not use condoms, I hold no respect for the Vatican.
That's... Not what a straw man argument is. If anything it would be an ad hominem, because it was a (slight) personal attack.starwarsgeek said:
The point here is that if he REALLY and GENUINELY cares about the well-being of children, he should be calling for the religious organization, which he belong to, to clean up its act. Something more pressing & urgent than "Vidja games are evil! They corrupt chillins!"
Wow, what a putz. Who wants to talk about all the harm the church has done to humanity over the centuries? Besides the stories of child sexual abuse in the church (which really hits home in my city), lets talk about all the stories I've heard from older family members about he priests and nuns who taught them and how they'd best them with rulers or anything else they could get their hands on. Like the time my grandmother I beleive, told me about how a friend of hers was strapped over the hand repeatedly because she was left-handed which according to the nuns was the Devil's hand.
Yeah, video games have done so much more harm to children. Get fucking real.
Yeah, video games have done so much more harm to children. Get fucking real.
I am in 100% agreement here. That was poor journalism. I expect better from The Escapist, and frankly I feel that it reflects poorly on this fine publication when things like this are printed.starwarsgeek said:
Though low-balling, I wouldn't call this a strawman. Catholic priests have very arguably done far more irreversible damage than video games have ever done, or really, could ever do, and thus, Catholicism, which the priest is a part of (if Archbishops are Catholic), should be far higher than violent video games on this priest's hit list.starwarsgeek said:
It's ALMOST to the point of strawmanning, but really does address a valid point, even if it doesn't excuse video games itself, only pointing out a far larger problem within the bishop's own leadership. The argument isn't completely about video games not being evil, as the argument is also about how big of an idiot this bishop is, and possibly how big of a hypocrite he is.
This is just shameless and completely irrelevant to the article, it's like if I said to you "video games might cause violence, but at least they don't invade Middle Eastern countries like you damn Americans." I know Catholic priests absolutely disgusted by the church's record of sex crimes, they've said so off the record because of papal infallibility. I mean, I'm not even a fan of organized religion and I thought this was a low blow. Unless there's an actual sex crime case in his diocese that you're aware of I strongly suggest you consider removing that quote, as it is as shamelessly biased as his own thoughts on video games.vansau said:
I have no problem with this guy stating his opinion on the issue, opposing views in society are not necessarily a bad thing.
Once again, papal infallibility was put in place in the 19th century. Unless these priests wish to be kicked out of the church they have to go along with what the Pope says. I'm not saying its a good system, what I'm saying is its damn hard for priests (most of whom have been working for the church since their teens) to quit their entire profession with no other skills. That's what the priest from my youth did, took him years to get back on his feet.Chibz said:
Look, I get this guy is being somewhat ignorant of the subject matter. I get that because he is "anti-game", we don't like what he says. I get that the recent SCOTUS ruling has stirred up some slumbering advocates who we all enjoy to go "Weenerneenerneeeenerrrr!!" at.vansau said:Archbishop Claims SCOTUS Decision Is "Poisoning" The Future
The man who still cites the Columbine Massacre as evidence of videogames' effects on kids has publicly announced that he disapproves of the recent Supreme Court verdict.
A lot of people have been coming out of the woodwork lately, lambasting the Supreme Court for its recent ruling in favor of the videogame industry. This week, the Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput has publicly slammed the decision with in a new opinion piece for First Things, titled "<a href=http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/07/violent-video-games-and-the-rights-of-parents>Violent Video Games and the Rights of Parents," claiming that the decision is "wrong" and will "poison" the country.
Admittedly, Chaput does acknowledge that he doesn't think all games are bad, but he does note his problem with the fact that the recent decision "extends and elevates the individual's right to free expression - or in this case, a corporation's right to make a healthy profit - at the expense of family sovereignty, the natural rights of parents and the intent of the Constitution's authors."
There's about fifty things wrong with that statement, so let's just move on.Aside from this, he also argues that allowing children access to violent videogames violates "natural law and natural rights,"and seems to ignore all the industry safeguards in place to prevent minors from buying M-rated titles.
However, this piece isn't all that surprising to read, since Chaput has been an opponent of violent videogames since the 1999 Columbine shootings. He claims the massacre was "indirect but brutally real proof" of the effect games have on kids. On top of this, back when he addressed a special session of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation two weeks after the shootings took place, Chaput claimed that violence in games had a "direct impact on youth and is among the roots of real-life violence."
Seeing as how Chaput was a pretty adamant foe of games back then, it's not surprising that he still hates them.That said, I'm willing to bet that Catholic priests have <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases>done more harm to the youth of the world than videogames have, though this wasn't something that the Archbishop addressed in his article.
