Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People

[Cyberjester]

Erm, no, no they didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

54% voted NO to republic.

Interesting. Yr12 Politics said that it had been a majority in all states except for one, which then didn't pass the majority in all states condition. My bad, ty for the link.

In which case Aus is still quite definitely a British colony under control of the Queen. Now, get us an R rating for games already. =P

 

[Cyberjester]

I mean if he was TRULY worried that somehow our brains are only, and solely affected by the interactivity provided through games, he might have taken a more proactive approach. Rather than banning L4D2, he could have suggested tougher laws on say, the handling of chainsaws, requiring them to be secured away from children.

He thinks that he's saving the children from video games as no-one else is. Since we generally make sure things like chainsaws are out of reach of children, and guns have been outlawed in Aus anyway. Alcohol is currently being discussed quite a lot so that's taken care of. Only leaves those violent video games to go after and look unique.

 

[spartan773]

2 questions:
1: why does he sound like Jack thompson?
2: Why is there 2 Jack Thompsons running around on earth?

 

[Autofaux]

Ah, my Australia. Chances are, if people besides gaming enthusiasts in Australia knew of the existence of the Attorney General of the 'douche State', they'd side with him. Parents here are just like they are in any Western bloc country that isn't part of the EU. Reactionary and stupid. And if I have to hear one more country bumpkin with five disobedient kids yell in that retarded, backwards adenoids-filled 'bogan' accent, I swear to Christ, I'll snap. I'll beat the parent to death with their little spines.

 

[samsonguy920]

What I have to wonder is, when is someone going to step up, and say 'I can represent the legal needs of my community to a much fairer and less discriminating extent than Mr. Atkinson.'?
So far I hear that he has smooth sailing because the district he represents basically is wearing horse blinders or doesn't even vote or have the ability to affect his position. So why not the next logical step and give him an opponent who can do the job as it is supposed to be done, and not as a fascist would? Yes, I said it, and I'm sticking to it.
So far this guy's agenda has seemed to be only to deny people the choice that they deserve, which is not the only thing on the job description for attorney general.
Kudos to ABC for actually showing network news can be unbiased, showing both points of view equally. Even though Atkinson's side was seriously....lacking in credibility. But you do what you gotta do.

 

[Galletea]

Narrow minded idiots of any calibre make me sad. Atkinson just shows the view of a lot of people who don't play games. They can't get it into their heads that games are not just for children, despite the age ratings. It has little to do with the violence itself, after all, there are the Saw movies. However the whole idea of it being for children sticks in people's minds, even though I fail to see the real difference between the games and films. Kids want them and will probably find ways to get them.

Overall though, the real issue is to do with parenting. I'm concerned that taking away all the decision making on the part of the parents is really damaging the next few generations of children. I mean, I was allowed to watch 18 rated movies early on, but my siblings weren't, because my parents knew how sensitive we were (or in my brother's case, how likely to attempt to recreate epic stunts we were). All this outrage is in the trend of the governments playing nanny, replacing common sense and good parenting with laws and regulations.

As for where this guy gets his bullshit statistics, that's anyone's guess, thin air probably. However I don't remember many politicians using real stats in their scaremongering so, why would he start?

 

[magicmonkeybars]

The funny thing is that there is a really easy way around this system, just give the games away.
Selling the games might not be allowed but no one can stop publishers from giving it away for free or bundled with something mundane like a postcard or a sticker.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

This guy is nothing more than a dictator, he not running the country, he's flat out fucking telling the people what they can and can't do.

Impeach, get rid of the fucker.

 

[MercurySteam]

"You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people."

And how the fuck would he know?

"It doesn't seem democratic that a single attorney general should be able to dictate what the vast Australian population can interact with. The government trusts us to be adults with films, but they only want us to be children with games."

Yet again we have someone talking sense on this matter.

The concerns of one should not influence decisions that affect many. Aren't governments put in place to oppose things like this?

 

[MercurySteam]

The most disappointing thing is that even though I'm Australian there is no way for me to get involved. Unfortunately, this is a South Australian issue and I live in New South Wales.

I live in NSW but I'm pissed off about this more than the average Australian gamer.

Beacause of him the entire country can't get an AO or R rating for games.

If you're Aussie, then you're involved mate.

 

[Sevre]

I disagree with everyone in this topic, why? Because I see where the guy is coming from, he's just a complete idiot. He's taken his statistics and facts and injected hyperbole into their veins to create a new argument. For this he automatically fails. /clicks Fail button.

 

[joshuaayt]

...thank you, Adrian.
Government officials are still defending their decision to shut down all formal secondary education, based on the statement that adolescent congregation can result in realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence. Nosnikta Leahcim has been quoted to say "You don't need to be learning in a school in which you cheat, assault and steal from people."
...Well, It COULD come to this, if the government already seems to support pointless censorship.
See what I did up there, though? Twice, in fact?

 

[Doug]

Erm, no, no they didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

54% voted NO to republic.