Source: Catholic News Agency via <a href=http://www.gamepolitics.com/2011/07/05/denver-archbishop-calls-scotus-decision-039wrong039>GamePolitics
Permalink
But considering that The Escapist is undergoing some format changes in the near future, and part of that is being much more news-centric, you guys have got to stop inserting every little bit of your 2 cents into every matter. All it does is create a bias for the reader before he/she has ever come to their own conclusion. This is not a debate, you are a journalist giving us a news piece, and it is up to us to decide if this is worth arguing over.
This bias and veering towards one side is becoming very prevalent, considering that extremely low blow/strawman that was completely unnecessary and not related to the topic at all. I would rather not have The Escapist become the "Fox News" of gaming journalism, though I doubt it will ever go that far.
And how is that moral or decent? Or is it just sinking to their immature level?cursedseishi said:
He implied that the sex scandal means his opinion is automatically defunct. That may not necessarily be a straw man, but it's certainly a logical fallacy of some sort and was in no way necessary. Pointing how the opposite decision from the SCOTUS would have limited parents' rights would have been a good argument, since the Archbishop is factually wrong here. Saying "Hey! Remember when those priests raped a bunch of kids?" isn't the least bit relevant. It's disrespectful to the majority of priests who do no such thing and have devoted their lives to an honorable profession, and it's even more disrespectful to the victims to turn what may be the biggest tragedy in their lives into a joke and a copy/paste "come-back". It's bad comedy and bad journalism. And, frankly, it's sickening.Chibz said:
And the Church has taken steps to prevent that from happening again. I'm a leader on Church youth retreats, and I have to take a class every few years to be authorized to go on these retreats. It's basic training on how to spot someone who's going out of line. Every adult, even the cooks who don't actually see the kids much, have to take these classes. It's mostly common sense, but it's enough to keep everyone's mind on it during potentially dangerous situations.
I like how eeryone is calling the child sex abuse comment a low blow or a strawman statement. The Archbishop made a statement about how violent video games are ruining our youth. What the hell do you think the priests who have or are still diddling children are doing? It's a prefectly valid point for this article. As for those saying that there's no accusations of abuse in his diocese so it's off limits, that's just foolish. He's still a part of the problem if he has spent all these years attacking pixels instead of fighting the church's Three-Card Monte game with abusive priests. He's an Archbishop for crying out loud, he has considerable power when it comes to fighting against abusive priests. It's like yelling at someone to turn down their music across the street when your house is burning down around you.
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah... woah.vansau said:
It is among the ROOTS OF REAL-LIFE VIOLENCE? Really? Really? Real-life violence, which has been around since the dawn of bloody mankind? Those roots? The roots of anger, hate, frustration, jealousy, greed, pride, vanity, and so on and so forth? THOSE ROOTS?
Someone obviously isn't seeing the real cause of these crimes. I would think a priest would know more about that, but I guess it would be silly to have everyone well-educated, wouldn't it?
Neat. It's good to see people interested in the youth, who are willing to take the necessary steps to prove that they're good people. I wasn't a part of their church (or any church, really), but back in my Junior year in High School, I went to a few weekend youth groups where a bunch of kids stayed over night and played video games (typically violent), as well as shadow tag and capture the flag in the huge back of the church. The youth minister was pretty cool.starwarsgeek said:
This was years ago, mind you.
It is a strawman and borderline ad homeniem, somewhat implying that the bishop takes part in said "unsavory activities".chadachada123 said:
This would be like, say, in a debate about abortions and the guy you're arguing with is an investor or something in business. Then when he says abortions can deteriorate traditional values (just go with it), you say "Well, I bet investment bankers have torn apart way more families in a more effective way!" (forgive me if I got anything wrong, I know nothing of economics). Do you see how that is a strawman/ad homeniem? It's not addressing the point at all, instead saying "Oh, what your people do is so much worse!" dragging the main point away. That's what this quote did, it drew attention away from the actual argument, and for some people it succeeded.
Actually, it's more criticing how the catholic church protects sex offenders from prosecution. Which it does.starwarsgeek said:
Don't get me wrong, caring about the well being of children isn't a bad thing. It's actually commendable. But how's about he tackle a real issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases] that provably happened and has provable harm, rather than going at something that is a relative non-issue entirely?
Something like this and the relatively poor response we get from the CC DOES harm the credibility of church officials. Especially ones who have never once spoken against the CC's defense of these people and absolute lack of cooperation with law officials.
1. No, ignorance is in no way excusable. Ignorance can be fixed if the individual is willing to put the effort into learning about the topic of which they are ignorant. A lack of intelligence (stupidity), on the other hand, is still annoying, but can be excused because it is a result of one's inability to learn, rather than their choice not learn.starwarsgeek said:
2. While I agree that the hyperlink is a cheap shot, I cannot dismiss it as an invalid point. If the Archbishop is truly concerned with helping the youth of America it would seem that his time would be better spent helping the church identify and remove pedophiles from its ranks than issuing spiteful and ultimately futile statements.