Interesting. Yr12 Politics said that it had been a majority in all states except for one, which then didn't pass the majority in all states condition. My bad, ty for the link.

In which case Aus is still quite definitely a British colony under control of the Queen. Now, get us an R rating for games already. =P

Well, technically, that could be true. It depends on how your population is spread over the country. If one county has 80% of the population, it could be a majority everywhere else and still fail

And no, you aren't. The Queen is the figurehead of your state. Sadly, Michael Atkinson and the rest of the old crouchity man government is your government.

 

[Cyberjester]

Erm, no, no they didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

54% voted NO to republic.

Interesting. Yr12 Politics said that it had been a majority in all states except for one, which then didn't pass the majority in all states condition. My bad, ty for the link.

In which case Aus is still quite definitely a British colony under control of the Queen. Now, get us an R rating for games already. =P

Well, technically, that could be true. It depends on how your population is spread over the country. If one county has 80% of the population, it could be a majority everywhere else and still fail

And no, you aren't. The Queen is the figurehead of your state. Sadly, Michael Atkinson and the rest of the old crouchity man government is your government.

lol yea. Most of the population is in 3 states, other 3 or so are practically empty.

No really, the Governor General has to sign a law for it to be passed and he can dissolve parliament, and he's just the stand in for the Queen. If she wanted to, she could do whatever she liked. The government is basically just a figurehead, a sub-in for the Queen while she's in England.

Technically speaking.

 

[nolongerhere]

Hmm. Let's go with 1%. That would be about 10 million insane and dangerous killers. By god. We're all doomed. Do you hear me? DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

 

[Doug]

Erm, no, no they didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

54% voted NO to republic.

Interesting. Yr12 Politics said that it had been a majority in all states except for one, which then didn't pass the majority in all states condition. My bad, ty for the link.

In which case Aus is still quite definitely a British colony under control of the Queen. Now, get us an R rating for games already. =P

Well, technically, that could be true. It depends on how your population is spread over the country. If one county has 80% of the population, it could be a majority everywhere else and still fail

And no, you aren't. The Queen is the figurehead of your state. Sadly, Michael Atkinson and the rest of the old crouchity man government is your government.

lol yea. Most of the population is in 3 states, other 3 or so are practically empty.

No really, the Governor General has to sign a law for it to be passed and he can dissolve parliament, and he's just the stand in for the Queen. If she wanted to, she could do whatever she liked. The government is basically just a figurehead, a sub-in for the Queen while she's in England.

Technically speaking.

Well, the same is true of our government; but the monarchy is bound by law too. And the de-facto state of things is that the Queen isn't allowed to refuse to dissolve parliament if requested too, nor is she really allowed to refuse to sign declarations of war.

I believe the only circumstances where she (or the Governor General in Australia) is allowed to exercise their judgement is in the event of a hung parliament or, theorically, if a government refused to have elections when their time was up. I recall there was alot of fuss in Canada over a decision by the GG following there elections not so long ago...?

So, really, Australia rules itself for all real intends and purposes, same as we have a democratic system even though we are technically a constituational monarchy.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

"This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society."

Yes, there's clearly a cabal at work here, a cadre of rabid gamers who hate the very society that provides them with new games. That makes so much more sense than the regular explanation, i.e., you're just being a prick, Mr. Atkinson.

"And I think harm society," he said.

How exactly have games harmed society, other than people like you getting so worked up about their content? And isn't that your fault for overreacting?

"It's the public interest versus the small vested interest."

This sentence, however, is actually true; it IS the public interest versus the small vested interest.

And by 'public interest' I mean most of society, which is sane and doesn't mind the content of most games, and by 'small vested interest' I mean Atkinson's people.

Ron Curry, CEO of the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, concurred: "It doesn't seem democratic that a single attorney general should be able to dictate what the vast Australian population can interact with. The government trusts us to be adults with films, but they only want us to be children with games."

Finally, some words of wisdom!

But the choicest soundbites were from Atkinson himself, including "I accept that 98%, 99% of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1% to 2% could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence."

We've been through this before, Mr. Atkinson...there's no proof, none at all that games can cause violence in their users, even people that were psychologically unstable to begin with.

He added, "You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people."

And we don't 'NEED' violent, gory movies like Saw, 300, Audition, Seven, and more, but I don't see you complaining about them. It's GAMES that've got your panties in a twist! And that's just a double standard, right there.

Jeez, I'd rather have Keyboard Cat in Atkinson's position. At least he/she wouldn't deliberately stir up so much controversy.

 

[shaun832]

The most disappointing thing is that even though I'm Australian there is no way for me to get involved. Unfortunately, this is a South Australian issue and I live in New South Wales.

I live in NSW but I'm pissed off about this more than the average Australian gamer.

Beacause of him the entire country can't get an AO or R rating for games.

If you're Aussie, then you're involved mate.

Plus I'm 17 <.<

 

[WestMountain]

Anyone here want to join me at killing Atkinson for the greater good?

 

[RobCoxxy]

The man is out of touch with society, 'nuff said.